Washington Post journalist, author and Washington DC insider, Sally Quinn founded and co-moderates On Faith, a blog from the Washington Post and Newsweek. Co-moderated by Newsweek editor and bestselling author Jon Meacham and hosted by a panel of renowned religious scholars of all denominations, On Faith is the first worldwide, interactive discussion about religion and its impact on global life.
While researching an article about religion in Washington prior to the 2000 presidential campaign, Quinn noticed that while religion had an enormous influence on worldwide politics, it was a taboo subject in our nation’s capital. Following 9/11, Quinn’s interest in religion grew and her passion to understand it from a personal and political perspective took on new urgency and focus.
Over the past decade, Quinn has pursued a religious education with the same drive and rigor she once gave to politics. Leveraging her rolodex from 30 years as a columnist, she sought out spiritual mentorship from religious leaders and scholars such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Reverend Jim Anderson, Father Bryan Hehir and John Esposito. To gain emotional and spiritual perspective, she traveled to many of the world’s holy sites in Rome, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Tibet, Delhi, Cairo, Ethiopia and Istanbul, and began attending several religious services and ceremonies a week at churches, temples and mosques.
Quinn has written four books: “We’re Going to Make You a Star,” about her short-lived experience as a co-anchor for “CBS Morning News”; “Regrets Only,” her first novel; “Happy Endings,” its sequel, and “The Party,” in which Quinn offers an insider’s look at Washington entertaining and a personal view of the value of friendship. She is currently working on a book about religion in Washington.
Close.
Sally Quinn
Washington Post reporter
Washington Post journalist, author and Washington DC insider, Sally Quinn founded and co-moderates On Faith, a blog from the Washington Post and Newsweek. Co-moderated by Newsweek editor and bestselling author Jon Meacham and hosted by a panel of renowned religious scholars of all denominations, On Faith is the first worldwide, interactive discussion about religion and its impact on global life.
more »
Sallly, you are the last person I would expect to go in the direction of religion as a new avenue for your writing. Your essay was more of a self-analysis, not appropriate here. Your father would be as surprised as I to see your sudden interest in religion.
In 'TIME' magazine, November 13, 2006, is an article "God vs. Science", with opinions from Francis Collins a scientist and a Christian, and Richard Dawkins, a scientist and an Atheist.
Collins: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it sould have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such things as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. The moral law is a reason to think of God as plausible - not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?
Dawkins: Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil - I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something evil. I think that there are good things and bad things that happen.
Collins: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I'm glad we identified it."
I say there is a difference between the SOL, the One True GOD that sets the Universe in motion, the SOL, and the God that Cares for us our HTA.
It is Time for Fallen Man to understand the fundamental difference between the Good and Evil of the Tree of 'Life'. What did Man fall from" Higher 'Beings' to Lower 'Beings'?
Good, is High Tech Science Pure-bred Asexual Physical Reproduction of Higher Human 'Beings', that are Equal Caretakers of 'Life' on a planet and in spaceships.
Evil, is Heterosexual Mis-bred Physical Reproduction of Lower Human 'Beings', that are Unqual Killers of 'Life' on planets.
Humans 'fell' from the Higher Nature to the Lower Nature of reproduciton. This was the Original Sin of the Perfect humans 'in the beginning'.
It seems to me, as we observe our Unbalanced High Tech Science, pollution, and all the war and misery on Earth, that Lower Human Beings destroy their planet and all 'Life' on it, before they can get very far out into space. It is built into the Fallen Nature.
Now we can accept/believe there is 'Eternal' Pure-bred Asexual Physical 'Life' on planets and in spaceships, for Human 'Beings' After Birth, instead of believing in 'Life?' After Death.
Is anyone interested in a High Tech Science of Creation of Life on a planet? Our Scientists said when they can Colonize a planet, they would send in a blue-green algae bomb into the soupy atmosphere, like it was on Earth 'in the beginning'. It would take 1000 years Earth time for this process. With the Lord, 1 Day is as a thousand years.
This algae would break down the soup and make the firmament/atmosphere gasses, which would include the Ozone layer. Blue-green algae is the oldest element on Earth. Earth was not the first planet to have Human Life, it was Colonized by High Tech Science.
In theBible, the algae/spirit of God, also separated out the water, the waters below the atmosphere/firmament made the seas. The water above the atmosphere made an Ice-Crystal Canopy. The two Canopies protected Life on Earth from the Electro-Magnetic rays of the Sun.
This happened on Days 1 and 2 of the Creation on Earth in the Bible. On Day 3, the bushes, trees, grass, etc. were added. This finished clearing the atmosphere and the sun, moon, and stars could be seen from land.
Day 4, the sun, moon, and stars were not made as religion has taught since the loss of High Tech Science. There cannot be a planet before the Universe, Galaxy or the Solar System.
Day 5, the fish and fowl were added, and on Day 6, the animals and Man were added. This is they Way to Colonize a planet.
This 6 Days is is an Intelligent Design to Colonize a Planet with High Tech Science. Life may have Evolved somewhere in the Universe, Galaxy, or Solar System, but Life on Earth was Colonized. By whom?
The God that talked to the Adam and Eve Colony was a Human, not a spirit. This God, that looked like Humans and talked to many, and was seen by many, is our High Tech Ancestors (HTA), Higher 'Beings', that Colonized Earth, like our Scientists would today if we had the resources.
This God that looked like Humans, and flew in fiery chariots, and sat upon thrones up in the air, is our HTA. The GOD, the Source Of Life (SOL) of the Atom (Matter) and the Elecro-Magnetic Force (Spirit), is not Human. This is the One True GOD of the Universes, that has never been seen. A Man God, made of Atoms, could not create the Atom and EMF and the Universes.
It is time to translate the Bible with High Tech Science and accept that Earth was Colonized, it did not Evolve on Earth. It is time to accept the Man Gods and Angels were our HTA that Colonized Earth.
My goodness, what a deftly written story you have authored, what a remarkable young man you have raised. He is so tolerant, a quality rarely seen, as is evident in many of the previous posts. It is encouraging to see this quality among the young.
I find your path to atheism an interesting one, and not uncommon. I’m assuming that the conclusion of your close up exposure to the ravages of the Korean War was that no God would permit this horror, so he must not exist. This is always a problem for those who believe in a omnipotent and just God. With all the manifest injustices in the world, such a God is a bit incoherent. Personally I’ve not found this sufficient to conclude that no God exists. The Greeks certainly had Gods behaving badly, and the Romans, so people behaving badly was just another manifestation of what was Holy to them. It also still leaves the door open to God as “Creator” as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. He need not be omnipotent or even moral, just eternally creative.
Your son’s path to God is impossible to quarrel with. There is nothing wrong with finding comfort in religion. It works to cope with the difficult concept of death, to sustain optimism in the face of challenges, to cope with grief, and to sustain hope. He has “reasoned” his way to his faith, to his choice. I have always envied his present state of mind in others, for the very reason he chose it, but I have never been able to make the leap of faith required for myself.
Personally, I don’t claim to be an atheist. Rather, I have never found any reason to suppose any God or Gods exist or persuasive evidence of them. But I cannot close the door. Consider “dark matter”, something we cannot see or interact with, yet it fills something like two thirds of the universe. Ten years ago the idea didn’t exist, but today we find persuasive evidence that such matter does. The universe is full of mysteries, and full of answers we keep finding. It is perfectly normal that there are new mysteries uncovered as fast or faster than old mysteries are explained. It is a process of discovery and change to our knowledge that has no beginning and no end. The magic of nature is the magic of nature whether you suppose it was created by God or by evolution.
Athiests have to come to grips with difficult matters. There is no life after death, there is not even identity after death. There is no meaning to life. Good and evil don’t exist; good things happen and bad things happen for no particular reason. We have just one life to live. Its rather stark isn’t it?
CANYON:
"In the 999 in 1000 chance that the Bible is correct, what are you going to say to God when you stand on trial in the Great White Throne room?"
I'd say, why do let murders, rapists, and child molesters in, but not good people who don't believe in you.
CANYON:
"You love evolution because you can do whatever your heart desires and you have no one to account to. If the Bible is true, you're in for a very painful awakening."
Yes it's great...I CAN do anything and not worry about it.
While you're worrying about if you're doing what god wants, I'll be having fun...
and in the end, we'll both die
and that's it
p.s. I don't love evolution...I actually only think about it every now and then (especially on here!)
The nice thing is, as new evidence is presented, my thinking changes, unlike yours.
Since you've been foundering for so long, I'll finally give you Proof for Evolution:
The Sea-Horse is the evolutionary ancestor of the Land-Horse.
You know how I know that? The sea-horse looks like a Land-Horse, they both have horse in their name, the Horse gallops and the Sea Horse bobs, sea horses are used in herbal medicine and horse urine is used for a variety of hormone suppliments.
Never mind that the Sea Horse has gills and the horse has lungs, the male sea horse raises the babies and the female horse raises the babies, never mind the sea horse has never brought forth anything but fish and the horse nothing but horses and mules(a genetically deficient horse).
Sound a bit like Tiktaalik? A definitive lobe-fin fish...
GAy_Atheist, perhaps the greatest proof in your case for the Bible's truth is that you're incapable of saying,
I've ignored God, worshipped science, blasphemed, hated, lusted, stolen, lied, and coveted; if the Bible is true, and I get what I deserve, I would end up in Hell.
You love evolution because you can do whatever your heart desires and you have no one to account to. If the Bible is true, you're in for a very painful awakening.
"Tiktaalik fits temporally and anatomically between Panderichthys and Acanthostega. The former was primarily adapted for marine life; the latter was better adapted to terrestrial life. Tiktaalik still has fins, but the bone structure inside those fins is clearly intermediate between fish and amphibians; Acanthostega is the first species with true feet, and those feet are of course connected to the axial skeleton. Tiktaalik also has a pelvic girdle that is much stronger and more adapted to being able to hold itself up out of the water (remember, these are shallow water fish). And the skull is also directly intermediate between the earlier marine-adapted specimens and the later, more terrestrial-adapted tetrapods."
And what Jesse, is your take on how "things" came about?
CANYON:
"do you think God cares if a baby has a cleft-lip? Or an arythmic heart? Yes He cares and it makes Him hate sin even more."
And yet he doesn't prevent birth defects...
"How do you look in the sin department?"
I look fine in that department...I already know what you're going to say..."if you've ever lied, blah blah blah, if you've ever looked at someone with lust, blah blah blah...
I guarantee you have probably done worse things than I have in your life and that is why you are so INTO your religion.
"Its a gradual change" What are you studying? Please if you are going to comment in your field, should you not have the current information of your field? Is it macro or micro evolution and what evolutionary brand are you speaking. Your masters are currently running with the concept of an evolutionary burst (a QUICK period which explains the lack of inter-speciation). If you have missed the lastest in the publishing, then you need to re-educate yourself to the masters of your continuing faith...sorry evolution. Please, stop spilling incorrect understandings. You want to discuss evolution, but fail to understand your faiths latest publishing??? Evolution is evolving, even the experts are beginning to agree that the theories are bursting to new levels. Well...you want the rock..... www. depotmart.com
Being believers in God, but in a mixed marriage, we decided early on to celebrate the holidays of both but chose not to attend a place of worship. At home, we lived by the golden rule, but did not endorse any religion.
When our daughters were in High School, they not only found religion, but were baptized in a non-denominational church, and with our blessing.
I'll always be grateful for their involvement with organized religion as it seemed to give them both focus, direction and security at a time frought with doubt and difficulty among so many teenagers.
Sometime after entering college, both daughters left the church. They still believe in God, but have gone on to study other beliefs and are noncommittal to any particular religion today.
Aha, another religious brain-washing technique, "Evolution takes a long time!"
That is the truest statement there is concerning evolution. It takes so long it still hasn't happened yet! Maybe if we give it another 6,600 years it will, but until then, evolution is a farse.
Sin is a serious thing, it killed a lot of sinless animals, plants, stars, and babies. That's a terrible shame. But it's not God's fault, the blame is entirely on man, do you think God cares if a baby has a cleft-lip? Or an arythmic heart? Yes He cares and it makes Him hate sin even more.
CANYON:
"You're right there is nothing to convince me of evolution, because evolution doesn't occur."
and so, it is pointless to provide evidence...
"I love how you've gotten so tiny and small when looking for evolutionary proof. "Look, in this super-duper microscope! That thing might have just evolved!" Why don't you just look up and pick one of the hundreds of proofs you can see with the naked eye?"
That's because evolution isn't instantaneous...
It's a GRADUAL CHANGE!
"The first sin caused all of the death in the world"
and birth defects to innocent (I guess not to you or God) children.
The first sin caused all of the death in the world.
You're right there is nothing to convince me of evolution, because evolution doesn't occur.
I love how you've gotten so tiny and small when looking for evolutionary proof. "Look, in this super-duper microscope! That thing might have just evolved!" Why don't you just look up and pick one of the hundreds of proofs you can see with the naked eye?
The custom wasn't made into law, it was legislated so that the women would be more fairly treated and that lust would not win the day. People created the atrocity, God limited it.
What you're missing is that in the verses you are reading is that in many places, the Bible is a History book. The verses you posted have little bearing on one another because they were for specific events. You're right, it is shocking and not a nice time or place. Believe it or not, God did not create a 2nd Millenium United States in order to begin life on earth.
I'm not going to go verse by verse because there are a lot of atrocites in the Old Testament, the point of most of those verses is that the enemies of the Israelites were without God's grace, God had finally turned His back on them due to their rampant sin and disobedience. The violence which those people suffered was a result of being Children of Wrath.
God has a lot of patience and longsuffering, but it won't last forever. Are you living according to God's standards?
Thanks for your thoughts on my posting. But I'm puzzled that you were bothered about me taking things "out of context" when you promptly entered into debate with GA_Atheist about Tiktaalak relative to evolution. That certainly wasn't in keeping with Sally's article.
You said I took Deut. 21:10-13 out of context. It couldn't have been more in context. There is no verse I excluded that alters the meaning of what was quoted, which is what taking out of context means.
You said it was common custom among many warring peoples of the age to take women captive and rape them. True, but the point is that this common custom was adopted by God (your God) and made into law for his chosen people to live by. That makes all the difference.
Of these captured women you said "Moses clearly said that they were not property" I wish you had referenced that. It couldn't have come from Numbers 31, when after rounding up 100,000 or so Midianite women and children whose husbands and fathers had just been slaughtered by the Israelites, Moses said to his soldiers (v. 17-18) Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who is not a virgin. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." They were spoils of war. They were awarded to the soldiers, and the priests got an extra share. They were property.
You couldn’t have gotten it from Leviticus 25:46-46 either. There the Lord God declares to his people “Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they shall be your possession. And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession.” Yes, the Israelites held servants (a.k.a. slaves) as inheritable property. And don’t say it was custom, keeping slaves was God’s gift to Abraham.
Of the 30 day waiting period God required before molesting captive girls, you said “if after 30 days you are still sexually attracted to her, and she still to you,” That is blatantly wrong. This was about the desires of the men of God, a woman’s desire was irrelevant. Find the verse that says the woman had a say in this arrangement. Quote it. This was not a romance as you imply. This was violence. This was rape. This was approved by God.
You said the clothes taken off the women were seductive, to entice their captors into choosing them (for slavery, I assume). Read the account of the attack on Midian in Numbers 31 and see if you think these women (pubescent girls actually) were decked out like hookers to win the favor of the Israelite soldiers who just massacred their fathers, mothers, and little brothers. There were 32,000 such "virgins" in this story, and they weren't looking for soldier sugar daddies. They were too traumatized. Speaking of which, you made another deceptive statement here. You said the women "knew that they were to become the property of the non-Israelite victors" These passages are not about "non-Israelite victors". They are about God’s chosen people.
The clothes of captivity (that you said were like something from Victoria’s Secret), were actually the clothes they happened to be wearing when Moses launched his surprise attack. They were the clothes of the Midianite culture, a culture despised by Moses. They were clothes worn by captive women, hence “clothes of captivity.” Where did you get your information about seductive clothing? Not the Bible. Can you cite anything you claim?
You said these rules were for "specific peoples who were fighting a specific other peoples," Absolutely correct. They were specifically for God's chosen people, to be carried out against anyone they encountered on their way to the promised land. The Midianites weren’t even Caananites. They were distant cousins of the Israelites: descendants of Midian, son of Abraham.
In discussions of the Christian God, the Bible is the context. Believers in the infallible, inerrant word of God love to debate evolution because at the end of the day they cannot be proven wrong. But if you want to go to the core of the matter, and talk about Yahweh the father of Jesus, (who said I and the father are one) there is no better place to start than the Old Testament. Without the rose colored glasses of indoctrination, what you’ll find is positively shocking!
I'll be away for a little while, but if you have more to say, I'll be back.
Quinn has it about right, where he says we are all agnostics, since we all vacillate in our understanding, over the span of our lives.
Some days there is little solace in the challenges and reversals of fortune we all face, and other days can be filled with grace and magic.
To insist that our source, the source of our essence and being, has to have the qualities ascribed by the more insistent and articulate voices of the past, or the strict definitions of some present organizational structure brings a tyranny of dogma, which rather than freeing the mind, shackles it, leaving less room to find common ground with others - who are also looking for better answers, for a greater peace, for a more meaningful understanding with others.
Religious thought has always evolved within the communities where it is expressed, and eventually adapts to changing circumstance, or declines altogether. Such is history.
Individuals, however, have the insistence of consciousness, which has in its design a natural and insistent sense of renewal, according to how awake we are, with every moment offering at minimum some slight new perspective.
This leads to the creative actions of art, and culture, and even in a larger sense civilization, always renewing, according to the latest generations' inspiration and invention.
Every faith gets crystalized in time and with its original vision as observed by its most articulate leader, then over time suffers the fate of all things, through interpretation and reinterpretation, translation and retranslation, debate, dispute, decay, decline.
Each new generation must re-view, re-consider, re-imagine, re-calibrate the whole of their perceived world.
And so it goes, generation after generation.
Agnosticism assisted by an open mind is perhaps the most rational stance for the long haul...
There is obviously NOTHING that will convince you of evolution despite the hundreds of top scientists that endorse it.
Even religious leaders recognize it...
Anyway...
I don't recall an answer to this question I posed to you:
CANYON SHEARER:
"Birth/Eye/DNA defects are a result of sin"
Common building blocks of life don't support a common descent, they support a common design, which points to a common designer!
My Chevrolet has steel in it, which is made up of carbon and iron among other things...my Honda has steel in it...clearly they both were shot out of a volcano where there is a Chevrolet/Honda hybrid from which all cars came...
Tiktaalak is a poor example for either Creation Science or Evolutionary Religion. They found it about three days ago, and neither Scientists nor pseudoscientists have had any real time to analyze or report on it. More than likely Tiktaalak is just a previously unknown species of lobe-fin fish. Time will tell, what we know right now is that Tiktaalak is a fish, has no formation of lungs, and probably produced fish, not crocodiles. If anything Tiktaalak shows just how ignorant the human race is of the vast expanse of things we don't know yet.
Tiktaalak, while it could possibly, maybe, probably not, be a missing link, is so obscure and inconclusive, that the fact it has been offered up for a proof for evolution makes evolutionists look desperate and even more stupid than ever.
These are the 'facts' you're basing your eternity on?
Sally,
Thanks for sharing your personal insights. I'm very glad you did the right thing and let Quinn make up his own mind about religion. You respected his right to think for himself, and I'm glad you respect him even though he came to different conclusions than you did.
“I also believe that if you think about God, if you say his name all the time, then you will believe in him. It will be in your subconscious”
But I think Quinn hit the nail on the head. If you say God's name all the time you will believe in him. He's brainwashed himself into believing in God. For me, truth should be based on reality instead of brainwashing.
"What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
May 2006
Tiktaalik, of course. Pronounced tik-TAA-lik, this 375 million year old fossil splashed across headlines as soon as its discovery was announced in April of 2006. Unearthed in Arctic Canada by a team of researchers led by Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler, and Farish Jenkins, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills — but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans."
Here some more...of course you won't accept this either
"The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase are found in the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core. Other overarching similarities between all lineages of extant organisms, such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, give support to the theory of common descent. The chirality of DNA, RNA, and amino acids is conserved across all known life. As there is no functional advantage to right or left handed molecular chirality, the simplest hypothesis is that the choice was made randomly in the early beginnings of life and passed on to all extant life through common descent."
GLZ, way to take things out of context...good job...it takes a lot of effort to take things that far out of context.
The verse is refering to a common custom among many warring peoples of the age. It was very common for women to become the 'property' of the victors. Moses clearly said that they were not property.
It was also common to rape them the moment you felt the urge. Verse 13 clearly says to wait 30 days, if after 30 days you are still sexually attracted to her, and she still to you, then marry.
Verse 13 is most important because it says, "Put off the clothes of her captivity." Do you know what that means? Of course not, you wouldn't spend the time to find out the context. The women, according to custom, knew that they were to become the property of the non-Israelite victors, and in an effort to find better favor and a good husband from amongst the soldiers would dress in very seductive ways, hence "Clothes of Captivity".
The bits and odds you added have very little to do with the verse.
More importantly, that rule was given to s specific peoples who were fighting a specific other peoples, it has no bearing today.
In the future, please read a bit of context before you go spouting off ignorance.
The scripture reading for today is Deuteronomy 21:10-13.
10: When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God has given them into your hands, and you carry them away captive, 11: And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, that you may have her as your wife, 12: Then you shall bring her home to your house; and she shall shave her head and pare her nails 13: And put off her prisoner's garb and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. (The
Amplified Bible).
Strangely at odds with "Thou shalt not commit adultry" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," this lesser known law of God was everybit as important as the Ten Commandments. It gave a soldier permission to take a captive women he lusted for, shave her head, cut her nails, strip her of clothes, and lock her up for a month. When her spirit was broken he raped her. He could bring home a new slave woman everytime he went to battle, even if he was married before he took his first. It was combat pay, given by God to the soldiers of his chosen people. This is the God who is head of the triune, father of Jesus, who some people think is the one, true, creator God, while others don't agree.
This is one of scores of obscure Bible facts and little known stories you won't hear about in church, or sign about in Sunday School.
What a wonderful article. I think there are many of us who are believers, we just have our very own beliefs. It's difficult to believe in someone else's idea of God.
I can't believe the Episcopalian Minister who wouldn't perform the baptism. Is that a message of love? All paths lead to God.
Your son sounds so level headed and strong.
If you have a moment please drop by www.interfaithforums.com and share your wisdom with us.
Many things would change how I think. A proof for evolution would change how I think, space aliens would change how I think...
I was brainwashed by evolution for 23 years, I have no interest to get back into the thought-depressing theology surrounding that crazy pseudoscience.
As for does Jesus speak to me? He has, between 1600 BC and 100 AD He spoke 1188 Chapters, 513 Proverbs, 150 Psalms, 66 Books, 10 Commandments, and 1 Way. He spoke to you as well, you have simply chosen not to hear. See Matthew 13:14-15
Canyon Sheep Shearer,
I have a feeling that nothing in the world would change how you feel, or think. Your first inclination is to agree with me on that particular fact, but maybe you should recognize that people who can't be influenced by facts and, or, logic are in most cases functionally insane, if I may use a lay term. Would insanity apply to your case? No, of course not. Which of us would believe such a thing having read the deep, meaningful musings you've given us.
Does Jesus speak to you in the depths of your awesomely deep mind? I'll just bet he does.
We're not discussing the existence of God, we're discussing the existence of evolution.
Again, you are brainwashed. You see influenza changing and you say, "Influenza is evolving into a master-flu and will soon kill us all!"
The truth is that influenza is de-evolving, it is getting worse. When an antibiotic is found that cures a certain stain of influenza, it kills off the ones that it can kill, the ones that are left are a different strain which have lost the enzyms which the antibiotic attacks. It is a worse-off virus, yet through natural selection, it survives. Natural selection disproves evolution.
Imagine a murder-squad comes into your place of business, hand-cuffs everyone, leads them off, and shoots them in the head. Imagine you have no arms...the squad cannot hand-cuff you...do you think that because you survived due to not being able to be hand-cuffed makes you better off? No, by selection, you have survived, but major information has been lost.
"...on a minor scale, we "experience" evolution occurring every day. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are both products of evolutionary forces. Indeed, the rapidity with which organisms with short generation times, such as bacteria and viruses, can evolve under the influence of their environments is of great medical significance. Many laboratory experiments have shown that, because of mutation and natural selection, such microorganisms can change in specific ways from those of immediately preceding generations."
oh, and your "evidence" of god, please
(and the Bible doesn't count)
I enjoyed your article and wanted to express how much I agree with Quinn's statement, “I’m happy the way I was brought up religiously. If you had taught me there was only one thing I was supposed to believe then I wouldn’t have options. You taught me I could believe in anything I wanted to believe."
Luckily, (and the wiser I become the luckier I count myself for this fact) I was brought up by two free-thinking parents who gave me little religious education but were always open to discussing the issue.
As an adult I know my mother to be a wonderful, moral person who doesn't go to church but believes in a moral code larger than ourselves. My father, as a scientist, is deeply agnostic and fearful of what faith-based reasoning can do to a person's ability to think. By the way, these two people have been happily married for over 35 yrs.
Much like your family does, we openly admitted our doubts and our beliefs too. Afterall, my sister and I had an ally from either parent depending on how we felt that day.
Here's the irony for all those who feel Doubt is evil: I feel all the more certain that God exists because of the rational debates I had with one parent and the openmindedness of the other. I came through my belief not because I was taught to believe, but because I was taught that it was okay to search.
I, simply, have a personal need to believe in something. So I do. Others may not.....it's the search that matters.
Perhaps we find God in each other. I had the pleasure of meeting Quinn two years ago when I was invited to the Brome Howard by my husband (boyfriend at the time)'s family. It was the first time I was meeting Lisa (his big sister) and various other extended family members. Quinn dropped by, Lisa invited him to join the family dinner, and I felt a little relief that there was someone else at the table to quiz. We all ended up having a lovely dinner with much political discussion and debate.
While reading your article I couldn't help but remember that night and how much everyone there has grown to mean to me through the rituals of marriage and holidays. It's all intertwined, isn't it?
Ahahahaha, GA_Athiest, it's so nice to see you spreading your lies and hate once again, I thought you'd bailed out when you realized how ridiculous your religion was.
We already discussed the half-eye, it proves de-evolution, and is a loss of genetic material.
Birth/Eye/DNA defects are a result of sin.
About Katrina...I'd assume you'd have gotten tired of standing up and knocking down straw-men by now.
Mr. GA_Athinkist, when you find a fact for evolution, will you please post it, until then stop saying, "There are many!" because it makes you look like a zealous fool.
Tammy, Evolution has never been proved, it will never be proved. You cannot see it working in the world. True, there are variations, which have brainwashed the world into thinking that because we can produce a watermelon without seeds that somehow nature could produce a person with Kangaroo legs, Ape arms, Hawk eyes, and Canine hearing. If men or nature could make something like that happen, I might believe in evolution, but it doesn't happen, people produce people, monkeys produce monkeys, watermelons produce watermelons.
There is NO evidence for otherwise, or else it would be front page news every day until the end of time.
Okay, here we go again...
Hasn't evolution been proven, seriously?
Can't you see it at work, on every commercial farm? We breed plants & animals for the characteristics we find desirable; the same process is at work in nature, only there's no hand guiding it. It's just cosmic luck-of-the-draw. That makes me, you,Canyon Shearer, any of Darwin's finches, Hitler himself, and every other organic life-form in the cosmos an unabashed and unrepeatable miracle of Nature.
It also has nothing to do with Sally Quinn's thoughtful essay, for which I must say, "thanks".
All Comments (109)
aorblyt cqyhd saywhlvzu aekqpcnz ohaplv aujiyhts zehuwa
July 29, 2007 3:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 29, 2007 03:35
aorblyt cqyhd saywhlvzu aekqpcnz ohaplv aujiyhts zehuwa
July 29, 2007 3:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 29, 2007 03:34
tzqmoyli gtru iytzh bqcstu egsadwvzl okwey noslirtdm [URL]http://www.kuxt.munsrzgt.com[/URL] ebjqdagfs rpwlj
July 5, 2007 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:52
tzqmoyli gtru iytzh bqcstu egsadwvzl okwey noslirtdm [URL]http://www.kuxt.munsrzgt.com[/URL] ebjqdagfs rpwlj
July 5, 2007 3:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:51
pcbs wugjxfn rneuv orlsjkum fgkmev brezy iojlsevgm [URL=http://www.vyom.cisnokyqp.com]xacsym czbrw[/URL]
July 5, 2007 3:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:48
pcbs wugjxfn rneuv orlsjkum fgkmev brezy iojlsevgm [URL=http://www.vyom.cisnokyqp.com]xacsym czbrw[/URL]
July 5, 2007 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:47
pcbs wugjxfn rneuv orlsjkum fgkmev brezy iojlsevgm [URL=http://www.vyom.cisnokyqp.com]xacsym czbrw[/URL]
July 5, 2007 3:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:46
uptsjvnf oldiktnp ntcgwdbjy xmpwbnedl hcqkgwxb goipwbmjh kmunf rfmvnzdl dwjna
July 5, 2007 3:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:46
uptsjvnf oldiktnp ntcgwdbjy xmpwbnedl hcqkgwxb goipwbmjh kmunf rfmvnzdl dwjna
July 5, 2007 3:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:44
avopw flmiz nmtsybfd ftcslj lcfz chuqpamdk gypdl http://www.ftzc.kdjsiaqwu.com
July 5, 2007 3:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:44
avopw flmiz nmtsybfd ftcslj lcfz chuqpamdk gypdl http://www.ftzc.kdjsiaqwu.com
July 5, 2007 3:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:42
avopw flmiz nmtsybfd ftcslj lcfz chuqpamdk gypdl http://www.ftzc.kdjsiaqwu.com
July 5, 2007 3:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:40
cbthjimq etfaj moltujw dsailtb ntovkdr bovech kiex
July 5, 2007 3:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:39
cbthjimq etfaj moltujw dsailtb ntovkdr bovech kiex
July 5, 2007 3:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 15:37
Sallly, you are the last person I would expect to go in the direction of religion as a new avenue for your writing. Your essay was more of a self-analysis, not appropriate here. Your father would be as surprised as I to see your sudden interest in religion.
Norma Green
January 2, 2007 2:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2007 14:48
Sally.
Happy Christmas to you and yours.
Happy Christmas and Peace, Good Will, and Love to all that comment on this blog, and read this blog.
Jesus' Peace.
December 25, 2006 10:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 25, 2006 10:50
In 'TIME' magazine, November 13, 2006, is an article "God vs. Science", with opinions from Francis Collins a scientist and a Christian, and Richard Dawkins, a scientist and an Atheist.
Collins: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it sould have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such things as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. The moral law is a reason to think of God as plausible - not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?
Dawkins: Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil - I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something evil. I think that there are good things and bad things that happen.
Collins: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I'm glad we identified it."
I say there is a difference between the SOL, the One True GOD that sets the Universe in motion, the SOL, and the God that Cares for us our HTA.
It is Time for Fallen Man to understand the fundamental difference between the Good and Evil of the Tree of 'Life'. What did Man fall from" Higher 'Beings' to Lower 'Beings'?
Good, is High Tech Science Pure-bred Asexual Physical Reproduction of Higher Human 'Beings', that are Equal Caretakers of 'Life' on a planet and in spaceships.
Evil, is Heterosexual Mis-bred Physical Reproduction of Lower Human 'Beings', that are Unqual Killers of 'Life' on planets.
Humans 'fell' from the Higher Nature to the Lower Nature of reproduciton. This was the Original Sin of the Perfect humans 'in the beginning'.
It seems to me, as we observe our Unbalanced High Tech Science, pollution, and all the war and misery on Earth, that Lower Human Beings destroy their planet and all 'Life' on it, before they can get very far out into space. It is built into the Fallen Nature.
Now we can accept/believe there is 'Eternal' Pure-bred Asexual Physical 'Life' on planets and in spaceships, for Human 'Beings' After Birth, instead of believing in 'Life?' After Death.
Eternal 'Life' is for the Living, not the Dead.
Peace and Jesus' Asexual Agape Love.
December 21, 2006 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 21, 2006 11:48
Is anyone interested in a High Tech Science of Creation of Life on a planet? Our Scientists said when they can Colonize a planet, they would send in a blue-green algae bomb into the soupy atmosphere, like it was on Earth 'in the beginning'. It would take 1000 years Earth time for this process. With the Lord, 1 Day is as a thousand years.
This algae would break down the soup and make the firmament/atmosphere gasses, which would include the Ozone layer. Blue-green algae is the oldest element on Earth. Earth was not the first planet to have Human Life, it was Colonized by High Tech Science.
In theBible, the algae/spirit of God, also separated out the water, the waters below the atmosphere/firmament made the seas. The water above the atmosphere made an Ice-Crystal Canopy. The two Canopies protected Life on Earth from the Electro-Magnetic rays of the Sun.
This happened on Days 1 and 2 of the Creation on Earth in the Bible. On Day 3, the bushes, trees, grass, etc. were added. This finished clearing the atmosphere and the sun, moon, and stars could be seen from land.
Day 4, the sun, moon, and stars were not made as religion has taught since the loss of High Tech Science. There cannot be a planet before the Universe, Galaxy or the Solar System.
Day 5, the fish and fowl were added, and on Day 6, the animals and Man were added. This is they Way to Colonize a planet.
This 6 Days is is an Intelligent Design to Colonize a Planet with High Tech Science. Life may have Evolved somewhere in the Universe, Galaxy, or Solar System, but Life on Earth was Colonized. By whom?
The God that talked to the Adam and Eve Colony was a Human, not a spirit. This God, that looked like Humans and talked to many, and was seen by many, is our High Tech Ancestors (HTA), Higher 'Beings', that Colonized Earth, like our Scientists would today if we had the resources.
This God that looked like Humans, and flew in fiery chariots, and sat upon thrones up in the air, is our HTA. The GOD, the Source Of Life (SOL) of the Atom (Matter) and the Elecro-Magnetic Force (Spirit), is not Human. This is the One True GOD of the Universes, that has never been seen. A Man God, made of Atoms, could not create the Atom and EMF and the Universes.
It is time to translate the Bible with High Tech Science and accept that Earth was Colonized, it did not Evolve on Earth. It is time to accept the Man Gods and Angels were our HTA that Colonized Earth.
My web site explains this in the Creation section.
http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html
December 19, 2006 7:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 19, 2006 19:47
Sally Quinn,
My goodness, what a deftly written story you have authored, what a remarkable young man you have raised. He is so tolerant, a quality rarely seen, as is evident in many of the previous posts. It is encouraging to see this quality among the young.
I find your path to atheism an interesting one, and not uncommon. I’m assuming that the conclusion of your close up exposure to the ravages of the Korean War was that no God would permit this horror, so he must not exist. This is always a problem for those who believe in a omnipotent and just God. With all the manifest injustices in the world, such a God is a bit incoherent. Personally I’ve not found this sufficient to conclude that no God exists. The Greeks certainly had Gods behaving badly, and the Romans, so people behaving badly was just another manifestation of what was Holy to them. It also still leaves the door open to God as “Creator” as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. He need not be omnipotent or even moral, just eternally creative.
Your son’s path to God is impossible to quarrel with. There is nothing wrong with finding comfort in religion. It works to cope with the difficult concept of death, to sustain optimism in the face of challenges, to cope with grief, and to sustain hope. He has “reasoned” his way to his faith, to his choice. I have always envied his present state of mind in others, for the very reason he chose it, but I have never been able to make the leap of faith required for myself.
Personally, I don’t claim to be an atheist. Rather, I have never found any reason to suppose any God or Gods exist or persuasive evidence of them. But I cannot close the door. Consider “dark matter”, something we cannot see or interact with, yet it fills something like two thirds of the universe. Ten years ago the idea didn’t exist, but today we find persuasive evidence that such matter does. The universe is full of mysteries, and full of answers we keep finding. It is perfectly normal that there are new mysteries uncovered as fast or faster than old mysteries are explained. It is a process of discovery and change to our knowledge that has no beginning and no end. The magic of nature is the magic of nature whether you suppose it was created by God or by evolution.
Athiests have to come to grips with difficult matters. There is no life after death, there is not even identity after death. There is no meaning to life. Good and evil don’t exist; good things happen and bad things happen for no particular reason. We have just one life to live. Its rather stark isn’t it?
December 18, 2006 7:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 18, 2006 19:59
Do you think you're a good person?
December 14, 2006 9:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 14, 2006 21:32
CANYON:
"In the 999 in 1000 chance that the Bible is correct, what are you going to say to God when you stand on trial in the Great White Throne room?"
I'd say, why do let murders, rapists, and child molesters in, but not good people who don't believe in you.
December 14, 2006 6:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 14, 2006 18:21
In the 999 in 1000 chance that the Bible is correct, what are you going to say to God when you stand on trial in the Great White Throne room?
December 13, 2006 10:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 13, 2006 22:12
CANYON:
"You love evolution because you can do whatever your heart desires and you have no one to account to. If the Bible is true, you're in for a very painful awakening."
Yes it's great...I CAN do anything and not worry about it.
While you're worrying about if you're doing what god wants, I'll be having fun...
and in the end, we'll both die
and that's it
p.s. I don't love evolution...I actually only think about it every now and then (especially on here!)
The nice thing is, as new evidence is presented, my thinking changes, unlike yours.
The sea-horse/land-horse...brilliant!
December 13, 2006 5:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 13, 2006 17:54
Since you've been foundering for so long, I'll finally give you Proof for Evolution:
The Sea-Horse is the evolutionary ancestor of the Land-Horse.
You know how I know that? The sea-horse looks like a Land-Horse, they both have horse in their name, the Horse gallops and the Sea Horse bobs, sea horses are used in herbal medicine and horse urine is used for a variety of hormone suppliments.
Never mind that the Sea Horse has gills and the horse has lungs, the male sea horse raises the babies and the female horse raises the babies, never mind the sea horse has never brought forth anything but fish and the horse nothing but horses and mules(a genetically deficient horse).
Sound a bit like Tiktaalik? A definitive lobe-fin fish...
December 13, 2006 11:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 13, 2006 11:33
GAy_Atheist, perhaps the greatest proof in your case for the Bible's truth is that you're incapable of saying,
I've ignored God, worshipped science, blasphemed, hated, lusted, stolen, lied, and coveted; if the Bible is true, and I get what I deserve, I would end up in Hell.
You love evolution because you can do whatever your heart desires and you have no one to account to. If the Bible is true, you're in for a very painful awakening.
December 13, 2006 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 13, 2006 11:25
to CANYON SHEARER
a little more about Tiktaalik:
"Tiktaalik fits temporally and anatomically between Panderichthys and Acanthostega. The former was primarily adapted for marine life; the latter was better adapted to terrestrial life. Tiktaalik still has fins, but the bone structure inside those fins is clearly intermediate between fish and amphibians; Acanthostega is the first species with true feet, and those feet are of course connected to the axial skeleton. Tiktaalik also has a pelvic girdle that is much stronger and more adapted to being able to hold itself up out of the water (remember, these are shallow water fish). And the skull is also directly intermediate between the earlier marine-adapted specimens and the later, more terrestrial-adapted tetrapods."
December 12, 2006 11:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 12, 2006 23:05
Oh joy another one!
And what Jesse, is your take on how "things" came about?
CANYON:
"do you think God cares if a baby has a cleft-lip? Or an arythmic heart? Yes He cares and it makes Him hate sin even more."
And yet he doesn't prevent birth defects...
"How do you look in the sin department?"
I look fine in that department...I already know what you're going to say..."if you've ever lied, blah blah blah, if you've ever looked at someone with lust, blah blah blah...
I guarantee you have probably done worse things than I have in your life and that is why you are so INTO your religion.
December 12, 2006 10:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 12, 2006 22:58
GA-A...
"Its a gradual change" What are you studying? Please if you are going to comment in your field, should you not have the current information of your field? Is it macro or micro evolution and what evolutionary brand are you speaking. Your masters are currently running with the concept of an evolutionary burst (a QUICK period which explains the lack of inter-speciation). If you have missed the lastest in the publishing, then you need to re-educate yourself to the masters of your continuing faith...sorry evolution. Please, stop spilling incorrect understandings. You want to discuss evolution, but fail to understand your faiths latest publishing??? Evolution is evolving, even the experts are beginning to agree that the theories are bursting to new levels. Well...you want the rock..... www. depotmart.com
December 12, 2006 3:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 12, 2006 15:20
Enjoyed the article.
Being believers in God, but in a mixed marriage, we decided early on to celebrate the holidays of both but chose not to attend a place of worship. At home, we lived by the golden rule, but did not endorse any religion.
When our daughters were in High School, they not only found religion, but were baptized in a non-denominational church, and with our blessing.
I'll always be grateful for their involvement with organized religion as it seemed to give them both focus, direction and security at a time frought with doubt and difficulty among so many teenagers.
Sometime after entering college, both daughters left the church. They still believe in God, but have gone on to study other beliefs and are noncommittal to any particular religion today.
Like Mother, like daughters.
December 12, 2006 1:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 12, 2006 13:00
Aha, another religious brain-washing technique, "Evolution takes a long time!"
That is the truest statement there is concerning evolution. It takes so long it still hasn't happened yet! Maybe if we give it another 6,600 years it will, but until then, evolution is a farse.
Sin is a serious thing, it killed a lot of sinless animals, plants, stars, and babies. That's a terrible shame. But it's not God's fault, the blame is entirely on man, do you think God cares if a baby has a cleft-lip? Or an arythmic heart? Yes He cares and it makes Him hate sin even more.
How do you look in the sin department?
December 11, 2006 9:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2006 21:06
CANYON:
"You're right there is nothing to convince me of evolution, because evolution doesn't occur."
and so, it is pointless to provide evidence...
"I love how you've gotten so tiny and small when looking for evolutionary proof. "Look, in this super-duper microscope! That thing might have just evolved!" Why don't you just look up and pick one of the hundreds of proofs you can see with the naked eye?"
That's because evolution isn't instantaneous...
It's a GRADUAL CHANGE!
"The first sin caused all of the death in the world"
and birth defects to innocent (I guess not to you or God) children.
December 11, 2006 6:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2006 18:13
GAy_Atheist,
The first sin caused all of the death in the world.
You're right there is nothing to convince me of evolution, because evolution doesn't occur.
I love how you've gotten so tiny and small when looking for evolutionary proof. "Look, in this super-duper microscope! That thing might have just evolved!" Why don't you just look up and pick one of the hundreds of proofs you can see with the naked eye?
What? None exist? That's odd, perhaps your magical pseudoscience doesn't happen?
GLZ, redefining context doesn't make you right.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context
Check out number 2.
The custom wasn't made into law, it was legislated so that the women would be more fairly treated and that lust would not win the day. People created the atrocity, God limited it.
What you're missing is that in the verses you are reading is that in many places, the Bible is a History book. The verses you posted have little bearing on one another because they were for specific events. You're right, it is shocking and not a nice time or place. Believe it or not, God did not create a 2nd Millenium United States in order to begin life on earth.
I'm not going to go verse by verse because there are a lot of atrocites in the Old Testament, the point of most of those verses is that the enemies of the Israelites were without God's grace, God had finally turned His back on them due to their rampant sin and disobedience. The violence which those people suffered was a result of being Children of Wrath.
God has a lot of patience and longsuffering, but it won't last forever. Are you living according to God's standards?
December 11, 2006 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2006 10:12
Canyon Shearer,
Thanks for your thoughts on my posting. But I'm puzzled that you were bothered about me taking things "out of context" when you promptly entered into debate with GA_Atheist about Tiktaalak relative to evolution. That certainly wasn't in keeping with Sally's article.
You said I took Deut. 21:10-13 out of context. It couldn't have been more in context. There is no verse I excluded that alters the meaning of what was quoted, which is what taking out of context means.
You said it was common custom among many warring peoples of the age to take women captive and rape them. True, but the point is that this common custom was adopted by God (your God) and made into law for his chosen people to live by. That makes all the difference.
Of these captured women you said "Moses clearly said that they were not property" I wish you had referenced that. It couldn't have come from Numbers 31, when after rounding up 100,000 or so Midianite women and children whose husbands and fathers had just been slaughtered by the Israelites, Moses said to his soldiers (v. 17-18) Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who is not a virgin. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." They were spoils of war. They were awarded to the soldiers, and the priests got an extra share. They were property.
You couldn’t have gotten it from Leviticus 25:46-46 either. There the Lord God declares to his people “Moreover of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they shall be your possession. And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession.” Yes, the Israelites held servants (a.k.a. slaves) as inheritable property. And don’t say it was custom, keeping slaves was God’s gift to Abraham.
Of the 30 day waiting period God required before molesting captive girls, you said “if after 30 days you are still sexually attracted to her, and she still to you,” That is blatantly wrong. This was about the desires of the men of God, a woman’s desire was irrelevant. Find the verse that says the woman had a say in this arrangement. Quote it. This was not a romance as you imply. This was violence. This was rape. This was approved by God.
You said the clothes taken off the women were seductive, to entice their captors into choosing them (for slavery, I assume). Read the account of the attack on Midian in Numbers 31 and see if you think these women (pubescent girls actually) were decked out like hookers to win the favor of the Israelite soldiers who just massacred their fathers, mothers, and little brothers. There were 32,000 such "virgins" in this story, and they weren't looking for soldier sugar daddies. They were too traumatized. Speaking of which, you made another deceptive statement here. You said the women "knew that they were to become the property of the non-Israelite victors" These passages are not about "non-Israelite victors". They are about God’s chosen people.
The clothes of captivity (that you said were like something from Victoria’s Secret), were actually the clothes they happened to be wearing when Moses launched his surprise attack. They were the clothes of the Midianite culture, a culture despised by Moses. They were clothes worn by captive women, hence “clothes of captivity.” Where did you get your information about seductive clothing? Not the Bible. Can you cite anything you claim?
You said these rules were for "specific peoples who were fighting a specific other peoples," Absolutely correct. They were specifically for God's chosen people, to be carried out against anyone they encountered on their way to the promised land. The Midianites weren’t even Caananites. They were distant cousins of the Israelites: descendants of Midian, son of Abraham.
In discussions of the Christian God, the Bible is the context. Believers in the infallible, inerrant word of God love to debate evolution because at the end of the day they cannot be proven wrong. But if you want to go to the core of the matter, and talk about Yahweh the father of Jesus, (who said I and the father are one) there is no better place to start than the Old Testament. Without the rose colored glasses of indoctrination, what you’ll find is positively shocking!
I'll be away for a little while, but if you have more to say, I'll be back.
December 11, 2006 12:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 11, 2006 00:48
Quinn has it about right, where he says we are all agnostics, since we all vacillate in our understanding, over the span of our lives.
Some days there is little solace in the challenges and reversals of fortune we all face, and other days can be filled with grace and magic.
To insist that our source, the source of our essence and being, has to have the qualities ascribed by the more insistent and articulate voices of the past, or the strict definitions of some present organizational structure brings a tyranny of dogma, which rather than freeing the mind, shackles it, leaving less room to find common ground with others - who are also looking for better answers, for a greater peace, for a more meaningful understanding with others.
Religious thought has always evolved within the communities where it is expressed, and eventually adapts to changing circumstance, or declines altogether. Such is history.
Individuals, however, have the insistence of consciousness, which has in its design a natural and insistent sense of renewal, according to how awake we are, with every moment offering at minimum some slight new perspective.
This leads to the creative actions of art, and culture, and even in a larger sense civilization, always renewing, according to the latest generations' inspiration and invention.
Every faith gets crystalized in time and with its original vision as observed by its most articulate leader, then over time suffers the fate of all things, through interpretation and reinterpretation, translation and retranslation, debate, dispute, decay, decline.
Each new generation must re-view, re-consider, re-imagine, re-calibrate the whole of their perceived world.
And so it goes, generation after generation.
Agnosticism assisted by an open mind is perhaps the most rational stance for the long haul...
December 10, 2006 2:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2006 14:32
TO Canyon Shearer,
There is obviously NOTHING that will convince you of evolution despite the hundreds of top scientists that endorse it.
Even religious leaders recognize it...
Anyway...
I don't recall an answer to this question I posed to you:
CANYON SHEARER:
"Birth/Eye/DNA defects are a result of sin"
Now that is a good explanation!
So a baby born without a face is because of sin?!
Whose? The parents?
December 10, 2006 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2006 14:07
Common building blocks of life don't support a common descent, they support a common design, which points to a common designer!
My Chevrolet has steel in it, which is made up of carbon and iron among other things...my Honda has steel in it...clearly they both were shot out of a volcano where there is a Chevrolet/Honda hybrid from which all cars came...
Tiktaalak is a poor example for either Creation Science or Evolutionary Religion. They found it about three days ago, and neither Scientists nor pseudoscientists have had any real time to analyze or report on it. More than likely Tiktaalak is just a previously unknown species of lobe-fin fish. Time will tell, what we know right now is that Tiktaalak is a fish, has no formation of lungs, and probably produced fish, not crocodiles. If anything Tiktaalak shows just how ignorant the human race is of the vast expanse of things we don't know yet.
Tiktaalak, while it could possibly, maybe, probably not, be a missing link, is so obscure and inconclusive, that the fact it has been offered up for a proof for evolution makes evolutionists look desperate and even more stupid than ever.
These are the 'facts' you're basing your eternity on?
December 10, 2006 11:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2006 11:42
Sally,
Thanks for sharing your personal insights. I'm very glad you did the right thing and let Quinn make up his own mind about religion. You respected his right to think for himself, and I'm glad you respect him even though he came to different conclusions than you did.
“I also believe that if you think about God, if you say his name all the time, then you will believe in him. It will be in your subconscious”
But I think Quinn hit the nail on the head. If you say God's name all the time you will believe in him. He's brainwashed himself into believing in God. For me, truth should be based on reality instead of brainwashing.
December 10, 2006 5:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2006 05:02
Canyon Shearer once again...
Here's something recent:
"What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
May 2006
Tiktaalik, of course. Pronounced tik-TAA-lik, this 375 million year old fossil splashed across headlines as soon as its discovery was announced in April of 2006. Unearthed in Arctic Canada by a team of researchers led by Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler, and Farish Jenkins, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills — but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans."
December 10, 2006 12:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2006 00:29
CANYON SHEARER
Here some more...of course you won't accept this either
"The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase are found in the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core. Other overarching similarities between all lineages of extant organisms, such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, give support to the theory of common descent. The chirality of DNA, RNA, and amino acids is conserved across all known life. As there is no functional advantage to right or left handed molecular chirality, the simplest hypothesis is that the choice was made randomly in the early beginnings of life and passed on to all extant life through common descent."
December 10, 2006 12:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 10, 2006 00:26
GLZ, way to take things out of context...good job...it takes a lot of effort to take things that far out of context.
The verse is refering to a common custom among many warring peoples of the age. It was very common for women to become the 'property' of the victors. Moses clearly said that they were not property.
It was also common to rape them the moment you felt the urge. Verse 13 clearly says to wait 30 days, if after 30 days you are still sexually attracted to her, and she still to you, then marry.
Verse 13 is most important because it says, "Put off the clothes of her captivity." Do you know what that means? Of course not, you wouldn't spend the time to find out the context. The women, according to custom, knew that they were to become the property of the non-Israelite victors, and in an effort to find better favor and a good husband from amongst the soldiers would dress in very seductive ways, hence "Clothes of Captivity".
The bits and odds you added have very little to do with the verse.
More importantly, that rule was given to s specific peoples who were fighting a specific other peoples, it has no bearing today.
In the future, please read a bit of context before you go spouting off ignorance.
December 9, 2006 10:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 9, 2006 22:39
To everyone who urges Sally to turn to Christ,
The scripture reading for today is Deuteronomy 21:10-13.
10: When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God has given them into your hands, and you carry them away captive, 11: And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, that you may have her as your wife, 12: Then you shall bring her home to your house; and she shall shave her head and pare her nails 13: And put off her prisoner's garb and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. (The
Amplified Bible).
Strangely at odds with "Thou shalt not commit adultry" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," this lesser known law of God was everybit as important as the Ten Commandments. It gave a soldier permission to take a captive women he lusted for, shave her head, cut her nails, strip her of clothes, and lock her up for a month. When her spirit was broken he raped her. He could bring home a new slave woman everytime he went to battle, even if he was married before he took his first. It was combat pay, given by God to the soldiers of his chosen people. This is the God who is head of the triune, father of Jesus, who some people think is the one, true, creator God, while others don't agree.
This is one of scores of obscure Bible facts and little known stories you won't hear about in church, or sign about in Sunday School.
December 9, 2006 8:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 9, 2006 20:18
The common thread to 90 percent of these comments is....Narcissim.
December 8, 2006 11:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 23:08
What a wonderful article. I think there are many of us who are believers, we just have our very own beliefs. It's difficult to believe in someone else's idea of God.
I can't believe the Episcopalian Minister who wouldn't perform the baptism. Is that a message of love? All paths lead to God.
Your son sounds so level headed and strong.
If you have a moment please drop by www.interfaithforums.com and share your wisdom with us.
Many blessings to you and your family.
December 8, 2006 9:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 21:09
Dear Duff,
Many things would change how I think. A proof for evolution would change how I think, space aliens would change how I think...
I was brainwashed by evolution for 23 years, I have no interest to get back into the thought-depressing theology surrounding that crazy pseudoscience.
As for does Jesus speak to me? He has, between 1600 BC and 100 AD He spoke 1188 Chapters, 513 Proverbs, 150 Psalms, 66 Books, 10 Commandments, and 1 Way. He spoke to you as well, you have simply chosen not to hear. See Matthew 13:14-15
December 8, 2006 8:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 20:24
Canyon Sheep Shearer,
I have a feeling that nothing in the world would change how you feel, or think. Your first inclination is to agree with me on that particular fact, but maybe you should recognize that people who can't be influenced by facts and, or, logic are in most cases functionally insane, if I may use a lay term. Would insanity apply to your case? No, of course not. Which of us would believe such a thing having read the deep, meaningful musings you've given us.
Does Jesus speak to you in the depths of your awesomely deep mind? I'll just bet he does.
December 8, 2006 7:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 19:55
GAy_Atheist,
We're not discussing the existence of God, we're discussing the existence of evolution.
Again, you are brainwashed. You see influenza changing and you say, "Influenza is evolving into a master-flu and will soon kill us all!"
The truth is that influenza is de-evolving, it is getting worse. When an antibiotic is found that cures a certain stain of influenza, it kills off the ones that it can kill, the ones that are left are a different strain which have lost the enzyms which the antibiotic attacks. It is a worse-off virus, yet through natural selection, it survives. Natural selection disproves evolution.
Imagine a murder-squad comes into your place of business, hand-cuffs everyone, leads them off, and shoots them in the head. Imagine you have no arms...the squad cannot hand-cuff you...do you think that because you survived due to not being able to be hand-cuffed makes you better off? No, by selection, you have survived, but major information has been lost.
That is how influenza viruses disprove evolution.
Surely you must have something better than that.
December 8, 2006 6:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 18:44
CANYON SHEARER:
"Mr. GAy_Atheist..."
You got me! That is so clever!
Here:
"...on a minor scale, we "experience" evolution occurring every day. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are both products of evolutionary forces. Indeed, the rapidity with which organisms with short generation times, such as bacteria and viruses, can evolve under the influence of their environments is of great medical significance. Many laboratory experiments have shown that, because of mutation and natural selection, such microorganisms can change in specific ways from those of immediately preceding generations."
oh, and your "evidence" of god, please
(and the Bible doesn't count)
December 8, 2006 6:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 18:28
Dear GA atheist-I see what you mean.
December 8, 2006 4:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 16:45
Mr. GAy_Atheist...
Why haven't you posted a fact for evolution? It seems like it would be simple if any existed.
I've never seen anyone be so soundly beaten as yourself and yet refuse to throw in the towel.
Kudos on your fanaticism.
December 8, 2006 4:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 16:38
Canyon,
Despite my religious convictions, I have to side with the Atheists on this one.
Your comment, "Birth/Eye/DNA defects are a result of sin." sounds a bit fanatical and frankly...insane.
Are you sure you are not really an Atheist troll trying to stir it up?
Lug
December 8, 2006 4:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 16:34
CANYON SHEARER (again):
"Ahahahaha, GA_Athiest, it's so nice to see you spreading your lies and hate once again"
hate?
how am I spreading hate?
December 8, 2006 2:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 14:58
CANYON SHEARER:
"Birth/Eye/DNA defects are a result of sin"
Now that is a good explanation!
So a baby born without a face is because of sin?!
Whose? The parents?
Yes, ASHLEY, he is a GREAT Example of faith-based reasoning...just look at the birth defect quote!
December 8, 2006 2:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 14:56
Canyon Shearer is an excellent example of what faith-based reasoning can do to a person's ability to think.
Canyon Shearer - People are simply not answering you question about evolution because arguing with you would be a waste of time.
December 8, 2006 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 14:30
I enjoyed your article and wanted to express how much I agree with Quinn's statement, “I’m happy the way I was brought up religiously. If you had taught me there was only one thing I was supposed to believe then I wouldn’t have options. You taught me I could believe in anything I wanted to believe."
Luckily, (and the wiser I become the luckier I count myself for this fact) I was brought up by two free-thinking parents who gave me little religious education but were always open to discussing the issue.
As an adult I know my mother to be a wonderful, moral person who doesn't go to church but believes in a moral code larger than ourselves. My father, as a scientist, is deeply agnostic and fearful of what faith-based reasoning can do to a person's ability to think. By the way, these two people have been happily married for over 35 yrs.
Much like your family does, we openly admitted our doubts and our beliefs too. Afterall, my sister and I had an ally from either parent depending on how we felt that day.
Here's the irony for all those who feel Doubt is evil: I feel all the more certain that God exists because of the rational debates I had with one parent and the openmindedness of the other. I came through my belief not because I was taught to believe, but because I was taught that it was okay to search.
I, simply, have a personal need to believe in something. So I do. Others may not.....it's the search that matters.
Perhaps we find God in each other. I had the pleasure of meeting Quinn two years ago when I was invited to the Brome Howard by my husband (boyfriend at the time)'s family. It was the first time I was meeting Lisa (his big sister) and various other extended family members. Quinn dropped by, Lisa invited him to join the family dinner, and I felt a little relief that there was someone else at the table to quiz. We all ended up having a lovely dinner with much political discussion and debate.
While reading your article I couldn't help but remember that night and how much everyone there has grown to mean to me through the rituals of marriage and holidays. It's all intertwined, isn't it?
December 8, 2006 2:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 14:22
Ahahahaha, GA_Athiest, it's so nice to see you spreading your lies and hate once again, I thought you'd bailed out when you realized how ridiculous your religion was.
We already discussed the half-eye, it proves de-evolution, and is a loss of genetic material.
Birth/Eye/DNA defects are a result of sin.
About Katrina...I'd assume you'd have gotten tired of standing up and knocking down straw-men by now.
Mr. GA_Athinkist, when you find a fact for evolution, will you please post it, until then stop saying, "There are many!" because it makes you look like a zealous fool.
Tammy, Evolution has never been proved, it will never be proved. You cannot see it working in the world. True, there are variations, which have brainwashed the world into thinking that because we can produce a watermelon without seeds that somehow nature could produce a person with Kangaroo legs, Ape arms, Hawk eyes, and Canine hearing. If men or nature could make something like that happen, I might believe in evolution, but it doesn't happen, people produce people, monkeys produce monkeys, watermelons produce watermelons.
There is NO evidence for otherwise, or else it would be front page news every day until the end of time.
December 8, 2006 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 14:09
Okay, here we go again...
Hasn't evolution been proven, seriously?
Can't you see it at work, on every commercial farm? We breed plants & animals for the characteristics we find desirable; the same process is at work in nature, only there's no hand guiding it. It's just cosmic luck-of-the-draw. That makes me, you,Canyon Shearer, any of Darwin's finches, Hitler himself, and every other organic life-form in the cosmos an unabashed and unrepeatable miracle of Nature.
It also has nothing to do with Sally Quinn's thoughtful essay, for which I must say, "thanks".
December 8, 2006 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 8, 2006 12:48