Misc. Bible Related Stuff
March 11, 2010 45 Comments
From Time Magazine
“…On the other hand, say many scholars, much of what is recorded in the Bible is at best distorted, and some characters and events are probably totally fictional. Most scholars suspect that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Judaism’s traditional founders, never existed; many doubt the tales of slavery in Egypt and the Exodus; and relatively few modern historians believe in Joshua’s conquest of Jericho and the rest of the Promised Land. In the most extreme view, all of the above are complete fabrications, invented centuries after the supposed fact.”
And:
“John Van Seters of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, summed up many of their commonly held positions. The oldest books of the Old Testament, he declared with Pope-like confidence, weren’t written until the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, after 587 B.C. There was no Moses, no crossing of the sea, and no revelation on Mount Sinai.”
And:
“The Bible’s accounts of these people and events are among the most familiar stories in the Old Testament. But even scholars who believe they really happened admit that there’s no proof whatsoever that the Exodus took place. No record of this monumental event appears in Egyptian chronicles of the time, and Israeli archaeologists combing the Sinai during intense searches from 1967 to 1982 — years when Israel occupied the peninsula — didn’t find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites’ supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert.”
And:
“…considering that artifacts from as far back as the late Stone Age have turned up in the Sinai , it is perplexing that no evidence of the Israelites’ passage has been found. William Dever, a University of Arizona archaeologist, flatly calls Moses a mythical figure. Some scholars even insist the story was a political fabrication, invented to unite the disparate tribes living in Canaan through a falsified heroic past.”
Read the whole story: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983854-1,00.html
“It would be impossible…to argue that the Bible is a unified whole, inerrant in all its parts, inspired by God in every way. It can’t be that. There are too many divergences, discrepancies, contradictions; too many alternative ways of looking at the same issue, alternatives that often are at odds with one another. The Bible is not a unity, it is a massive plurality. God did not write the Bible, people did.” Jesus Interrupted (p. 279). Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
see more Lolcats and funny pictures
A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be … surer of the noose than a private homicide.
~ H. G. Wells
About the word of me
The Word of Me... 
(1Ti 4:1) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(1Ti 4:2) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
(Psa 2:1) Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
(Psa 2:2) The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
(Psa 2:3) Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
(Psa 2:4) He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psa 2:5) Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
(Psa 2:6) Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
(Psa 2:7) I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
(Psa 2:8) Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
(Psa 2:9) Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
(Psa 2:10) Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
(Psa 2:11) Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
(Psa 2:12) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Hi Wabd,
Are the Biblical quotes above supposed to mean something?
Hello thewordofme,
We are in the latter times!
Here’s an excerpt of an article for all those who advocate the exodus never took place:
‘I’ve seen underwater slides and video film by Jonathan Gray, whose team found the site. They show the remains of Egyptian chariots, without wheels. Scripture explains how the thin rims sank into the mud formed by the melting ice, became clogged and broke from the axles. The four, six and eight-spoked chariot wheels were identified by the Department of Antiquities in Cairo as belonging to the 18th Dynasty. Apparently, monuments can actually be dated by the number of spokes in a chariot wheel carved in a frieze. And only during the 18th Dynasty were four, six, and eight- spoked wheels used (see Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the 18th Dynasty, James K. Hoffmeier. JARCE, #13, 1976).
None of these artifacts had been discovered previously because the archaeologists had been searching for the Red Sea crossing in the wrong location.
Recently, Ron Wyatt found a Phoenician column on the southern end of Nuweiba beach. Its inscriptions were defaced or eroded. Later an identical column was discovered at Baal-zephon on the opposite shore. Its inscriptions, which are intact, say it was erected by King Solomon in honor of Jehovah, and dedicated to the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea by Moses and destruction of the Egyptian host.
We marvel at how the Lord has preserved these sites intact through the course of history. If their true locations had been known all along, there would be no evidence remaining today. We live in the days when even Bible cartographers and ministers don’t believe the Red Sea crossing ever occurred.
Hi Wabd, thanks for writing.
You really need to check out your sources better. Ron Wyatt has long been known as a con-man and his “Discoveries” have no credibility or standing at all in any of the sciences related to them. This is not some attempt to cover up real discoveries and if you research him you will understand why.
Below you will find some info on him and his “Research” into Biblical artifacts. Just follow the supplied link or go to Wikipedia and search “Ron Wyatt”, you also may want to Google him and follow those links as they will back up the Wikipedia info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt
“Ron Wyatt was a nurse-anesthetist when in 1960 he saw a picture in Life Magazine of the Durupınar site, a boat-like shape on a mountain near Mount Ararat. The resulting widespread speculation in evangelical Christian circles that this might be Noah’s Ark started Wyatt on his career as an amateur archaeologist. From 1977 until his death in 1999 he made over one hundred trips to the Middle East, his interests widening to take in a wide variety of references from the Old and New Testaments.
His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continues to have a following among some fundamentalists and evangelicals.
By the time of his death in August 4, 1999, his claimed discoveries included.
• Noah’s Ark (the Durupınar site, located 18.25 miles south of Mount Ararat)
• Anchor stones (or drogue stones) used by Noah on the Ark
• The post-flood house, grave markers and tombs of Noah and his wife
• The location of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other (3) Cities of the Plain: Zoar, Zeboim and Admah
• Sulfur/brimstone balls from the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.
• The Tower of Babel site (in southern Turkey)
• How the Egyptians may have built the pyramids.
• The site of the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea (located in the Gulf of Aqaba)
• Chariot wheels and other relics of the army of Pharaoh at the bottom of the Red Sea
• The site of the biblical Mt. Sinai (in Saudi Arabia at Jabal al Lawz)
• The rock at Mt. Horeb from which water flowed when struck by Moses
• The site of Korah’s earthquake.
• A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon’s Temple
• The site of the Crucifixion of Jesus
• The Ark of the Covenant and the stones of the Ten Commandments
• Christ’s blood, dripped onto the Mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenan beneath the Crucifixion site.
• A miter with an ivory pomegranate on the tip
• The burial pots of Ashkelon.
“While Wyatt won a devoted following from the ranks of fundamentalist Christians seeking tangible evidence of the literal truth of the Bible, his credibility was disputed, often bitterly, by professional archaeologists and biblical scholars. The Garden Tomb Association of Jerusalem state in a letter they issue to visitors on request:
The Council of the Garden Tomb Association (London) totally refute the claim of Mr Wyatt to have discovered the original Ark of the Covenant or any other biblical artifacts within the boundaries of the area known as the Garden Tomb Jerusalem. Though Mr Wyatt was allowed to dig within this privately owned garden on a number of occasions (the last occasion being the summer of 1991) staff members of the Association observed his progress and entered his excavated shaft. As far as we are aware nothing was ever discovered to support his claims nor have we seen any evidence of biblical artifacts or temple treasures.
In a similar vein, archaeologist Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that “Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. … [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc.
Wyatt’s fellow evangelicals have not been any less critical: Answers in Genesis called Wyatt’s claims fraudulent, and one Seventh-day Adventist professor of archaeology sums up Wyatt’s Noah’s Ark and anchor stones claims in these words: “While the Durupinar site is about the right length for Noah’s ark, [it is] … too wide to be Noah’s ark. Wyatt has claimed that the “boat-shapedness” of this formation can only be explained by its being Noah’s ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for Christian purposes.”
Dismissed by the mainstream as a pseudoarchaeologist, Wyatt’s official organization, Wyatt Archaeological Research (WAR), claims that the IAA have always been aware of the excavations and issued “verbal permits” for most of them and official permits to all WAR excavations since 2002. Nevertheless, the only evidence of WAR involvement in a legitimate excavation sanctioned by the IAA relates to WAR part-funding of a 2005 dig.”
Hello thewordofme,
Thank you for such an informative response, it is clear that you are well read and armed to the teeth so to speak with refutable evidence. This is however proof of man’s fallibility when it comes to discerning things that were spiritually created or guided to creation.
When I posted the excerpt it was not highlight the credibility of the individuals – Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray, rather it was to demonstrate that even the authors of the Time Magazine article that you cited in your original post would surely have some skeletons in their professional closet if one is to stringently search.
There would always be advocates and oppositions to every science and scriptures, scientists agree on a number of issues at some point then later we find an element of disagreement is sparked which sets out a chain of alarmists (some who were originally in agreement), fighting to protect their professional credibility. Likewise so it is with biblical scholars, (personally I pay little attention to some of their conclusions), there are seldom if any agreement on interpretations of scriptures.
No one living or dead was ever in the possession of absolute truth save Christ. For example, the hot topic of climate change has spurned various positions from Al Gore wanting to charge people for breathing to the English government wanting to pass legislation for population reduction. There is absolutely no agreement amongst advocates of the rapture doctrines, the argument has degenerated into them calling each other heretics.
You mentioned Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the patriarchs of Judaism. Scripturally these men were not all that pious or obedient to God in every instruction, to the contrary; Abraham took his father with him when he was told not to, he said Sarah was his sister for fear he might be killed rather than trusting in God for protection. Isaac had to be deceived into blessing Jacob rather than Esau because he favored Esau instead of recognizing that the promise was made to the younger Jacob. Jacob himself was deceived by Laban in both his marriages and the time he sojourned to raise Laban’s livestock. What then is the solution to all this deceitfulness? – well for Christians it is to have faith in God and view the lives of these men as examples of man’s inherent weaknesses and the need for God’s guidance and salvation in every aspect of our lives through repentance and faith. I guess you’ll have to tell me what the atheists do!
I do not question the ‘things’ of God, I believe, my faith cannot be proven as what I trust and believe in is not discernible to the human eye or imaginations. Even in the religious sectors we see compromises being made where there should not be any. Faith is not about compromise, faith is about belief in a promise that is to be realized in the future. Some put stock in science and take medication that has so many side-effects that you have to take medication for the medication and so on and so on…. I don’t press others to believe as I do because that is not my right or purpose. God has made it explicitly clear that He is the one that calls men to faith. I respect other people’s belief but I do not always agree because we are all imperfect. What I don’t understand, I pray for God’s guidance, if it is His will that I know, then I get the answer.
Hello Wabd, thank you for your reply.
You write:
“Thank you for such an informative response, it is clear that you are well read and armed to the teeth so to speak with refutable evidence. This is however proof of man’s fallibility when it comes to discerning things that were spiritually created or guided to creation.”
Yes I do read a lot, its part of my research and I enjoy it immensely. The evidence you will find on Mr. Wyatt is not refutable. It is true. Do you not think that if the man had found chariot wheels and the proofs that he says he did, that the whole business of Biblical archaeology would be blown open? Serious scholarly searches for these artifacts and proofs have been going on for 150+- years, and very little has been found.
We all know that the Bible mentions places that are real and that some of the people in it really existed, but with so many things now disproven, you have to approach these “Discoveries” with a critical mind and really do the research.
Not to be in any way critical or dismissive of you, but I have found that many Christians lie about this stuff. Lie about things found or interpretations or proofs they are advancing as real. And it will only get worse as the sciences continue to disprove the old myths.
You write:
“When I posted the excerpt it was not highlight the credibility of the individuals – Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray, rather it was to demonstrate that even the authors of the Time Magazine article that you cited in your original post would surely have some skeletons in their professional closet if one is to stringently search.”
I’m pretty sure everyone on earth has something in their closet they would not want to divulge. I found the article to be pretty dispassionate and neutral. They reported on the research as they found it without trying to slant it one way or another. Of course because they were reporting on some stuff that was showing the Bible to not be as accurate or truthful as some people would like, there is bound to be dissention and cries of foul.
You write:
“There would always be advocates and oppositions to every science and scriptures, scientists agree on a number of issues at some point then later we find an element of disagreement is sparked which sets out a chain of alarmists (some who were originally in agreement), fighting to protect their professional credibility. Likewise so it is with biblical scholars, (personally I pay little attention to some of their conclusions), there are seldom if any agreement on interpretations of scriptures.”
You are always going to find some degree of disagreement among scientists…that is the way it works. New information comes in and sometimes it will put the old “truths” in doubt. Then follows the period of trying to prove whether the “new” will displace the “old.” And the real evidence is what counts in the end, not whether more people believe one way or not. It’s a matter of proofs…not opinion.
Lately it’s been the controversy over Exodus and Moses and Genesis. The majority of the science is saying that the old stories are myths. Those old sheep herders 3,000 years ago had no clue that men would be able to research their myths as we can today. Back then people really believed in magic and witches and demons and such crap. Today we know better…thankfully.
You write:
“No one living or dead was ever in the possession of absolute truth save Christ. For example, the hot topic of climate change has spurned various positions from Al Gore wanting to charge people for breathing to the English government wanting to pass legislation for population reduction. There is absolutely no agreement amongst advocates of the rapture doctrines, the argument has degenerated into them calling each other heretics.”
You’re right in that no one has the absolute truth; I know I will always be searching. At some point in the search though you find yourself at a place where you decide one way or another on the truths you have found so far. Do I have enough information on ‘XYZ’ to come down on the “Truth” side, or the “False” side? On many Biblical matters I have come across so much information on so much of it that I really have to conclude it’s not true or reliable or authoritative.
Much of the evidence that I know of is not direct, i.e. there is no direct evidence that allows me to say God exists or not. But there is circumstantial evidence that allows me to make the claims that I do make. For example…we know for a fact (yes this has been proven so well that it’s accepted as fact by scientists) that Homo-sapiens (modern man) has been upon the earth for at least 200,000 years and has slowly advanced in knowledge and capabilities. The Bible says that man was created 6,000+- years ago and had practically all the knowledge he needed to survive immediately. This is so obviously not true it’s laughable. The evidence is overwhelming.
The Bible says that there was a world-wide flood and that all peoples alive today are descended from Noah’s 3 sons and wives. ALL the geological and archaeological says there was never a world-wide flood. ALL of the DNA evidence says we come from Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago and we have literally thousands of relatives. The maternal line can be traced back 150,000+- years and the paternal line about 50,000+- years. Noachian flood is total myth.
The Bible says that all the different languages of man came about from “The Tower of Babel” incident, roughly 4,000 years ago. Again, this is so not true. Men have been ALL over the earth for tens of thousands of years, and I’ll give you odds that they were not speaking the same language…we are pretty sure language has been around for at least 50,000 years. The Native Americans here in the US–15,000 years ago, were not speaking Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever language the people in the Middle East were, the Chinese and Japanese were not speaking the same languages 10,000 years ago, nor were the East Indies. Tower of Babel is total myth.
The whole of the Exodus story has been up in the air for hundreds of years…there is no supporting evidence. This supposedly happened at a time when most of the Middle East was literate…no one, other than whoever wrote the Hebrew story (not Moses), has written anything supporting the myth. Archaeologists have been looking for 150+- years for supporting physical evidence in the Sinai desert…nothing, even though they find evidence of peoples from thousands of years earlier.
The foundational stories of God and the Bible do not stand up as true…there is no convincing evidence to support any of Genesis or Exodus…the very foundation of the stories/Christianity are just myths, made up by men in an age that believed in magic.
So we are back at what I have been saying for awhile now…
No Adam and Eve…no original sin…no need for Jesus.
No Noachian flood
No Tower of Babel
No Exodus
These are proven circumstantially by science that is accepted by most all scientists.
The stories you mention of Esau, Jacob, Isaac, Laban, etc., are just stories meant to further the agenda of the Hebrew hierarchy and priesthood, they have no relevance to humankind in our age. They are simple allegories and entertainment for children.
I do not force my views down anybodies throat, I just write about them and put them ‘out there’ in the hope that it may make some people think and realize that there is more to this life and earth and universe than what they see now with the shutters of religion they wear so proudly.
twom
Are you an atheist or an agnostic?
Atheist
“We marvel at how the Lord has preserved these sites intact through the course of history.”
Wabd, a true Christian does not marvel at something the Lord has preserved; a Christian does not marvel at anything God has done, for God is all-powerful. God can do anything.
For some reason, you can’t accept, without marveling about it, a central tenet of your own faith: your god can do anything.
If you were a true Christian, you’d be right to marvel if you thought there was something your god could not do.
Hello twom,
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I think it is presumptuous to say;
No Adam and Eve…no original sin…no need for Jesus.
No Noachian flood
No Tower of Babel
No Exodus
You require proof as determined largely through standards created by fallible man, when the things you seek is beyond what man may deem to be perfect.
Upon examining your pursuits, it is akin to the Atheist trying to prove a negative which is impossible. The question is why? Why view God as a negative and try to prove there is no God? In fact, seeking these proofs are contrary to the nature of an atheist which does not believe in anything spiritual when it is the spiritual force of darkness that is manipulating your every thought and word. You don’t believe in good but you yield to the bad.
Twom doesn’t need my help. However, the reason your argument fails, wabd, is that you argue two, contradictory things.
1) There may be evidence for God, although it’s (for now) absent
and
2) We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.
Yet you try to logically defend your own position, with argument about the proof and its absence.
Make up your mind. Either you’re trying to write in a reasoned way, or you’re saying reason doesn’t count. You change your arguments to keep your central belief intact.
On the other hand, someone who thinks rationally can stay consistent with their views. Thus, I depend on reason, all the time, to inform me about the surrounding world.
You just pick and choose. “Absence of proof,” switches to “beyond…perfect.
Just what is perfection? For you, wadb, it’s “proof.”
“Why view God as a negative and try to prove there is no God?”
I might as well ask why you don’t believe in the Hindu gods, like Shiva, or the Greek Gods, like Zeus.
The question for you, wabd, is why? Why view Shiva as a negative?
We here know why you view Shiva as a negative. You don’t see any proof the Shiva (or Zeus) exists.
You’re an common atheist, wabd. You don’t believe in deities millions have and do believe in.
“You don’t believe in good but you yield to the bad.”
My, my, you are judgmental.
So, why don’t you believe in the Hindu gods or the Greek gods or the Hawaiian gods or the Hutu gods?
Hi Wabd, thanks for reply.
You write:
“Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I think it is presumptuous to say;No Adam and Eve…no original sin…no need for Jesus.
No Noachian flood
No Tower of Babel
No Exodus”
The quote you use above is not quite relevant in this case. Regarding Adam and Eve there is tremendous evidence that they DID NOT exist…not lack of evidence that they did, and it follows that if they did not exist then there was no original sin…therefore no need for Jesus. This is fact, not theory.
The absence of evidence in regards the Noachian flood is verified in all of geology and other earth sciences…it is at the point now where there is real confidence that this story is nothing but myth…only fundagelicals believe this anymore. This is myth, not a factual story.
The myth of the Tower of Babel is like the case of Adam and Eve. There is tremendous irrefutable evidence that mankind was spread all over the earth at the time of the story. Again this is fact, not theory.
The story of the Exodus does fall under the absence of proof theory, but for over 150 years of archaeology in the lands reputed to be involved there has been no evidence found…I’m leaving this story up in the air for now, but I expect it will fairly soon fall into the myth category.
You write:
“You require proof as determined largely through standards created by fallible man, when the things you seek is beyond what man may deem to be perfect.”
Well I think man can find and certify truth in the natural physical world…we have been doing it for many years. It may be sad for you that some of these natural physical facts are disproving the Bible…but it is happening, and it is real.
You write:
“Upon examining your pursuits, it is akin to the Atheist trying to prove a negative which is impossible. The question is why? Why view God as a negative and try to prove there is no God? In fact, seeking these proofs are contrary to the nature of an atheist which does not believe in anything spiritual when it is the spiritual force of darkness that is manipulating your every thought and word. You don’t believe in good but you yield to the bad.”
Well although I did not come up with (originate) the evidence on the items we discussed above, the evidence is there and no one was trying to disprove the Bible or religion when the original work was done. One just has to search disparate science fields and be alert to knowledge that may impinge on the scriptures.
I don’t believe God is a negative, I view God as a non-entity, and I do not have spiritual darkness enveloping me. I also believe in good and do NOT yield to the bad. Contrary to what you may think, I am not an agent of Satan…Satan does not exist, nor do demons or angels or witches.
This is a natural world…there is no magic…never was.
Hi twom,
You wrote, “Regarding Adam and Eve there is tremendous evidence that they DID NOT exist…”
How can there be tremendous evidence that they DID NOT exist? Again, to an atheist, it’s trying to prove a negative. It brings me back to my statement, Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I am posting something I read on a website for your review and comments.
Virtually all cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA. DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by DNA you inherited from your parents.
In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual’s mother and half from the father. Because both halves are shuffled together, it is difficult to identify which parent contributed any tiny segment. In other words, half of this DNA changes with each generation. However, outside the nucleus of each cell are thousands of little energy-producing components called mitochondria, each containing a circular strand of DNA. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes only from the mother. Where did she get hers? From her mother—and so on. Normally, mtDNA does not change from generation to generation.
In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the world’s geographic locations.2 They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. She is now called “the mitochondrial Eve.”
From a biblical perspective, do we know where Eve lived? Because the flood was so destructive, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was.4 However, Noah’s three daughters-in-law, who lived only a dozen or so generations after Eve, began raising their families near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey—very near the common boundary of Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Each of us can claim one of Noah’s daughters-in-law as our ever-so-great grandmother.) So it is not surprising that Asia, Africa, and Europe are candidate homes for mitochondrial Eve.
Likewise, when similar words, sounds, and grammar of the world’s most widely spoken languages are traced back in time, they also seem to originate near Ararat.5 Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.6
When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimpanzees differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 10,000 years.” Another erroneous approach began by assuming that Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years provided another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.8 This surprised evolutionists who believe that our common ancestor was an apelike creature that lived 31/2 million years ago.9
A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than had been estimated. Without assuming that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 5 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.10
Is there a “genetic Adam”? A man receives from his father a segment of DNA which lies on the Y chromosome; this makes him a male. Where did your father receive his segment? From his father. If we all descended from one man, all males should have the same Y chromosome segment—except for rare mutations.
A 1995 study of a worldwide sample of 38 men showed no changes in this segment of the Y chromosome that is always inherited from fathers. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived 500,000 years ago, each should carry about 19 mutations. Had he lived 150,000 years ago, 5.5 mutations would be expected.11 Because no changes were found, our common father probably lived only thousands of years ago. While Adam was father of all, our most recent common male ancestor was Noah.
Yes, new discoveries show that we carry traces of Adam and Eve in our cells. Furthermore, our common “parents” are probably removed from us by only 200–300 generations. All humans have a common and recent bond—a family bond. We are all cousins.
We’ll tackle the rest soon, looking forward to your comments.
Hi Wabd,
Short reply…late here…will give longer response tomorrow.
Mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000 to 160,000 years ago in Africa.
Y-Chromosomal Adam live about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago…also in Africa.
It is believed by many that humans first appeared in the Ethiopian area, with some scientists holding out for an area near the Namibian and South African border. Check out the San peoples.
wabd, now you’re stealing words from other people without attribution. Clearly this is not something you could write about on your own.
In your previous comments, you told us we can’t really use human standards to understand your god, yet here you are, a few hours later, quoting what you think is science to “prove” your point.
Note also, that “Eve” is not the first human, only the first modern human.
Hello twom,
You wrote:
Mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000 to 160,000 years ago in Africa.
Y-Chromosomal Adam live about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago…also in Africa.
Your statements are based on scientific findings, what I posted is also based on scientific findings, it is yet another example of man’s fallibility. While there is only one way to be right, there are a million + ways to be wrong.
Clearly science and archaeological attempts to prove or disprove biblical teachings are fraught with a million + theories/opinions which cannot and should not be counted as absolutes. Here we have one subject matter – Adam and Eve and science cannot agree but yet it is viewed as proof that the biblical Adam and Eve DID NOT exist. The question then is which group of science is right or wrong, I value neither, however as an atheist you choose that which best expresses your preference in order to validate your opinion. The bible is unchanged in its representation of Adam and Eve, there are no multiple theories/opinions expressed, their existence was stated and their genealogy follows, constant proof.
Anyway let’s see what you have to offer and I am certain it would support my point.
Hi Wabd, thanks for your reply.
You write:
“How can there be tremendous evidence that they DID NOT exist? Again, to an atheist, it’s trying to prove a negative. It brings me back to my statement, Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I am posting something I read on a website for your review and comments.”
National Geographic and IBM completed a study in 2009 where they took DNA samples from over 300,000 people and traced the bloodlines back to the beginning. Every one traced back to Africa and the oldest is about 200,000 yo. These are the bloodlines of all of us. So if Adam and Eve are our ancestors then they lived about 200,000 years ago. Go here for the story.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
Are you taking your info from peer reviewed Journals or from religious sites? Creationists do have some scientists that are writing for them, but they never submit their work to any of the science journals for peer review. No peer review, most (98%) scientists will not accept the work…nor will I.
As for the Noachian flood I suggest you go to these sites here and here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
You write:
“From a biblical perspective, do we know where Eve lived? Because the flood was so destructive, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was.4 However, Noah’s three daughters-in-law, who lived only a dozen or so generations after Eve, began raising their families near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey—very near the common boundary of Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Each of us can claim one of Noah’s daughters-in-law as our ever-so-great grandmother.) So it is not surprising that Asia, Africa, and Europe are candidate homes for mitochondrial Eve.
Regarding the flood…it never happened. Religious people from the 1600’s were already beginning to doubt the Biblical flood story, and after nearly 400 years of science the flood is disproven, even Catholics and mainline protestant denominations accept this. The REAL science to prove a flood is non-existent.
Regarding Adam and Eve and our geographical origins see article on National Geographic’s website above. Also you might want to peruse my page on the human prehistoric timeline: https://thewordofme.wordpress.com/human-prehistoric-timeline/
You write:
“Likewise, when similar words, sounds, and grammar of the world’s most widely spoken languages are traced back in time, they also seem to originate near Ararat.5 Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.6”
What language do you suppose the early immigrants to North America about 15,000 years ago were speaking? How about the Mastodon hunters in the American Southwest around 10,000 years ago…they left their Clovis style spear points in the carcasses of the Mastodons they killed. What were the Bushmen in Australia around 40,000 years ago speaking? How about the Cro-Magnons in France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Italy around 35,000 to 45,000 years ago? What were the Jomon people of Japan speaking 18,000 years ago as they made their pottery? How about the Chinese 10,000 years ago? What were the San people of South Africa speaking 50,000 years ago as they hunted their prey?
Somehow religious fundamentalist people have come to believe that there was no world outside the Middle East during biblical times. There were millions of sentient and very smart humans living ALL over the world thousands of years before the Supposed “Creation-of-the-World,” by Yahweh, around 4,000-5,000 BC.
You Write:
“…Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.6”
Yes, we know that the change from hunter-gatherer to farming began around the Turkey, Iran, and Iraq area roughly 8,000 to 5,000 BC. By the way there is a beautiful find of an ancient (9,000 BC) religious temple found in Gobeckli-Tepe in modern day Turkey. Go here for views. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html
You write:
“… led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.8 This surprised evolutionists who believe that our common ancestor was an apelike creature that lived 31/2 million years ago.9”
Modern humans—Homo-sapiens—have been traced to roughly 200,000 years ago. Our predecessors such as Homo-ergaster, Homo-habilis, Homo-neanderthalis, etc., go back several million years…we are the only surviving members of the “Homo” line. The last in the line before us, Homo-neanderthalis, died out about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
You write:
“Yes, new discoveries show that we carry traces of Adam and Eve in our cells. Furthermore, our common “parents” are probably removed from us by only 200–300 generations. All humans have a common and recent bond—a family bond. We are all cousins.”
There are no “new discoveries” that show we carry traces of Adam and Eve. This is silly, we don’t know or have samples of anything considered to be from Adam and Eve, and we never will; how could we say that? You are using old creationist stories that have been disproven many times over and long ago.
twom
Hello twom,
Here’s is an excerpt from an article written about the discovery of Göbekli Tepe. Before the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, archaeologists believed that societies in the early Neolithic were organized into small bands of hunter-gatherers and that the first complex religious practices were developed by groups that had already mastered agriculture. Scholars thought that the earliest monumental architecture was possible only after agriculture provided Neolithic people with food surpluses, freeing them from a constant focus on day-to-day survival. A site of unbelievable artistry and intricate detail, Göbekli Tepe has turned this theory on its head.
Again I reiterate that man’s fallibility is at work in the atheist proof. What happens when something else is allegedly found that disproves the findings at Göbekli Tepe? You see it can go on and on because there is only one right while there are a million + wrongs. How can you use instances that are clearly subject to change scientifically or archaeologically at the next discovery?
As for talkorigins.org it is plain as daylight that there is biased reporting based on circular logic.
The same can be said about the national geographic society and cannot be considered as a source for unbiased reporting.
Earlier I wrote,
“Clearly science and archaeological attempts to prove or disprove biblical teachings are fraught with a million + theories/opinions which cannot and should not be counted as absolutes.”
In your provision of proofs by your measure, you present arguments that are founded under theories and speculations and in order to substantiate your ‘evidence’ you must have a base and that base is the existence of God. You need an objective source because atheism in itself is illogical.
Logic is rational, but atheism presupposes that everything comes from material sources. Logic isn’t material, so atheism lacks any objective source for logic. Without an objective source for logic, atheism cannot employ logic. Therefore atheism is self refuting. Since atheism is refuted, theism must be true. God exists.
There are no absolutes to the ‘proofs’ that you provided since they are subject to change at the next scientific or archaeological discovery as well your other sources are rooted in bias reporting. I was watching a documentary on crocodiles and the narrator said that the croc has evolved little over the last 80 million years, the same channel reported that the earth is 65 million years old. There is no constancy in your source of ‘proof or evidence.’
Hi Wabd,
You write:
“I was watching a documentary on crocodiles and the narrator said that the croc has evolved little over the last 80 million years, the same channel reported that the earth is 65 million years old. There is no constancy in your source of ‘proof or evidence.’”
There is no scientist on earth that believes the earth is 65 million years old. That’s your problem you are watching crazy documentaries.
Your reply above makes no sense at all.
Hello twom,
The point I was making is that your brand of proof be it scientific or archaeological or any other form of the natural’s man logic is not conclusive, it’s all about entertainment. You supplied information on a ‘new discovery’ – Göbekli Tepe which has yielded new evidence or proof that has refuted previous claims; Scholars thought that the earliest monumental architecture was possible only after agriculture provided Neolithic people with food surpluses, freeing them from a constant focus on day-to-day survival. A site of unbelievable artistry and intricate detail, Göbekli Tepe has turned this theory on its head.
The list of these refuting previous discoveries, theories and what was thought to be scientific facts goes on and on. The bottom line being it’s all good for entertainment and has no place in the category of absolute proofs. Can you imagine if the national geographic society airs a program that confirms creation as it is written in the bible? I will wager it would their last broadcast because after that there is nothing else-it’s absolute. But if the theories continue being the base of their operations; scientist, archaeologists and others of the like are guaranteed their 15 mins of fame until the next upstart comes along with new discoveries and theories.
For years the world has been entertained with a ‘scientific fact’ that Pluto was a planet, now scientist in the same field are saying it’s not – what do we have; the next in the series of entertainment. Some upcoming scientist is going to receive a hefty grant, the media is foaming at the mouth for broadcast rights, the marketing people are busy at work with little snippets of previews to peek the curiosity of the viewing public and finally the program is aired with all the glamor and pomp befitting the next Star Wars episode.
For one hour or so we inundated with new theories, discoveries and refuting evidence about what previously existed. The sponsors have their day in the sun as well and the ratings come in, everyone is happy and the discussion ensues with what’s next?
I must acknowledge your comments though, ‘That’s your problem you are watching crazy documentaries.’ You are absolutely right because the source of information is from the unbelieving fragment of society who are only interested in the what’s next in entertainment. Whether you agree with me or not, the point is that your sources of proofs are highly subjective rather than objective. To be objective requires logical reasoning and this is trait that cannot be used by you or others who have called themselves atheist. Here’s why you will never be the holder of absolute truth;
Logic is rational, but atheism presupposes that everything comes from material sources. Logic isn’t material, so atheism lacks any objective source for logic. Without an objective source for logic, atheism cannot employ logic. Therefore atheism is self refuting. Since atheism is refuted, theism must be true. God exists.
Hello Wabd, thanks for your reply.
You write:
“The point I was making is that your brand of proof be it scientific or archaeological or any other form of the natural’s man logic is not conclusive, it’s all about entertainment…”
So my proofs that the sun is 93 million miles away from the earth, or Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79AD and covered the towns of Pompeii, Stabiae, and Herculaneum, or there is life adapted to living next to volcanic vents 8,500 feet below the ocean surface is BS?
How about the proofs that humans were living in British Columbia around 9,000 years ago, or the earth was locked into an ice-age 20,000 years ago, but humans were still living in England and France and Germany and many other places close to the ice? How about the proofs we have of people living all over South America when a supposed God created Adam and Eve?
How about the proofs we have of Egypt never even seeing Noah’s flood or its society being disrupted by it? How about the proofs we have that the Indus Valley civilization lived right through Noah’s flood without any disruption at all, as did China and every other ancient civilization we have found so far? How about the proofs we have found that the earth was never in its 4.5 billion year life completely covered with water?
How about the proofs we find about the age of the earth and our solar system and our universe? How about the proofs we have for the magnetosphere that protects the earth from solar radiation and the electromagnetic spectrum that we exploit for our local and world-wide communications?
How about the proofs we have that smoking is bad for you, and a glass of red wine is good for you? How about the proofs we have about global warming (this one’s a little iffy) :-), and the proofs we have that etchings on a little substrate of silicon can allow us to make computers, cell phones, and literally thousands of electronic devices that either make our life’s better or ruin it, depending on your point of view?
Or is it that you only disagree with the science and proofs that somehow impinges on your belief in a sky fairy??? Science can do all these other things but stay away from trying, even somehow accidentally, to prove that God does not exist.
The other science you believe in, but archaeology, paleography and such, you just *know* is specious because you have studied all of them, and you know it is a plot to subvert religion.
Every fundamentalist I have ever corresponded with uses pretty much the same argument when they are confronted with the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong in their beliefs. Yours is perhaps a little more cerebral, but deep down it’s the same.
As science keeps advancing and learning more and more about our world every day and the proofs about these religious claims amass, and they will, it would be interesting to see how your position fares, in say, 20 years. You see in the last 150-200 years the Bibles position keeps getting more precarious. We now know how false it is…seminary colleges are even now telling their students the truths…and some don’t like it.
Read some of Bart Ehrman or Daniel Dennett and learn about the teaching of our ministers and pastors in today’s world.
twom
Hello twom,
Thanks for yet another well researched response.
Not to confuse science as being imperfect in its general application. Science, archaeology or other natural man’s logic is imperfect when used to disprove the existence of God.
Twom we all use a form of science or scientific discoveries in our lives everyday, that is fact, but it cannot be used to replace God. This is why idolatry is considered a sin; if you carve an idol from a piece if wood then place it on a shelf and bow down and worship it, then you have to be a real Jack Ass to subject yourself to what you have created. That is why God is worshiped because we are His creation not the opposite.
I read briefly the biography of Bart Ehrman and Daniel Dennett, this is what God’s word said about men of these character; (Mat 24:4) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray. (24:5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray.(1Ti 4:1) But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, (4:2) through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron.
I have watched the series – Planet Earth on the discovery channel and have found it to be very educational and I am looking forward to the next series; Life. Science is exceptional is using material sources and explaining the instincts of animals and why they behave the way they do. But science cannot explain where instincts came from or why they have them.
Hi Wabd, thanks for replying.
You write:
“Not to confuse science as being imperfect in its general application. Science, archaeology or other natural man’s logic is imperfect when used to disprove the existence of God.
The science I use to determine that Adam and Eve are non-existent characters and the Tower of Babel never happened was *not done* to prove or disprove these particular things. It is the science of human ancestry…the science of unearthing and the study of old bones and old habitats. It has been studied for more than a hundred years and it is a real science. It is peer reviewed and considered factual. The people that do this kind of science are not claiming that their work disproves God…I am.
They say, and they can back it up with recognized scientific facts and artifacts, that humans have been living on earth for 200,000 years, and pre-humans for 2 million or more years. They can also tell us with scientific backup that is universally recognized as true, that humans have been spread all over the earth for tens of thousands of years…the ONLY ones who dispute this are evangelical fundamentalists (fundagelicals), and so far, even their quasi-scientific “experts” have all been proven (with logic and demonstrable facts) wrong.
Science is not different when applied to questions of God. The paleontologists who did the work on our ancient ancestor’s bones were not out to disprove the Bible…but, they did and the work stands up because it is true. Just because it disproves something from the Bible doesn’t mean that suddenly it’s not true.
The same goes for the science that disproves Noah’s Ark. The geologists aren’t working to disprove an old Biblical myth…they are working to understand our earth and the processes and forms it goes through. The only believers in a Noachian flood are, again, the fundagelicals. The science behind the “no world-wide flood has ever happened” is real and indisputable, and the geologists just went about their jobs, not trying to disprove anything, but the evidence they came up with does tell us that a flood, such as the Bible relates, never happened.
We are talking about real physical evidence, the kind you can hold in your hand and weigh and photograph not some fleeting thought from some professor setting in an ivory tower using mental gymnastics to somehow prove or disprove something.
Yes scientific evidence can be proven…and used to disprove parts of the Bible and to cast much doubt on the reality of a man-made God. Evidence is evidence no matter what it is used for. It does not mean one thing when applied to mythical creatures and another when applied to the real physical world.
You write:
“I read briefly the biography of Bart Ehrman and Daniel Dennett, this is what God’s word said about men of these character; (Mat 24:4) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray. (24:5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray.(1Ti 4:1) But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, (4:2) through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron.”
The men spoken of are good men; Bart Ehrman was a man of the cloth for many years and has only fairly recently determined that religion is not very truthful. Mr. Dennett is a Doctor of Philosophy and very smart man who determined long ago that religion was a con. Neither man is a demon, or Satan…this belief is silly. The Bible has these little scriptures spread all over the place, to be used to keep the riff-raff under control. Since so much of the Bible has been disproven; do they really make sense anymore?
twom
Hello twom,
You wrote, “The men spoken of are good men; Bart Ehrman was a man of the cloth for many years and has only fairly recently determined that religion is not very truthful. Mr. Dennett is a Doctor of Philosophy and very smart man who determined long ago that religion was a con. Neither man is a demon, or Satan…this belief is silly. The Bible has these little scriptures spread all over the place, to be used to keep the riff-raff under control. Since so much of the Bible has been disproven; do they really make sense anymore?”
“The men spoken of are good men.” By what standard do you determine that they are “good”, Jesus said no man is good only God alone. You attribute standards to men that was established by God, how can this be when you don’t believe in the existence of God?
Mankind is a species of animal, but when a man commits murder for example he is hunted down, brought to trial, convicted and sentenced. I have seen documentaries with chimps (another species of animals) kill other chimps for mates and food, why don’t they face the same punishment? But we have established codes of conduct, don’t we? We can kill our enemies in wars and it is not considered murder, what then is the quality of our conduct? What makes another man our enemy?
“Neither man is a demon, or Satan…this belief is silly. The Bible has these little scriptures spread all over the place, to be used to keep the riff-raff under control. Since so much of the Bible has been disproven; do they really make sense anymore?”
As Christians we abide by codes of conduct that originate from God, but when we apply these codes to the nature of men, we are riff-raff, but when you (atheist) do with your so called created legalistic systems it is, as bias as it is, considered doing the right thing! Isn’t this hypocrisy?
You spoke of universal recognized truth, I am part of the universe, I wasn’t called to validate the standards used but I must accept it as truth because others say that it is! Today we have evidence that data from scientist about global warming and climate change were doctored by leading scientist and although contested by their ‘peers’, they have, through the media, lobbyist and others sought to tarnish the reputation of the those that object to the fraudulent findings.
You use the absence of proof to validate the proof of absence, but when the proof is made available, the pomp and fanfare are subdued with a little snippet on the nightly news. For years science and others were claiming that King David did not exist either, but when evidence was found that you can literally hold in the palm of your hand, you don’t the apologetics coming out.
Twom, I’m not saying that science and the like is bad or evil in some way, I am saying that they are inadequate when it comes to the existence of God. God is spirit, science is material. The discipline is overshadowed with theories, unvalidated standards and suppositions, there are no clear distinctions and truths are constantly evolving, go figure! You cannot use obviously deeply flawed disciplines as a source of absolutes my friend. I draw from your example of the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, that supposedly has been around for thousands of years and only now discovered and already has yielded new evidence or proof that has refuted previous claims.
“Mr. Dennett is a Doctor of Philosophy and very smart man who determined long ago that religion was a con.” There are several ‘smart men’ that the world has seen its share of, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, George Bush Jr., Genghis Khan etc. what about those brainiacs that created chemical weapons and nuclear bombs and those who created subprime mortgages and fictitious stocks, and those psychos that sit around all day thinking up ways to rob, cheat and kill-they are not idiots, it takes an immense amount of brain power to do the things that these people do. Do you place Mr. Dennett in the same category of smarts, or is there a separate category?
wabd wrote:
“You attribute standards to men”
Yes, correct.
“that was established by God, how can this be when you don’t believe in the existence of God?”
YOU believe such standards were established by your god, wabd. Since people like twom and other atheists don’t believe in god, then yes, they believe moral standards established by men.
That you are unable to see this is part of why it’s difficult to hold a conversation with you. Atheists can distinguish differences between belief and non-belief, but fundamentalists like you can only see the world one way, through the lens of faith.
Actually, atheists are far more moral than people like you are. You rely on the word of your god for your morals. You think your morality comes from your god.
And if your god changed his mind and said, “Hey, wabd, kill your son,” you would believe him and you would kill your son (remember Abraham?)
Atheists would never change their moral code as easily as you. They know that it would be wrong to change their moral values and kill their children.
But you would kill your children. You would kill your son, you would sleep with other men’s wives, you would rape virgins if thought your god told you to. And these are all things your god has in fact commanded men to to, as it states in your holy book.
Atheists generally wouldn’t rape anyone, or sleep with another man’s wife, just because a god changed it’s mind. If they did those things, they would know it was wrong.
But if God said, “Kill your child,” you would do it and think it right.
Theists – fundamentalists like you – have a very flexible moral system; you are a moral relativist. You only give lip service to the idea that your values are absolute. You would change you beliefs in a moment if you thought your god wanted you to.
Atheists, on the other hand, have a far more instinctual understanding of what’s right and wrong. Atheists KNOW murder and lying and cheating are wrong.
But you, wabd, only think those things are wrong because your god says so. If your god commanded you to lie and cheat and murder, you would do it.
” Today we have evidence that data from scientist about global warming and climate change were doctored by leading scientist”
No we don’t. This is a belief wedged only in your mind. You haven’t actually examined what’s occurred with global warming, you’ve only read the side you believe in, the right-wing religious side of things.
But wait, you think evidence doesn’t count, remember, wabd? You think some things are beyond man’s capacity to understand.
I agree, I think you fail to understand many things, and not just things related to your god, but related the world of men, too. You just don’t have the intellectual fiber and/or you’re too lazy to actually think for yourself.
The best you can do is parrot what you hear from people who you trust. You don’t think for yourself.
So, when something doesn’t make sense to you, it’s because you don’t “understand” the mysterious ways of your god.
And when your leaders tell you something is good or bad, true or false, you believe them. Not because you’ve looked into what your leaders say, but because you haven’t looked into what your leaders say.
“You cannot use obviously deeply flawed disciplines as a source of absolutes my friend.”
Flawed or not, you are right, wabd. Science is not involved with absolutes. Science – that is, knowledge – can be revised.
But not religion. Religion is stuck in absolutes. But over time, bit by bit, faith, where it has been wrong, has had to retreat in the face of knowledge, of science.
Rainbows are not your god’s proof that he won’t flood the world again.
The earth is no the center of the universe, it isn’t flat, we can’t stand on the highest mountain and see all the world.
There was no Adam and Eve.
Light was not created before the stars that give us light.
The world was not created in 7 days.
Bit by bit by bit, religion has had to back off it’s claims about the world, until very little is left to religion.
Animals and plants were not created just as they are now.
Right now, you’re down to “Where does existence come from?” It’s the last big question, the last gap. It’s one science isn’t even worried about. It’s something, for now, unknowable.
People who have believed in a god have used the idea of god to answer all the unknowns, have used a god to fill in the gaps where the answers were missing.
Over time, though, the gaps have been filled in with knowledge. And your poor god has had to retreat every time.
I don’t expect you to understand that. Because, as you’ve said, you don’t understand your god.
Dear Dave,
“Atheists can distinguish differences between belief and non-belief, but fundamentalists like you can only see the world one way, through the lens of faith.”
Nothing could be further from the truth! Without faith in God no man can make that distinction.
“Actually, atheists are far more moral than people like you are. You rely on the word of your god for your morals. You think your morality comes from your god.”
Yes, the believer’s morality comes from God, but the believer’s failure to adhere 100% to God’s moral compass is not the fault of God but that of the believer who has fallen short of the glory of the living God. That is why we repent everyday and constantly seek knowledge from the Word on how we should spend our limited days on this evil/sinful planet.
“And if your god changed his mind and said, “Hey, wabd, kill your son,” you would believe him and you would kill your son (remember Abraham?)”
A lesson in Abraham would teach you that Abraham DID NOT kill his son to begin with! The true lesson given by Abraham’s example was a lesson in faith and obedience in the creator God. Abraham believed in the covenant that God made to make him the father of all nations. Even if he had sacrificed Isaac in obedience he was sure that God would have resurrected him to fulfill the covenant. That is the type of faith that most Christians yearn for, luckily for us in these times, we are governed by grace and not works.
“But you would kill your children. You would kill your son, you would sleep with other men’s wives, you would rape virgins if thought your god told you to. And these are all things your god has in fact commanded men to do, as it states in your holy book.”
Perhaps you can supply the verses that these things were alleged to have been commanded and I will explain if needs be why you have failed to see that it is not God’s failing but man’s when acts such as these are committed.
“Atheists, on the other hand, have a far more instinctual understanding of what’s right and wrong. Atheists KNOW murder and lying and cheating are wrong.”
Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, He warned us that we would tried, convicted and persecuted, some of us would be beheaded for our testimony. The patients of saints is to endure these things, those destined for captivity, to captivity they must go, those destined to be slain, death awaits them, but none shall pick up a sword, because if you live by the sword you shall die by the sword.
You wrote quite confidently, “Atheists KNOW murder and lying and cheating are wrong.” Well Sir a time will soon be upon us when your hand or forehead would be seared with the mark of your master and in your hand would be an axe and on the chopping block a saint that held his testimony of Christ. Would you disobey your master or would you hold to your atheist belief in what’s right from what’s wrong? Only time will tell.
” Today we have evidence that data from scientist about global warming and climate change were doctored by leading scientist”
No we don’t. This is a belief wedged only in your mind. You haven’t actually examined what’s occurred with global warming, you’ve only read the side you believe in, the right-wing religious side of things.
“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”
But Karlen clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive – more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year – not much of an effect,” Karl»n concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, “There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.”
Concerning Gore’s beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, “Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.”
Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”
In April sixty of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what’s at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request.
And there are lots and lots more. I am indifferent to the global warming fiasco. The Bible has this to say about climate change, the only mention of global warming is found in Revelation 15-16 where the seven bowl judgements cause the Sun to scorch men. This is right prior to the Battle of Armageddon and it does not last more than a few days.
In the end, the Bible does not indicate enough time before the End of the Age for gradual global warming to become a major factor, assuming that it even is happening yet. Fortunately or unfortunately, it will be pre-empted by other events, such as Wormwood and WWIII.
“Right now, you’re down to “Where does existence come from?” It’s the last big question, the last gap. It’s one science isn’t even worried about. It’s something, for now, unknowable.’
It is unknowable to unbelievers only. I know where existence come from, it is written in the Bible!
“A lesson in Abraham would teach you that Abraham DID NOT kill his son to begin with!”
And a lesson in what the Bible says apparently is LOST on you, wabd:
Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and TOOK THE KNIFE TO SLAY his son.
It’s not the act, it’s the willingness to kill his own child that marks Abraham as special.
Thanks for proving my point that Christians are less moral then atheists.
You’re so full of contradictory beliefs that you can’t bring yourself to remember what Abraham’s story means. It means believing something so strongly that it overrides your personal feelings.
You completely misunderstand the story of Abraham because you fail to see its metaphorical meaning.
Because you take the story literally – even if you won’t repeat to us or yourself what it really says – you don’t realize that your morality is relative, based on the whim of your god.
You, like Abraham, would be willing to do anything: murder your child, or rape your neighbor’s virgin daughter – because the god you believe in tells you to. Just like Abraham was willing to kill his son.
Atheists don’t have that issue. We know raping and murdering is wrong.
That’s why you’re not particularly moral, except that you fear your god’s wrath and judgement.
wabd, I would interested in knowing where in the Bible it says that:
“Even if he had sacrificed Isaac in obedience he was sure that God would have resurrected him to fulfill the covenant.”
For, while the OT and associated documents discuss resurrection, it doesn’t happen with the story of Abraham.
Correct me, though, if I’m wrong.
“Perhaps you can supply the verses that these things were alleged to have been commanded”
Not only do you not know your own bible, wabd, but you’re not reading the rest of twom’s posts. He offered up an enormous list of your god’s immoral commands and actions.
How is it you don’t know that after giving man free will, your god reneged on the deal and “hardened” Pharaoh’s heart?
Don’t you know your god commanded a man to sleep with the wives of another man?
Don’t you know your god let slip in the bible rules for taking care of slaves?
Don’t you know your god never said slavery was wrong?
God commits genocide (and throws in hemorrhoids) for good measure.
Deuteronomy 13:7-12: “If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods… kill him.”
Atheists wouldn’t do this. But you would.
(Gen 17:4) As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations.
Above is the covenant made with Abraham to make him the father of a multitude of nations.
(Gen 22:2) And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Above is God’s command to Abraham to test his faith and obedience.
(Gen 22:3) And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son. And he clave the wood for the burnt-offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
(Gen 22:4) On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
(Gen 22:5) And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship, and come again to you.
Above 3 verses, Abraham doing as God commanded. Take note of the phrase “and we will worship, and come again to you.” Abraham knew that it is through his seed Isaac that the covenant would be fulfilled. When he says that they will worship, and come again to you, he is affirming that both he and Isaac would return.
Whereas my understanding of Abraham’s story, you are not qualified to be a critic. You are an atheist and therefore spiritually inept as well as naturally void of any intelligence that is required to make such a claim. Stick to your make-up blind belief in your science, let me handle the bigger, more important issues of understanding the Word.
wabs lists several “experts” in an attempt to show that global warming isn’t due to human interaction with the environment.
This is hilarious (unintentionally so on wadb’s part) because he’s already claimed that we can’t know anything definitively from science, and then he goes ahead anyway and tries to debunk science with….yes….science.
Among his experts:
– Boris “Boba” Winterhalter
“Boba” is a retired marine researcher; he has never published a peer-reviewed article on global warming. (His four peer-reviewed articles are on marine geology.)
– Dr. Wibjorn Karlen
Karlen is listed as an “author” in a report on climate change released by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian “think tank” that has received $120,000 in funding from Exxon/Mobil.
Kerlan also worked for the “Natural Resources Stewardship Project” in Canada, funded by energy industries. The NRSP, by the way, doesn’t exist anymore.
– Prof. Bob Carter
He has admitted, ” “I don’t think it is the point whether you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry.”
Yes, he is paid by the fossil fuel industry.
– Dick Morgan (of the University of Exeter, emeritus)
Apparently he doesn’t exist, except in quotations of climate change deniers.
Exeter U., for example, doesn’t list him.
There’s no current information about a Dick Morgan anywhere on the Web, no contact page, no bio, nothing other than mentions of him on other websites, but nothing that leads to an actual Dr. Richard Morgan.
So “Dr. Moran,” like Jesus, exists only in wabd’s mind, and in the minds of the gullible – like wabd.
Let’s say it again: to “prove” his point that science isn’t science, wabd tries to show us what “scientiests” have to say about science.
And the “scientists” he chooses are:
– Paid by the energy industry (Karlen and Carter)
– Unpublished in the area of climate research (“Boba” Winterhalter)
– Imaginary (Dr. “Dick” Morgan, emeritus)
Not to mention that, by invoking the supposed work of those above, wabd reaches into the past, rather than including current research.
I would suggest that wabd check out this:
http://www.desmogblog.com/antarctica-losing-ice-quickly-melting-away-another-climate-skeptic-myth
for an overview of current knowledge, for example, of what’s happening with Antarctic glacial activity.
That would be asking a bit much of wabd, though, because he’d have to bone up a bit on an opposing viewpoint to his own.
God’s law forbids idol worship and there was a consequence of death in such an instance for anyone found disobeying this law.
It is not God that kills men, its men’s disobedience. The law is clear, the punishment is clear. If you break the law you face the punishment. An atheist such as yourself who has professing moral standards and being a law-abiding citizen should be able to relate to crime and punishment. That’s unless you are a hypocrite and only pay lip-service to your comments.
Because you have tunnel vision and can only see things in the material world, the Sovereignty of God escapes you, you somehow feel that you have morality but you are no more than dust in the wind, without God you are NOTHING. Fool yourself all you like, when you line up to receive the mark of the beast and the axe is handed to you to rape and kill your neighbor’s virgin daughter, then we’ll know how morally strong you are. This is your fate and the fate that will befall other atheists unless you are called by God to faith and if you are called, I pray that your ignorance would not keep you from salvation.
You talk about slavery, when an employer underpays and exploits his employee, do you come to his/her defense? I’m guessing, NO! That makes you just as guilty of modern day slavery.
When your commander in chief (Antichrist) calls you up to wage war against the saints, like a slave you’ll follow him because you don’t know the way to salvation.
Will you kill a man if you catch him raping an infant relative of yours or someone you know, or would you hold fast to your professed moral principles?
“When he says that they will worship, and come again to you, he is affirming that both he and Isaac would return.”
Plot holes, wabd, you’ve missed the plot holes big enough to drive the ass on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem.
According to you, Abraham believed his son would be resurrected (although such words aren’t used). In that case, Abraham knew the sacrifice wasn’t real. He and Isaac would walk back down their friends.
Either Abraham knew his son would be resurrected, or knew God wouldn’t carry through with the sacrifice.
Either way, there is no sacrifice, wabd. You have to sacrifice something for it to count as a sacrifice.
A sacrifice could have only resulted if Abraham did kill Isaac and if Abraham didn’t think he would come back to life.
Otherwise, where’s the sacrifice?
Beyond, that, it’s YOU who show a lack of knowledge about your own bible.
For example, what makes you think Abraham’s seed that would found a multitude of nations came from Isaac?
Have you not read:
“And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.” (Genesis 16:15)
“Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.” (Genesis 25:1-2)
“Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman.” (Galations 4:22)
How many sons did Abraham have? One? Six?
If you read you bible, you would know, wabd, that Isaac was a Jew, of whom God said:
“ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.”
So we don’t know that Issac was the one who carried Abraham’s seed forth to create nations.
Indeed, what are the multitude of nations founded by Jews, wabd? Which nations have been founded by the descendant of Isaac?
How do you know your god didn’t use the other sons of Abraham for the founding of nations?
You, wabd, are a fundamentalist and therefore spiritually inept as well as lacking any intellectual curiosity. Stick to your made-up, blind belief in your god, let me handle the bigger, more important issues of understanding the Word. 😉
“You talk about slavery, when an employer underpays and exploits his employee, do you come to his/her defense?”
You merely dodge this issue, wabd. YOU asked ME about your god’s immorality.
When I specifically point out God’s immoral behavior, you have respond with an ad hominem attack on me. You only repeat yourself, for above you’ve already said, “Jesus said no man is good only God alone.”
This only makes YOU look bad, because you are diverting attention from the real issue, your god’s immorality – we can clearly see from his acts that he is bad.
“Will you kill a man if you catch him raping an infant relative of yours or someone you know, or would you hold fast to your professed moral principles?”
How I act would specifically under certain circumstances has nothing to do with my general moral system.
This is why we have a legal system of courts and juries and prosecutors and defense lawyers ; otherwise, we could all be caught up in unending blood feuds, which in fact is what we see does happen in much of the world.
What about you? Would you, wabd, try to kill a man who you found raping your daughter?
“you somehow feel that you have morality but you are no more than dust in the wind”
wabd, it doesn’t follow, that because I have a moral system to which I adhere, that I claim to be more than dust in the wind. Yet you seem to think that coming up with a way to act morally is to claim to be a god.
So even if, metaphorically, I am only dust in the wind, I can still act morally.
Unlike you, I don’t rely on a god to give me my morals.
Hi Wabd, thanks for your reply.
You write:
“God’s law forbids idol worship and there was a consequence of death in such an instance for anyone found disobeying this law.”
Well all the Catholics in the world are going to face God’s wrath and die. As we all know they worship Mary’s likeness, the statue of Jesus, and all those saints and their statues. The Catholics don’t even come close to doing what the Bible says as relates to worshipping.
We also must remember that God has placed the sentence of death on many things in this world. You must not pick up firewood on the Sabbath; children must obey their parents and not taunt strangers with bald heads, you must not covet your neighbors Ferrari, or trophy wife. All these things, and more, bring the certainty of death saith the Lord your God. Sure going to be a lot of dead people in the world.
Did any person of religion happen to think that these old laws were for the societies of the times in which they were written, and don’t apply anymore…haven’t for a thousand years. No, most people of religion like to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe in. The Catholics were the ones who started it by up and deciding that Jesus was God and God was killing himself for the “sins” of man, which by the way do not exist.
You write:
“It is not God that kills men, its men’s disobedience. The law is clear, the punishment is clear. If you break the law you face the punishment. An atheist such as yourself who has professing moral standards and being a law-abiding citizen should be able to relate to crime and punishment. That’s unless you are a hypocrite and only pay lip-service to your comments.”
No, actually the law is not clear anymore, the protestants say that most (not all) of the Old Testament laws no longer apply because Jesus says so. Now Jesus says you deserve death if you just look at a woman and think of having sex with her. And who knows how many others were changed, which is strange because God never changes…the Bible says so.
You write:
“Because you have tunnel vision and can only see things in the material world, the Sovereignty of God escapes you, you somehow feel that you have morality but you are no more than dust in the wind, without God you are NOTHING. Fool yourself all you like, when you line up to receive the mark of the beast and the axe is handed to you to rape and kill your neighbor’s virgin daughter, then we’ll know how morally strong you are. This is your fate and the fate that will befall other atheists unless you are called by God to faith and if you are called, I pray that your ignorance would not keep you from salvation.”
The material/natural world is all there is my friend. All spiritual stuff is in your head; there is no magic or supernatural, or demons, or devils, or angels. I don’t rape or kill anyone and what the heck is it with this God that he is so concerned about foreskins ? 🙂
You write:
“You talk about slavery, when an employer underpays and exploits his employee, do you come to his/her defense? I’m guessing, NO! That makes you just as guilty of modern day slavery.”
Actually I do come to their defense in the only way I can; I vote for the candidate that is in favor of raising wages. Most modern-day slavery is in the way people of religion treat their women. The Muslims are the worst in the world at this, but we “Christians” are not terribly far behind. Women are NOT property and NOT a man’s chattel to do with as they choose.
You write:
“When your commander in chief (Antichrist) calls you up to wage war against the saints, like a slave you’ll follow him because you don’t know the way to salvation.”
I wage war against no one, and my only commander-in-chief is the sitting president. Well…I do actually wage war against ignorance.
You write:
“Will you kill a man if you catch him raping an infant relative of yours or someone you know, or would you hold fast to your professed moral principles?
Of course I would…wouldn’t you?
Hello twom,
Welcome back!
“Well all the Catholics in the world are going to face God’s wrath and die. As we all know they worship Mary’s likeness, the statue of Jesus, and all those saints and their statues. The Catholics don’t even come close to doing what the Bible says as relates to worshiping.”
Catholism is based on Cannon Laws for the most part, not all Catholics though subscribe to these laws and not all are Maryologist. I think it is unfair to make such a generalization, if we look at other Christian Religions there are a lot of non-righteous practices. You see twom, I am not oblivious to the shortcomings of religion, this is another example of man’s imperfection that requires God to amend through constant repentance. Like I said before ‘only God is good.’
“We also must remember that God has placed the sentence of death on many things in this world. You must not pick up firewood on the Sabbath; children must obey their parents and not taunt strangers with bald heads, you must not covet your neighbors Ferrari, or trophy wife. All these things, and more, bring the certainty of death saith the Lord your God. Sure going to be a lot of dead people in the world.”
The rigidity of the law was the old dispensation, it does not mean that the law is not to be obeyed. Jesus said that the law is now written on the hearts of men, He did not come to replace the law, He came to fulfill the law which is to take upon Himself, through His death, the punishment that accompanies the law. Hence we now live by grace.
Regarding some of the details that you wrote such as, “You must not pick up firewood on the Sabbath,” this is an example of man’s interference with the perfect law into a man-made law. The law was written in the Torah, over time the Pharisees modified the root laws to suit their lust for power and wealth, this is called the Talmud or spoken Torah. (Mat 23:23) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.
When Jesus and His disciples picked corn on the Sabbath, they were not breaking the root law but the amended Pharisees’ laws. There is a distinction!
“No, actually the law is not clear anymore, the protestants say that most (not all) of the Old Testament laws no longer apply because Jesus says so. Now Jesus says you deserve death if you just look at a woman and think of having sex with her. And who knows how many others were changed, which is strange because God never changes…the Bible says so.”
You are correct, God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, (thanks for that), to claim as some Protestants do that the law no longer applies is a mistake, Jesus said, (Mat 5:17) Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. (5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
“The material/natural world is all there is my friend. All spiritual stuff is in your head; there is no magic or supernatural, or demons, or devils, or angels. I don’t rape or kill anyone and what the heck is it with this God that he is so concerned about foreskins ? ”
Had a good laugh about your ‘foreskins’ comment! Seriously though, because the Non-Messianic Jews rejected the Messiah they are subject to the law until they call out for Jesus in the Great Tribulation to come, (Mat 23:39) For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Whereas circumcision is concerned, Paul had this to say, (Rom 2:28) For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: (2:29) but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
“Actually I do come to their defense in the only way I can; I vote for the candidate that is in favor of raising wages. Most modern-day slavery is in the way people of religion treat their women. The Muslims are the worst in the world at this, but we “Christians” are not terribly far behind. Women are NOT property and NOT a man’s chattel to do with as they choose.”
I admire you taking a stand, I was a trade unionist district chairman for 15 years, so i know the struggle first hand. Islam is man-made and would bear the imperfection of man, I am in agreement with you on that matter as well as how some Christians treat the fairer sex. The bible is clear about man’s responsibility to be a provider and protector of women, make no mistake though, a man is the leader of the home.
“Will you kill a man if you catch him raping an infant relative of yours or someone you know, or would you hold fast to your professed moral principles?
“Of course I would…wouldn’t you?”
I pray that God would shield my loved ones and all children from these heinous depraved acts. Honestly, I don’t know what I would do in such a situation! I have to trust that God will guide me in that moment.
I would like to add that I wrote the comments to Dave, you answered and I do appreciate your thoughts and comments.
“I don’t know what I would do in such a situation! I have to trust that God will guide me in that moment.”
Another example showing you aren’t capable of thinking for yourself, wabd.
“Whereas circumcision is concerned, Paul had this to say”
Twom asked you about your go’d obsession with foreskins, and you answer with comments by Paul.
This is just how you initially responded to comments about your god’s immoral behavior; you just blamed men for being immoral, rather than addressing the question in hand.
I see you still haven’t responded with any thoughts about your god’s atrocious behavior.
@ Dave,
“Another example showing you aren’t capable of thinking for yourself, wabd.”
When you are called to faith, you put your complete and utter trust in Christ, He has numbered every grain of hair that you have, such little things that are not important to us, is important to Him. This is His way of showing us that we should bring every aspect of our lives to Him in prayer and supplication. You can trust in your flawed science and immoral codes of so-called ethics, I will trust in God who knows EVERYTHING. What do you know? You are like a reed blowing in the wind, anywhere the wind blows you’ll follow. You say I’m incapable of thinking for myself, when in fact it is you who is devoid of any direction for your feeble, useless life without God in it as the head.
“Whereas circumcision is concerned, Paul had this to say”
Twom asked you about your go’d obsession with foreskins, and you answer with comments by Paul.”
Twom is capable of raising his own questions and comments, he does not require your help. Perhaps its because you are realizing how truly empty and loss your life is, that you are trying to fit in wherever you can? BTW the answer was appropriate to the context of the discussion as a whole.
“This is just how you initially responded to comments about your god’s immoral behavior; you just blamed men for being immoral, rather than addressing the question in hand.
I see you still haven’t responded with any thoughts about your god’s atrocious behavior.”
Who are we as mortal, perishable, corrupted flesh to question God’s sovereignty over His creation? God is not immoral or unjust in anyway whatsoever! You are trying in vain to apply man’s view of morality to the Creator, that’s a big no no, so don’t even bother to try. You can’t put God in a box and dictate how you, are useless, immoral, godless man believe God should behave. Why are you even bothered, when you don’t believe there’s a God?
There are only two types of people in the world; believers who give their lives in service to God’s will and unbelievers who give their lives to the devil unbeknown to them, they wander around fooling themselves that that the devil doesn’t exist. The greatest trick the devil played was to convince unbelievers that he does not exist! You are one such fool!
“When you are called to faith, you put your complete and utter trust in Christ,”
This is where we differ. I think you’re Christ is an imaginary figure (except that it exists as the dance of electro-chemical changes in your brain).
“You can trust in your flawed science”
There you go again. It’s perfectly OK for YOU to bring in science to prove your point (except that your we’ve seen your ideas of science, like the scientists- including one who is imaginary – you put forth, are bogus).
“god’s obsession with foreskins”
You still refuse to respond to the question – first twom’s and now mine. Claiming your answer was appropriate in context is mere avoidance of the question.
Of course, rather than parroting back something that seems close enough was the easy way for you, instead of thinking about the question and coming up with thoughtful answer.
“The greatest trick the devil played was to convince unbelievers that he does not exist! ”
Yet, according to you, your god created your devil. So your god is your ultimate trickster.
It’s little wonder you don’t want to deal with the contradictions inherent in your belief, wabd. If you did, you’d give up your faith and face the world head-on.
OK, enough. I apologize if I’ve gone over the line, and I’ll give you the last word, if you want it.
@ Dave
“When you are called to faith, you put your complete and utter trust in Christ,” This is where we differ. I think you’re Christ is an imaginary figure (except that it exists as the dance of electro-chemical changes in your brain).”
Well it’s your opinion of who or what Christ is. I know who He is and what He has done for me and in the final analysis it’s all that matters. I don’t have to prove my faith to you or anyone else.
“You can trust in your flawed science”
There you go again. It’s perfectly OK for YOU to bring in science to prove your point (except that your we’ve seen your ideas of science, like the scientists- including one who is imaginary – you put forth, are bogus).
I did not bring science in to prove anything except the fallibility of men. You are the one who is attempting through so-called science and other man created disciplines to disprove the existence of God.
“god’s obsession with foreskins”
You still refuse to respond to the question – first twom’s and now mine. Claiming your answer was appropriate in context is mere avoidance of the question.
Abraham was the first man that God commanded to perform the act of circumcision. It is helpful to note that Abraham himself was not a Jew, through his seed – Isaac who begat Jacob the Jewish nation came into being. Circumcision was given to establish the Jewish people as God’s chosen people, Israel is the bride of the living God. All generation hence were required to uphold the command of circumcision of the foreskin of all male children when they were 8 days old. When Christ came the circumcision became a spiritual circumcision of the heart. The rest can be added from my previous post in response to twom’s question. If God had commanded Abraham to cut-off his big toe as the command, then your question would be, what is God’s obsession with big toes? The answer would be the same.
“The greatest trick the devil played was to convince unbelievers that he does not exist! ”
Yet, according to you, your god created your devil. So your god is your ultimate trickster.
God created the angel Lucifer, the most beautiful of His angels – the devil is the fallen Lucifer. The devil opted not to worship God, instead he wanted to be worshiped as a God and he led 1/3 of the angels in a coup as it were to usurp God’s sovereignty and he and his minions would soon be cast down to earth (Revelations 3rd woe).
If you boiled a pot of water and someone puts his hand in it and gets burn, are you responsible for that person’s burns? Absolutely Not! It’s the free will of that person to choose to put his hand in or not to. (crude example). It’s the free will of the devil that led to his getting burned. God created the angels and man to worship Him, but He does not compel, He gave free will to His creation to do so. Can you compel anyone to love you? You can try but it would not be genuine! That’s why when I surrender my free will to Christ it is genuine and I demonstrate my commitment through my faith in Him for aspects of my life. We are all born with sin, when we are called to faith it’s the beginning of the process of being cleansed, eventually, through grace we are reconciled with the living God. So you see God IS NOT the ultimate trickster, its the choices that we make that sets the path our lives and death will take.
“It’s little wonder you don’t want to deal with the contradictions inherent in your belief, wabd. If you did, you’d give up your faith and face the world head-on.”
There are no contradictions inherent in my belief, I fully understand my imperfections and I am on the path to redemption. Faith is a gift from God that He nurtures through the Word. I exist in the world just as you do, I have chosen (free will) to come to faith and to grow in the knowledge of the Word through the grace that was made possible by Christ’s work on the cross. You (free will) chose another path, remember there are only two types of people – believers and unbelievers!