Dr. Brown offers seven principles to help you keep your spiritual focus and your faith strong while living in the midst of moral chaos and then responds to an opinion piece against the marriage amendment written by a Baptist pastor in Lexington, NC.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Whatever situation you are facing, and no matter how Hellish things are that surround you, Jesus is Lord! Our God continues to rule and reign, and He will bring light out of darkness, order out of chaos, and triumph out of defeat! Focus on Him and things will turn!
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is a call on the people of North Carolina to stand up and do what is right. There is a call for us to say we will do what is right regardless of cost, consequence, or backlash because we love people and we love God; therefore we will stand strong for righteousness in North Carolina and send a message to the Nation!
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
How to Be Led by The Spirit
Deepening Our Prayer Lives
Foundations of Prayer [mp3 CD]
Foundations of Intercession [mp3 CD]
Giants of the Faith [mp3 CD] with Dr. Brown: Experience the ministry and message of men and women of God who shook their world! Charles Finney, George Whitfield, John (Praying) Hyde, Smith Wigglesworth, John G. Lake, Maria Woodworth-Etter, John Alexander Dowie, and Adoniram Judson.
Boris,
What do you do with this:
“Revisionists insist there was no such entity as “Israel” until at least the 9th century BCE. Yet a well known Egyptian inscription dated to about 1210 BCE clearly identifies an Israel in the land of Canaan as a people that had to be reckoned with. The inscription, which depicts the victories of Pharaoh Merneptah in Canaan, reads in part: “Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more.”
How do revisionists react to this inscription? Dismissively. Says Dever: “They denigrate it as our only known reference. But one unimpeachable witness in the court of history is sufficient. There does exist in Canaan a people calling themselves Israel, who are thus called Israel by the Egyptians ― who after all are hardly biblically biased, and who cannot have invented such a specific and unique people for their own propaganda purposes.”
The above is from Archaeology and the Bible:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48939077.html
And this from the same article:
“Additionally, in the hill regions of Judea and Samaria (the heartland of ancient Israel), approximately 300 small agricultural villages were found, built between the 13-11th centuries BCE, the time period of the Israelite conquest of the land. According to Dever, this represented a large population increase that did not come from the native population. He writes, “Such a dramatic population increase cannot be accounted for by natural increase alone, much less by positing small groups of pastoral nomads settling down. Large numbers of people must have migrated here from somewhere else, strongly motivated to colonize an under populated fringe area of urban Canaan now in decline at the end of the Late Bronze Age.” Also, the type of house structure was unique, and matched descriptions in the books of Judges and Samuel. Additionally, all of the settlements lacked any pig remnants amongst animal bones left in the area; only the Jews had a pigless diet.”
And this from the same article:
“Through the 1980s it was commonly held opinion that excavations in Jericho had failed to discover a city there at the time of Joshua.
In the early 1990s, however, Dr. Bryant G. Woods, then of the University of Toronto, reported finding startling remnants of Jericho in Joshua’s time. The error of previous excavations, he asserts, was that archaeologists were digging in the wrong section of the mound of ancient Jericho.
Woods reported finding a 3-foot layer of ash covering the entire excavated area, clear evidence of destruction by fire. He further discovered large caches of wheat from the spring harvest that had barely been used. This means that the city fell not as a result of a starvation siege, as would be expected against a walled city, but rather after a very brief siege. All this matches the account in the Book of Joshua. Furthermore, the wheat was from the spring harvest; Joshua conquered Jericho immediately after Passover, the spring holiday.
Concerning Woods’ work at Jericho, Dr. Lawrence Stager, the respected professor of Archaeology in Israel from Harvard University said: “On the whole the archaeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction and the date isn’t too far wrong.”
Something happened 3500 to 3000 years ago in the middle east. Somebody called themselves Israel. Somebody that was known to Egypt. Somebody that migrated into Canaan, and didn’t eat pork. And somebody destroyed Jericho. I guess you could posit a thousand different possibilities to show that it didn’t have to be the Israelites coming out of Egypt. But the probability is that the Bible got it’s history right.
Your historical fiction idea doesn’t hold up. There are many documents in history that give us word for word conversations or proclamations. Countless court recorders do this every day. Inaugural addresses are brought down to us from the past, word for word. What about Patrick Henry? “Henry’s words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry’s closing words: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”-http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm
Why is it so impossible to you for a book that starts out with the exact words of our Creator creating everything by His words to contain other’s exact words? Why would the people that preserved this manuscript for thousands of years in near perfect “word for word” condition not be a people that remembered words? That recorded them? That cherished them? Why would you accept the history of the Assyrians, Egyptians, and other ancient civilizations, that fail to report their failures, but then you would find honesty lacking in the historical record of a people that openly criticize themselves and tell of their failures? What archaeological find do you present that discounts the Biblical account of history?
“Revisionists stubbornly dismiss as fictitious most historical aspects of the Bible. To them, the patriarchal period (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is all imagination, the story of Joseph and the sojourn in Egypt is fabricated, as are the Exodus and the desert wanderings. The conquest, settlement and united monarchy (Saul, David and Solomon) are mere “propaganda” to quote Philip Davies. Marit Skjeggestad, a Scandinavian revisionist, said that on biblical history, “the archaeological record is silent.”
“In fact,” asserts Dever, “the archaeological record is not at all silent. It’s only that some historians are deaf.”
So let’s turn to the evidence.
One of the assumptions of Bible criticism is that the Bible was written much later than the time period it occurred. Specifically, the claim is that the Bible was written at least 1,000 years after the Exodus. As a result, the alleged biblical writers, who could not possibly know the minutiae of cultural norms of 1,000 years before, would by default include many details that were anachronistic. This would be like watching a movie about life in the 1950s where the actors wore digital watches because the writers did not do their research properly.
All this changed with the turn of a shovel.
One of the main indications of an anachronism in the Bible was thought to be that of the camel. The Book of Genesis reports that camels were mainstay beasts of burden and transportation already at the time of Abraham, in the 18th century BCE. Yet it was originally thought that camels were first domesticated in the Middle East no earlier than the 12th century BCE. This anachronism was a clear indication of the later writing of the Bible. Or so it was thought.
All this changed with the turn of a shovel. Recent archaeological finds have clearly demonstrated that the camel was domesticated by the 18th century BCE. What was previously thought to be a knockout punch against the Bible, is now evidence supporting it.
Prof. Kenneth Kitchen, an Egyptologist at the University of Liverpool (retired) points out that the sale of Joseph to a caravan of Midianites (for 20 silver pieces) could have been an example of anachronism in the Bible, since 1,000 years later the price for a slave was much higher (ancient inflation). However, the price reported in the Bible matches precisely the going price of slaves in the region from Joseph’s time period. This is just one example that demonstrates, according to Kitchen, that “it’s more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality.”
Furthermore, we find that the detailed descriptions of the court of the Pharaoh and its protocols, as reported in Genesis, are extremely accurate to that time period. Joseph’s Egyptian name, clothing, and court orders are all very much in line with what we now understand to have been the norm for that time and place.”
The above quote is from: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48939077.html
Is it that the archaeological record is silent? Or are you wearing ear plugs?
Shalom
Boris,
Here is an article that discusses the major non-biblical/non-Christian references to the man known as Jesus:
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
How you say that He is a myth is beyond reason.
Shalom
From an anointed songwriter I love, these lyrics describe well our rebellious nature, and the great working of mercy and grace by which God delivers us from our snares:
In the distance there stands a wild horse.
Proud and persistent to run it’s own course,
Entering through no other doors,
But those he has made for himself.
In his own eyes he’s a prince of all,
Clever and wise, he heeds to no call,
Never denies that he might fall,
Dependent on nobody else.
As time went on he came upon
The thought that he was lonely.
I felt no fear, he cried a tear,
He knew he was not the only.
The Rider whose name is True begins to seek
And He opens His eyes to find His stallion meek.
Then came the moment, with no one in sight
But a horse with no name and the Rider in white
Filled with compassion for his plight
The stallion He claimed for His own.
As time had past, there came at last
The lifting of His burden
His strength renewed, with gratitude
And joy, he became a servant.
The Rider has come in view, His form unique
And He’s chosen to ride upon His stallion meek.
-Wild Horse, by Phil Keaggy
On athiests raising children- I’m not uncomfortable with that at all. No particular reason a person who ascribes to athiesm cannot raise their children in love and nurturing. Evidence is that they do. They may in fact make excellent parents and raise highly accomplished children. Of course- I will strive to bring them to faith in Jesus the Christ- the parents and the children.
We must resist immoral practices, and the passing of immoral laws. I would never vote for legislation that denied parenthood, or any other right, because someone does not believe in God.
Now I may not vote for such a one to take public office, and I may not choose to allow such a one to teach my children in a “captive” setting (public or private school), depending on the content.
As for laws- yes let the majority decide- because we are a republic built on government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” So we must always strive to bring the people to a majority understanding of what we know is most morally right and beneficial for society.
Marriage therefore, defined as between a man and a woman, most benefits society. Laws that compromise that institution should not be passed.
From the Declaration of Independence:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Shabbat Shalom everyone!
Matt B,
“On the distance there stands a wild horse.
Proud and persistent to run it’s own course,
Entering through no other doors,
But those he has made for himself.”
This story is patently false; horses don’t forge doors.
Debunked.
>Bo
What do you do with this:
“Revisionists insist there was no such entity as “Israel” until at least the 9th century BCE. … How do revisionists react to this inscription? …
Response: The name Israel goes back to the 13th century BCE and maybe before that. It means ‘Fighters for El’ who was a Canaanite deity. The reference to ‘Israel’ in the Egyptian inscription does not refer to the same Israel mentioned in Assyrian and Palestinian texts or Israel in the Bible. The inscription says that Israel was destroyed and its seed was “no more.” Exodus describes the Israelites as a great nation of a few million people. If the Egyptian inscription is historical in the least these Israelites are certainly not the same Israel annihilated by Merenptah
>Why is it so impossible to you for a book that starts out with the exact words of our Creator creating everything by His words to contain other’s exact words?
Response: It’s impossible for me to believe that those are the words of our Creator. I don’t believe there is a Creator for one thing. The very first sentence in the Bible demonstrates the biblical author’s subjective viewpoint when it implies that the heavens and the earth are separate parts of creation, with a dome between them. We now know the earth is just part of a solar system, part OF the heavens. I don’t believe the earth, sun and moon just popped into existence. We can look out into space and see stars in all stages of development and existence so we know how are sun and planet were formed. I don’t believe vegetation was on the planet before the sun and moon even existed as the Bible says it was. There is so much wrong with the Genesis account of creation I don’t know why people still try to defend it as being accurate. This has really given Christianity a black eye.
>Is it that the archaeological record is silent? Or are you wearing ear plugs?
Response: What you have done is waste a lot of time and effort proving people lived in ancient Palestine. This is not evidence any of the events described in the Bible actually occurred and it’s certainly not evidence that there was any kind of divine intervention going on in the ancient Near East or that beings like Satan or Yahweh have ever existed
>Here is an article that discusses the major non-biblical/non-Christian references to the man known as Jesus:
How you say that He is a myth is beyond reason.
Response: Okay then you should have no problem constructing a short biography of the man known as Jesus Christ using only extra-biblical references. So here’s the challenge: We both know there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus from outside of the Bible but you can use anything but the Bible written within say 40 years from the time Jesus was supposedly crucified which is commonly thought to be around 30 CE. Use any text that mentions Jesus or Jesus Christ by name and write me a short biography of Jesus say about 100 – 200 words just using the author’s of these references own words.
>Matt B
We must resist immoral practices, and the passing of immoral laws. I would never vote for legislation that denied parenthood, or any other right, because someone does not believe in God.
Response: Would you vote for legislation that forced parenthood on people who don’t want it or are not ready for it? Wouldn’t that be passing an immoral law?
>Now I may not vote for such a one to take public office, and I may not choose to allow such a one to teach my children in a “captive” setting (public or private school), depending on the content.
Response: Suppose a fiscal and social conservative atheist was running against a liberal who was a professing Christian in any election you might be voting in. If neither candidate had any character flaws or dirty laundry whom would you vote for?
>As for laws- yes let the majority decide- because we are a republic built on government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” So we must always strive to bring the people to a majority understanding of what we know is most morally right and beneficial for society.
Response: Rights are not up for majority rule in the United States. They are guaranteed by the Constitution.
>Marriage therefore, defined as between a man and a woman, most benefits society. Laws that compromise that institution should not be passed.
Response: I understand that argument and it makes several valid points. However passing laws that are designed solely to discriminate against a particular segment of society is setting a very bad precedent.
>From the Declaration of Independence:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Response: Are you suggesting we abolish the present government and institute a new government? The Declaration of Independence is not one of our founding papers. It’s an angry letter from some rich slave owners who didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes. So they stirred up the masses and sent the poor to fight and die for their cause. Some things never seem to change huh?
Boris–Response: The name Israel goes back to the 13th century BCE and maybe before that. It means ‘Fighters for El’ who was a Canaanite deity. The reference to ‘Israel’ in the Egyptian inscription does not refer to the same Israel mentioned in Assyrian and Palestinian texts or Israel in the Bible. The inscription says that Israel was destroyed and its seed was “no more.” Exodus describes the Israelites as a great nation of a few million people. If the Egyptian inscription is historical in the least these Israelites are certainly not the same Israel annihilated by Merenptah
Yes it’s true that the dieties of other nations called their gods by el, but what other nation was named “Israel?” The name Israel is usually translated as “struggles (wrestles) with God” although there is the connotation that it could incorporate the “shin-resh” as “shar” and then we have the translation near to “a prince with God.” So your interpretation of “Fighters for El” would be better translated by Dr. Brown or Dr. Michael Heiser who are both scholars of the ancient semitic and eastern languages. It’s my understanding that it’s somewhat uncertain what “exactly” it does mean other than that Jacob was named Israel after his encounter with the Angel of the Lord; as I’m certain you know, seeing as you grew up in the Christian tradition. Are you suggesting that a people “borrowed” the identity of another people and then wrote the Scriptures?
How does a nation, named after the same character as is found in Scripture with the meaning of his name the same, enter into your interpretation as referring to another nation? Where did you get that from anyway? Secular scholars interpretations? It’s nonsensical to declare that “the Egyptian inscription does not refer to the same Israel.” Have they discovered “another” Israel? No.
What I’ve read, whether we’ll find more evidence to substantiate it at a later date or not, is that the inscription may well reference the slaughter of the innocents, when Pharoah had the newborn children of his slaves, the Israelites killed–slaughtered. The inscriptions reference to “seed” is of particular interest to me. There’s no reason to believe it refers to an entire nation of grown people.
As far as the name el goes, the prophets employed it as well to warn the children of Israel that the elohim they were worshipping have nothing in common with the one true God who is the God of Israel. It was thought that one of the Canaanite gods rode the clouds and the prophet employed that belief, telling the Israelites that it was YHWH only who commanded the heavens and their hosts. So, yes it was employed in other contexts other than El, God of Israel. What does that prove though?
I should have mentioned, too, that you can find some excellent books that document the archaeological discoveries verifying Israel’s presense in Judea. Assyrian inscriptions (etched in stone) name several kings of Israel and their battles, although never as outright lies as the Egyptians were want to tell (you know, where they were always the victors). They’ve located the stronghold city of the Hittites as well. As much as it may be inconvenient for some, there’s no denying, although some will, the archaeological evidence that’s mounting daily affirming historical persons named in the Bible as well as Israel’s presense in Judea and Jerusalem.
Dan1el,
the verse’s references are allegorical.
Boris,
The Constitution is a covenant by which we have set our processes within which the majority’s desires should be reflected.
Rules of Order:
In previous posts, Boris made an Appeal to Force followed immediately by an Appeal to Sympathy; both fallacies that get you disqualified in any real debate.
But it is easy to win every game when you make the rules.
So let’s ‘have it your way’ for a moment, and see where we stand:
Matter/energy conservation is the only a priori Law in the universe (from which all other laws ‘evolve’).
What does this say about Ethics? Absolutely nothing!
Therefore, Adolph Hitler was as ‘moral’ as Boris, perhaps more so, going strictly by the ‘numbers’, because Hitler was a ‘leader’ in the annals of history.
This is the ‘poison pill’ I was referring to.
Now Boris stands neither by the Bible nor the Constitution, yet thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court will endorse his personal opinion concerning homosexuality. But what if they don’t? Then, of course, they also belong to the ‘simple-minded’ whose ruling doesn’t really mean anything. Now multiply this understanding by @ half the population of the U.S., brainwashed for decades by our educational system, that whoever believes the Bible is stupid, and you have a definition of the Problem.
My ‘solution’ is confined to those that believe the Bible; not as a ‘club’ or similar; but for those who share my own terms that there is Absolute Law. Those who believe that law is relative based upon individual rights and society to define whatever they want at any time (e.g. Hitler) have another set of ‘rules’ that we do not agree upon; so ‘debate’ is useless.
I say (for those who agree, giving freedom to others to disagree, but not define what I MUST believe outside of General Statutes that are necessary for Societies and Nations to exist, and which are defined by Vote, Congressional and Executive Authority, and Legal Judgments):
Substitute ‘science’ for ‘idols’ in the Bible, and there you have it. The KJV even uses Boris’ god ‘science’ twice: Daniel 1:4 (Hebrew MDE) and 1 Timothy 6:20 (Greek ‘gnosis’).
Now he won’t agree to any of this; but the Question is: should he be allowed to prevail (and why)?
In Him, Ron M.
Boris states: “The Declaration of Independence is not one of our founding papers. It’s an angry letter from some rich slave owners who didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes. So they stirred up the masses and sent the poor to fight and die for their cause. ”
Boris, your revisionist scythe knows not its limits. However, were I to engage you in a discussion on this new “point” you make, soon we would find ourselves where you wish to discuss the topic no further, once the shifting sands of your arguments foundations wash away.
Why is it so important for the glbt activists to force legislation to re-define marriage? And don’t say it’s a matter of witholding rights from a small percentage of people in this country because that’s a worn and deceptive argument that doesn’t hold water. None of their constitutional rights as citizens are witheld from them. “By definition” their union didn’t fit “the definition.” How is it that that particular word has even become an issue that requires “judicial legislation” to change the meaning of it?
The glbt minority works tirelessly to borrow phraseology from a tradition that the greater majority of them are diametrically opposed to. Why is it vital that they call their union “marriage?” It’s a civil union between two persons of the same sex and I’m more than comfortable calling it a “union,” albeit not one that requires the deconstruction of the very definition of another word (marriage).
Where does the re-definition of the English language end? We already have to re-define the word “bigot” because when the glbt community uses that word it refers to any who are not in agreement with their ideology; yet when we point out their vicious and vitriolic language, not to mention their calling individuals by name and attacking them as narrow-minded, hate-filled, bigotted *%#-&^$# s, we are the only ones who are referenced as bigots?! Come on, listen to the chatter and be honest with yourself. It sounds pretty clear to me that a re-definition of the meaning of “bigot” is in order.
Why stop there? Point of fact is, they don’t intend to. Let’s see; “boy scouts”: Any child whatsoever that has even one iota of genetic material even remotely similar to any other human being, who, although the child was birthed as a female of our species the same female child wishes to re-define themselves as being from the opposite sex. Accordingly we would need to re-define “girl”.
I don’t see where glbt’s civil rights are impinged in the least, nor does their union require thinking people to support judicial legislation to overturn the millennium old definition and universal meaning of a particular word.
This is not about exposing narrow-minded, bigoted people, obviously, because if it were the glbt community would be working relentlessly to protect their fellow citizens who happen to be Christians from the same hate-filled and vitriolic speech that they’ve experienced. Do you have any examples of them doing that? How can intelligent people justify the glbt’s working to strip away the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens who seek only the free exercise of their consciences and personal beliefs, whether derived from religious convictions or not? Do intelligent people not see and hear the gross hypocrisy of that?
Let’s be honest. Do we really need to re-define the word, marriage, before glbt’s can truly experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Why are they waging war against a particular phraseology that has absolutely no bearing on their civil liberties whatsoever? They’ve manipulated human sensibilities by whipping the masses into believing that the definition of “one” word is preventing them from enjoying the same rights afforded to all Americans. It’s because of the religious connotations that the word marriage carries with it, which is true, so why not make up their own word and have it mean whatever they want it to when referring to any union outside of the one used by people of faith for millennia?
Boris, Jesus Christ dis-proved evolution in the very first signs he did, by turn water into wine..and not just any wine but the finest wine as written about in John 2:1-11 we all know it takes (age) to make (fine wine) in order for the chemical reaction to take place..but he did it instantly…proving he can and did create something out of nothing with (age) built in .i.e. creation! also proving John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Boris,
Please read this short CS Lewis essay about science and religion;
http://books.google.com/books?id=I6xWiVDThpEC&pg=PA72&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Shalom
>Sheila
I already pointed out that almost all fiction is placed in a historical time and place and mentions real historical people, places and some times major events. That the Bible does this doesn’t mean that the stories in the Bible are historical. They are written in the style of fiction and there isn’t a shred of evidence to support any of them. The supposed prophecies in the Bible were all written well after the events they supposedly “predicted” had already occurred.” The Book of Daniel is a classic example of this style of fiction. Even your own Christian scholars admit this.
>MattB: The Constitution is a covenant by which we have set our processes within which the majority’s desires should be reflected.
Response: The most recent polls show a majority of people support legal recognition of same sex marriage. Support for same sex marriage has grown fairly quickly over the last decade. It appears this trend will continue. Like I said fundamentalist Christians will once again find themselves on the wrong side of history. But when haven’t they been?
>ron david metcalf
So let’s ‘have it your way’ for a moment, and see where we stand:
Matter/energy conservation is the only a priori Law in the universe (from which all other laws ‘evolve’).
Response: Boy science is really a foreign language to Bible believers ain’t it? Whew! Our physical laws did evolve of course. Physical laws are a human description of how the universe consistently behaves. Christians think physical laws control the behavior of the universe and therefore posit a lawgiver. But in science we humans are the lawgivers.
>What does this say about Ethics? Absolutely nothing!
Therefore, Adolph Hitler was as ‘moral’ as Boris, perhaps more so, going strictly by the ‘numbers’, because Hitler was a ‘leader’ in the annals of history.
This is the ‘poison pill’ I was referring to.
Response: By what convoluted measurement of numbers does being a ‘leader,’ make a person more ‘moral’ than another? Just because Hitler was a devout Catholic Christian who according to Christian doctrine is in heaven or present with the Lord, doesn’t mean he was more moral than I am.
>Now Boris stands neither by the Bible nor the Constitution, yet thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court will endorse his personal opinion concerning homosexuality. But what if they don’t? Then, of course, they also belong to the ‘simple-minded’ whose ruling doesn’t really mean anything.
Response: Oh you mean like the anti-choice people who still claim abortion is murder? Apparently the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion rights doesn’t really mean anything to those people now does it? And if the Court legalizes gay marriage, that won’t really mean anything to fundamentalist Christians either. Bible believers will claim that their God does not approve of these marriages, as if anyone else cares.
>Now multiply this understanding by @ half the population of the U.S., brainwashed for decades by our educational system, that whoever believes the Bible is stupid, and you have a definition of the Problem.
Response: Teaching science, isn’t exactly telling people that whoever believes the Bible is stupid. But if you believe the Bible in the light of modern science then you have no right to complain about what educated people think and say about you. Then we have the religious system of Christianity, which teaches that anyone who doesn’t believe the Bible is evil and being influenced by the devil. That of course is as untrue as any lie ever told on this planet.
>My ‘solution’ is confined to those that believe the… Now he won’t agree to any of this; but the Question is: should he be allowed to prevail (and why)?
Response: I’d like to disagree but I don’t know what I would be disagreeing with exactly.
>Sheila: Why is it so important for the glbt activists to force legislation to re-define marriage? …. It’s because of the religious connotations that the word marriage carries with it, which is true, so why not make up their own word and have it mean whatever they want it to when referring to any union outside of the one used by people of faith for millennia?
Response: People of faith don’t own the right to define marriage and marriage is not the property of any religion. Your God didn’t invent marriage. Both marriage and God are strictly human inventions. It’s interesting that one of the aspects of the homosexual lifestyle Christians often criticize is promiscuity. Yet when gay people want to have a lifetime relationship that is legal and recognized by the state Christians disapprove.
Ken>Christ dis-proved evolution in the very first signs he did, by turn water into wine..
Response: A science minded person would say that evolution disproved the Bible. If it didn’t fundamentalist Christians wouldn’t fight against it so bitterly against it.
Bo
I’m familiar with C. S. Lewis. If I thought his arguments were any good then I’d be a Christian wouldn’t I? But I’m not because they’re not. Neither is the one you tried to make by posting another link to a Christian website that supposedly listed historical references to Jesus Christ. Where is the information I requested you supply to prove your claim that there were historical references to Jesus Christ? I asked for historical references made within 40 years of Jesus’ supposed crucifixion and for you to tell me what they said exactly. Of course no such references exist do they? Do you have any explanation for that? Well I do. Jesus Christ never even existed. What’s yours?
All of you people are wasting a lot of time and effort trying to convert me. All of your arguments are fatally flawed and easily debunked as I have repeatedly demonstrated. If you had any evidence for your claims you wouldn’t have to resort to fatally flawed arguments and threats of eternal damnation now would you? Your Bible and religious leaders have misled about why people do not accept your religious claims, dogmas and doctrines. It’s not because we are evil, lost or being influenced by an absurd non-existent being like Satan. We don’t believe because there isn’t any evidence to support ANY of your religious claims. Of course you cannot admit to this truth because then you’d have to admit that all of you have believed without evidence. Well you have. You’ve believed because OTHER PEOPLE first frightened you with the myth of hell to the point that you were willing to accept anything else they told you in order to avoid spending eternity in hell. No Christian has ever believed for any other reason. I don’t believe in an afterlife so I simply cannot be convinced to believe by lame arguments or threats of punishment for not accepting your claims. Perhaps you people should think about all of this and sit down and take an unbiased look at your religion. No one has ever done this and not ended up rejecting their religion. Good luck.
“Like I said fundamentalist Christians will once again find themselves on the wrong side of history. But when haven’t they been? ”
Boris- another untruth- William Wilberforce.
I think that our discussions are over, as you never fully answer points I make that either disprove your statements, or bring to light evidence that you have been mislead. Thanks- I’m shaking the dust off of my sandals now. As I said though, I do and will continue to pray that you will encounter the living Son of God.
What’s the matter Matt? Too much truth for you to face in my last post huh? One down and five to go.
Boris, I don’t have to fight against evolution because it’s a fairytale….never been proven to be right…..although there is proof of mutations in micro biology..that’s is far as it goes and of course a mutation is far different from something that evolved. Peace , joy to you
Boris,
CS Lewis sat down and examined the claims of his religion (Atheism) and became a Christian. Many other atheists have done the same. Many of them scientists.
Your argument about scriptural prophecy being written after the fact is wrong, and only a handful of liberal theologians go in for this sort of idea. Your claim that the Bible narratives are historical fiction cannot be true. That sort of writing was not even invented until 150 years ago. CS Lewis would rake you over the coals for this sort of nonsensical reading of the Bible. Being that he was a highly educated professor of literature, I go with his take on this. You simply do not know the difference between a modern historical novel and an eyewitness testimony. That you do not believe the testimony is your option. That you believe the handful of liberal revisionists that doubt the existence of the man know as “Jesus”, only shows your philosophical bent.
The testimony of the secular sources only confirms the fact that this man “Jesus” did in fact exist. They are references in passing, not biographies of the New Testament characters. The Gospels are memoirs relating real events. You are free to reject them, but there are virtually no historical writings, from the same time frame, that are in any sense authoritative or complete. I am betting that you believe them, though.
Though you are familiar with CS Lewis, I would love to get your take on the essay that I posted a link to, once you have read it thoroughly. But I doubt that you will take the time, and I also doubt that you will have good answer for his arguments. Give it your best shot. I am waiting.
Shalom
Boris,
I’m somewhat baffled as to why a man of your ilk is trolling the web looking for intellectual Christians to stand and pontificate against? Well, then again, you’re just one more misinformed member of the masses of evolved humanity, the greater majority of whom are blissfully unaware that we’re not at all ignorant nor uneducated, as if intellectuals would never be found among us. Let’s not confuse learning with wisdom. It’s all foolishness to God anyway.
We’re only Christians because we’re afraid of being damned to hell you say? Are you only an atheist because you don’t want to be held accountable to anyone for anything? The premise that belief in hell preceeds a Christian’s faith is akin to saying that arrogance preceeds the atheist’s position. Not sure I can use that as an example; one of them is true.
There are as many holes in your evolutionary theory as there are in swiss cheese. How many question marks and let’s play try to connect the dot, dot, dot’s can one supposedly airtight theory contain? You won’t find equivocation in all of Scripture.
Here’s a list of question marks and dot, dot, dot’s that comprise the evolutionist’s “evidence.”
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
PHYSICAL LAWS EVOLVED.
There you have it, from obviously the most brilliant mind in the universe.
Too bad it is headed for complete oblivion in such a short amouint of time!
Please inform us lesser mortals how this came about. I’m not talking about solar systems; I’m talking about subatomic structure; energy; gravity; and the like; how did it all EVOLVE, Boris? The entire global scientific community is holding its breath.
In Him, Ron M.
p.s. you can hold off on putting another notch on your belt until you can give some sort of real answer for a change. In this I’m very serious.
Listen to the language of the evolutionary theory. Any thinking person should automatically question the validity of what they’ve claimed to have proved. There is no proof. Take an imaginary eraser and erase all of the question marks and all of the dot, dot, dots and, lo and behold, what are you left with? You’re left with straight lines of separate species. Nowhere in your own chart do anyone of them intersect each other.
…”hypothesized”
…”tentative” connections between species
…a “likely” solution
Evolution is based solely on “blind faith” as all of those supposed “missing links” are still, well, “missing…” I’m wondering how evolutionists can claim as fact a theory that is only speculative at best?
Boris, as has been pointed out to you: you are chronically dishonest, skirt issues you don’t wish to discuss after the facts don’t lean your way- there is nothing at all productive in discussion with you any longer- neither for you nor for me.
Sorry, but in your present state of prideful boasting and obfuscation- your rebellion against God makes it impossible to have rational discussion.
Boris,
If you are right and there is no Divine Creator or Redeemer, then neither of us will know the difference or care in 50 years. You will live your life and be as comforted and contented as possible and so will I. If I am right, I will at least have a chance at continuing to live. What is it that you have because of your belief that I do not have because of mine? Maybe we are both happy and fulfilled in this life, but I also have a hope of a future life without pain, sorrow, sickness, etc. Your future hope ends drastically soon. If there is no hell or damnation, we both win. If there is…you lose…big time. Not threats intended. There is just nothing that your belief system has to offer that mine does not also have.
A random universe that produces random evolution can only produce random thoughts and actions that make no difference in the long run. How can you trust the chemistry of your brain to be able to make any statements that have any meaning or importance? There is no need or reason for your continuing to discuss this or even think about it, because it is all utimately meaningless in your atheistic, materialistic religion.
Shalom
Boris,
There are over three hundred Messianic Prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled by one person alone. The chances of only 8 of those being fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth and no one else is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. If 17 were fulfilled the odds are then 1 chance in 4.8 trillion x 1 billion x 1 trillion. The only question that remains concerning the person who fulfilled the First Testament prophecies, which were sealed (canonized) in the third century BC, is whether the Son of Man, Jesus of Nazareth was who He claimed to be. I would think any Mathematician would bet on Jesus if he took the statistical evidence and applied it to anything else with those odds.
I agree with my brothers in Christ (surprise!) that you’ve not brought anything to stand on other than your mountainous ego and that which is the only theory atheists can cling to while standing in opposition to Intelligent Design.
Making broad generalizations of the individual Christians experience in arriving at the truth doesn’t help your case, rather it only serves to further demonstrate your narrow understanding of the facts upon which we base our beliefs. Atheists love to use the word “faith” as if that alone negates all of the facts upon which our belief is founded.
May the Lord accomplish for you what you’ve asked of Him in a previous post, that’s my prayer for you.
Ken
Boris, I don’t have to fight against evolution because it’s a fairytale….never been proven to be right…..although there is proof of mutations in micro biology..that’s is far as it goes and of course a mutation is far different from something that evolved. Peace , joy to you
Response: Transitional fossils do exist and are abundant contrary to the claims of the few people still fighting against advancing science known as creationists. Every Christian college and university with a science department teaches evolution. Humiliating isn’t it?
CS Lewis sat down and examined the claims of his religion (Atheism) and became a Christian. Many other atheists have done the same. Many of them scientists.
Response: C.S. Lewis was not an atheist and atheism is NOT a religion. Lewis claimed he was angry with God. Someone who doesn’t believe in God can’t be angry at something that doesn’t exist as far as they’re concerned. Atheism makes no claims whatsoever. An atheist doesn’t have to be a person who thinks they can prove there is no God. An atheist is a person who thinks the evidence for God is on the same level with the evidence for leprechauns, werewolves and UFO abductions.
Your argument about scriptural prophecy being written after the fact is wrong, and only a handful of liberal theologians go in for this sort of idea. Your claim that the Bible narratives are historical fiction cannot be true. That sort of writing was not even invented until 150 years ago.
Response: The Iliad and the Odyssey was written a lot more than 150 years ago.
The testimony of the secular sources only confirms the fact that this man “Jesus” did in fact exist. They are references in passing, not biographies of the New Testament characters. The Gospels are memoirs relating real events. You are free to reject them, but there are virtually no historical writings, from the same time frame, that are in any sense authoritative or complete. I am betting that you believe them, though.
Response: HOW do you have the nerve to make that claim about secular sources that supposedly mention Jesus when I’ve challenged you twice now to produce something written by one of these sources from within 40 years of Jesus’ supposed crucifixion? No such sources exist that fit the criteria I’ve put forth and you KNOW it. You can’t just go on repeating the same claims over and over and over again until you first respond to my objections to them. You failed to do that. Again.
Though you are familiar with CS Lewis, I would love to get your take on the essay that I posted a link to, once you have read it thoroughly. But I doubt that you will take the time, and I also doubt that you will have good answer for his arguments. Give it your best shot. I am waiting.
Response: I am so weary of Christians posting links to articles for me to read and comment on or else cutting and pasting arguments from Christian websites. You don’t see me doing that and I’ve got several people here all ganging up and me at once. I take the time to answer everybody’s questions and objections in my own words while mine are almost always completely ignored. I’m not reading any of the stuff you post links to. I’ve seen more Christian apologetics than all of you put together. If you can’t formulate an argument in your own words, and one that pertains to the subject of the thread then don’t bother posting anything directed to me. I’m not interested.
I’m somewhat baffled as to why a man of your ilk is trolling the web looking for intellectual Christians to stand and pontificate against? Well, then again, you’re just one more misinformed member of the masses of evolved humanity, the greater majority of whom are blissfully unaware that we’re not at all ignorant nor uneducated, as if intellectuals would never be found among us. Let’s not confuse learning with wisdom. It’s all foolishness to God anyway.
Response: I’m not trolling the web. I’m posting and reading comments on this blog for the same reason everybody else is. I listen to the show now and then and have for years. I’m not interested in being converted. I’m occasionally interested in the subjects being discussed on the show. If it doesn’t interest me when I happen to tune in I turn the radio back to ESPN.
We’re only Christians because we’re afraid of being damned to hell you say? Are you only an atheist because you don’t want to be held accountable to anyone for anything? The premise that belief in hell preceeds a Christian’s faith is akin to saying that arrogance preceeds the atheist’s position. Not sure I can use that as an example; one of them is true.
Response: That would only make sense if one were actually held accountable for their actions by God according to your religious doctrine. But the only thing a person is judged for is whether or not they bought into the right religion or not. I’m not the least bit worried about being accountable for that. I’m held accountable every day and I have to live up to expectations or there will be consequences. I can’t make excuses if I mess up and blame it on a fallen world or the devil the way Christians do when they fail to live up to expectations.
There are as many holes in your evolutionary theory as there are in swiss cheese. How many question marks and let’s play try to connect the dot, dot, dot’s can one supposedly airtight theory contain? You won’t find equivocation in all of Scripture.
Here’s a list of question marks and dot, dot, dot’s that comprise the evolutionist’s “evidence.”
Response: It’s not MY theory. It’s the only explanation for the diversity of life on earth there is or will ever be. Get over it. You don’t have the nerve to post your own arguments against evolution in your own words if you could even formulate any, which I highly doubt. You know very well any atheist would make Swiss cheese of all your creationist nonsense.
ron david metcalf
PHYSICAL LAWS EVOLVED.
There you have it, from obviously the most brilliant mind in the universe.
Too bad it is headed for complete oblivion in such a short amouint of time!
Please inform us lesser mortals how this came about. I’m not talking about solar systems; I’m talking about subatomic structure; energy; gravity; and the like; how did it all EVOLVE, Boris? The entire global scientific community is holding its breath.
Response: I said nothing about energy or gravity evolving. I said our human descriptions of how the universe consistently behaves known as physical laws have evolved. Laws don’t control the universe. We don’t know why large objects attract or things thrown skyward fall back to earth. Saying it’s the “law of gravity” says nothing at all. Understand?
Sheila
Listen to the language of the evolutionary theory. … I’m wondering how evolutionists can claim as fact a theory that is only speculative at best?
Response: Why don’t you go down to the science department of any Christian college or university with a science department as ask them what you just asked me? Because you know very well evolution is based on facts not speculation. You’re not going to convince anyone with that kind of nonsense and baseless assertion. You are giving Christianity a black eye however and making it too embarrassing for millions of people to call themselves Christians anymore. So go for it.
Matt B
Boris, as has been pointed out to you: you are chronically dishonest, skirt issues you don’t wish to discuss after the facts don’t lean your way- there is nothing at all productive in discussion with you any longer- neither for you nor for me.
Sorry, but in your present state of prideful boasting and obfuscation- your rebellion against God makes it impossible to have rational discussion.
Response: First of all I am NOT dishonest. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who can’t even understand that atheists can’t rebel against something they don’t believe exists. Why do you rebel against Allah, the God of Islam? We’ve been over this before. Once again you just keep making the same bogus claims over and over and over and over again and completely ignoring my objections. I’m dishonest? Please! Doubt and skepticism are NOT the same as rebellion. Even though this is true you can’t accept it because your religion teaches otherwise. When your religion demands belief in what is obviously not true don’t you think it’s time to question it? Your beliefs make you repeat things that are not true and you have the nerve to call me dishonest!
Bo
If you are right and there is no Divine Creator or Redeemer, then neither of us will know the difference or care in 50 years. You will live your life and be as comforted and contented as possible and so will I. If I am right, I will at least have a chance at continuing to live. What is it that you have because of your belief that I do not have because of mine?
Response: I’ll tell you what I don’t have: A bunch of escapist and life-avoidance issues due to an unwarranted belief in an afterlife.
Maybe we are both happy and fulfilled in this life, but I also have a hope of a future life without pain, sorrow, sickness, etc. Your future hope ends drastically soon. If there is no hell or damnation, we both win. If there is…you lose…big time. Not threats intended. There is just nothing that your belief system has to offer that mine does not also have.
Response: I’m not the least bit concerned that you God is going to follow me to my grave and keep me alive in some kind of disembodied state for the sole purpose of torturing me for all eternity because I didn’t believe the claims people like you made about their particular religion. Really man, how come you can’t see through that hoax? Scared it’s true aren’t you? And you’re not even brave enough to admit that’s the only reason you believe the claims of Christianity in the first place are you? When you threaten people with hell you expose the only reason you have been indoctrinated into the religion of Christianity and the only reason anyone ever has been. Gotcha man. You can’t hide from the truth.
A random universe that produces random evolution can only produce random thoughts and actions that make no difference in the long run. How can you trust the chemistry of your brain to be able to make any statements that have any meaning or importance? There is no need or reason for your continuing to discuss this or even think about it, because it is all utimately meaningless in your atheistic, materialistic religion.
Response: Just because life is ultimately meaningless and has no inherent meaning, doesn’t mean that it has to be meaningless at the present and near future. I’m not wasting my life on escapist fantasies hoping for another. I’m living a meaningful life right now. I don’t have time to keep discussing subjects like this with people who have already made up their minds I must be wrong because I’m being influenced by the devil.
Sheila
Boris,
There are over three hundred Messianic Prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled by one person alone. The chances of only 8 of those being fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth and no one else is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. If 17 were fulfilled the odds are then 1 chance in 4.8 trillion x 1 billion x 1 trillion. The only question that remains concerning the person who fulfilled the First Testament prophecies, which were sealed (canonized) in the third century BC, is whether the Son of Man, Jesus of Nazareth was who He claimed to be. I would think any Mathematician would bet on Jesus if he took the statistical evidence and applied it to anything else with those odds.
Response: Before I can accept your claim about the supernatural origin of the supposed messianic prophecies and your fantastic odds of them coming true, common sense tells us that you must first rule out the far more plausible account that the events are fictional, written so as to conform to earlier prophecies. What’s more likely, my account or yours? How do you intend to rule that out may I ask? A traveler saw an archer and around him were arrows that were stuck in the dead center of each target painted on a tree. The traveler asked the archer how he became such a good shot with the bow and arrow. “Easy,” said the archer.” First I shot the arrows and then painted the targets around them.” I think most people know that’s how these kinds of tales are spun. Except you and your brothers and sisters in Christ.
I agree with my brothers in Christ (surprise!) that you’ve not brought anything to stand on other than your mountainous ego and that which is the only theory atheists can cling to while standing in opposition to Intelligent Design.
Response: Where is this Intelligent Design taught as science may I ask? Not only do all the Christian colleges and universities teach evolution they go to great lengths to distance themselves from Intelligent Design and the few people left promoting it. Why should anyone believe your claims about Intelligent Design when your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities state emphatically that it’s not science and all teach evolution by natural selection instead?
Making broad generalizations of the individual Christians experience in arriving at the truth doesn’t help your case, rather it only serves to further demonstrate your narrow understanding of the facts upon which we base our beliefs. Atheists love to use the word “faith” as if that alone negates all of the facts upon which our belief is founded.
Response: Articles of faith are not facts. What are these facts exactly?
May the Lord accomplish for you what you’ve asked of Him in a previous post, that’s my prayer for you.
Response: Thanks but I don’t remember asking anything of Him.
Ed, Bo, Matt, Sheila, Ron, Ken,
Now I’ve had enough of all of your claims that the Bible is true and evolution isn’t. I’ve made it very clear why most of the world rejects your absurd claims. I’m not responding to your baseless arguments about these things anymore. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’m not going to disregard the findings of rational science in favor of the baseless assertions of non-rational authoritarianism. If you want to live your life in intellectual servitude go right ahead. Don’t expect me or anyone else to join you.
Boris,
Yeah, you guys are so sure that you won’t even let the concept be considered and you call that “intelligent” and “evolved?”
Don’t you mean “No Intelligence Allowed?” (Ben Stein)
Boris, the “draw the circle around the bullseye thingy” is getting really old. You guys need to drum up some fresh material because all of your arguments have been used and abused and you could really use some fresh ammo.
Give me one entire community of eyeballs, or hip bones or big-toes from within 40 years of your missing link and I’ll consider it. 🙂 (I know eyeballs don’t hang around but it was funnier to include them.)
You’ve not investigated the evidence for the historical Jesus yet you would have others believe there is none. At least join the ranks of those who fully studied the matter and reject the claims he made as to who he was, is and always will be.
TTYL
Laws don’t control the universe. We don’t know why large objects attract or things thrown skyward fall back to earth. Saying it’s the “law of gravity” says nothing at all. Understand?
What I understand, Boris, is the only ‘proof’ you have about anything whatsoever is to attack Christians on anything and everything they believe.
Ed, Bo, Matt, Sheila, Ron, Ken,
Now I’ve had enough of all of your claims that the Bible is true and evolution isn’t.
Ah, we finally agree. You’re tired of us; we’re tired of you. Thank you, GOD bless, and good-bye.
In Him, Ron M.
This is for everyone following this discussion:
“Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.”
You can read it here:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm
I really am finished after this.
The text for Stoner’s book is found here:
http://www.sciencespeaks.net/
Boris,
You have presented no facts. You have spouted old and specious comebacks against Christianity. You have exaggerated your claims with the utmost rhetoric. You have ranted and raved on and on… about Christian Collages with science departments and historical revisionism and supposed transitional forms and old ideas about the big bang and evolution.
You misconstrued CS Lewis.
Here is what (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis) states:
“Lewis was raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically ‘very angry with God for not existing’.”
“He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion, noting that he was brought into Christianity like a prodigal, ‘kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape.'”
“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”
Hmm,, not a mention of being scared of going to hell, but yes afraid of admitting “God was God” just like all atheists before or since. They cannot stand the idea that they have a responsibility to their creator. They hold back in horror at the idea of submission to their master and maker. Atheists are in rebellion whether they feel like they are rebelling or not. (Denial that there is such an Authority does not make resisting it not rebellion.) And when they (the atheists) come face to face with the living and loving and forgiving Creator of the universe, they are frightened at what it means to their future life. They will have to relinquish the reigns of their life to another who knows better and loves them more than they loved themselves hitherto.
So BoreUs, keep refusing to read CS Lewis and keep supporting your beliefs and getting your brain washed by revisionists and pseudo-scientists if you like, but you may want to ask a few Christians that have converted from Atheism why they did such a thing, instead of assuming that you are all knowing and that the only reason that anybody is a Christian is because of fear of hell fire. Your bigotry is immense. And it is religious bigotry whether you can comprehend it or not.
I double dog dare you 🙂 to read 2 books by CS Lewis. Mere Christianity, which is a collection of radio addresses and God in the Dock, which is a collection of essays. These are very easy reading of short and to the point discussions of many things that you seem to be quite unaware of. If you care to expand your narrow thinking a bit, give them a try then let us know why CS Lewis is wrong. If you have no good arguments against His reason, you have no good arguments. But I am guessing that you are afraid to find out that you might be wrong. It would cost you too much to humble yourself like Lewis had to.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
“What do they teach the children in school these days?”-Professor Digory Kirke
Shalom
Boris,
The Iliad and the Odessy, indeed. Have you not the ability to distinguish the difference between styles and of writing? Or do you not want to notice the difference in this case?
“Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the Story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”-CS Lewis, God in the Dock, pgs. 158-159
Shalom
Boris,
And in case you are thinking of challenging CS Lewis on his ability to remember what he had read and comment upon it or its genre…
“Was C.S. Lewis a genius?
Oh, absolutely, there’s no doubt about that. He was a complete genius. He also was a very fast reader, but he had honed the talent and perfected the strange memory that resulted in never forgetting anything he had read. Now he could, he could ask you to pick any book off of his shelves, and you would pick a page and read him a line and he would quote the rest of the page; in fact, quote the rest of the book until you told him to stop. He had this enormous capacity to remember everything he’d ever read.”-Recollections about C.S. Lewis by Douglas Gresham (His Step-Son) http://cslewisjrrtolkien.classicalautographs.com/cslewis/recollections/douglasgreshamstepson.html
Shalom
Boris,
But enough about Lewis. Just read his books and maybe you will be cured of your Atheism. Of course that could happen from reading The Creators book, but I think that your mind and heart have been poisoned so that you cannot make sense of its plain meaning.
Shalom
I’m Done. 😉
Boris, are you a Christian? You and the Christians both teach evolution, you on this Internet forum and Christians in their colleges and universities. Are you a Christian? The Christian churches, preach that their, priests, bishops, clergy, reverends and pastors, should be lesbian or bi or gay if they prefer.
Interesting, that’s what you believe.
With sarcasm I know you are not a Christian, and not all Christians hold to the above Christian churches’ teachings. I said all this so that you understand that Christians are not the bad guys, they are leading the way to accomplish your ideals. Just did not want you to label all Christians as insane or evil, when Christians are on your side, even one of the most powerful Christians, President Barack Obama.
If anyone should think Christians are insane and evil, it’s me not you, they are on your side.
Nonetheless, from a debating point of view, if I were to adapt your world view, I could not lose a debate because my beliefs would be defending nothing unless it was proven true by scientific methods, since God, an invisible essence can not be labotorial investigations be done to it, it would hard pressed to put God in a lab and conclude that this God exists. Since this seems so far fetched a notion, how can an invisible being that fills the whole universe be scientifically proved by putting him in a lab and doing experiments to conclude he exists. If that is your need to trust anyone or trust any belief, you will never believe, unless God visited you personally, but still if that happened it was not scientifically proven and thus you would eventually have to forsake your prior demands to put God in a labatory and prove the existence of God.
My experiences make it impossible to be your type of atheist, the one that refuses all the superhuman powers demonstrated by human beings .
I am not going to respond, these are my closing thoughts, that’s all.
Boris, transitional fossils are incomplete..therefor can’t prove evolution..but nice try…peace,joy to you
Sheila
Yeah, you guys are so sure that you won’t even let the concept be considered and you call that “intelligent” and “evolved?”
Don’t you mean “No Intelligence Allowed?” (Ben Stein)
Response: What we’re sure of is that Intelligent Design is religion, not science. A scientific theory has to be useful. Evolutionary theory has produced tremendous advances in medicine and agriculture among other things. What scientific breakthroughs has Intelligent Design led to? None and it’s never going to. Saying, “God did it” which is all ID does, explains absolutely nothing and has no use in the scientific community.
Boris, the “draw the circle around the bullseye thingy” is getting really old. You guys need to drum up some fresh material because all of your arguments have been used and abused and you could really use some fresh ammo.
Response: Oh please, you’ve never even been confronted with my arguments before. If you had actually ever seen my arguments before you wouldn’t have exposed your absurd “theory” to a knock out punch, which is exactly what I did to it. You have no way of proving that the biblical authors didn’t write the gospels to conform to earlier prophecies. The gospel writers simply molded a fictional character into the role of a coming messiah. This account is much more likely than yours, which requires a belief in the supernatural and faith in a lot of other things like angels, demons, Satan, etc. as well. Okham’s Razor demands we accept my explanation because it requires far fewer assumptions than yours. It is the logical explanation unless the existence of all these absurd Christian bogey entities can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck with that.
You’ve not investigated the evidence for the historical Jesus yet you would have others believe there is none. At least join the ranks of those who fully studied the matter and reject the claims he made as to who he was, is and always will be.
Response: What evidence? Hearsay accounts from 60 to 100 years after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion written by men who were not even alive when Jesus was? Christians always trot out the big four, Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius when reminded of the fact that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. How embarrassing it must be for you to have to resort to accounts written far to late to be of any use for your case. The fact that this is the best Christian apologists can come up with proves there’s no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed at all.
ron david metcalf
Ah, we finally agree. You’re tired of us; we’re tired of you. Thank you, GOD bless, and good-bye.
Response: I guess we’ll never know why you fear non-existence so much.
Sheila
This is for everyone following this discussion:
“Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.”
Response: The probability that the gospel writers molded their stories to make it SEEM like Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies is 100 percent.
Bo
You have presented no facts. You have spouted old and specious comebacks against Christianity. You have exaggerated your claims with the utmost rhetoric. You have ranted and raved on and on… about Christian Collages with science departments and historical revisionism and supposed transitional forms and old ideas about the big bang and evolution.
Response: What about the fact that you claimed there were secular references to Jesus in antiquity but when I asked you to produce some useful ones and tell us all what they said, three different times, you failed to produce any? I’d say it’s you Bo, who not only hasn’t presented any facts you couldn’t even produce the facts you claimed you could. You have exaggerated your claims with the utmost rhetoric. I haven’t ranted and raved about anything. I’ve patiently answered all of your questions and satisfactorily responded to all of your claims and objections.
You misconstrued CS Lewis.
So BoreUs, keep refusing to read CS Lewis and keep supporting your beliefs and getting your brain washed by revisionists and pseudo-scientists if you like, but you may want to ask a few Christians that have converted from Atheism why they did such a thing, instead of assuming that you are all knowing and that the only reason that anybody is a Christian is because of fear of hell fire. Your bigotry is immense. And it is religious bigotry whether you can comprehend it or not.
Response: So Bo, keep refusing to accept modern science and keep supporting your beliefs and getting your brain washed by religionists and pseudo-scientists if you like, but you may want to ask a few atheists that have de-converted from Christianity why they did such a thing, instead of assuming that you are all knowing and that the only reason that anybody is atheist is because they cannot stand the idea that they have a responsibility to their creator. Your bigotry is immense. And it is religious bigotry whether you can comprehend it or not. All of your arguments can be turned on their heads and used to demonstrate just how offensive the things you say really are. I think this reflects a real lack of self-awareness on your part.
I double dog dare you to read 2 books by CS Lewis. Mere Christianity, which is a collection of radio addresses and God in the Dock, which is a collection of essays. These are very easy reading of short and to the point discussions of many things that you seem to be quite unaware of. If you care to expand your narrow thinking a bit, give them a try then let us know why CS Lewis is wrong. If you have no good arguments against His reason, you have no good arguments. But I am guessing that you are afraid to find out that you might be wrong. It would cost you too much to humble yourself like Lewis had to.
Response: C. S. Lewis’ arguments are ridiculous and like all apologetic arguments they’re only good enough to convince those who desperately want to believe them anyway. His most popular argument the ‘Lord or liar and lunatic argument’ is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. Lewis tells us that either Jesus was who he said he was or he was a liar and a lunatic take your pick and his argument clearly implies those are our only two choices in the matter. That is a false dichotomy. Of course there is a third much more logical answer to the question, which is that Jesus is a figure in story never even existed at all. The gospel writers put words in his mouth. Like all apologists Lewis’ own thinking had been so narrowed by his religious beliefs he couldn’t even conceive of these and other possibilities and if he did he certainly wouldn’t want his readers to consider them.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
Response: Jesus supposedly said that but it hasn’t happened. Thor said he would rid the world of frost giants. I don’t see any frost giants.
Bo
The Iliad and the Odessy, indeed. Have you not the ability to distinguish the difference between styles and of writing? Or do you not want to notice the difference in this case?
Response: You tell me. What’s the difference?
“Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends. … Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”-CS Lewis, God in the Dock, pgs. 158-159
Response: Well C.S. Lewis knew nothing about ancient texts and neither so you, especially that one. Based on the oldest manuscripts and other evidence scholars agree that this particular passage was not originally part of John’s Gospel. It was added later. It couldn’t possibly be an eyewitness account. The anti-logic Lewis uses to arrive at the conclusion that the story just must be true is truly hilarious and ridiculous.
Boris,
But enough about Lewis. Just read his books and maybe you will be cured of your Atheism. Of course that could happen from reading The Creators book, but I think that your mind and heart have been poisoned so that you cannot make sense of its plain meaning.
Response: Enough about science. Just read a few science books and maybe you will be cured of your Christianity. Of course that could happen from an unbiased reading of the Bible (no book is responsible for more atheism than the Bible), but I think that your mind and heart have been poisoned so that you cannot make sense of its intended meaning. How does it feel to have your own arguments used against you? Your arguments and all apologetic arguments are self-refuting, as I have just demonstrated. But you go right on believing that they’re valid anyway, and make sure you try to convince as many people as possible they are as well.
Eliyahu Moshiach
Response: I’m not sure what you’re talking about but yes I do not believe in superhuman or supernatural. I’m one of those rare people who require some evidence before we’ll believe something.
Ken
Boris, transitional fossils are incomplete..therefor can’t prove evolution..but nice try…peace,joy to you
Response: Hey I don’t want you or any of your Christian brothers and sisters to accept evolutionary theory. No on the contrary, you keep telling everyone you meet that you believe in Adam and Eve, that Noah had an ark, that dinosaurs coexisted with humans and that the Association for Biblical Astronomy tells us that the sun orbits the earth. You creationists have done more to kill Christianity than all of the critics and skeptics combined.
Boris,
Oh please, spare me (and all of us)! I could shred everything you’ve posted to me above and turn it into confetti that would fly away with the wind, but to what avail? Only a “supernatural” act of God can remove your blinders.
I don’t feel the need to continue in lifting the veil on your oh-so-typical, timeworn half truths and flip-flopping rhetoric. Apparently you weren’t tuned in when the debate with the Orthodox Rabbi’s ran over 800 posts.
My prayer for you stands; May the Lord reveal Himself to you as you requested and may you be able to receive the truth when He does.
Boris, News flash: heaven and earth will pass way but the word of G-d will never die, Christianity lives as does the Lord of Lord’s and king of king’s
(Jesus Christ!!!) you can choose to reject the Lord but one day you will bow down to him as all will…and as these words sting you to the very core (depart from me you worker of iniquity for a never knew you) it isn’t because we haven’t tried. I’m still praying that the Lord will open your understanding and give you eye’s to see…Peace,joy to you
Boris,
It is quite amusing to watch you speak of one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century as If He didn’t know logic or ancient manuscripts. He could quote everything he ever read in its original language. You think that you are so smart. May real life descend upon you, and may it open your eyes.
Shalom
Boris,
Here is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
“Applications (of evolutionary science)
…
Understanding the changes that have occurred during an organism’s evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[272] For example, the mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[273] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation.[274]”
The above is presented as an application of evolutionary science. So is it?
So what we have here are mutations in cavefish. No new animal. We are dealing with loss of genetic information, not increasing genetic information.
We are using crossbreeding to bring the previous information back to the deformed creature’s offspring. None of this requires evolutionary science. It requires knowledge of genetics and crossbreeding.
This is a prime example of devolution and it takes intelligence to fix it. Without our intelligent interference the problems get worse not better.
So goes the whole of evolutionary theory. Yes theory. If this is one of evolutionary sciences great achievements, then we obviously do not need it. It didn’t do anything. It wasn’t even used in the above example.
I wonder if this is how all the “evolution is a fact” propaganda is used to brainwash our children. Because only a child would not see through this ridiculous example of the necessity of evolution.
Shalom
Boris,
Your religion of Materialism is about ready to be exposed.
I was reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus about the platypus and found out how evolutionists are baffled by it and how they have supposedly determined when it diverged from the non-egg laying mammals. “Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19–48 million years ago.[61]” They used a clock. The molecular clock. I did some shopping for that clock, because according to you, Boris, my ideas about history are distorted by believing the Bible’s timescale.
The quotes below are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock My comments will not be in quotation marks.
This “clock” isn’t really a clock, but a theory that is much contested. Below are some telling examples of how evolutionary science is not only a theory, but a hopelessly faulty one.
“The molecular clock (based on the molecular clock hypothesis (MCH)) is a technique in molecular evolution that uses fossil constraints and rates of molecular change to deduce the time in geologic history when two species or other taxa diverged.”
“The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates.”
No concrete dates…hmmm?
“Researchers such as Ayala have more fundamentally challenged the molecular clock hypothesis.[13][14] According to Ayala’s 1999 study, 5 factors combine to limit the application of molecular clock models:”
They had been using this “clock” for about 40 years to prove things only to find out that it wasn’t really that useful. How bad is it?
“It must be remembered that divergence dates inferred using a molecular clock are based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence.”
No direct evidence…hmmm?
“The molecular clock runs into particular challenges at very short and very long timescales.”
So both long and short timescales give it problems and…it is based on statistical inference and…it can only say when one time period is twice as long as another. Since this is the case, how do we know that the intermediate timescales, whatever they might be, are no problem to this “clock”? Aren’t intermediate timescales twice as long as some of the short ones that the clock is not good at determining? It really does run into “particular challenges”, doesn’t it? I would throw away my watch if it didn’t keep good time for 5 seconds or 3 days. How could I trust it for an hour?
“The molecular clock technique is an important tool in molecular systematics, the use of molecular genetics information to determine the correct scientific classification of organisms or to study variation in selective forces.”
After all these concessions/confessions, evolutionary science has the audacity to proclaim this “clock” that is just a bad theory to be important. How can this “clock” be an “important tool” if it doesn’t actually work? I have just figured it out…it is good for indoctrination of a false religion called Materialism. I guess I will continue to use the Bible as my “clock.”
Shalom
While Boris lambasts Christianity for using intimidation to gain and keep converts, he is heaping guilt upon himself. The words he uses, the method of their use, and their repetition are all intended as intimidation. He is not intimidated by the possibility of Hellfire. He is intimidated by “the majority”, even if it is only a construct of his mind, of scientists or scholars or modern Americans. He wishes to intimidate us by showing that all of his majorities are going to think that we are stupid wife beaters and filled with hate and intolerance. So who should we be intimidated by?
Matthew 10
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Proverbs 29
25 The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.
What does Atheism desire to gain from its rebellion against the ultimate authority? Whatever it can get away with. Personally, that might be carnal gratification, not the least of which is all manner of sexual deviancy. Politically, it has produced extreme persecution of those that stand against it and lavishes all types of privileges and luxuries upon its leaders and proponents. Peer pressure on the personal level and persecution of the political level will always be there to intimidate.
In a sense, Boris is correct that we have been intimidated. He more by lessor authorities. It is not the fear of hell, but the fear of YHWH that motivates us. Fear in the sense of honor and the realization that He is our master and creator and that He has a responsibility to execute justice in the end. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and other Athiest leaders will have their day in the eternal court soon. So will you and I and Boris. We have the choice to either be our own god and savior and be awed by our own minds or to give reverence to the real Creator/Redeemer…and there is no choice in between. And the bride will make herself ready.
Revelation 19
5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Shalom
Rosh Chodesh Sameach
Happy New Moon
Sheila
Oh please, spare me (and all of us)! I could shred everything you’ve posted to me above and turn it into confetti that would fly away with the wind, but to what avail? Only a “supernatural” act of God can remove your blinders.
Response: What a bunch of hot air. Okay, shred the fact that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to ancient well known prophesies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them. Not only can’t you offer a rebuttal to that contention you accuse ME of being the one with blinders on! How come you and the other Christians can’t see what is so obvious? Obviously you’re the ones with blinders on. But you see it now that I’ve exposed the truth about messianic prophesies to you. What’s it like trying to believe what you now know is not true?
My prayer for you stands; May the Lord reveal Himself to you as you requested and may you be able to receive the truth when He does.
Response: Knowledge doesn’t come through revelation. It comes from examining evidence. There isn’t any evidence to support the claims my fellow humans make about God.
Ken
Boris, News flash: heaven and earth will pass way but the word of G-d will never die, Christianity lives
Response: That isn’t a news flash it’s an ancient superstition. I do have eyes to see which is why I can see all the holes in your theistic arguments. According to Dr. Brown’s friend Frank Turek and other Christians spokesmen 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. The Southern Baptists say that half their membership is over 55 years of age. Christianity lives? Not much longer.
Bo
It is quite amusing to watch you speak of one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century as If He didn’t know logic or ancient manuscripts. He could quote everything he ever read in its original language. You think that you are so smart. May real life descend upon you, and may it open your eyes.
Response: I find C.S Lewis to be dreary and absurd.
Bo
Here is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
“Applications (of evolutionary science)…Because only a child would not see through this ridiculous example of the necessity of evolution.
Response: My daughter spent 6 years in college so she could become an evolutionary biologist. Your ridiculous comment is an insult to all the scientists who have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place by understanding how nature works. Why don’t you go down to the science department of any Christian college or university and ask the professors why the teach evolution and what its applications are? Because you are afraid of the truth, that’s why. You’d rather believe the comforting lies of religion. You’re welcome to them.
Bo
Boris,
Your religion of Materialism is about ready to be exposed. …it is good for indoctrination of a false religion called Materialism. I guess I will continue to use the Bible as my “clock.”
Response: Materialism is not a religion. It has no churches, no dogma; there is no hierarchy of materialist leaders and it’s certainly not false because unlike the false religion of Christianity materialism makes no pie in the sky promises that it cannot keep. Materialism doesn’t ask people to believe a bunch of ridiculous religious fairytales nor does it ask people to surrender their brains and believe in a bunch of absurd bogey entities they way the false religion of Christianity does. Religion is a dirty word these days. Don’t try to pass it off on other ideologies, worldviews or atheism. You’re stuck with that label.
Bo
While Boris lambasts Christianity for using intimidation to gain and keep converts, he is heaping guilt upon himself. The words he uses, the method of their use, and their repetition are all intended as intimidation. He is not intimidated by the possibility of Hellfire.
Response: And you lambaste me for exposing the tactics by which Christianity commands obedience and discourages doubt so people can recognize these and reject them. Fear is not a good reason to believe something. Christianity appeals to the base emotion of cowardice. It would only stand to reason that a religion that uses the tactics Christianity uses must have an awful lot to hide besides having nothing but pie in the sky promises to offer.
He is intimidated by “the majority”, even if it is only a construct of his mind, of scientists or scholars or modern Americans. He wishes to intimidate us by showing that all of his majorities are going to think that we are stupid wife beaters and filled with hate and intolerance. So who should we be intimidated by?
Response: I can’t be intimidated by anything and that fact irks you to no end. I am not here to intimidate. I’m here to read and post comments that pertain to come of the issues that interest me discussed on the radio broadcast. You and the other Christians want to argue me into believing what you have no evidence for. As a result you’ve seen the very same arguments that have helped you sustain your faith, as well as the fear-mongering that got you to accept all the Christians dogmas and doctrines in the first place, completely dismantled by an atheist. Now everything I post draws several responses that all reflect the desperation of your position. It’s only going to get worse for you so I’d suggest you stop trying to indoctrinate me into your religion.
What does Atheism desire to gain from its rebellion against the ultimate authority?
Response: Answer this question: Why do you continue to rebel against the ultimate authority of Islam? Do you want to wind up in the Muslim hell? What ultimate authority, your ultimate authority, the Muslim ultimate authority, the Hindu ultimate authority? People cannot agree on which ultimate authority is the correct one. Atheists are people who don’t believe there is an ultimate authority and are usually very aware of how much violence and bloodshed there has been among religious people fighting over whose ultimate authority we must all follow. And again you simply ignored my very clear refutation of your claim that atheism is an act of rebellion. See if you can grasp this concept: DOUBT AND SKEPTICISM ARE NOT REBELLION. We do not believe there is a God to rebel against. Your religion teaches otherwise which is just one more proof it is a false religion. I mean your religion has you repeating claims that are untrue. Maybe the light will come on for you some day, I don’t know.
Whatever it can get away with.
Response: No, it’s what we want to get away FROM. That is people like YOU telling us that we must believe in what YOU say about your God and obey what YOU say your God has said in a book YOU call God’s Word. When we reject YOU as the authority in our life, YOU become upset and tell us that God will punish us for rejecting what YOU say. We atheists don’t care if there is a God or not because there are no verifiable consequences either way. We do care that other people try to force their religion on us anyway they can. Nowadays you can only threaten us with absurd superstitions about an afterlife. But it wasn’t that long ago that unbelievers were not only threatened with physical violence they received it at the hands of angry Bible believing Christians. Stories of Christian martyrdom are Church fabrications completely unsupported by historical documentation. The real martyrs over the centuries have been the millions of unbelievers who were harassed, arrested, tortured and murdered by Bible believers for the supposed crime of unbelief.
Personally, that might be carnal gratification, not the least of which is all manner of sexual deviancy. Politically, … In a sense, Boris is correct that we have been intimidated. He more by lessor authorities. It is not the fear of hell, but the fear of YHWH that motivates us.
Response: It is the fear of YHWH sending you to hell that motivates you to believe what other people tell you about God.
Fear in the sense of honor and the realization that He is our master and creator and that He has a responsibility to execute justice in the end. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and other Athiest leaders will have their day in the eternal court soon.
Response: Don’t try to pass Hitler off on the atheists. Hitler claimed to have eradicated atheism in Germany. Hitler was a Christian. He’s all yours.
So will you and I and Boris. We have the choice to either be our own god and savior and be awed by our own minds or to give reverence to the real Creator/Redeemer…and there is no choice in between. And the bride will make herself ready.
Response: That is of course a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. That is exactly the kind of fallacy-riddled argumentation C.S. Lewis used. There are a lot more than two choices a person can make. A person can follow any number of gods, not just yours. Mormons give reverence to God but you claim they aren’t worshiping the real Creator/Redeemer so obviously Mormonism is one of many choices besides being awed by our own minds. But here is what is so hypocritical and ridiculous about your whole argument: You want to have it both ways. First you say unbelievers place no value on life because they think we are all just animals and then you accuse us of wanting to be our own gods and saviors. Once again we have a classic example of a self-refuting Christian apologetic argument. I suggest you find someone besides C.S. Lewis to get your religious dogma from.
Boris, If G-d was proven to you today, Would you love him? Could you love him?..in order to love someone, There must be a relationship, Some kind of inter action, G-d being a spirit we much worship and love him in spirit, Therefore all the proof in the world will never get you any closer to G-d, Each and every one of us much either decides to except the word of G-d as the truth or reject it as a lie, For me I will serve the unseen G-d and place all my trust in his Son Jesus the Christ. I might be narrow minded to the so called smart people, but narrow is the road to salvation, and wide is the road to destruction. Boris what you have to asked yourself is what road are you on my friend?..Peace, Joy to you.
sry type O..replace*much with must
“Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution”
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/6882/
Boris,
I don’t have much spare time at all these days let alone the time to deconstruct your worn arguments. It’s been done to death already. If you’re not willing to read anything, as you stated to Bo, would you have me write out what’s already been covered time and again? Do you honestly think that I (we) haven’t considered and thoroughly investigated the claims you make before arriving at our conclusion? I can assure you we’re likely better informed of those theories contrary to Christian doctrine than you are. What is it about atheists that cause them such angst when they encounter thinking Christians who’ve done their homework?