Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


History No Guide To National Prayer Day

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay, I don’t see American history helping you much on your bootstrapping argument about past practice and the National Day of Prayer.

Remember that Thomas Jefferson actually vetoed day of prayer resolutions as President-and those were usually focused on some special event.  I can find no record at all of any effort to set aside one specific day every year as a countrywide time for religious ritual.  Can you?

Moreover, even though we all know that some states had “official religions” at the time the First Amendment was ratified, there is no doubt that the same “federalist” principle that lead some to question the wisdom of a national army would lead to reticence about a national day for religiosity.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(82)
post a comment
jimbino

posted March 28, 2009 at 12:39 pm


My first reaction to Jay’s National Day of Prayer nonsense is to suggest that some scientist research and graph the results of prayer. My second reaction is that such an experimental disproof of prayer’s effectiveness would fall on the same ears already shown deaf to all science.
My first reaction to that is to suggest that we educate our Amerikan kids in science. My second reaction is to realize that there is no hope of that, since teachers are unionized and almost universally deaf to all science.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 28, 2009 at 9:55 pm


The whole idea that there is a God who listens to and answers prayers is absolutely false. This is the same God who has a keen interest in my sex life right? One thing Christians always claim God does because of prayer requests is to perform healing miracles. This is probably one of the easiest claims to refute. God never cures amputees. Why not?
The Bible says that God sent quails to drop magical food no one has ever heard of before or since on the Israelites in the desert every day for forty years so they didn’t starve. Today though, about 30,000 children starve to death every 24 hours. I say all the Christians should pray on the National Day of Prayer for God to send the magic quails to drop the magical food on at least some the starving children in the world until we humans can figure out how to solve the hunger problem. In fact they should have National Prayer Month to make sure God gets the message. If after we give Him his own month and billions of prayers directed at the same goal God does not send the magic birds I think we can ALL safely assume then that there is no God who answers prayers and that prayer should be discarded along with the animal sacrifices this God ignored for centuries also. I mean really. Praying is no different then cutting the head off a helpless animal to please a God.
“[Prayers] may bring solace to the sap, the bigot, the ignorant, the aboriginal, and the lazy – but it is the same as asking Santa Claus to bring you something for Christmas.” – W.C. Fields



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 29, 2009 at 2:36 am


Can you prove love is real?
Why don’t you run a campaigne against love or mercy? How about compassion…you can’t test compassion or run a thermometer into love so, why not outlaw those things.
Since atheists are disbelievers why not outlaw every holiday? And our bodies are only mechanical devices that need food, daily downtime, air and water to maintain themselves…outlaw weekends.
Why does a meaningless machine in a hopeless cosmos need weekends, vacations, friends, hobbies…anything except the basic survival elements?
A true atheist cannot in truth tell their wife, mother, brother, son or daughter they love them. If they do then the love they have for those people would have to be a chemical reaction of hormones and not anything deeper for fear this would eject the lover into a world of deeper spiritual meaning of which they deny.
So, my question to the atheist since you reject spiritual prayer as mere folly…can you honestly tell someone you love them and mean it?
If so, how do you defend this act as being something deeper than just brain switches and learned responses?



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted March 29, 2009 at 3:03 am


“So, my question to the atheist since you reject spiritual prayer as mere folly…can you honestly tell someone you love them and mean it?”
If my child is hungry, I can bring him food. God can’t even manage that for the thousands of children who die daily from hunger.
If you want to pray for food, you’d be better off calling Dominos than going to God.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted March 29, 2009 at 8:03 am


Boris: God never cures amputees. Why not?
DsJulian: How do you know that God never cures amputees? Actually you mean “God never appears to cure amputees in this lifetime. Why not?” That’s only a valid question if your theology/philosophy is: This is the only lifetime there is to cure them, and, Regrowing a limb is the only acceptable cure for them. This is just another part of Evangelical Atheism’s demand to redefine reality in their terms and using their limited, immature, five-sense perspective.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 29, 2009 at 4:43 pm


A true atheist cannot in truth tell their wife, mother, brother, son or daughter they love them. If they do then the love they have for those people would have to be a chemical reaction of hormones and not anything deeper for fear this would eject the lover into a world of deeper spiritual meaning of which they deny.
Boris says: A true Christian cannot in truth tell their wife, mother, brother, son or daughter they love them. If they do then the love they have for those people would have to come from a command from God and not anything deeper for fear this would eject the lover into a world of deeper materialistic meaning of which they deny.
All Christian arguments can be turned on their heads and used against the person foolish enough to make such a logically flawed, backward reasoned argument. Your Name should just stay incognito if he or she is going to continue to put their foot in their mouth.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 29, 2009 at 4:53 pm


DsJulian: How do you know that God never cures amputees? Actually you mean “God never appears to cure amputees in this lifetime. Why not?” That’s only a valid question if your theology/philosophy is: This is the only lifetime there is to cure them, and, Regrowing a limb is the only acceptable cure for them. This is just another part of Evangelical Atheism’s demand to redefine reality in their terms and using their limited, immature, five-sense perspective.
Boris says: Prove there is something more than “this lifetime” for biological organisms. I can prove there isn’t so your whole case is based on nothing but an ancient superstition for which there is not one shred of evidence.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted March 29, 2009 at 8:19 pm


Boris: “Prove there is something more than “this lifetime” for biological organisms.”
DSJulian: That’s easy. Just consider the Baltimore Oriole (the bird, not the baseball player). Orioles make rock hard nests out of a combination of grass, mud, and excrement that are nothing short of engineering miracles. So who teaches these birds how to build these nests? It’s not like one oriole builds a nest and the others copy her. It’s not like they go to nest-building 101 classes. This generation of orioles all build the same kind of nests as the last generation. And the next generation will do the same. Whether you want to call it instinct or genetic memory or whatever, it’s a clear indication that life goes on beyond one generation. Life is a continuing process, not at all dependent on “this lifetime”.
In my childhood a friend of mine gave me a picture that looked like a bunch of wavy lines. He told me if I looked at the lines at the right distance, in the right light, long enough, I would see a butterfly. And though I stared and stared I could see no butterfly, just wavy lines. My conclusion: this was just a picture of wavy lines and my friend was deluding himself into seeing a butterfly. Several days later I picked up the picture again and lo and behold, the butterfly image appeared. The moral of the story: Just because you can’t see something right now does not mean it’s invisible or that the people who say they can see it are delusional. Nor does it mean you will ever see it.
The truth is, Boris, that there is a great deal in this world that you do not, because you cannot, perceive, never mind comprehend. I fully understand why, in order to maintain what you choose to define as sanity, you have to redefine your existence to only include the five-sense parts you can perceive. And I fully understand your confusion about what is real and what isn’t because there was a time when I too failed to see the butterfly.
We can only hope and pray that one day you will look at the wavy lines and see there is more to this life than first meets the eye. In the meantime, we’d all appreciate it if you could stop this ranting and raving about us being the blind ones…



report abuse
 

harryoutdoors

posted March 29, 2009 at 10:42 pm


“If they do then the love they have for those people would have to come from a command from God and not anything deeper for fear this would eject the lover into a world of deeper materialistic meaning of which they deny.”
Unless you believe what the Bible teqaches that we are FREE WILL AGENTS who live in a material world and therefore never reject the idea of materialism as being a factor.
Being both a SPIRITUAL being with a material body and having our physical brain connected with our Spiritual mind…this gives those who accept both worlds the edge in understanding how love can be a real and personal experience we share with others and we also understand how to accept love from someone else and not just shrug it off as some chemical evolved reation of material only.
Maybe you should think before you give yourself great Kudos on such a shallow answer to a deeper question.
Atheists are limited to ONLY THE MATERIAL…Christians are OPEN TO THE ETERNAL AND SPIRITUAL THAT IS LINKED TO THE MATERIAL!
Oh look I signed my name!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 29, 2009 at 11:50 pm


Atheists are limited to ONLY THE MATERIAL…Christians are OPEN TO anything their leaders tell them to believe.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 30, 2009 at 3:37 am


Life is a continuing process, not at all dependent on “this lifetime”.
Boris says: Proof of evolution. And evolution proves man was descended from lower animals and has no magical ghost in the machine or soul. Until you can tell me what a soul is, where it is, what it does, what color it is then we can safely assume no such thing exists. Poof, there goes your pipe dreams about an afterlife.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted March 30, 2009 at 9:43 am


Boris, you are making a common error. You believe that simply because science does not know or cannot explain everything, those explanations do not exist.
I agree that there is no afterlife, and no previous lives either, but I also know that we haven’t found all the answers… yet. In fact, thinking that we already know all there is to know is the mistake that the creationists and intelligent designers make. They say “God did it” and then stop asking any questions.
I prefer DSJulian’s theories because they allow for accepting things that we cannot prove… yet. Maybe what we call God is nothing more than the totality of those things we don’t know about or cannot prove. Or maybe there is more to this God that we realize.
Proceed on the basis of what we all know as fact, but keep an open mind.



report abuse
 

harryoutdoors

posted March 30, 2009 at 9:43 am


Post your evidence of proof man evolved from lower animals. Give us specifics like fossil evidence and then we can talk.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 30, 2009 at 10:24 am


The Protestants like to claim it was just the Catholics who persecuted Galileo and denied his findings. The Protestants in fact have been mush more anti-science than the Catholics. No Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo until well into the 1800s. 200 years ago rabid evangelicals were demanding proof that the earth was round, two centuries after Galileo made his discoveries that proved it wasn’t. People like Harry would be highly embarrassed to read how just 200 years ago Christian apologists claimed that believing in a round earth would lead to moral decay and the destruction of the human race. Sound familiar? These are the same arguments creationists make today against evolution, and at the same late date! Bible believers have fought against and denied every scientific discovery and theory ever made even the ones made by other Christians like Galileo!
Now harry if you want proof of common descent and fossil evidence you don’t need to go to atheists who you don’t trust anyway. March yourself down to Baylor, SMU, Notre Dame, St. Mary’s, Brigham Young, Stanford, Muhlenburg, Princeton, Brown, TCU or any other CHRISTIAN college or university of your choice. Any one you want that has a science department. There the CHRISTIAN professors will be glad to explain to you why the Christian academic community has been teaching evolution and common descent for over 100 years. You can even ask these Christians why they don’t teach your Bible based creationist fantasies as science if you don’t mind when they laugh in your face.
Don’t hide behind evolution harry. You don’t believe in modern cosmology, geology, zoology, anthropology, oceanography, archaeology, cell theory, quantum physics, astronomy or any other science that proves your boogy book is a bunch of fairy tales. Harry when have scientists ever had to revise a theory in the face of claims from Bible believers? The Bible says the earth is flat, never moves, sits on a foundation with pillars while it is orbited by the sun, unless someone stops it! I guess you missed those parts huh harry? ROFL! They skip those parts in church for some reason. Now why is that? ROFL!



report abuse
 

harryoutdoors

posted March 30, 2009 at 5:31 pm


So, you don’t have any evidence to produce proof man evolved from lower animals?
Why didn’t you just say so?
Fluff is what you do to pillows not what you give as scientific arguments to prove a point.



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted March 30, 2009 at 5:42 pm


Boris:
Right as you are about the fact that both Catholics and Protestants took a long time historically in coming to terms with heliocentricity, you fail to make an important distinction, namely, that Protestants have no high priest telling them what they may or may not believe at risk of their mortal souls.
Protestants generally ascribe to the “priesthood of the believer,” meaning that there is NO intermediary, whether pastor, priest or pope to judge your adherence to matters of doctrine, much less of science. You don’t have to confess error or do penance, as Galileo was called upon to do by the Pope. Furthermore, it is foolish to lump Quakers and Unitarians together with David Koresh just because they all ultimately arose from the tradition of Martin Luther’s attack upon the venality of the Catholic Church that led to “protestantism.”
The protestants had their witch hunts and the evangelicals still do in any matter involving sex or fun of any kind, but these are historically brief and are not to be confused by the pervasive and catholic attacks upon humanity as practiced by the popes for 20 centuries.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 30, 2009 at 5:57 pm


Maybe in your church they teach those things but the Bible teaches the truth.
Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun’s rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 – “the circle of the earth.”
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth “within 50 miles of the present estimate.” [Encyclopedia Brittanica]
The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]
The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth’s spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]
The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]
“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.” [DD]
Reference: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.” [DD]
Reference: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
FLAT EARTH HOAX
The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. The flat-earth idea is a relatively recent invention that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, according to a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara.
Professor Jeffrey Burton Russell said in his book Inventing the Flat Earth, first released in the early 1990s, that up until the time of Columbus “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical”. Professor Russell said he believes that the flat-earth myth can largely be traced back to a story by Washington Irving, which relates a mythical account of Columbus defending a round earth against bigoted, misinformed clergy and university professors.
He said there is nothing in the documents from Christopher Columbus’s time or in early accounts of Columbus’s life that suggests any debate over the shape of the earth. He said the flat-earth myth flourished between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. It seemed an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science
More…
Plato, a contemporary of Aristotle and disciple of Socrates, quoted Socrates as saying: “my conviction is that the earth is a round body in the center of the heavens” (Phaedo, 380 BC).
The Roman poet Ovid (43 BC–AD 17) wrote in AD 8 that God “moulded Earth into a spacious round” (Metamorphoses, Book the First, The Creation of the World).
Roman philosopher Plotinus (204–270) wrote in his Six Enneads (Eighth Tractate, On the Intellectual Beauty, section 7): “it is possible to give a reason why the earth is set in the midst and why it is round …”.
Flat-earth myth flourished in recent times
There might have been debate about a flat earth among some of the ancients, but from our own research of over 5000 books from ancient times we have to say that Professor Russell seems to be correct when he says the flat-earth myth flourished only recently. Claims that people used to believe that the earth is flat are mostly in modern writings. Charles Darwin made the claim in his Voyage of the Beagle, Rudyard Kipling used the idea in Kim, Arthur Conan Doyle used it in Lost World, and other writers of recent centuries have also used it (such as Thomas Paine, and Swift, Bullfinch and Maugham whom we quoted earlier). All are recent writings.
Compounding their misinformation, some evolutionists claim that creationists are “flat-earthers” or are equivalent to the “flat-earth society”. An evolutionist website says there was supposedly a man in California named Charles Johnson who ran a Flat Earth Society. But even if this is genuine, the writings of his they reproduce are quite irrational. Even though the writings mention belief in a Creator, they end by saying “In 30AD JC said …”, revealing a non-Christian disrespect for Jesus (non-Christians refer to Jesus Christ as “JC”, but Christians don’t). To imply that creationists are flat-earthers linked to Johnson or his ideas is mischievous at best, but more likely simply dishonest. It is easier to find a link between evolutionists and astrologers.
As we have demonstrated, a look at some of the ancient writings themselves, including the Bible, leads us to believe that informed opinion among the ancients was that the earth was not flat, but was round or spherical.
And if some of the ancients did believe in a flat earth, it certainly was not an idea that got into the Bible. The Bible, as the Word of God, teaches the correct shape of the earth.
REFERENCE : http://www.creationtips.com/flatearth.html



report abuse
 

harryoutdoors

posted March 30, 2009 at 6:28 pm


Galileo was imprisoned because he taught the Copernican viewpoint of science rather than the Aristotelian science.
Galileo believed the Bible and so he wasn’t persecuted because he was an atheistic scientist but because he aligned with a certain type of science.
Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo’s view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, “I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.”[10]
He cited Copernicus in the same vein: “He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood”.[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.
“And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: ‘If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there’”[12]



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 30, 2009 at 9:30 pm


***So, you don’t have any evidence to produce proof man evolved from lower animals?
Boris says: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution-genetic fossil, anatomical, etc- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
***Why didn’t you just say so?
Boris says: You are shifting the burden of proof harry. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim and that would be you. Again it isn’t evolution you have a problem with. Come out of the closet and admit you don’t believe in cosmology, geology, anthropology, zoology, archaeology, cell theory, oceanography, astronomy or any other science that your own CHRISTIAN academic community teaches. Why should I defend just one area of science when you don’t believe in any science? Anyway you need to first explain why all the Christian colleges and universities in the world teach evolution and common descent and then you need to convince them all to stop doing this and teach creationism or at least Intelligent Design instead. When you’ve done that get back to us.
***Fluff is what you do to pillows not what you give as scientific arguments to prove a point.
Boris says: Creationists often parrot the naïve line that we have never observed evolution or a species evolve from another. There are several examples I could give of scientists observing these things. I’ll give two that are easy to comprehend: Using allopolyploid and artificial selection, scientists have manufactured crop plants and horticultural novelties that are reproductively isolated from the parental stock. On a much larger scale biologists have demonstrated, in a study of the songs and genetics of a series of interbreeding populations of warblers in central Asia, how one species can diverge into two. Their description of the intermediate forms of two reproductively isolated populations of songbirds that no longer interbreed is the “missing evidence” that Darwin had hoped to use to support his theory of natural selection, but was never able to find.
***Galileo was imprisoned because he taught the Copernican viewpoint of science rather than the Aristotelian science.
Galileo believed the Bible and so he wasn’t persecuted because he was an atheistic scientist but because he aligned with a certain type of science.
Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo’s view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, “I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.”[10]
Boris says: “I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use… In the discussion of natural problems we ought to being not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.” – Galileo Galilei ( 1564-1642). Now do you agree with that statement harry? Of course not and so insinuating Gallieo believed the Bible the way you do is a bit dishonest isn’t it?
***He cited Copernicus in the same vein: “He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood”.[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.
Boris says: Copernicus rejected his Anglican faith before he died. “People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon….This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13]that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” – Martin Luther in one of his “Table Talks” in 1539. Bible believers just like you are harry, literalists, denied the findings of Copernicus until the 1800s too. The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, believed in a flat immovable earth and many Protestants still hold to this view, which is boldly proclaimed by such organizations today as the Association for Biblical Astronomy headed by famous creationist and Discovery Institute spokesmen Gerardus Bouw. That’s where you get all your “scientific” information right harry, from the people who claim the earth never moves and is the center of the universe?
***”And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: ‘If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there’”[12]
Boris says: For a more clear example of what Augustine is saying: “Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens… about the motions and orbits of the stars… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture.” – Augustine
What Augustine is saying is that if science seems to disagree with Scripture, it isn’t science that is mistaken nor is it Scripture. It is the Christian’s interpretation of Scripture that is “nonsense.” You creationists have it backwards. Science is never going to be interpreted in light of the Bible. When has science ever revised one of its theories in the face of claims from Bible believers? That’s never happened nor is it ever going to happen. The Bible must be interpreted in light of what we know to be true about nature. Whether the Bible is “true” or not is beside the point. Any other interpretation is wrong.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 30, 2009 at 10:28 pm


Jimbino
***Right as you are about the fact that both Catholics and Protestants took a long time historically in coming to terms with heliocentricity, you fail to make an important distinction, namely, that Protestants have no high priest telling them what they may or may not believe at risk of their mortal souls.
Boris says: True. But there is a very good reason they do this. Look how the Protestants are split into all these denominations and it’s all because they can’t agree on how the Bible should be interpreted. Now there are different Catholic sects and some of them are pretty weird but they don’t bicker with each other and claim the other sects aren’t even Christians like the Protestants do. The Pope accepted the Theory of Evolution in 1946 and the Catholics all accepted it on the same day. No questions asked. A fine example where groupthink was a good thing, the ‘Baltimore Oriole Way’ under Paul Richards and Earl Weaver another.
***Protestants generally ascribe to the “priesthood of the believer,” meaning that there is NO intermediary, whether pastor, priest or pope to judge your adherence to matters of doctrine, much less of science. You don’t have to confess error or do penance, as Galileo was called upon to do by the Pope. Furthermore, it is foolish to lump Quakers and Unitarians together with David Koresh just because they all ultimately arose from the tradition of Martin Luther’s attack upon the venality of the Catholic Church that led to “protestantism.”
Boris says: I certainly don’t lump all Protestants together with each other. I pointed out that no Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo until the 1800s. But what percentage of Protestants were still holding to a flat earth in the early 1800s do you think? From what I can tell it’s about the same as the percentage of Protestants today who deny the Theory of Evolution. 200 years ago harry/Incredible would have been demanding proof of a round earth and then pretending to mock me when I couldn’t explain why we don’t fall off of it. Again it’s important to point out that literal Bible believers deny a lot more than just evolution. There attacks on evolution are supposed to fool the public into thinking creationists only have a problem with one particular area of science because it hasn’t been “proved.”
***The protestants had their witch hunts and the evangelicals still do in any matter involving sex or fun of any kind, but these are historically brief and are not to be confused by the pervasive and catholic attacks upon humanity as practiced by the popes for 20 centuries.
Boris says: Very true. Christianity has a lot of blood on its hands. But over the last few centuries Christianity has been heavily influenced by and adopted its morals and ethics from secular humanism and become a moribund and tame religion. I’m not so willing to blame a religion for perversions of its teachings nor am I out to blame people like harry/Incredible or any modern day Christians for the atrocities that Christians have committed in the past no matter how unjust and horrific. I make a big difference between fundamentalism and the moderate forms of religion. I blame the fundamentalists for attempting to continue this 2000 year long war on science which at one time stymied our growth as a race for 1500 years.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2009 at 10:33 pm


==Christianity has a lot of blood on its hands. ==
The godless more. Much more.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2009 at 10:54 pm


==The whole idea that there is a God who listens to and answers prayers is absolutely false.==
It is neither false, nor absolutely false. He listens to and answers the prayers of His children. His children are those who are born again. He doesn’t listen to stubborn unbelievers.
==God never cures amputees.==
Yes, He does.
==The Bible says that God sent quails to drop magical food no one has ever heard of before or since on the Israelites in the desert every day for forty years so they didn’t starve.==
He did.
== Today though, about 30,000 children starve to death every 24 hours. I say all the Christians should pray on the National Day of Prayer for God to send the magic quails to drop the magical food on at least some the starving children in the world until we humans can figure out how to solve the hunger problem.==
Is THAT one of God’s promises?
We don’t pretend to, nor do we, put God on trial, as you do.
==In fact they should have National Prayer Month to make sure God gets the message. If after we give Him his own month and billions of prayers directed at the same goal God does not send the magic birds I think we can ALL safely assume then that there is no God who answers prayers and that prayer should be discarded along with the animal sacrifices this God ignored for centuries also.==
Those who are born again are called upon to prey on His promises, not His special effects so that we can be persuaded. We already ARE persuaded. That’s cuz God has already performed. You don’t see the performance of His promises because you preclude yourself from seeing it. In precluding yourself, you create your self-fulfilling prophecy.
==Praying is no different then cutting the head off a helpless animal to please a God.==
You’re just plain ignorant, pretending to be wise. Halloween is over. Take off that mask. YIKES! No, keep it on.
==“[Prayers] may bring solace to the sap, the bigot, the ignorant, the aboriginal, and the lazy – but it is the same as asking Santa Claus to bring you something for Christmas.” – W.C. Fields==
YOU listen to the great god, W.C. Fields, and, perhaps, THAT’S the problem.
==If my child is hungry, I can bring him food. God can’t even manage that for the thousands of children who die daily from hunger.==
Did He promise everybody earthly food? No. He promised the Bread of Christ.
==A true Christian cannot in truth tell their wife, mother, brother, son or daughter they love them.==
The Devil says that, too. We don’t listen to him, either.
== If they do then the love they have for those people would have to come from a command from God and not anything deeper for fear this would eject the lover into a world of deeper materialistic meaning of which they deny.==
Oh, I see. You equate God’s love with worldly love. Of course, the Devil would like you to continue to advocate that confusion.
==All Christian arguments can be turned on their heads and used against the person foolish enough to make such a logically flawed, backward reasoned argument.==
You haven’t done it yet.
==Atheists are limited to ONLY THE MATERIAL..==
Read: the worldly. They are limited to the worldly, and can’t possibly perceive anything else.
==Christians are OPEN TO anything their cult leaders tell them to believe. ==
Not true. We are open only to what God tells us is true. If a pastor, for instance, tells us something, it must align with the Word of God. If it doesn’t, we don’t believe him. It’s as simple as that, and it’s that easy.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 30, 2009 at 11:54 pm


==The Bible must be interpreted in light of what we know to be true about nature.==
Who says? A scoffer???? No scoffer is in a position to instruct us on the Word of God.
Anywho…
About what “nature”?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:54 am


We can quote Galileo back and forth forever…who cares what quotes we can mine.
You were the one who said you had proof of humans evolving from lower forms of animals.
I simply asked you to bring forth proof…your proof was that there are museums in universities filled with bones.
Were you just being silly or just scared to admit you have no real proof. Give us one half chimp half man proof that isn’t a hoax…or a fossil of a lower animal (you do know fossils have numbers and even names) so pick one that is accepted as real proof of your claim or rest your case closed for lack of proof.
Another problem with atheist’s premises that Christians reject science is the fact that Christians love science…we just hate false science and the perversion of science.
I don’t despise evolution…I do despise the perversion of the term evolution from what it should mean OBSERVATION OF CHANGE to the falsely called scientific practice of using EVOLUTION TO PROVE ALL LIFE CAME FROM SIMPLE CELLS…
Change has been observed duhhhhhhh….life changes and has been programmed to react within a material world of chemicals, electricals, atomicals and even quantum factors…so what’s so ungodly about the observation of things reacting and changing?
I enjoy all sciences…I see God’s hand in everything from Astronomy to micro-biology…the laws of science are constant and work everytime in precise and predictable formulae…predictability shows design.
Your science choices cosmology, geology, anthropology, zoology, archaeology, cell theory, oceanography, astronomy or any other science ALL serve natural laws of the universe and are servants of mathematics and physics which are languages of the cosmos and affect EVERYTHING!
So, Christians are more closely equipped to understand the sciences than someone who rejects any absolutes…those of us who are open to the COMPLETE ANSWER of why the sciences are linked together and answer to LAWS AND EQUATIONS are better scientists than those who limit themselves to a SHALLOW UNIVERSE.
So, pick your science Boris!
Give an example of proof there is no God…or a proof man came from lower animals.
Try and not ramble with fuzzy inuendos and broad insults but give some simple proofs we can all see in REAL SCIENCE and NOT WISH SCIENCE.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 31, 2009 at 2:20 am


Your Name,
I told you to get back to me when you could explain why every CHRISTIAN college and university in the world with a science department teaches evolution and common descent and then when you could convince all of them to stop doing this because you want them to teach creationism or at least Intelligent Design instead. Are you scared to do this? Are you scared what they will tell you? How’s that going so far? Not up to the challenge? Going to cut and run? Pull the bait and switch again? Don’t bother me again with your demands until you can get your own academic community to explain all the science you don’t believe to you. Until you can convince your own academic community that man did not descend from lower animals like they’ve been teaching for over 100 years you have no business asking an atheist to prove anything to you or believe one word of your nonsense.
Answer this Bible man. Does the earth move or is it stationary? What scriptural evidence do you have that the earth moves?



report abuse
 

harryoutdoors

posted March 31, 2009 at 9:46 am


Boris…It’s okay if you don’t have any evidence you want to reveal at this time…(called lame theory)just say so!
Oh, and you know there is a difference in the term “earth”…right?
Earth can be the land you stand on or the globe.
Are you saying the earth you stand on moves in an orbit?
Have a good ‘un!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 31, 2009 at 10:08 am


Boris…It’s okay if you don’t have any evidence you want to reveal at this time…(called lame theory)just say so!
Boris says: Read it and weep:
Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation. What it really demonstrated is the establishment of mating reproductive isolation (as yet incomplete) and genetic divergence reflected in measurable changes in body form. Thus, two of the three critical steps in the process of formation of new species has been and continues to be observed in these salmon.
Again, Your Name, the proof of evolution is right in front of you and if you’d go to your own CHRISTIAN academic community, take a class in evolutionary biology and find out what evolution is all about.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted March 31, 2009 at 10:40 am


“Your Name” said: Give us one half chimp half man proof that isn’t a hoax…or a fossil of a lower animal (you do know fossils have numbers and even names) so pick one that is accepted as real proof of your claim or rest your case closed for lack of proof.
That’s not how evolution works and you probably know it! If not, you need to read up on evolution a bit.
Since you obviously believe in the biblical story of creation, though, here’s your answer. They were all destroyed in the flood. Noah, already fully man, went onto his ark and watched as all the lower, half-man half-chimp forms were destroyed.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 11:18 am


== Does the earth move or is it stationary?==
It moves.
== What scriptural evidence do you have that the earth moves?==
(Psa 99:1) The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.
(Ecc 1:5) The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
(Isa 13:13) Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.
(Isa 24:19) The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
ORBIT: (Isa 40:22) It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
(Jer 49:21) The earth is moved at the noise of their fall, at the cry the noise thereof was heard in the Red sea.
FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE DAY: (Amo 8:9) And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 11:23 am


==Since you obviously believe in the biblical story of creation, though, here’s your answer. They were all destroyed in the flood. Noah, already fully man, went onto his ark and watched as all the lower, half-man half-chimp forms were destroyed. ==
Where is this in the Word of God, about chimpman?
==…go to your own CHRISTIAN academic community, take a class in evolutionary biology and find out what evolution is all about. ==
They don’t teach evolution cuz they believe in it. They teach it so that students will know what they’re talking about when they confront the likes of you people.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 11:33 am


==…explain why every CHRISTIAN college and university in the world with a science department teaches evolution and common descent and then when you could convince all of them to stop doing this because you want them to teach creationism or at least Intelligent Design instead. ==
Cuz those schools want students to be prepared for even the arguments atheists make.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:34 pm


“Can you prove love is real?
… So, my question to the atheist since you reject spiritual prayer as mere folly…can you honestly tell someone you love them and mean it?”
———————————————
Love is an emotion. If you feel it, it’s real for you. End of story.
Gods are beliefs. If you believe in them, they are real for you. End of story.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:46 pm


==Love is an emotion.==
So, it is something you cannot see, and, to hear the atheists tell it, if you cannot see it, it doesn’t exist.
== If you feel it, it’s real for you.==
So, since, for some people, Blacks are a threat, it’s okay with you if it’s real for them. Okay, now we know.
==Gods [sic] are beliefs.==
God is invisible, just like “love.” Yet, you say love exists, that God does not.
Could you, at least, be consistent?
== If you believe in them, they are real for you.==
So, you’re okay with my voting for a definition of “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, cuz it’s real for me that God wants it that way. That’s good to know.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:47 pm


Gods [sic] are beliefs. —> Gods are beliefs.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 12:54 pm


==If you feel it, it’s real for you==
Is there anything that can be real for me but not real for you and can lead to a conflict that can be straightened out only by finding out, for sure, what is really real?
If I love my wife, and, as you say, it’s “real” for me, how can it be “real” for her if the reality is that it’s only “real” for me?? How does it become “real” for her, unless my reality, somehow, seeps into HER reality???
I’m pretty sure you haven’t thought this thing out.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted March 31, 2009 at 1:44 pm


“So, it is something you cannot see, and, to hear the atheists tell it, if you cannot see it, it doesn’t exist.”
———————————
No. What most atheists say is that without evidence gods probably do not exist, except as beliefs in the minds of the people who believe in them.
Love is a human emotion not a supernatural being. That’s the difference.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted March 31, 2009 at 1:54 pm


“How does it become “real” for her, unless my reality, somehow, seeps into HER reality???”
———————————
You just tell her that you love her. If she believes you, then it becomes real for her also.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted March 31, 2009 at 2:03 pm


“So, since, for some people, Blacks are a threat, it’s okay with you if it’s real for them. Okay, now we know.”
——————————————–
The fear they feel is real. To make a value judgement about whether their fear is warranted or not (or is “okay with me” as you put it), I would need more info about the underlying causes of their fears but in any case if they feel it, their fear would certainly be real. Fear like love is an emotion. If you feel it it is real.
From your perspective, are gods human emotions or human beliefs?



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted March 31, 2009 at 2:37 pm


“God is invisible, just like “love.” Yet, you say love exists, that God does not.
Could you, at least, be consistent?”
———————————————
Your analogy isn’t quite clear to me.
If gods are just subjective beliefs, then they are very much like love and fear and other emotions, invisible and real to the beholders. They need no objective evidence other than the word of the beholder. But if gods are objectively “real” like the Sun, or my car, or my cat, then they are very different than emotions and would require objective evidence to prove they exist outside the minds of the people who believe in them.
At a minimum, we know gods are beliefs because there are many people who openly express those beliefs but without hard, objective evidence this is about all we can say with any degree of certainty.
Beliefs, like emotions are always real to the beholders.



report abuse
 

Merry

posted March 31, 2009 at 4:21 pm


Some of you may not know this, but at one time we had a President named Abraham Lincoln, he not only called for a national day of prayer “and fasting” on multiple occasions, but is also responsible for Thanksgiving becoming a national holiday. He is also responsible for “In God We Trust” being put on our currency.
Enough with Thomas Jefferson already. As if the man’s opinions speak for everyone involved in founding our country. So you don’t believe in God, fine. The people who founded this nation did and the freedoms you have are a direct result of their beliefs whether you like it or not. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” You have a problem with it, move.



report abuse
 

Merry

posted March 31, 2009 at 4:36 pm


If this is a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people” how is it that a “political correctness driven”, God-less, 1-2% at most are telling the rest of us what we can and can’t do? I suggest everyone get a copy of the Constitution, and if you haven’t read Animal Farm, by George Orwell, read it. There are plenty of individuals out there ready to rewrite history, and they believe that the louder and longer they say what they say makes it true and that we are all dumb enough to buy it. People who believed in God secured your right to “freedom of speech” in the first place. Wake up America!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 6:31 pm


==If this is a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people” how is it that a “political correctness driven”, God-less, 1-2% at most are telling the rest of us what we can and can’t do?==
Because they have an exaggerated idea of their own importance.
==”God is invisible, just like “love.” Yet, you say love exists, that God does not.
Could you, at least, be consistent?”
Your analogy isn’t quite clear to me.==
No kiddin’.
You say “love” exists. Yet, you cannot see “love.” So, by your standard, love does not exist, just as you say God doesn’t exist cuz you say you can’t see Him.
==If gods are just subjective beliefs, then they are very much like love and fear and other emotions, invisible and real to the beholders. They need no objective evidence other than the word of the beholder. But if gods are objectively “real” like the Sun, or my car, or my cat, then they are very different than emotions and would require objective evidence to prove they exist outside the minds of the people who believe in them.==
There IS objective evidence of God. It’s just that you missed it. You missed it because you refuse to receive the evidence, preclude yourself from it.
==At a minimum, we know gods are beliefs because there are many people who openly express those beliefs but without hard, objective evidence this is about all we can say with any degree of certainty. ==
no evidence that YOU’LL accept, anyway.
==Beliefs, like emotions are always real to the beholders.==
You can “believe” your way out of anything.
==”How does it become “real” for her, unless my reality, somehow, seeps into HER reality???”
You just tell her that you love her. If she believes you, then it becomes real for her also.==
Well, I tell you that God exists, and, so, by YOUR standard, He should become real for you, too. So, I guess that YOUR standard has a glitch.
==”So, since, for some people, Blacks are a threat, it’s okay with you if it’s real for them. Okay, now we know.”
The fear they feel is real.==
So, according to YOU, that reality should be real for everybody, just cuz they communicate it to everybody.
== To make a value judgement about whether their fear is warranted or not (or is “okay with me” as you put it), I would need more info about the underlying causes of their fears…==
Why should THAT matter??? According to YOU, all that matters is that THEY “see” that reality.
== but in any case if they feel it, their fear would certainly be real.==
But it’s not REALLY real.
==Fear like love is an emotion. If you feel it it is real.==
So, according to YOU, the fact that nobody else can see it doesn’t matter to you. We get it.
==From your perspective, are gods human emotions or human beliefs?==
From the perspective of those who have done the experiment, God is neither human emotion, nor belief; He is real.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 31, 2009 at 6:36 pm


==”So, it is something you cannot see, and, to hear the atheists tell it, if you cannot see it, it doesn’t exist.”
No. What most atheists say is that without evidence gods probably do not exist, except as beliefs in the minds of the people who believe in them. ==
So, without objective evidence, atheists must believe that “love” and “beauty” do not exist, except as beliefs in the minds of the people who believe in them.
==Love is a human emotion not a supernatural being. That’s the difference.==
Except that you people say that, JUST CUZ you can’t see something, it doesn’t exist. Well, you can’t see “love” and you can’t see “beauty.” So, I guess they don’t exist.



report abuse
 

harryoutdoors

posted March 31, 2009 at 11:00 pm


Boris says: Read it and weep:
Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed..
WOW!!!!! Salmon turned into SALMON!!!!!!
Evolution is in worse trouble than I believed!
Christians and Intelligent Designers don’t resist changes within species…
Show me where Salmon turned into BIRDS and you have your proof!
The truth is you don’t have the proof you claim you have Boris…not your fault really…atheistic evolutionists have painted this picture of having truth for decades now and are yet to actually SHOW ANYTHING TANGIBLE!
Now, what was that about poking holes in theories?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 1, 2009 at 3:36 am


Merry said: Some of you may not know this, but at one time we had a President named Abraham Lincoln, he not only called for a national day of prayer “and fasting” on multiple occasions, but is also responsible for Thanksgiving becoming a national holiday.
Boris says: Some of you may not know this but Honest Abe was an unbeliever. “It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity.” – Abraham Lincoln. Before he had politics to worry about, Lincoln wrote a treatise against Christianity, arguing that the Bible was not God’s revelation and Jesus was not the son of God. After his assassination, his former law partner said Abraham was an “avowed and open infidel, sometimes bordering on atheism… He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard.”
He is also responsible for “In God We Trust” being put on our currency.
Boris says: The motto In God We Trust was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the American Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout Christians throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize God on United States coins. He knuckled under to pressure from people frightened by war.
So you don’t believe in God, fine. The people who founded this nation did and the freedoms you have are a direct result of their beliefs whether you like it or not. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” You have a problem with it, move.
Boris says: All men created equal Merry? Not the slaves these slave owners who wrote those hypocritical words held as property though right? They were only created three-fifths as equal as white men. And women. They had almost no rights at all did they? Our founders were deists who believed in Nature’s God and not Christians anyway, so you need not be ashamed of their hypocrisy. They gave God second billing to Nature, which proves they weren’t talking about the Christian God.
If this is a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people” how is it that a “political correctness driven”, God-less, 1-2% at most are telling the rest of us what we can and can’t do?
Boris says: The Godless are obviously much more than the 1 or 2 percent your cult leaders tell you exist. I love how atheists are 1 percent and insignificant when one Christian lie is told and then very powerful when the other lie is told.
I suggest everyone get a copy of the Constitution, and if you haven’t read Animal Farm, by George Orwell, read it. There are plenty of individuals out there ready to rewrite history, and they believe that the louder and longer they say what they say makes it true and that we are all dumb enough to buy it. People who believed in God secured your right to “freedom of speech” in the first place. Wake up America!
Boris says: The people who believed in God then did not have the information available today that points to the fact that all Gods are imaginary. If they knew then what we know now, our country would have been founded by atheists rather than deists. Christians always make the mistake of assuming anyone in America who talks about God is talking about the Christian God and that is just not so nor has it been the case especially in the past.
Incredible once again blurted: Because they have an exaggerated idea of their own importance.
Boris says: Christians deny that they are biological organisms and instead claim they are gods who can live forever in a magic happy land because they are so special and then claim others who they believe will burn in hell for rejecting Christian superstitions and dogma have an exaggerated idea of their own importance.
You say “love” exists. Yet, you cannot see “love.” So, by your standard, love does not exist, just as you say God doesn’t exist cuz you say you can’t see Him.
Boris says: By your standard then we would have to say atoms don’t exist because we can’t see them either. But we can see evidence for atoms just as we see evidence for love.
There IS objective evidence of God. It’s just that you missed it. You missed it because you refuse to receive the evidence, preclude yourself from it.
Boris says: What exactly IS this objective evidence? Why it’s the Bible, which we know is true because it says it is. That isn’t evidence it’s nonsense and proof there isn’t any objective evidence.
You can “believe” your way out of anything.
Boris says: And you can be told to believe anything by your creationist cult leaders and you will. People who believe a 500 year-old man built a ship bigger than the Titanic out of wood will believe anything they are told. They have no ability to see beyond fear induced superstitions planted in their heads by other people.
Well, I tell you that God exists, and, so, by YOUR standard, He should become real for you, too. So, I guess that YOUR standard has a glitch.
Boris says: That’s the problem. The only people who tell us God is real have shown themselves time and again to be untrustworthy.
From the perspective of those who have done the experiment, God is neither human emotion, nor belief; He is real.
Boris says: The experiment consists of drinking the creationist Kool-Aid and believing whatever Henry Morris wrote.
So, without objective evidence, atheists must believe that “love” and “beauty” do not exist, except as beliefs in the minds of the people who believe in them.
Boris says: Beauty is in the eye of and love is in the mind the beholder
Harry,
WOW!!!!! Salmon turned into SALMON!!!!!!
Evolution is in worse trouble than I believed!
Boris says: How are you doing with your crusade to get the CHRISTIAN academic community to believe that evolution is in trouble? Oooh, creationism and ID are in much, much worse trouble than YOU thought huh? ROFL! Can’t sell your creationist fantasies to scientists, to your own colleges and universities, to the public schools, to the general public and yet you say evolution is in trouble! See if you can pray that to be true harry because chanting it over and over and over again just ain’t working.
Christians and Intelligent Designers don’t resist changes within species…
Boris says: What do you mean Christians and Intelligent Designers? There are no “Intelligent Designers” who are not also fundamentalist Bible believers who also believe in supposedly intelligently designed angels, Satan, demons, seraphs, cockatrices, flying serpents, satyrs and a whole bunch of other “intelligently designed” nonsense for which there isn’t one shred of evidence.
Show me where Salmon turned into BIRDS and you have your proof!
Naturally the creationist mind too narrow to perceive or understand graduated change makes an absurd demand. Evolution is gradual change over time, nothing like instantaneous creation magic. I can prove that birds turn into new species of birds. Biologists have demonstrated, in a study of the songs and genetics of a series of interbreeding populations of warblers in central Asia, how one species can diverge into two. Their description of the intermediate forms of two reproductively isolated populations of songbirds that no longer interbreed is the “missing evidence” that Darwin had hoped to use to support his theory of natural selection, but was never able to find. Poof all creationist lunacy evaporates forever.
The truth is you don’t have the proof you claim you have Boris…not your fault really…atheistic evolutionists have painted this picture of having truth for decades now and are yet to actually SHOW ANYTHING TANGIBLE!
Boris says: You keep failing to address the most humiliating and devastating nail in your creationist coffin. That would be the Christian “evolutionists” who have been teaching not only evolution for over 100 years but they teach all the other science that clearly refutes the Bible. Don’t say it doesn’t refute the Bible either harry because you wouldn’t have to deny it so desperately if it didn’t. Science isn’t done on intangibles. And once again I would ask you to come out of your science denying, hating and fearing closet and admit that it isn’t just evolution you have a problem with. You don’t believe in any science and you know it. Stop hiding behind evolution when it is all science closing in on all sides on you and your magical boogy book.
Now, what was that about poking holes in theories?
Boris says: Let’s see you try by convincing Christian scientists that you can poke holes in their CHRISTIAN theories. 200 years ago you would have been like the other Protestants who still hadn’t accepted the roundness of the earth. Your religion has been wrong about science ever since the Bible was written. You Bible believers have tortured and murdered other Christians who studied nature and not one of you has ever contributed one thing to the advancement of science. Bible believers are and always have been the laughingstock of the entire world. Ever wonder why that is? Because the Bible is a flat earth book. Your Protestant forerunners killed to preserve that belief. You should be so proud.



report abuse
 

harryoutdoors

posted April 1, 2009 at 11:38 pm


My, my…all that rage and you still give nothing scientific to prove your claims of evolution except
now
instead of fish
you have
BIRDS
Changing into
BIRDS!
Specieation is no proof of evolution…Boris, why do you hate science so much? You seem to avoid it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 1:21 am


Evolution has nothing to do with intellect. It has everything to do with Will.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:46 am


Creationism has noting to do with science. It has everything to do with religious dogma and nonsense.
Harry, your the creationist so YOU are the one who hates science. Why isn’t creationism Or ID taught as science in any CHRISTIAN colleges or universities if they are science? Why is evolution taught in Christian colleges and universities? Humiliating isn’t it? Answer the questions. Why has the Christian academic community rejected creationism and ID?



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:38 am


Boris: “And evolution proves man was descended from lower animals and has no magical ghost in the machine or soul. Until you can tell me what a soul is, where it is, what it does, what color it is then we can safely assume no such thing exists. Poof, there goes your pipe dreams about an afterlife.”
Still another example of Evangelical Atheism’s need to define all the terms. In the example of the Oriole I gave you, you still didn’t explain how the nest-making ability evolved or why it should evolve without the “magical ghost” to intervene. And in the example of the paper with the wavy lines, was the image of the butterfly really there? Yes it is. How I know this is because every subsequent time I looked at the lines I could only see a butterfly. I don’t have to “prove” anything to you. You have to keep denying the existence of everything beyond your very limited five-sense perceptions in order to hang onto some semblance of what you perceive to be control over your own life. You say unless I can define the soul for you in five-sense terms “then we can safely assume no such thing exists.” No, because you cannot “safely assume” anything of the kind. So the only thing that goes “poof” is that you Evangelical Atheists get to define reality for the rest of us in those same terms…



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 2, 2009 at 11:05 am


Still another example of Evangelical Atheism’s need to define all the terms.
Boris says: Are you kidding me? Let’s take a look at how Christianity Uses the Distortion of Language to Distort Reality:
In Christian circles and in the Bible, many words are used in unique ways, with distinct meanings. Part of joining the culture is learning to use these words. The language changes may appear subtle and innocent in the beginning, but eventually through repetition, believer’s thoughts become controlled by the very words that are used to describe reality and the specific meanings that are assigned by the system. The manipulation of thought is powerful and nearly invisible. Specific words are usurped and misused, with the effect of changing and shaping basic assumptions, Edward Cohen, in his book The Mind of the Bible Believer (1988), calls it “logicide,” the killing of words. He says that in Christianity, some key words that are also important in human experience generally, are redefined and become so overburdened with ponderous, contrived, and dissonant meanings that they are put out of commission entirely as vehicles for articulate thought or communication. He examines the distortions of the words life, death, truth, wisdom, righteousness, justice, liberty, bondage, love, hate, will, grace, witness, and word. For example, Cohen points out that wisdom is used so as to exclude any basis except divine commandment. Human wisdom is disparaged as “foolishness” and equated with wickedness (cf. 1Cor 1:19-21). The definition of wisdom in this system is a simple tautology: Since wisdom is the province of God, anything God odes is “just,” “wise,” and, “righteous,” even though it seems wrong to humans. As Cohen points out, God is defined in terms of these words and they are all redefined in terms of him. Any wisdom from other sources is declared null and void. People who have contributed in art, science, and politics are absurdly called “foolish and “wicked” because they brought something other than the Christian gospel. Likewise truth in the Bible does not refer to facts or sincerity but rather correct scriptural doctrine: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” (1John 2:22). The use of the word truth to mean acceptable doctrine makes the doctrine more attractive to a potential convert, while lie serves to alienate believers from the surrounding world. Freedom in the Bible also means something very different from our usual notion of being able to make choices. It compares more closely to being free of lice. In Romans 6:17-18 it is clear that the believer is no closer to having free will. Freedom simply means “available for subjection to God” instead of to sin. With these new definitions, it becomes interesting to look at that old favorite, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Another potent example of this manipulation of language is the use of love, which translates to obedience: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments…He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me” (John 14:15, 21). Cohen points out that just as truth is torn away from the realm of fact, love is removed from the realm of human affections. Human love is disparaged as frail and fickle, while agape – unselfish, altruistic love that is from God love – is held up as ideal. This can appeal greatly to converts disappointed with human relationships. Yet, it has little to do with what we usually think of love: affection, sharing thoughts and feelings, caring accepting, forgiving, empathizing touching listening, giving, respecting, helping, appreciating, supporting, and so on. It is a mental activity of adhering to a code. A Christian “loves” a sinner because God “loves” the sinner and one must follow suit. Love to the Evangelist is simply a willingness to put up with a sinner in order to obey the commission to preach the gospel. Thus the Christian can say, without noticing the inconsistency, “I love the sinner, but not the sin.” To the uninitiated, this is a strange kind of love that tries to divorce persons from their activities and then judges those activities with amazing ferocity. In this type of love, there is no desire to know or be known, which in our everyday understanding, underlies the condition of love. Normally the development of intimacy in human relations involves increasing levels of self-disclosure ans mutual acceptance based on equal standing. In contrast, the Christian preaching the gospel is by no means acting vulnerable, while working hard to find a vulnerable spot in the potential proselyte. – From Toxic faith and Religious Addiction
Well DS Julian I don’t expect you to respond to this since you’ve never responded to any of my other critiques of your posts. But everyone can see this essay has totally refuted your ridiculous claim that atheists are the ones trying to redefine terms in our language. Christians have to totally distort our language to promote their false dogmas and doctrines.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 2, 2009 at 11:28 am


In the example of the Oriole I gave you, you still didn’t explain how the nest-making ability evolved or why it should evolve without the “magical ghost” to intervene.
Boris says: Oh birds have souls too huh? Don’t try to shift the burden of proof. The person making outrageous claims about the supernatural has the burden of proof and that would be YOU. You need to prove that it takes magic for a bird to build a nest and that the birds instincts are not the result of evolution by natural selection like every CHRISTIAN college and university in the world teaches. Are you going to argue against your own Christian academic community again? If so, why don’t you go argue with them first before you try to convince atheists to believe something no intelligent educated Christian believes?
And in the example of the paper with the wavy lines, was the image of the butterfly really there? Yes it is. How I know this is because every subsequent time I looked at the lines I could only see a butterfly.
Boris says: This is a prime example of how people see space ships when they see a UFO. If I point to a UFO and say “What is that?” we’ll all wonder what it is. But if someone says “Look at that flying saucer” people like you will see a flying saucer when there really isn’t one.
I don’t have to “prove” anything to you. You have to keep denying the existence of everything beyond your immature and very limited five-sense perceptions in order to hang onto some semblance of what you perceive to be control over your own life.
Boris says: Great first you claim you don’t have to prove anything and then insinuate there are bunch of invisible boogy entities that I can’t sense. Of course you can’t prove that because it isn’t true.
You say unless I can define the soul for you in five-sense terms “then we can safely assume no such thing exists.” No, because you cannot “safely assume” anything of the kind.
Boris says: Non-belief is the natural position to take on anything until something has been proved. The existence of souls has NOT been proved to either of us and you KNOW it. OTHER PEOPLE have convinced you that if you don’t believe you have a soul that your soul will be tortured for all eternity. How one falls for such circular nonsense is beyond me.
So the only thing that goes “poof” is that you Evangelical Atheists get to define reality for the rest of us in those same terms…
Boris says: There is no such thing as an evangelical atheist. Most atheists agree with me that people who are believe in fairy tales like the stupid ones in the Bible are too immature to develop their own moral and ethical systems through critical analysis. Christians always tell me that if there were no God there would be nothing to stop them form behaving immorally and nothing to make them love their fellow humans. So you Christians keep on believing whatever it takes to keep the rest of us safe from your inclinations. No one wants to make atheists out of people like you.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:17 pm


Mr Inc: ==”How does it become “real” for her, unless my reality, somehow, seeps into HER reality???”
Freestinker: You just tell her that you love her. If she believes you, then it becomes real for her also.
Mr Inc: Well, I tell you that God exists, and, so, by YOUR standard, He should become real for you, too. So, I guess that YOUR standard has a glitch.
—————————–
No … by my standard, your god only becomes real for me if I believe you, which I don’t. Therefore your god is real for you but not for me. See how that works?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:22 pm


Mr Inc: “There IS objective evidence of God. It’s just that you missed it. You missed it because you refuse to receive the evidence, preclude yourself from it.”
————————————-
Mr Inc,
Educate me then. Where is this “objective evidence” of your god? I’m all ears!



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm


Mr Inc: “So, without objective evidence, atheists must believe that “love” and “beauty” do not exist, except as beliefs in the minds of the people who believe in them.”
————————–
Yes. Love and beauty are very much like beliefs, they only exist for the people who feel love or see beauty. For instance, I might see a painting and think it’s beautiful. You might see the same painting and think it’s an ugly piece of trash. I see beauty where you do not and we are both correct.
Now you’re getting it!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:41 pm


==Where is this “objective evidence” of your god? I’m all ears!==
My “god”??? Which one? I don’t have a “god” and no “god” has me.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:47 pm


==Love and beauty are very much like beliefs, they only exist for the people who feel love or see beauty.==
And, yet, you say they exist. But you say you can’t see God and that, therefore, He doesn’t exist. Can YOU say “inconsistent”?
==…I might see a painting and think it’s beautiful.==
Though youj don’t see “beauty.” The word, “beauty,” describes what’s inside you, not anything that’s a part of the painting.
==I see beauty where you do not…==
But, YOU said, just above there, that you THINK it’s beautiful, and, now, you’re saying that you SEE “beauty” in it. Which is it?
==… and we are both correct.==
That’s cuz there is no “beauty” to see in the painting, and, yet, you say you can see it. Have you leared to say “inconsistent” yet?
==Now you’re getting it!==
I got it all along, and I’ve tried to educate YOU cuz YOU don’t get it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:51 pm


==…by my standard…==
THAT’s the problem.
==… your god only becomes real for me if I believe you…==
You choose to ignore evidence. That’s ok. It doesn’t impact my Salvation.
==… which I don’t.==
No impact on MY Salvation.
== Therefore your god is real for you but not for me.==
He’s real for ALL who choose to see Him. If you choose not to see Him, it doesn’t mean that He isn’t there.
== See how that works?==
Uh, I should. I’m the one who’s been telling YOU!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 2:55 pm


==Non-belief is the natural position to take on anything until something has been proved.==
Except when, as in YOUR case, the so-called “non-belief” is the result of the choice not to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The fact is that you believe something. You don’t not believe. That belief takes a position on God. Thus, it is a religious belief, by you own standard.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 2, 2009 at 3:20 pm


Except when, as in YOUR case, the so-called “non-belief” is the result of the choice not to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Boris says: What IS this overwhelming evidence? What atheists deny is what OTHER PEOPLE claim about God. The only way Christians spread is through evangelism or there would be no need for such a thing. So belief in God is spread by OTHER PEOPLE. You believe OTHER PEOPLE when they talk about God and we atheists do not. So who is the fool?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 3:36 pm


==What IS this overwhelming evidence?==
What we have shown you and rejected even before you ask for it. It’s what you have precluded yourself from knowing.
== What atheists deny is what OTHER PEOPLE claim about God.==
That denial is based on a belief. You believe something. You do not not believe something.
== The only way Christians are spread is through evangelism…==
Jesus told us to spread the Word of God. That, we do.
==…So belief in God is spread by OTHER PEOPLE.==
No, it isn’t, except in testimony. It is testimony as to the work of God, that God’s performance matches His promise.
== You believe OTHER PEOPLE when they talk about God…==
Only when their testimony and witness match the Word of God. Where they do not, that is the work of the Devil.
==And we atheists do not.==
Yes, you believe something else. What you believe is a “belief.” You do not not believe.
== So who is the fool?==
Look in the mirror and ask yourself that question.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 3:41 pm


==What atheists deny is what OTHER PEOPLE claim about God.==
That denial is an operation of the mind. And operation of the mind is belief. It is based on what the person chooses to see.
You believe that God doesn’t exist. By definition, that’s “atheism.” You have said that you’re an “atheist.” Therefore, you believe that God doesn’t exist. You believe. You have a belief. You don’t not have a belief. You do not not believe. You believe. Unless, of course, you’re claiming that you do not have an operation of the mind concerning this.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 3:43 pm


CORRECTION
==What IS this overwhelming evidence?==
What we have shown you and you have rejected even before you ask for it. It’s what you have precluded yourself from knowing.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 2, 2009 at 5:28 pm


What we have shown you and you have rejected even before you ask for it. It’s what you have precluded yourself from knowing.
Boris says: once more time… What IS this evidence? You have not given us any evidence other than the Bible is true because YOU say it is. I say a 500 year old man did not build a ship out of wood and a donkey did not talk and Herod did not slaughter any children and Jesus Christ did not exist. Prove me wrong Bible man.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 5:50 pm


“He’s real for ALL who choose to see Him.”
——————————
Exactly! “Seeing Him” is in the eye of the believer.
That’s the interesting thing about faith, it’s always true to the beholder and it never requires evidence to prove!
If you believe it, it’s true for you but just because it’s true for you, that doesn’t make it true for everyone else but if you have all this “evidence” that your belief is true for everybody, then why are you so reluctant to share it?
I’d love to hear your “evidence”, especially if you could provide it without resorting to your typical ad hominems or other such logical fallacies.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 6:12 pm


==What IS this evidence?==
What we have shown you and rejected even before you ask for it. It’s what you have precluded yourself from knowing.
==You have not given us any evidence…==
None that YOU’LL believe, anyway.
== … other than the Bible is true because YOU say it is.==
Never said that.
== I say a 500 year old man did not build a ship out of wood …==
You say that cuz you CAN’T believe it cuz you told yourself NOT to believe it. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
==… and a donkey did not talk…==
Witnesses say the donkey did.
==… and Herod did not slaughter any children…==
YOU say he didn’t.
==… and Jesus Christ did not exist.==
Of course, He did.
== Prove me wrong Bible man.==
We can’t prove you wrong. You won’t let us.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 6:18 pm


==”He’s real for ALL who choose to see Him.”
Exactly! “Seeing Him” is in the eye of the believer.==
However, just because you can’t see Him, does not mean that he He doesn’t exist. So, the Truth just escapes you.
==That’s the interesting thing about faith, it’s always true to the beholder and it never requires evidence to prove!==
Even though the evidence exists and has been shown you. That you reject it is not up to us.
==If you believe it, it’s true for you but just because it’s true for you, that doesn’t make it true for everyone else…==
However, there are troops that exist wholly apart from belief. God is one of them. That you don’t believe Him, nor that He exists, doesn’t change Him. What He wants is gonna happen the way He wants it, whether, or not, you like it.
==… but if you have all this “evidence” that your belief is true for everybody, then why are you so reluctant to share it?==
We already have. Y’all missed it cuz y’alls have precluded the evidence from getting through.
==I’d love to hear your “evidence”…==
No, you wouldn’t. That’s cuz we’ve presented the evidence, and you’ve rejected it. You’ve rejected it even before you asked for it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 6:21 pm


What we have shown you and rejected —> What we have shown you and you have rejected



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 6:43 pm


“However, just because you can’t see Him, does not mean that he He doesn’t exist.”
—————————————
Mr Inc,
That is true but just because you can “see Him”, does not mean “He” exists for anyone other than you.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 2, 2009 at 6:54 pm


What we have shown you and you have rejected is that the Bible is the word of God. Since God wrote the Bible, we know that it contains only truthful accounts. Since the truthful accounts are inspired by God, we know that the Bible is God’s word. In other words, the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. Got it. It’s all becoming so Christiany to me now! Now Robin the Boy Wonder is an eyewitness to Batman. Wow! That proves Batman exists too! In fact using Mr. Incredible’s kind of logical fallacies we can be made to believe in any kind of magic there is!
==… and a donkey did not talk…==
Witnesses say the donkey did.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 6:54 pm


==”However, just because you can’t see Him, does not mean that he He doesn’t exist.”
Mr Inc,
That is true but just because you can “see Him”, does not mean “He” exists for anyone other than you. ==
However, if I see Him, and He exists, it behooves you, for your Salvation, to heed Him.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:04 pm


“You believe that God doesn’t exist. By definition, that’s “atheism.” You have said that you’re an “atheist.” Therefore, you believe that God doesn’t exist. You believe. You have a belief. You don’t not have a belief. You do not not believe. You believe.”
—————————————————-
Mr Inc,
That’s not the definition of an atheist, at least it’s not the one I see in the dictionary nor does it accurately describe most atheists I know.
If your definition was correct, not collecting stamps would a “hobby” and not playing basketball would be a “sport”! Clearly, they are not.
An atheist lacks “belief” in gods. Most atheists admit that there is a very small possibility that gods exist but we lack faith in that conclusion without hard scientific evidence.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:14 pm


==”You believe that God doesn’t exist. By definition, that’s “atheism.” You have said that you’re an “atheist.” Therefore, you believe that God doesn’t exist. You believe. You have a belief. You don’t not have a belief. You do not not believe. You believe.”
That’s not the definition of an atheist…==
It describes an atheist accurately.
==… at least it’s not the one I see in the dictionary…==
The dictionary is not a lawgiver. It is a history of usage book.
==… nor does it accurately describe most atheists I know. ==
The atheist must manipulate and adjust the definition so that it describes something other than what he is.
As I say, the atheist believes something. He does not not believe. Belief is in his head. There isn’t an absence of belief. He believes that God does not exist.
==If your definition was correct, not collecting stamps would a “hobby” and not playing basketball would be a “sport”! Clearly, they are not. ==
Non sequitur.
Doing and believing are two different things.
Not driving a car does not make you a driver.
However, you cannot not believe. A thought is a belief. It is not an absence of belief.
Atheists say, definitely, that there is no God. It’s not that they don’t believe there is a God cuz that would leave open the option of believing there IS a God, and they say there is no God. It’s a belief. It’s not not a belief.
==An atheist lacks “belief” in gods.==
No, he doesn’t. He takes a position on God. That, in itself, is a believe.
== Most atheists admit that there is a very small possibility that gods exist…==
Then, they aren’t atheists. We wish that they would make up their minds.
==… but we lack faith in that conclusion without hard scientific evidence.==
Then, as I say, you people aren’t atheists.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:15 pm


“However, if I see Him, and He exists, it behooves you, for your Salvation, to heed Him.”
——————————————————–
Mr Inc,
True, but if “He” only exists for you then I’m in the clear.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:21 pm


“The atheist must manipulate and adjust the definition so that it describes something other than what he is.”
————————————
You changed the definition, not me. But by your definition, I’m not an atheist then. I just lack belief.
There might be gods just like there might be a giant pink elephant downstairs sitting on my couch right this minute! I just don’t believe in either one. That’s all.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:34 pm


Mr Inc,
I do agree that those who “believe” with absolute certainty that there are no gods are on equal footing with who “believe” gods exist. Neither has any proof for their claim. So without proof, I do not “believe” in gods. They may exist but until I see some scientific evidence, I don’t “believe” they do.
What would it take for me to prove to you that Zeus exists? If you were skeptical, would you just take my word?
How would you describe your lack of belief in Zeus?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:39 pm


“However, if I see Him, and He exists, it behooves you, for your Salvation, to heed Him.”
==Mr Inc,
True, but if “He” only exists for you then I’m in the clear.==
It doesn’t work that way. However, you are free to think that you’re in the clear:
Faustus: “I think Hell’s a fable.”
Mephstophilis: “Ay, think so still — till experience change thy mind!”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 2, 2009 at 7:50 pm


==”The atheist must manipulate and adjust the definition so that it describes something other than what he is.”
You changed the definition, not me.==
I changed nothing but the PR definition.
== But by your definition, I’m not an atheist then. I just lack belief.==
No, an atheist has a believe. He believes that God does not exist. If you believe that God does not exist, you’re an atheist, by definition. Again, I know that’s not the PR definition. So what?
==There might be gods just like there might be a giant pink elephant downstairs sitting on my couch right this minute! I just don’t believe in either one. That’s all.==
No, you believe that there is neither. Your belief is one event, and the “existence” of gods and giant, pink elephants would be, if they existed, another. You’re believe has nothing to do with whether, or not, they exist in reality. They may, or may not, exist wholly apart from your belief.
==I do agree that those who “believe” with absolute certainty that there are no gods are on equal footing with who “believe” gods exist.==
From the standpoint of belief, as an operation of the mind, yes.
However, God exists wholly apart from whether, or not, you believe He exists.
== Neither has any proof for their claim.==
However, we have prove God exists. It’s before your very eyes. You, however, have rejected the proof. You claim it doesn’t exist. So, you preclude yourself from knowing.
== So without proof, I do not “believe” in gods.==
You do not not believe. You say you believe that there are no gods.
== They may exist but until I see some scientific evidence, I don’t “believe” they do.==
You believe that they don’t.
==What would it take for me to prove to you that Zeus exists?==
Nothing, since he doesn’t.
== If you were skeptical, would you just take my word? ==
The difference is that Zeus has not performed, and God has.
==How would you describe your lack of belief in Zeus?==
I don’t have a lack of belief. I believe, but I believe that he does not exist. That’s cuz he has not performed any promises that he is made. Anyway, he has made no promises to keep.
Anyway, to “believe in” is to trust. To “believe that” is quite another thing.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 2, 2009 at 8:07 pm


==What would it take for me to prove to you that Zeus exists?==
Nothing, since he doesn’t.
——————————–
Then we understand each other completely!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 3, 2009 at 2:18 am


==/==What would it take for me to prove to you that Zeus exists?==
“Nothing, since he doesn’t.”
Then we understand each other completely!==
Except that God has performed. Zeus has not. The Zeus has no Covenant with Man. God does. Zeus did not die for Man’s sin. Jesus did.



report abuse
 

Freestinker

posted April 3, 2009 at 12:33 pm


“Except that God has performed. Zeus has not.”
—————————————————–
Oh but Zeus has indeed performed. Have you never seen His beautiful blue sky? Have you never heard His powerful thunder? Have you never witnessed His awesome bolts of lightning?
Oh Yes! Zeus, the King of gods most certainly has performed and yet you still deny His existence in spite of all the obvious evidence of His Mightyness?



report abuse
 

student's t

posted April 9, 2009 at 8:08 pm


I find the good Reverend comments rather interesting. I seem to have found no problem find a government site that has mention of a national day of prayer in which the U.S. Senate recognized the authority of “Almighty God.” Lincoln concurred with that statement. It should also be interesting to note that would mean that two branches of government “violated” the separation of church and state. Then again, as I am researching this subject, so maybe I am a “gnostic” in the sense that I have “special knowledge” that the good Reverend does not.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted November 17, 2009 at 9:13 pm


As Dr. Jay stated, the appointment of legislative chaplains, the act of opening sessions of the legislature with prayer, and declaring national days of prayer and thanksgiving historically point to the significance of America’s founding as a Christian nation. Thus, a National Day of Prayer is an important tradition to continue.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.