Local to Global News Report Your News
Sign up now!

CREATIONIST BELIEF, the Many Flaws of the Young Earth Myth

Hartford : CT : USA | 6 months ago
7 0
Views: 2,057
  • When Methods Clash
    When Methods Clash
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    Facts, facts, such untidy facts!
  • James Ussher, Charletan
    James Ussher, Charletan
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    A fake if ever there was one.
  • Job Creationism
    Job Creationism
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    Think about it, folks.
  • The Great Man Himself
    The Great Man Himself
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    Mr. Issac Asimov, The Ben Franklin of his age.
  • The Real Young Earth
    The Real Young Earth
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    This is how it really happen, really.
  • Intelligent Design
    Intelligent Design
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    Where the wild things go.
  • God's Witch Doctor
    God's Witch Doctor
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    It could happen to your child.
  • Other Parts of the Story
    Other Parts of the Story
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    Scary, no?
  • The REAL Big Bang
    The REAL Big Bang
    Posted by: EddieBuddha3
    Truly, truly.
When Methods Clash

CREATIONIST BELIEF, the Many Flaws of the Young Earth Myth

For many true believers, the general concept of the Earth and its physical presence is that an intelligent force brought all physical matter into existence, including the trillions of stars, billions of galaxies, our solar system, Earth and everything in it. Most believe it started with a single creation event.

“Young Earth” creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, and conclude that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. The primary method for arriving at this number is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden. These creationists believe that any evidence not supporting their theory is incorrectly applied, or that the data is misinterpreted. Their view is that the Bible is the only source that should be examined to prove creation, and the events recorded in it should be taken as they interpret them.

Young Earth proponent Henry Morris stated, “Either…believe God’s Word all the way, or not at all” (The Long War Against God), the presumption here of course being that whatever Mr. Morris and his fellow-believers hold as God’s Word is the ONLY correct version.

Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literalist interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.

The genealogy-counting method is most often credited to James Ussher (4 January 1581–21 March 1656) , who was a prolific scholar, most famous for publishing a chronology that purported to time and date creation to the night preceding 23 October 4004 BC, according to the proleptic Julian calendar.

His work calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC. The time of the Ussher chronology is frequently misquoted as being 9 a.m., noon or 9 p.m. on 23 October.

Using different methods, Ussher was able to convince himself that he had indeed established an unadjusted Creation date of about 4000 BC.

But even then he had move it back to 4004 BC to take account of an error perpetrated by Dionysius Exiguus, the founder of the Anno Domini numbering system. Josephus indicated that the death of Herod the Great occurred in 4 BC; therefore, Jesus could not have been born after that date. Therefore, by his adjusted calendar, Jesus was born some time between 37 BC (when Herod came to power) and 4 BC. Ignoring the irony of employing BC (meaning of course, before Christ), Ussher calculated that Christ's birth year must have been 4 BC.

The season in which Creation occurred was the subject of considerable theological debate in Ussher's time. Many scholars proposed it had taken place in the spring, the start of the Babylonian, Chaldean and other cultures' chronologies. Others, including Ussher, thought it more likely that it had occurred in the autumn, largely because that season marked the beginning of the Jewish year.

Ussher further narrowed down the date by using the Jewish calendar to establish Creation as beginning on a Sunday near the autumnal equinox. The day of the week was a backward calculation from the six days of creation with God resting on the seventh, which in the Jewish tradition is Saturday — hence Creation began on a Sunday. The astronomical tables that Ussher probably used were Kepler's Tabulae Rudolphinae (Rudolphine Tables, 1627). Using them, he would have concluded that the equinox occurred on Tuesday October 25, only one day earlier than the traditional day of its creation, on the fourth day of Creation week, Wednesday, along with the Sun, Moon, and stars (Genesis 1:16). Modern equations place the autumnal equinox of 4004 BC on Sunday October 23.

The single largest stumbling block to this belief being anything more than a myth, however, is the bad methodology Ussher used in order to arrive at his figures.

Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992) was an American author and professor of biochemistry, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books, as well as other non-fiction titles. Asimov was a strong proponent of scientific reasoning, and someone who adamantly opposed creationists, religious zealots, pseudoscience, and mysticism. Asimov did not oppose genuine religious feeling in others, must be said, but he did, however, have little patience for intolerance or superstition masquerading as religion.

He published Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Complete with maps and tables, the guide goes through the books of the Bible in order, explaining the history of each one and the political influences that affected it, as well as biographical information about the important characters.

As explained in his Guide, the Old Testament portion of what is seen by many as the complete Bible was assembled and codified by Jewish scholars in Byzantium around 300 AD. As was so often the case in the time before the term ‘federal grant’ came into existence, these scholars had to search for someone to fund them in their efforts (even religiously inspired scholars have to feed and clothe themselves, after all). The people most likely to support such an effort would of course be fellow Jews, and the best choices among that group would be the affluent ones; for that time and place, that meant the Jewish traders engaged in commerce along the fabled Silk Road that connected Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and China.

The way to convince such worldly, materialist capitalists is to assure them that their money will also guarantee their own family’s immortality. In other words, the trader-princes’ family genealogy would be included in the Good Book; the more money donated, the earlier one’s family tree would be listed (the idea being that, the sooner one’s family lineage appears in the book, the more valid is your clan’s claim to being ‘more’ Jewish than other families who get listed later).

It is generally agreed among archeologists who study the period that there were likely no more than six to eight thousand Jews residing in Byzantium by the end of the third, beginning of the fourth century AD, so any number of family genealogies coming from so small a group would include several overlapping names, replications, and just plain errors.

But Ussher failed to take this factor into account when made his first efforts at wringing a date for the beginning of the universe out of the Bible. He simply brought the genealogies together, allowed fifty years for the lifespan of each name (which in itself is an unforced error, in that it presupposes that each and every man will sire the next generation in their fiftieth year of life), added the numbers together, arrived at a number of roughly six thousand, and –Glory Hallelujah!—it was very nearly the same number that was in the Jewish calendar … THAT can’t possibly be a coincidence, now can it?

Another problem with a 6,000 yo world is the sheer size of the entire human population, which is currently estimated as being just below 7 billion people.

An astute reader of the Bible won't forget about the bottle neck of the 600 years after Adam and Eve, when Noah's flood occurred. That would give us a length of only 5,400 years for the population to go from 8 humans to just under seven billion (www.secretsituation.com/geo/graphic.htm) today.

Even with exponential growth there isn't enough time; lack of medical technology/methodology for most of our recorded history (technology and methodologies that don’t even exist before the era of recordkeeping began), rampant plagues, unrestrained infant mortality, all of these and other impediments have to be factored in.

Young Earthers often use fake growth curves to prove their point. They pick a number akin to modern population growth, assume that there were no population decreases (like the Black Death, that killed as estimated 25 million people in less than five years) in order to get the results they want. They ignore the periods in which growth was restricted by everything from limited food supply to extended land wars, all items that fall under Malthusian Law.

(Malthusian Law is the theory that population tends to increase at a faster rate than its means of subsistence and that unless it is checked by moral restraint or disaster --as disease, famine, or war-- widespread poverty and degradation inevitably result)

What Ussher had actually done was engage in magical thinking; like the magician who pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he had ‘gotten’ something out of the Bible, even though the number was never actually in there to begin with.

And, like a stubborn stain that you can’t scrub out of a favorite shirt, no matter how hard you try, the Young Earthers just won’t acknowledge the truth of the matter and go find something useful to do with their lives.

  • Print
  • Share:
  • Share
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Stumbleupon
Posted By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
Maybe... maybe not. The 6000 years you refer to are from the Garden of Eden, but not necessarily from the beginning of the earth or the universe. There are currently Sumerian tablets which go back about 6000 years, from the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which speak of the first man, the Adama.

Many Jews, however, consider much of Genesis, and the creation story to be metaphor and allegory. Judaism uses four different levels of interpretation of Torah, all based on the original Hebrew, and teaches that interpretation is dynamic, not static. I other words, new interpretations are still being found today.

We really don't know what caused a subatomic particle, about 13.8 billion years ago, to cause a unified force to split into four different symmetrical universal forces, namely strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force and gravitational force, and expand faster than the speed of light, into what is now our universe.

If you enjoy theoretical physics, Michio Kaku's book, "Parallel Worlds" is a fascinating look at the beginning of the universe.

Personally, I don't see the time line or the explanation of one of the foremost physicists of his generation to be in contradiction with the Genesis account. I don't believe for a minute, however, that the universe is 6000 years old; for me, that's ridiculous.
Posted By larry_r45 larry_r45 | 6 months ago
I just think some people will believe any lie that denies God.
The hate for God and our Lord has been growing and increasing in strength.
I don't doubt the concentration camps for the believers is far off, now that we have a Muslim president.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
LoL!
Reply By lwhaley1979 lwhaley1979 | 6 months ago
First off, our President is not a Muslim. As much as I dislike him and what he is doing, he is not Muslim. He belongs to the Trinity United Church of Christ and they have their own problems.

Secondly, I am a Christian and I believe in God, but for the most part I can't stand other Christians or Church. A very large majority of Christians are very judgemental and try to force their belief system on others. That is why I beleive there is such a dislike for our faith. It has nothing to do with people hating God. It is more of a contempt for the people who are supposed to be representing Him, but are doing a poor job at best.

Finally, all of these scientific theories of how earth was created are not necessarily lies that deny God. Who is to say that the big bang theory is not how God created the Earth. The Bible only states that He created the Earth. It does not say how he did it.

The whole thing is that there is no point in arguing over it. People are free to believe how they want. The Bible only asks that we spread the word of God to others. It does not, however, say we should force it upon someone. That is the whole thing about God and the Bible. Everyone has their own right to CHOOSE.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
"First off, our President is not a Muslim. As much as I dislike him and what he is doing, he is not Muslim. He belongs to the Trinity United Church of Christ and they have their own problems."
--------Did you know Black LIberation Theology, which is what the lovely Rev. Wright teaches, is rooted in Marxism?

"Secondly, I am a Christian and I believe in God, but for the most part I can't stand other Christians or Church."
--------You're a Christian but youre uncomfortable around other Christians and Church? This is not the mind of Christ; this is a worldly mindset. And if there's been NO change in your life from your old worldy ways, something's is wrong with your Christianity. You may not be saved.

"A very large majority of Christians are very judgemental and try to force their belief system on others. That is why I beleive there is such a dislike for our faith."
------------I think you're feeling guilty about something and that's why you think Christians are judgemental. Conviction will cause you to lash out at God and call Him names. Your behavior in this post sounds a lot like Adam when he got busted sinning in the garden.

"It has nothing to do with people hating God. It is more of a contempt for the people who are supposed to be representing Him, but are doing a poor job at best."
----------That's why Jesus hung on the cross. People are not perfect. But guess what? Jesus delegated to us the Kingdom of God after He died. He gave for us to do what He could do so easily. You are being very judgemental and critical of your brothers and sisters. I'm positive there are people who have a few choice words for your imperfections.

"Finally, all of these scientific theories of how earth was created are not necessarily lies that deny God. Who is to say that the big bang theory is not how God created the Earth. The Bible only states that He created the Earth. It does not say how he did it. The whole thing is that there is no point in arguing over it. People are free to believe how they want. The Bible only asks that we spread the word of God to others. It does not, however, say we should force it upon someone. That is the whole thing about God and the Bible. Everyone has their own right to CHOOSE."
-------------LWhaley, you should care about whether people are choosing Jesus or death. The Great Commission was not a suggestion.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear LWhaley,
You said:
"You are only proving my point. So please, keep talking. And just so you know, Marxism has nothing to do with the Muslim religion."
--------------Do I need to start giving religion classes on this site? The Nation of Islam and Black Liberation Theology are two doors going into the same room. Black Liberation Theology is a soft soap version of black nationalism. One of its cheif preists, James Cone, wrote a book called: "Black Power." The anti-American, lunatic racist words of Wright, Cone, and Pfleger, are from the same den of evil as the Nation of Islam.

"So thanks for helping me out there as well."
---------------No problem.

"And I never claimed to be perfect."
---------------Okay, good. You admit youre not perfect -- so with authority do you go after your brothers and sisters in Christ with condemnation? You're heaping condemnation on them just like the devil does. You should be exhorting them, not putting them down. Be part of the Heaven's solution, not part of damnation.

"But since church and religion are filled with fanatics like you and larry_r45 who think they can say things like, "You're a Christian but youre uncomfortable around other Christians and Church? This is not the mind of Christ; this is a worldly mindset. And if there's been NO change in your life from your old worldy ways, something's is wrong with your Christianity. You may not be saved," not only prove my point about the judgement you pass, but it also shows your ignorance."
-----------------Fanatics? You think we're fanatics because your on the other side of the moon from Jesus. Not even close. You remind me of that scripture that talks about how some self-deceived people profess Christ with their lips, but their hearts are far away from God. Also this other one that say: if anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." That's in James. That describes you perfectly.

"The Bible never once states that one must conform to religion or go to any church to be saved or to be a follower. It only asks that you believe in him and worship him. It NEVER states how, when or where."
--------------So, LWhaley, how many worldly friends do you have? How many Christian friends do you have? Where did you find them? What you are proposing is pure selfishness and hatred of the brethern. That's not what the Bible tells us to do: Hebrews 10:25 "Let us not give up meeting together, AS SOME ARE IN THE HABIT OF DOING, but let us encourage one another..." The Bible instructs us to be in relationship with other believers. We are part of the body of Christ and together, we encourage each other and carry out God's plan. We belong to each other: Romans 12:5 "so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." We need each other to grow and encourage each other in the things of God, to serve one another, "wash each other's feet", to practice forgiveness.

"So, the fact that you think your way is the only right way, which is the mindset of religion, is the entire reson I do not belong to a church."
---------------The reason you don't go to church is because you can't stand the conviction of God upon your heart to change your life. You're just making up excuses not to go. Whatever sin it is you're hiding, God will forgive you. Just go to Him and repent. He's waiting with open arms.

"But I have read the Bible from cover to cover more than once,"
--------------Are you trying to tell me you know it all now? You need to spend time with it everyday. The Word of God is the scrub brush of your mind. Remember what it says in Romans? "Be not conformed to the things of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." How do you do that? Read the Word everyday and write it on your heart. Jesus is the Word. No Word, No Jesus.

"I pray on a regular basis, and I do my best to follow his teachings. Just because I choose not to follow those whom I believe misinterpret, misrepresent, and misuse the Bible and its teachings, does not make me any less close to Him."
--------------Find yourself a Spirit filled, Bible believing church. Calvary Chapels across the US are very good. Line by line studies of the Bible every Sunday. You can't make it in this world without your brother and sisters in the Lord. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Though one person may be overpowered by another, two people can resist one opponent. A triple-braided rope is not easily broken. There are no lone rangers in Christianity.
Reply By lwhaley1979 lwhaley1979 | 6 months ago
You are only proving my point. So please, keep talking. And just so you know, Marxism has nothing to do with the Muslim religion. So thanks for helping me out there as well. And I never claimed to be perfect. But since church and religion are filled with fanatics like you and larry_r45 who think they can say things like, "You're a Christian but youre uncomfortable around other Christians and Church? This is not the mind of Christ; this is a worldly mindset. And if there's been NO change in your life from your old worldy ways, something's is wrong with your Christianity. You may not be saved," not only prove my point about the judgement you pass, but it also shows your ignorance. The Bible never once states that one must conform to religion or go to any church to be saved or to be a follower. It only asks that you believe in him and worship him. It NEVER states how, when or where. So, the fact that you think your way is the only right way, which is the mindset of religion, is the entire reson I do not belong to a church. But I have read the Bible from cover to cover more than once, I pray on a regular basis, and I do my best to follow his teachings. Just because I choose not to follow those whom I believe misinterpret, misrepresent, and misuse the Bible and its teachings, does not make me any less close to Him.

Posted By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
Larry_r45: Please show me exactly where in my article I even hinted at anybody's beliefs in a god. If you can find such a thing, I will be especially impressed.

My article focuses solely and exclusively on the magical thinking people have used in order to pretend there was something in the Bible that simply wasn't there.

The many authors of the Judeo-Christian Bible were not concerned with the exact age of either the universe or the Earth itself; they were deeply concentrated upon preserving for posterity the life-lessons that are in every page of the Bible.

Fake religious 'authorities' like Ussher do a disservice to those men by using pretzel logic, bad research, and their positions over others to produce useless hokum.

Please feel perfectly free to believe whatever you choose to believe; but if you are going to say that you believe in the Bible so wholeheartedly, shouldn't what you believe actually BE in the Bible?

And finally, your persecution complex is stuck in overdrive when you draw comparisons to concentration camps -- which by extension implies you think I could be a Nazi.

Don't worry too much, I promise you no one will come for you after the Revolution arrives; we'll all be too busy with other things.

As for that 'Muslim President' crack, how can you claim to be a good Christian on the one hand, yet spew left-handed racism on the other?
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie,

Whoa! You're calling Larry a racist? Are you related to Professor Gates? Larry questions Obama's Christianity (and for a good reason) and now YOU'VE LEAPT to racism? People like you are the problem in this country. Pretending to be a victim when you're actually the perpetrator of hate crimes. Murdering people's reputation and otherwise.

Reply By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
Imissbubby: Let’s see, first Larry_r45 calls me a god-hater and summons up images of concentration camps, all because my article showed that the Young Earth theory is not genuinely biblical, but just more of the same ol’ wish fulfillment bad science that has plagued the real Christianity of Jesus, the Prince of Peace.
Then he throws in the wholly gratuitous ‘Muslim President’ canard, I call him out on that and you want to start howling that I’m leaping to racism?
Oh, and I’m part of the problem in this country, too – have I got all that right so far?
Ahh, wait, I’m also the perpetrator, as well.
Gosh, what a long, harsh list of sins I’m guilty of …. tsk, tsk, I should be so ashamed.
Well, since neither of you make even the slightest attempt at arguing any of the details of my article, I guess I’ll have to settle for that as a solace for my wicked, wicked ways.
But, FYI, Larry_r45 wasn’t truly calling Mr. Obama’s religious affiliation into question, he was engaging in stealth racism, pure and simple.
Mr. Obama has behaved in an almost saintly manner by doing his best to be moderate and temperate in his words and deeds while in office –‘almost saintly’ because he has been struggling to work out reasonable compromises with a group of politicians who have no intention of being reasonable.
Yes, yes, I know before you even start tapping furiously away at your keyboard, your next reply will contain many repetitions of the name ‘Gates’ – and not Bill of Microsoft fame, either.
That all just means that Mr. Obama isn’t your definition of a real Christian, but then again, I believe that Jesus wouldn’t meet your definition of a ‘real’ Christian, either.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie,

How did you come to the conclusion Obama is not a Muslim? What do you know about Islamic beliefs?

You know almost nothing about Christianity, therefore how would you know whether or not Obama is a Christian?

Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you Christian anymore than sitting in a garage is going to turn you into a car.





Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie,

Larry called Obama a Muslim. Why did you switch the conversation to Obama's skin color? What does Obama's skin color have to do with being a Muslim? Larry was talking about religion. You changed the conversation to racism. Why did you do that?

Youre irrationally assasinating Larry's reputation and you need to stop it.
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
You make a very good point... I was wondering the same thing...
Posted By Ross1776 Ross1776 | 6 months ago
Well I disagree fundamentally with a great deal of what you have stated based on this "scientific" evidence. Beginning with the fact that he has stated the improbability that it would be impossible to go from 8 humans to where we are now due to wars,infant mortality, etc., etc. In fact, the birth and death rates actually in our country have declined considerably, and since there was no birth control, families were until this present era much, much larger. God did make sex pleasurable for a reason, and also our physical urge to procreate. So that is basically flawed reasoning, since a large family was an asset then. Both in labor, and in stature for the males.

There is much about this that is theory, so your cartoon actually is absolute propaganda from the outset. Since the entire nature of science is just that "theory" and not fact based at all with respect to creation.

We still haven't quite put a handle on just when that first life began, and it is entirely possible that it was 6,000 years ago, and that is a FACT.
Reply By Tortan Tortan | 6 months ago
Did you actually stop and read your post? It is EXTREMELY improbably to go from 8 humans to an entire population of 6.5 billion that we have now. If that were how it happened, the only possible way to procreate would have been through incest, which would have left the human race in a MUCH more sorry state than it is now. Families may have been larger, in general, but incest wasn't rampant, like it would have to be if your story was even remotely true.

There's also the fact that NO scientific evidence supports any global flood theory in any way, shape, or form. Please, I beg of you, do some real research from scientific papers (you know, the ones that look at the evidence and then draw a conclusion instead of the other way around).

It's true, we haven't quite got a handle on what started life, but we've got a pretty good idea, and there is evidence to support it. Pick up a book or two and educate yourself about it, please.

It is also NOT entirely possible, not even one iota possible, that the earth is 6000 years old. THAT is a FACT. There is corroborative evidence across all field of science that look at the EVIDENCE (something creationists don't have) and draw a conclusion based on what they can measure reliably, rather than take a story that has been manhandled and twisted throughout the centuries and use it as a basis for proof.

Please, I implore you, stop making a fool of yourself. It only makes you look bad.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 5 months ago
Dear Tortan,

"It's true, we haven't quite got a handle on what started life, but we've got a pretty good idea, and there is evidence to support it. Pick up a book or two and educate yourself about it, please."
---------------I have. Many, many books and personal interviews. Darwinists are not even close to discovering the origins of biological information. Biological information can only be caused by intelligence. NO other way. Every experiment on spontagenous generation has failed. Cosmic evolution (origin of space matter) is a myth. Chemical evolution (origin of the elements) couldn't not have evolved - this has been proven. Stellar evolution and Macro-evolution fall in the same catagory. At what point do you give up on calling something a viable theory? How about after 50 years? How about 100? How about 150? These hypothesis leave the realm of science and enter into the realm of religion. Evolutionary ideas of the world/universe are dying. Darwinists are using religion to try to concoct stories about what science cannot do.

Check out these sites for the latest on science:
www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Look at Adam and Eve. How old were they when they were created? We joke, a day old. But really, think about it, God created them as adults. Its very possible He made other things, like the planet, appear older than they are.
Posted By ahol888 Adrian Holman | 6 months ago
Great article! Paleontology and different historic texts from historians such as Herodotus and Pliny prove that this modern age of man is about 12,000 years.
Reply By lwhaley1979 lwhaley1979 | 6 months ago
The oldest Human remains found were actually dated to be just under 200,000 yrs. old. That is if science and there dating methods are correct. They were found around Ethiopia.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-17-voa51.cfm?CFID=269796940&CFTOKEN=13926888&jsessionid=6630d43eab4af8f4b9f9561731241f177f42
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Carbon dating is not accurate beyond 10,000 years.
Reply By Tortan Tortan | 6 months ago
Not sure where you get your facts. There are various types of radiometric dating, not just carbon dating. You don't use carbon dating to date things like rocks, you use it to date living material. Please, educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear LWhaley1970,
The 1/2 life of Carbon is 5600 years. That means 1/2 of a the carbon in a skeleton evaporates after 5600 years. We the very best we can do with Carbon dating is about 30,000 years.
Reply By lwhaley1979 lwhaley1979 | 6 months ago
It may not be exact past 10,000 yrs. but it is accurate enough to tell the difference between something 10,000 yrs. old and something 200,000 yrs. old. But I gues you're a scientist too, right. Or did you just read that somewhere and decided to believe it.
Posted By lwhaley1979 lwhaley1979 | 6 months ago
I think it is you missbubby who knows nothing about Christianity or the Muslim religion for that matter. They are actually very very similar. Allah actually means the one and only God. And Larry used the word Muslim in a negative connotation as if he should somehow not be President because he is Muslim. While it may not be the textbook definition of racism, it is prejudice. Larry did enough to assasinate his own reputation without help from anyone. And how exactly do you know that Obama is a Muslim? I can't say for 100% fact that he is not a closet Muslim or something, but as far as what he claims to be, that happens to be Christian. You should really educate yourself before you show up to a battle of wits completely unarmed.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
"I think it is you missbubby who knows nothing about Christianity or the Muslim religion for that matter."
-------------------Are you older than 12?

"They are actually very very similar. Allah actually means the one and only God."
-------------------But it doesn't mean Jesus Christ. Do you realize how just that one issue makes these two religion as different as the east is from the west? That's only ONE of the MANY differences.

"And Larry used the word Muslim in a negative connotation as if he should somehow not be President because he is Muslim."
-------------------Larry was right about putting it in a negative light. Islam needs to be destroyed. Not the people. The religion.

"While it may not be the textbook definition of racism, it is prejudice."
-------------------Okay. Thank you for admitting it. Larry's comments have nothing to do with racism. Eddie's the moron.

"Larry did enough to assasinate his own reputation without help from anyone. And how exactly do you know that Obama is a Muslim? I can't say for 100% fact that he is not a closet Muslim or something, but as far as what he claims to be, that happens to be Christian."
---------------Please study the Bible, LWhaley, and then come back. Its hard debating someone who is at a severe disadvantage.

"You should really educate yourself before you show up to a battle of wits completely unarmed."
---------------Yawn*
Posted By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
lwheley1979: You are completely correct to speak of Islam & Christianity being closely connected, they are basically two strands of the same rope.

People who are so intent on being hateful will ignore any sane and reasonable fact presented to them, so they can keep that tiny ember of hatred glowing in their narrow chest.

I can't imagine what alternate universe imissbubby stepped out of the tardis from, but clearly anyone who advocates the destruction of an entire world religion (oh, wait, that's right, she wants to destroy the religion, but not the people ... and I get called the moron), without considering that 1.8 billion Muslims might have some serious objections to that idea, that is a person with some DEEP psychological challenges they need to resolve.

Now, speaking as one adult to another, the racism charge is completely valid. Think about this, racists can't use the N-word to insult a black man these days, too many others would be offended (especially not on a website like AllVoices, they'd get kicked off quick), so they have to jury rig some less obvious form of attack.

So, for the first time in American history, a president's religious affiliation is questioned; not since the election of the Catholic John Kennedy has this kind of thing even been aired in public ... the wing-nut contingent back then claimed a secret conspiracy existed with the Vatican, and all Protestants would be force-converted to worshiping the Pope -- we see how well that one turned out, right?

For the first time, not just the birth certificate of the president, but his actual place of birth is questioned (and the wacko squad members want to argue that Hawaii isn't even an American state, they hate him so much).

As I said earlier, it's stealth racism, pure and simple.

It was strongly suggested that you study the Bible -- of course, this request comes from someone who thinks the entire truth is contained solely in the Book of Revelations, the most bizarre, the almost diametrically opposed to the tolerant, peace-oriented teachings of Jesus.

What a shame that only Christians like Barack Hussein Obama pay attention to those teachings.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
The USA is a Christian nation. Can you imagine how horrifying for a Christian that the President displays signs of being a secular Muslim? He's for abortion & killing of the elderly, he reeks of Marxism, his pastor is a lunatic, racist, and he's a Palestinian sympathizer. And bizarrely, he won't release his birth certificate or college records. Personally, I could less about the latter two. I care about things like him LYING about sitting in a racist church for 20 years and saying he never heard anything racist. I care about him bringing our country to the brink of b/k. I care that he doesn't seem real friendly towards Israel.

Actually, I had a funny thought. I thought to make a t-shirt that says: "Don't worry America. Israel is behind you."

Reply By Changez Changez | 6 months ago
My real question to you is, why do you care about his policy towards Israel? Is it because of a religious belief, that the Jews need to be in the 'holy land' for the second coming, or is it because supporting Israel is in America's best interest in a practical sense? Or maybe even genuine concerns over the humanitarian and historic reasons for the existence of the state. The latter two are pragmatic and practical reasons, the former a religious belief that many people may not share with you.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Changez: You said,
"My real question to you is, why do you care about his policy towards Israel? Is it because of a religious belief, that the Jews need to be in the 'holy land' for the second coming, or is it because supporting Israel is in America's best interest in a practical sense?"
---------------Both.

"Or maybe even genuine concerns over the humanitarian and historic reasons for the existence of the state."
---------------This too.

"The latter two are pragmatic and practical reasons, the former a religious belief that many people may not share with you."
----------------That's okay. Perhaps we can all find a reason to protect a country surrounded by murderous Arab regimes that want to wipe them off the face of the planet.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie, I think calling you a "moron" was a bit harsh. My apologies.
Posted By lwhaley1979 lwhaley1979 | 6 months ago
All I hear is blah, blah, blah. The funny thing about the entire situation is that Larry shut up when he knew he was wrong. The strange thing is that this article didn't even have anything to do with religion to begin with. Nor did it have anything to do with Barack Obama. The problem is that someone with a reading comprehension problem thought it did. Maybe that's why the same person does not understand the Bible. The story was written as an opposition to the theory that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that theory is trying to be supported by a timeline that was poorly calculated using the Bible. The Bible is a book that was written thousands of years ago and to assume that you can accurately form a timeline using literal units of time used in the Bible is comletely ridiculous since the majority of the Bible uses a non-literal type of writing. The majority of the Bible was not written in a literal sense and should not be taken as such. That is why there are so many interpretations of it. So now, I'll just sit back and wait for missbubby to take every sentence I wrote out of context and write a rebuttle to each one instead of reading it as an entire piece.
Reply By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
Goodness, lwhaley1979, have you read Dr. Asimov before? When you write: "The Bible is a book that was written thousands of years ago and to assume that you can accurately form a timeline using literal units of time used in the Bible is comletely ridiculous since the majority of the Bible uses a non-literal type of writing. The majority of the Bible was not written in a literal sense and should not be taken as such," you closely echo his essential presmise for both writing 'Asimov's Guide to the Bible,' and taking to task the charlatanism, misinformation, and just plain hokum that so often obscures the moral truths and life-lessons that the book contains.

And I believe you, sir, have the proverbial patience of a saint to engage a person who spouts such verbal extremisms, like they might actually think about what is written for their benefit (I got a big laugh out of the 'reading comprehension problem' phrase); kudos for at leas trying, friend.
Reply By lwhaley1979 lwhaley1979 | 6 months ago
Never even heard of Dr. Asimov. While at Northwestern University I used my electives to study religion. Mostly Christianity, Catholicism and the Muslim religions. Christianity was definately the hardest because of the astronomical differences between so many religions that are all grouped into Christianity. Baptist, Southern Baptist, Latter Day Saints, Pentacostal and so on. All these religions interpret the Bible in such different ways because the Bible leaves so much room for interpretation in the type of language used to write it. Which is also why religion is one of the most emotional and difficult things to debate. Anywho, I liked the article.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear LWhaley,

I found a scripture for you today:
"By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
John 13:35
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Most of the Bible is not written in Hebrew poetry. For example, the Book of Revelation is the only book in the NT written in Hebrew Poetry. Neither is the book written in chronological order. Its many things happening at once. That's what is so interesting about it. Read the chapter that describes the throne room of Heaven. So cool.
Posted By Changez Changez | 6 months ago
Your first cartoon says it all. Thank you.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Actually, I thought it ironic when I saw the cartoon because I thought just the opposite. Go figure.
Posted By melbell melbell | 6 months ago
Great article, I admire your courage. I never thought of any of those arguments, but I am the daughter of a geologist & have been raised on a relatively definite level of science. Thanks for writing this article it gives me other information to add to my own. Y'all have a great day, yer pal Mel Bell.
Reply By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
Dear Melbell: I am honored and a bit humbled by your calling me courageous, thank you.

I don't think of so much as courage as my having reached that stage of my life where I now understand why great American thinkers, from Ben Franklin, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), and H.L. Mencken, to George Carlin and Lewis Black embody the honorable American tradition of having no patience for the blather and nonsense that WAY too many people rabidly believe is more important than life itself (of course, it's always someone else's life, not their own -- oh, NEVER their own).

It's especially galling for me now that they have a media monopoly to call their own, aka the Fox Network/News Corporation (whose current tag-line should more accurately read, 'We Distort, You Abide').

Clearly, it's irresistibly attractive to a depressing percentage of the population to just put the thinking portions of their brains in neutral and allow someone else do their thinking for them.

All too frequently, these human-lemmings follow in lockstep behind the worst sort of grifters and hypocrites: politicians seeking to get elected or re-elected or modern day snake oil salesmen (read: televangelists and their ilk) leading the faithful flock (read: 'sheeple') to their latest fleecing.

Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) shouldn't be thought of as a passive meditation on philosophy; it should be more rightly seen as an activist's method of finding his/her place in this universe.
Posted By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
Not all Christians are lemmings, or unintelligent, but there's truth to what you say in terms of people being misled by those who love nothing but the dollar signs, and politicians who want to exploit the faith of those they're supposed to be representing.

Most Christians are just normal people, with normal lives, going about their business; some are devout, others just practice on Sunday. Lumping us all into the same flock of "sheeple" is painting with much too broad a brush. Some of us enjoy philosophy, and quantum mechanics;

Posted By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
Not all Christians are lemmings, or unintelligent, but there's truth to what you say in terms of people being misled by those who love nothing but the dollar signs, and politicians who want to exploit the faith of those they're supposed to be representing.

Most Christians are just normal people, with normal lives, going about their business; some are devout, others just practice on Sunday. Lumping us all into the same flock of "sheeple" is painting with much too broad a brush. Some of us enjoy philosophy, and quantum mechanics;

Posted By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
I complain about way too many people being 'sheeple' when it comes to being almost willing mislead by charlatans and power-mongers.

I again request that you, firesisle, or anyone else for that matter, show me exactly where I condemn every single person who has ever called themselves Christian in anything I have posted on this or any other site.

I can save you the time and effort, it's not there.

Instead, I ask why you do not notice how I defend the Christian known as Barack Hussein Obama, or even that part of my original article that sparked this thread into existence was in part a defense of people of faith who are sincere, honest, and conscientious in their beliefs.

For some reason, it was decided to imagine that I lumped you and many, many other people I have never met, much less interacted with into an incredibly broad category -- that simply isn't what occurred.

I took to task an historical figure whom I am convinced was a con artist and a real good example of a real bad researcher. I also attempted to show that corrupted myths can become unpleasant forms of tradition, as successive generations accept the wrongness as Holy Writ.

I find I'm spending a depressing amount of time in this thread directing the morally outraged and the pretend-offended to actually read what I wrote and THINK about those ideas.

But Buddhism teaches me to practice patience and forbearance for a reason; I'll keep up the effort.
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
Point noted; I took the lemming remark and ran with it.. my bad.

I see Barack Hussein Obama as a Sunday Christian at best; the church he attended for years was a cesspool of racism and hate, though I'd also add that Jerry Falwell and/or Pat Robertson isn't much, if any better. That, however is between them and a higher force they claim to follow.

I'm not a supporter of the "young earth" theory, as such. I'm a fan of the weak anthropic principle myself, and find, at least from my perspective, nothing in it that conflicts with Genesis, at least from an abstract perspective.

Many of my theological/spiritual concepts are strongly affected by a book by Rabbi David A. Cooper, who is also a Buddhist. It's called "God is a Verb". Great read if you get the time. It's a primer for the study of Jewish Kaballah, but puts a lot of things in an interesting perspective, and is worthwhile even from a strictly philosophical sense. He stresses that a great deal of the Creation story is allegory, which might surprise some.

In "Parallel Worlds", Michio Kaku describes the progression of the "Big Bang", and again, I see no conflict with Genesis. I think too many people get hung up on the "7 days" thing. Time is neither linear nor constant, so tying it into our current concept of days, or weeks is really rather illogical.

While there may be some significance to the 6000 years, It would, I think, be more tied to the creation of Man, rather than the moment of Creation, but that is certainly debatable as well.

Zechariah Sitchen translated Sumerian tablets from approximately 6000 years ago which describe the creation of the first man, the "Adama". Very dry reading, but interesting none the less...
Reply By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
A Sunday Christian as a complaint against Mr. Obama?

And George W. Bush is a 'real' Christian in your mind?

Was Jerry Falwell's saying that 9-11 was God's punishment on American for allowing homosexual marriage and legalizing abortion just a 'good' Christian expressing himself? And further, do you agree with him that the attack on the World Trade Center was an act of God? Does that mean we then should forgive Osama Bin Ladin?

For all the complaints that are bandied about how bad the Carter administration was, I have never read anyone stating that he was a 'bad' Christian, what do you think of him?

I'm certainly in accord with you that nothing in Genesis conflicts with the standard theories of evolution; I've never understood why the six days of Yahweh HAD to be six, twenty-four hour days ... the creator of the universe works off a time-clock?

A Rabbi Buddhist? Cool! I'll check out the book the first chance I get, thank you for mentioning it.

OH, yeah, I too think that the Big Bang theory is the first paragraphs of Genesis, just 'scientificalized' for public consumpion.

But, of course, the hard-nosed literalists gets more than a wee bit crazy when you present that idea to them.

There are some Jewish thinkers who look at the 6000 year mark (their calendar is of roughly the same length, after all) as meaning could be counted from the creation of Adam, and not from the creation of the entire universe -- while there is a long debate about the length of time between the two events.

And of course its no coincidence that 'Adama' would be the name of the Sumerian first man; archeology generally accepts that much of Sumerian creation myth found its way into Genesis.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Fireisle,

What reason is there to believe the account of Creation in Genesis is allegory?

From 1859 until 1948 (DNA decoded) Christians were thought of as "stupid" for not believing in Darwinian Evolution. What can we say now that we know the foundation of biological information must come from intelligence and nowhere else?

That Christians were "stupid" only for a period of time?

I see no reason to believe the story of Creation is allegory; the only thing science has proven that the Earth was created by Intelligence and that man spontaneously arrived on the scene.
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
I believe it because it's a part of Jewish belief far older than Christianity, and a part of what Jesus would have been taught as a boy. Basically straight from the horses's mouth, as it were.

Essentially, there are four distinct levels of interpretation for Torah, of which Genesis is a part. The first is p'shat, or literal interpretation; the second is remesh, or allegory and metaphoric interpretation; the third is drosh, or interpretation which comes from additional information, such as Oral Torah; the fourth is sod, which is metaphysical interpretation.

Every character(in Hebrew, of course) in Torah, is subjected to each of these four levels of interpretation; that's why Torah, and it's interpretation, is dynamic, not static. New interpretations are still being found to this day, as was the original design, and the reason it was never to be changed by adding or subtracting even a letter;
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie,
Buddhism cannot give you forgiveness. Only God can do that.

Also, what are you going to do about death?
Buddah lacks there too. Only Jesus is offering you eternal life in Heaven. He takes away the fear of death.

ps) Don't let anyone convice you Christianity is a life improvement program. Its a parachute. Christianity starts in dismay and ends in unspeakable comfort. Don't go looking for the comfort first; you'll end up with a lot of soft soap and wishfull thinking.
Reply By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
Now you're gonna tell me what Buddhism can or cannot do for me?

Perhaps you should study Buddhism first before you presume to make any broad assumptions about a subject you clearly have little to no knowledge about; I have a small library of books I could recommend for you.

And, what am I going to go about death? Why, I'll simply do about it what i have done in many of my previous incarnations: accept its inevitability with equanimity and (hopefully) much grace, and enjoy this life for as long as I am able, secure in the certainty that I'll be back as a human again soon to further work on the the job I promised I would perform so very long ago.

If you could read the Christian Bible without the bizarre drug trip, Revelations, you'd see that Jesus is a much nicer and more tolerant person than you've been led to believe.
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
imissbubby,

It's important to understand that Buddha was not a god. Buddhists don't pray to him or deify him, but rather respect him and adhere to his teachings, which are very similar to the teachings of Judaism, and Christiantiy, and a reason that some Rabbis are also Buddhists; I know of one prominent author and Rabbi who is Buddhist; I also know another Rabbi personally who is a Buddhist. Buddha's teachings are not at odds with Abrahamic religions, but rather concurrent;

Rabbi Hillel and Jesus both summed up their respective beiefs in an almost identical manner, essentially that we should treat others the way we wish to be treated. According to Hillel, who predated Jesus, and whose teachings and dialogues may very well have featured prominently in his education, everything else is merely commentary.

Religion, any religion, is merely a journey, not a destination.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Forgot to input this last part of what Jesus said about the end of the Earth:

"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is. It is like a man going to a far country, who left his house and gave authority to his servants, and to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to watch. Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming—in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning— lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!”

The Bible is not a politically correct book.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie,

The Bible is a book about the redemption of mankind.
After Adam and Eve fell, God put His plan into motion.
Promises through Abraham, seed of David.
The Savior of the world incarnates and tells us He's coming back to destroy the Earth. Here's what Jesus said in the book of Mark:
“So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing where it ought not” (let the reader understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down into the house, nor enter to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter. 19 For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days. “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, He is there!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. But take heed; SEE, I HAVE TOLD YOU ALL THINGS BEFOREHAND."

Those who believe in Him will spend eternity with Him. What are we supposed to be doing until then? What the Bible says we're supposed to be doing.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie,

The Jesus preached repentence and belief in Him as God and Savior. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Buddah's name is not on the short list.

There is no proof reincarnation exists. Not sure why youre believing in that; it can't save you and where's the forgiveness if you have to keep reincarnation to "pay for your sins?" That's a lot of work, huh?

Does Buddah claim to forgive you and give you eternal life in Heaven? Last I read, Buddhism has no Creator God. Has something changed?
Posted By mllovric mllovric | 6 months ago
I don't believe in the young earth theory, it's a lot of nonsense that's
mainly propagated by Jehovah's Witnesses and other proselytes. I believe
as Eddie Buddha does and condone further searches into these things. In
possibly another week I will be reading EGYPT BEFORE THE PHARAOHS book I
have here. It has pictures of archeological sites, trinkets, graphs and other information uncovered in digs for history which comes many years
before the first pyramids. 1/8/2009.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Mllovric,
No one believed in intelligent design until the decoding of the DNA molecule in 1948. Were all the Christians stupid from 1859 until 1948?

Posted By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
Citing the success of genuine scientific inquiry as proof of intelligent design ... the main reason you feel comfortable enough to put forth such a theory is because science --and scientists as a rule-- is flexible and accommodating enough to where you can do that.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, no scientist ever sets out to become adversarial to anybody's religion; the basic premise of all scientific inquiry is to figure out how the universe works (and how everything in that universe fits together) from the clues that nature has provided for us.

For Mr.Sagan, one of the beauties of the scientific method is that it is self-correcting; a theory remains in place until further research and new evidence proves that the theory either needs to be adjusted, or abandoned altogether in favor a new one that answers all the aspects the old one couldn't.

All too often, unfortunately, people who believe in a religious tenet feels it HAS to be an unassailable truth, pure and absolute and only evil people would dare to challenge such a truth.

We humans are a resilient and adaptable (we'd have never got out of the caves if we weren't), a major component of that adaptability is tolerance of people who are different from us. That tolerance includes not condemning entire portions of the human race solely because their theories about religion aren't exactly the same as yours.
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
"We humans are a resilient and adaptable (we'd have never got out of the caves if we weren't), a major component of that adaptability is tolerance of people who are different from us. That tolerance includes not condemning entire portions of the human race solely because their theories about religion aren't exactly the same as yours."

Very well put. In any case, words, any words, regardless of the source, are subject to interpretation, until you can discuss them, face to face, with the author. In the case of the Bible, this isn't possible. For that reason, it is always open to new interpretations based on new knowledge and insights.
Posted By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
Citing the success of genuine scientific inquiry as proof of intelligent design ... the main reason you feel comfortable enough to put forth such a theory is because science --and scientists as a rule-- is flexible and accommodating enough to where you can do that.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, no scientist ever sets out to become adversarial to anybody's religion; the basic premise of all scientific inquiry is to figure out how the universe works (and how everything in that universe fits together) from the clues that nature has provided for us.

For Mr.Sagan, one of the beauties of the scientific method is that it is self-correcting; a theory remains in place until further research and new evidence proves that the theory either needs to be adjusted, or abandoned altogether in favor a new one that answers all the aspects the old one couldn't.

All too often, unfortunately, people who believe in a religious tenet feels it HAS to be an unassailable truth, pure and absolute and only evil people would dare to challenge such a truth.

We humans are a resilient and adaptable species (we'd have never got out of the caves if we weren't), a major component of that adaptability is tolerance of people who are different from us. That tolerance includes not condemning entire portions of the human race solely because their theories about religion aren't exactly the same as yours.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie,
"and scientists as a rule-- is flexible and accommodating enough to where you can do that. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, no scientist ever sets out to become adversarial to anybody's religion;"
------------Except in the case of Richard Dawkins. Who admits to never having researched the fossil evidence until he decided to write another book this year and who believes anything is possible except God. LoL.

And in the case of Charles Darwin, who had a degree in what? and wanted to preserve the family heritage of eugenists and transmutationists.

Guess there goes the "NO scientist ever..." argument.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
We have to stand for something or we're going to fall for anything.
We can't be vanilla mush and lounge lizards.
Posted By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
Do you even read the stuff you yourself write?

How on Earth does Mr. Dawkins' 'admission' represent the majority of the scientists in just the American environment alone, much less the larger global community?

You are desperately seeking adversarial opposition to your beliefs when in fact no such people exist.

And, that's his theory, that everything is possible, except the Christian god; that in no way represents the overwhelming majority of temperate, considerate people who call themselves scientists.

And where, oh, WHERE did you get the idea of connecting Mr. Darwin with "eugenists and tranmutationsists,' whatever the hell they are?

Charles Darwin was a social humanist in his private life, very critical of the status quo of British society of his day. His writings make it clear that eugenics would have been repellent to him.

And, 'tranmutationists,' well, I can't begin to imagine WHAT you are talking about here -- are you even sober when you make up these words?

Is your life SO totally dedicated to looking for enemies that you will find them under the flowerbeds in your back yard?
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie: You said:
"Do you even read the stuff you yourself write?How on Earth does Mr. Dawkins' 'admission' represent the majority of the scientists in just the American environment alone, much less the larger global community?
-------------"I was pointing out to you that when you said, "NO scientist ever starts out" trying to discredit religion, I was telling you that's not true. Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin are two dreadful and influencial examples of scientists who absolutely started out with the end in mind.

"You are desperately seeking adversarial opposition to your beliefs when in fact no such people exist."
--------------"No such people exist" -- I'll let you ponder that one.


"And, that's his theory, that everything is possible, except the Christian god; that in no way represents the overwhelming majority of temperate, considerate people who call themselves scientists."
--------------Eddie, do you know how many people are being made to stumble because of people like Richard Dawkins? Dont you care what he and Charles Darwin have done to people?

"And where, oh, WHERE did you get the idea of connecting Mr. Darwin with "eugenists and tranmutationsists,' whatever the hell they are?"
---------------Eugenists are people who seek to develop a "superrace" by killing off the weak, handicapped, etc. Transmutationist was what the evolutionists used to call themselves before Darwin.

"Charles Darwin was a social humanist in his private life, very critical of the status quo of British society of his day. His writings make it clear that eugenics would have been repellent to him."
--------------Eddie, have you read Origin of the Species? Do you know that 2 or 3 of his children went on to become pioneers in Eugenics?

"And, 'tranmutationists,' well, I can't begin to imagine WHAT you are talking about here -- are you even sober when you make up these words?"
--------------You find these same words when you do a little history reading on the origins of evolutionary beliefs.
Reply By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 6 months ago
I stand by the assertion: no scientist sets out to upset other people's beliefs, they have more important concerns in mind.

Mr. Dawkins is declaring his own personal impatience with wacko religionists who suffer from the delusion that science somehow conflicts with religion -- and what amazing powers you grant to Mr. Dawkins when you write that he made many people 'stumble,' gosh, you should contact him and let him know how influential he is!

Ya know, from the earlier posting, I made myself a bet, that you'd drag out the ghost of poor, ol' Chuckie Darwin with your next diatribe, and then charge him with ALL sorts of mischief, I really did.

Him and Richie Dawkins, both making all those innocent, naive folk stumble -- and, I presume, making them miss that oh-so vital opportunity to meet Jesus ... well, your version of the Christian Messiah, who is an ENTIRELY different person from the real McCoy.

Let me put a bug in your ear, Mr. Darwin and many, many other people have engaged in scientific inquiry to better understand the inner workings of the physical world, THAT's what they did, pure and simple.

Con Artists pretending to religion, anti-intellectual reversionists who're afraid of learning the wonderful, fascinating truths about this incredible universe, and plain, gullible knuckleheads who for some reason just HAVE to be lead around by fake authorities ... in any or all of the people from these categories 'stumbled' because of something written by either Mr. Dawkins, or the esteemed Mr. Darwin, then all the better -- people like that need to stumble from time to time in order to learn how to get back on their own two feet by themselves.

Eugenics is a much broader --and in my mind, uglier-- then your definition says it is. But, as for the 'transmutationist,' well, look at how far you have to reach in order to come up with a complaint against a scientist, dredging up a word that's been moribund since the early 1800s and then pretending that it's still applicable to modern day evolutionary theories.

You REALLY got to get outside more!

And, as is SO often the case, you use the behavior of his children to attack the parent. Please note, his kids were not aboard the Beagle when he made that fateful voyage; they didn't come along until much later in his life.

I will spend a few minutes this evening looking up the histories of Mr. Darwins' children, but in the meantime, you should try and reflect how low and unworthy it is of you to play that parent/child card here. You wouldn't like it if people judged your life by what your children have done in their lives, you should at least act civilized enough that you won't do that to others.

And, BTW, I was reading the Origin of Species when I was in high school. You have a seriously tenuous grasp on reality to pretend that your comprehension of history is broad and deep enough to where you can advise anyone else about the depth of theirs.

Let me conduct a little deductive reasoning, ok?

You got that 'transmutationist' out of one of those irrational religious tracts, didn't you? One of those things that takes the wildest parts of Revelations, stirs in absurd conspiracy theories and bizarre misinterpretations of history (say, JFK was an agent of the Vatican, and Lee Harvey Oswald was the Archangel Michael saving the world from an early Armageddon, or some such mish-mash), mix thoroughly with whatever hot-button buzz-words the talking-heads on Fox are repeating endlessly this week, bake in an over-heated imagination at 450 degrees for several years, and Voila! instant Super-Christian!

You live in a big, complicated, world that change with amazing rapidity at times; relax, realize you can be friends with a whole more people if you'll let yourself do so.

It really is easy to do.

And sure enough, I owe myself a quarter.
Reply By Changez Changez | 6 months ago
This is not an argument that it is possible to win. Just forget about it and let it be because there are religious beliefs at work here. Those are not easily swayed by logic or the truth.
Posted By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Fireisle,

"It's important to understand that Buddha was not a god. Buddhists don't pray to him or deify him, but rather respect him and adhere to his teachings, which are very similar to the teachings of Judaism, and Christiantiy,"
-------------Not sure where you're getting your Christian theology. Jesus didn't give us the option of calling Him a "teacher." No good moral teacher would run around saying they were God if they were not; that's what a lunatic does. So either he's God to you or He's not. His message was that He was God & Savior and your eternal life hinged on Him. He's the gatekeeper to the destination of Heaven.


"and a reason that some Rabbis are also Buddhists; I know of one prominent author and Rabbi who is Buddhist; I also know another Rabbi personally who is a Buddhist. Buddha's teachings are not at odds with Abrahamic religions, but rather concurrent;"
-----------------Buddhists may embrace Christianity, but Christianity cannot embrace Buddhism. The 10 commandments are very clear about not embracing any other gods (you call them teachers) besides the One true God.

"Rabbi Hillel and Jesus both summed up their respective beiefs in an almost identical manner, essentially that we should treat others the way we wish to be treated. According to Hillel, who predated Jesus, and whose teachings and dialogues may very well have featured prominently in his education, everything else is merely commentary."
----------------Ya, Fireisle, I think you missed the message somewhere along the way. Sounds like you are not reading your Bible. You are denying the Deity of Christ and basically unwilling to define truth.

"Religion, any religion, is merely a journey, not a destination."
---------------When Adam & Eve fell, God put into motion His plan for the redemption of mankind. Human hearts are filled with evil. That's why He had to issue the 10 commandments. Saying youre a good person and following the Law does not get you into Heaven. Why? You break one law (lying, looking with lust, etc) you're guilty of breaking them all. Thinking that your self-righteousness good works can get you into Heaven is an attempt to dethrone God. That's why mankind needs a Savior. Which one of us can stand before God and say we have never sinned? God cannot have sin in His presence. Jesus was God incarnate. The image of the invisible God. He died so that God (the Father) could see us through a "holy filter" and not as we really are. With all the sinning we all do, we didn't deserve to have a perfect Man die to get the punishment we should receive. Jesus willingly took our lace because He loves us and doesn't want us to go to Hell (one destination.) He wants us to go to Heaven (another destination) with Him. He will cover for us when we stand before the perfect, just God. This only happens if you ask for His forgiveness and live your life as if Jesus is the God of your life. Jesus's message was repentance and belief in God. His other scriptures taught us how to live that out.

Posted By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Fireisle:

"Very well put. In any case, words, any words, regardless of the source, are subject to interpretation, until you can discuss them, face to face, with the author."
------------So you think God would write the Bible in such a manner that there would be people that didn't understand it? The Bible was written so that ANY person could understand it. What are you going to tell God when you die: "I didn't understand the Bible!" He might say: "Did you even read it?"

"In the case of the Bible, this isn't possible. For that reason, it is always open to new interpretations based on new knowledge and insights."
----------------Ya, Fireisle, if youre calling yourself a Christian, please stop. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes. There's no reason the Bible has to be updated. Everything we need to know about God is in there.
Posted By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
"Every character(in Hebrew, of course) in Torah, is subjected to each of these four levels of interpretation; that's why Torah, and it's interpretation, is dynamic, not static. New interpretations are still being found to this day, as was the original design,"
---------------Can you show me where in the Bible it says it was meant to have its interpretations change?
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
It's a part of esoteric Judaism; Jesus was, of course, a Jew, not a Christian, so it would have been a very intrinsic part of his religion;

The Tamud has several thousand pages of interpretations, dialogs, arguments, etc, concerning Torah; these were scholars who did nothing but study Torah. Every Torah scroll is exactly the same, with not a character added or deleted; The Old Testament is merely a thin literal translation.

As far as calling myself a Christian, it isn't up to you to tell me to stop. I am what I am, and my God is my only judge.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

God bless you and keep you...
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
@Fireisle -
If so, I'm just wondering why your wasting your time reading estoric Judiam. Is it because you don't want God's moral government in your life?
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
I have and accept God's moral judgment in my life. I do, however, reject your moral judgment; you got no juice, chica... I have a strong relationship with God, and need no approval from you.
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
It's because Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian; I like to understand the things he believed;
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Fireisle,
Do you read the Bible?
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
Every day...
Posted By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie: Is this message for me?

A Sunday Christian as a complaint against Mr. Obama?
And George W. Bush is a 'real' Christian in your mind?
----------I don't know.

"Was Jerry Falwell's saying that 9-11 was God's punishment on American for allowing homosexual marriage and legalizing abortion just a 'good' Christian expressing himself? And further, do you agree with him that the attack on the World Trade Center was an act of God? Does that mean we then should forgive Osama Bin Ladin?"
----------I think he should be captured and then a jury decide his fate.

"For all the complaints that are bandied about how bad the Carter administration was, I have never read anyone stating that he was a 'bad' Christian, what do you think of him?"
----------1.) He seems like a nice man. 2.)I don't like his politics.

"I'm certainly in accord with you that nothing in Genesis conflicts with the standard theories of evolution; "
-----------There's nothing in science or Genesis that supports evolution; that's what the fossil record has proven -- that man spontaneously arrived on the scene. That's what the book of Genesis says too.

"I've never understood why the six days of Yahweh HAD to be six, twenty-four hour days ... the creator of the universe works off a time-clock?"
------------God wanted us to know He created the world in 6 days. Why? I don't know. Here's the real question: Where does God measure time? Did the days He mentioned in Genesis elapse at the edge of the universe, or did they elapse on Earth? The teachings in the Bible runs the universe on Earth time (because it was written for humans?), which involves (approximately) 24-hour, and very regular, rotations of the Earth. Clocks near an edge run slow compared to clocks on Earth. Clocks at the edge of the universe would register billions of years, while clocks here would measure only days. (See Einsteins' standard general relativity theory regarding time.)

OH, yeah, I too think that the Big Bang theory is the first paragraphs of Genesis, just 'scientificalized' for public consumpion.
--------------Dear Eddie, you can't have Genesis AND the big bang theory. The big bang has no "edge" to its matter; the theory has all its clocks running at the same rate everywhere.

"But, of course, the hard-nosed literalists gets more than a wee bit crazy when you present that idea to them."
------------Only because we know a little something about science :-)
Posted By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Eddie: You said:

"I stand by the assertion: no scientist sets out to upset other people's beliefs, they have more important concerns in mind."
-------------That's a generalization that doesn't apply to everyone.

"Mr. Dawkins is declaring his own personal impatience with wacko religionists who suffer from the delusion that science somehow conflicts with religion -- and what amazing powers you grant to Mr. Dawkins when you write that he made many people 'stumble,' gosh, you should contact him and let him know how influential he is!"
-------------R. Dawkins is trying to convince people of his worldview. To say anything else is disingenuous.

"Ya know, from the earlier posting, I made myself a bet, that you'd drag out the ghost of poor, ol' Chuckie Darwin with your next diatribe, and then charge him with ALL sorts of mischief, I really did. Him and Richie Dawkins, both making all those innocent, naive folk stumble -- and, I presume, making them miss that oh-so vital opportunity to meet Jesus ... well, your version of the Christian Messiah, who is an ENTIRELY different person from the real McCoy."
------------Youre the least qualified person to talk about Jesus. You don't read the Bible and you worship Buddha.

"Let me put a bug in your ear, Mr. Darwin and many, many other people have engaged in scientific inquiry to better understand the inner workings of the physical world, THAT's what they did, pure and simple."
------------Yes. And now their science is outdated so let's let it go.

"Con Artists pretending to religion, anti-intellectual reversionists who're afraid of learning the wonderful, fascinating truths about this incredible universe, and plain, gullible knuckleheads who for some reason just HAVE to be lead around by fake authorities"
--------------I love science. Allergy meds, microwaves, birth control, Saturn V rocket ships....

"in any or all of the people from these categories 'stumbled' because of something written by either Mr. Dawkins, or the esteemed Mr. Darwin, then all the better -- people like that need to stumble from time to time in order to learn how to get back on their own two feet by themselves."
------------Only the fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

"Eugenics is a much broader --and in my mind, uglier-- then your definition says it is. But, as for the 'transmutationist,' well, look at how far you have to reach in order to come up with a complaint against a scientist, dredging up a word that's been moribund since the early 1800s and then pretending that it's still applicable to modern day evolutionary theories. You REALLY got to get outside more!
----------LoL!

"And, as is SO often the case, you use the behavior of his children to attack the parent. Please note, his kids were not aboard the Beagle when he made that fateful voyage; they didn't come along until much later in his life. "
----------Did you think I didn't know this?

"I will spend a few minutes this evening looking up the histories of Mr. Darwins' children, but in the meantime, you should try and reflect how low and unworthy it is of you to play that parent/child card here. You wouldn't like it if people judged your life by what your children have done in their lives, you should at least act civilized enough that you won't do that to others. And, BTW, I was reading the Origin of Species when I was in high school. You have a seriously tenuous grasp on reality to pretend that your comprehension of history is broad and deep enough to where you can advise anyone else about the depth of theirs."
-------------Yes. I think I'm fairly knowledgable on these subjects. Why? Because I enjoy keeping up on them.

Let me conduct a little deductive reasoning, ok?
-------------Ok.

"You got that 'transmutationist' out of one of those irrational religious tracts, didn't you?"
--------------No. I got it from history book.

"One of those things that takes the wildest parts of Revelations, stirs in absurd conspiracy theories and bizarre misinterpretations of history"
--------------The Book of Revelations has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It about the return of Jesus, the end of His mercy on sin; He's going to destory the world over it; that's how seriously He is about it. He's very, very patient. Very, very long suffering and merciful, but He has limits. Its not profitable for you to invest in this life. Building up treasures that are eternal, now there's somthing worth having. Building an incorruptible inheritance in Heaven with Jesus. Isn't that cool? Did you know there won't be a sun in Heaven. Why? Because His glory lights up the world. He uses gold the way we use asphalt. He sits on an emerald sea of glass. There's a rainbow and thunderbolts and lightening around the the throne. Eternity is a lot longer than this current life. I can't wait.
Posted By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
"God wanted us to know He created the world in 6 days. Why? I don't know. Here's the real question: Where does God measure time? Did the days He mentioned in Genesis elapse at the edge of the universe, or did they elapse on Earth? The teachings in the Bible runs the universe on Earth time (because it was written for humans?), which involves (approximately) 24-hour, and very regular, rotations of the Earth."

Which is stated explicitly where in the Bible?

Clocks near an edge run slow compared to clocks on Earth. Clocks at the edge of the universe would register billions of years, while clocks here would measure only days. (See Einsteins' standard general relativity theory regarding time.)"

The universe has no "edge", because it is expanding in all directions. Your understanding of the theory of relativity is flawed; I suggest you study physics and cosmology to get a better idea of what you're talking about. At the time of the big bang, the universe expanded from a sub atomic particle, faster than the speed of light, into the universe we see today, and continues to expand at a constant rate; there's no contradiction with Genesis.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 5 months ago
Dear Fireisle:
You said: "The universe has no "edge", because it is expanding in all directions."
------------Only according to the Big Bang hypothesis which starts with arbitary assumptions. This has in no way been proven. The Big Bang Theory was not even an accepted by the scientific community until about 20 years ago. Its a pure intellectual exercise. There is not a shread of proof this happened and there are a lot of problems with this theory. It contridicts itself.

"Your understanding of the theory of relativity is flawed; I suggest you study physics and cosmology to get a better idea of what you're talking about.:
-------------I think the confusion is on your end. GR (general relativity) and Genesis work perfectly together in a universe with a boundry.

"At the time of the big bang, the universe expanded from a sub atomic particle, faster than the speed of light, into the universe we see today, and continues to expand at a constant rate; there's no contradiction with Genesis."
-------------Let's review. The Big Bang Theory says the universe is appx 20 billion years old and the Earth approximately 4.5 billion years old, "life" appears appx 1 billion years ago and man evolved about 1,000,000 years ago. This in no way is in agreement with a 6 day Creation. Youre gonna have to decide what you believe: naturalism or God. Right now, youre compromising the Truth, for no apparent reason. Science keeps changing Fireisle, trying to keep up with God. Youre gonna have to pick a side and stick with it.

People who sit on the fence make Jesus want to vomit. Why? Because of all the other people you're hurting with your false doctrines.

(See Rev 3:15-16)
Reply By firesisle firesisle | 5 months ago
"-------------Let's review. The Big Bang Theory says the universe is appx 20 billion years old and the Earth approximately 4.5 billion years old, "life" appears appx 1 billion years ago and man evolved about 1,000,000 years ago. This in no way is in agreement with a 6 day Creation. Youre gonna have to decide what you believe: naturalism or God. Right now, youre compromising the Truth, for no apparent reason. Science keeps changing Fireisle, trying to keep up with God. Youre gonna have to pick a side and stick with it."

I'm not sure where you draw your information from, but your concept of the "big bang" is as flawed as your presumption to judge the faith of others. I can recommend some excellent books on the subject, which make things very clear, but I doubt you'd be interested.

You said:
"People who sit on the fence make Jesus want to vomit. Why? Because of all the other people you're hurting with your false doctrines."

You sound amazingly like Fred Phelps...

Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 5 months ago
Dear Fireisle,
In your mind, you tried to take away all the qualities of God you don't like and kept the ones you do. Do you know what that's called? A God that doesn't exist.

A figment of your vivid imagination.
Posted By imissbubby imissbubby | 6 months ago
Dear Fireisle: You asked:
"Which is stated explicitly where in the Bible?"
---------God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
-So the evening and the morning were the first day.
-So the evening and the morning were the second day.
-So the evening and the morning were the third day.
-So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
-So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
-So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.(Genesis Chapter 1)

Reply By firesisle firesisle | 6 months ago
"The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days."

from: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

From the original Hebrew, the "days" can be just as reasonably interpreted as "long periods"
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 5 months ago
Dear Fireisle,

No. Youre trying to fit Scripture into your Big Bang Theory. Its the other way around: Science is always trying to catch up to the Bible. That's why science always changes and the Word of God does not:

The Hebrew word translated as “day” in Genesis 1:19 is the singular noun יוֹם. When the singular יוֹם is not part of a compound grammatical construction, it refers to literal days or to the daytime portion of a normal day. The singular יוֹם is used 1,452 times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 1:1–2:3, the noun יוֹם is used 14 times, 13 times in the singular, with none in a compound grammatical relationship, and once in the plural. Of the 13 uses of “day,” 4 refer to “day” as opposed to “night” (1:5, 14, 16, 17). Each day involving divine creative activity is divided according to the natural phenomena of “daytime” and “nighttime.”

There's no trick, Fireisle.
That's why God explains what makes up a day: a combination of daytime and nightime, so you wouldn't be confused.

Reply By firesisle firesisle | 5 months ago
You need to publish your references. That one came from:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one

Frankly, if I want to know about interpretations of Torah from ancient Hebrew, I tend to put more credence in the Jews than the Baptists, but the choice is, as always, yours to make, and it's not up to me to judge...
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 5 months ago
Dear Tortan, the Bible doesnt say the moon produces light.
Reply By Tortan Tortan | 5 months ago
Science is trying to catch up to the Bible!? Are you kidding me? The bible is full of errors and inaccuracies in regards to science. For instance, one of the things it says is that the moon produces light. No, it doesn't. The moon reflects light, sorry. The Bible also implies, throughout, that the Earth is flat. It is not. The Bible also says that Pi is 3. It IS NOT.

The Bible is a worthless bronze age myth. Please, you would do the world a favour if you actually looked at things beyond your narrow world view and expanded your knowledge.
Posted By imissbubby imissbubby | 5 months ago
Dear Tortan, The Bible doesn't imply the Earth is flat either.
Posted By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 5 months ago
Dear Tortan: You are trying to discuss these matters with someone who has NO intention of actually listening and thinking about what you wrote, except as fodder for her next rebuttal against your posting.

Also, this is a person who, although clearly following a Protestant version of the Bible, doesn't believe in personal interpretation -- even though that's EXACTLY what the Protestant Reformation and the struggles against the power of the Catholic Church in Europe in the mid-1600s was all about - the right of the believers to interpret the Bible as they saw fit.

And, notice, this is a mind-set that many Americans who term themselves Christian choose to ignore: that ANY translation of the volumn of collected writings from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek is ITSELF a personal interpretation.

No, for that portion of the population, it's simpler just to pretend that the Bible they are reading is the perfect, complete, and accurate Word of God. Or, more likely, they sit back and let some televangelist or Big Name minister (like Dave Wilkerson, who spouts rightist rhetoric poorly disguised as Biblical Truth to those adoring crowds who flocks to his rich, ostentatious Times Square Church) who tells them what that truth might be ... which is in itself a personal interpretation.

Yet, at the same time, I have to challenge the 'worthless bronze age myth' reference you employed. The Judeo-Christian Bible contains many valuable lessons on life, wise insights (the last words attributed to Jesus in the Book of John is especially impressive to me, both as a powerful admonishment toward tolerance and a clear rebuke to homophobes who claim the Bible says gays should be put to death).

You are perfectly correct, of course, that narrow world views and self-imposed ignorance is a huge problem with many of the people who call themselves Christians, but ultimately, that's not the fault of the Bible itself, but the fault of the people who choose to read into the book things that simply are not there.

Many good people do many good things in this world, inspired as they were by the teachings they found in the Bible; unfortunately, they are usually the quite ones among the 'flock', as well.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 5 months ago
"Also, this is a person who, although clearly following a Protestant version of the Bible, doesn't believe in personal interpretation -- "
--------Jesus said "You WILL know the truth." That means truth can be known. Don't fall prey to the emergent church which says you cannot know truth. That's against what Jesus taught.

"the right of the believers to interpret the Bible as they saw fit."
---------------There is only one Truth and One True God. Eddie, you're confusing postmodernism with Biblical, absolute truth.

"And, notice, this is a mind-set that many Americans who term themselves Christian choose to ignore: that ANY translation of the volumn of collected writings from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek is ITSELF a personal interpretation."
---------------No. Translation means to copy over into a different language. Interpretation means provide meaning to what you think it says. Two totally different things.

"No, for that portion of the population, it's simpler just to pretend that the Bible they are reading is the perfect, complete, and accurate Word of God."
-------------Yes. Its a thing of unspeakable comfort. Free up my time to play with my family, my dogs, my piano.

"Or, more likely, they sit back and let some televangelist or Big Name minister (like Dave Wilkerson, who spouts rightist rhetoric poorly disguised as Biblical Truth to those adoring crowds who flocks to his rich, ostentatious Times Square Church) who tells them what that truth might be ... which is in itself a personal interpretation."
-------------The Bible was written so you could spot a false teacher. I turn off the TV when I see a false teacher.


"Yet, at the same time, I have to challenge the 'worthless bronze age myth' reference you employed.The Judeo-Christian Bible contains many valuable lessons on life, wise insights (the last words attributed to Jesus in the Book of John is especially impressive to me, both as a powerful admonishment toward tolerance and a clear rebuke to homophobes who claim the Bible says gays should be put to death)."
----------------Something we agree on Eddie. Cool.

"but the fault of the people who choose to read into the book things that simply are not there."
----------------Yes. Many love to invent a god that is not in the Bible. Fairies and Ghosts of their own imagination.
Reply By Changez Changez | 5 months ago
Eddie, you do know this mean we are going to hell. I was born a Muslim, I think I still am one, and I even have homosexual friends who I make no attempt to guide/coerce onto the straight path (pun intended). Guess that's just our tough luck then.
Reply By imissbubby imissbubby | 5 months ago
Dear Changez,
Its not your tough luck, it's your reluctance to bend the knee. It your rebellion and arrogance not to acknowledge God. It has nothing to do with luck. You are without excuse.

You should be very concerned about eternity.
Its a lot longer than this life.
You still have time now to ask God for forgiveness.
Check out Romans 10:9.
God bless, Miss Bubby
Posted By firesisle firesisle | 5 months ago
"You are perfectly correct, of course, that narrow world views and self-imposed ignorance is a huge problem with many of the people who call themselves Christians, but ultimately, that's not the fault of the Bible itself, but the fault of the people who choose to read into the book things that simply are not there."

Amen, brother...
Posted By EddieBuddha3 EddieBuddha3 | 5 months ago
You get the last word, firesisle, wise indeed.
Reported by EddieBuddha3
Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

Cell phones Cell phones use report code: @3793061

Most Popular Reports

Related People


Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2009. All rights reserved.