King Star Attack

Posted Thursday, September 13, 2012, at 3:35 PM
View 42 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I prayed for a sign, and possibly, a sign I received. This is FYI, as I am simply sharing some of what I understand, from my studies, and prayer:

    FWIIW, not that it means a thing, B U T,

    Noah received Seven day notice, that the 'Rain' would begin (as soon as he and family were God-Sealed, safely inside, from harm.

    Yom Teruah (Rosh Hashanah), the 'Day of Trumpet Blowing (Great Noise)) just happens to be seven days after this sighting, on Sept 10.

    Yom Teruah, according to 'custom,' is the day of: King coronation; Bridegroom snatching Bride, to consummate marriage; Day One of Preparation, plus other celebrations. Yom Teruah is the only Feast of God, that is on New Moon Day (a day and hour, no man knows), and there are eleven sets of nine, Trumpet blowing, and the 100th blowing is called "The Last Trump"). There are a few other reasons to be suspicious of Yom Teruah, but I've been windy enough.

    IMO, worth a ponder.

    Keep the Watch Sept 16, and 17.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 4:26 PM
  • Arley,

    The Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet crash into Jupiter in 1994. The explosions were dazzling and they left Jupiter's atmosphere scarred for months. However, the comet did not mark the return of Jesus.

    In fact, comets hit Jupiter and explode in the atmosphere/on the surface with some regularity...likely because its gravitational force is so incredibly strong. Many astronomers call Jupiter "the cosmic vacuum cleaner" because it captures so much space debris.

    Why should we believe that this comet hitting Jupiter is any different from those in the past?

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 5:42 PM
  • Benevolus, Shalom. I am so sorry, but you see, I didn't ask anyone to 'believe that this comet hitting Jupiter is any different from those in the past,' other than to note Shoemaker-Levy 9, in my memory, but not in offering, since I was only addressing this hit, and noticing how close it came to the Noahdic Covenant with God, and the timing of this strike and Yom Teruah, relating to the same amount of time Noah received. But, then, almost all I have said here, I said above.

    I had not remembered, before you mentioned, but the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet broke up into approximately twenty-One separate, notable, pieces (a multiple of Seven .... but fodder for another discussion). There was, at that time, much blather, on the Web, about the possibility of that being the countdown sign, but, not, at least in what we call 'short-count.'

    If, I am still writing Praise Poetry, on Tuesday, then we 'all' will know that this was not the time of being Snatched away, to the Wedding Feast. The expectation, for me, is each morning, but on the Feasts of God, I become a bit more enthusiastic. I do so look forward to being young, and spry again, able to jump tall mountains, in a single bound (but, just between you and I, when I am able, it will be the first time, ever), but who's counting?? No, I'm not trying to craze your Ivory's, I'm just giddy.

    Look at my offering, slowly, and ponder the associations that I mention. If they don't register, don't worry about it (if you are a Born again Christian), else ponder harder, please.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 7:31 PM
  • I suppose I will err on the side of science for this one, thank you for the interesting thoughts though.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 9:47 PM
  • That is, of course, your choice, Benevolus, but, if I may ask you a question, as I see Science:

    Who do you think invented (for lack of a better word) Science, as He applied it in His act of Creation, which, we mortals are only scratching the surface, in understanding, and application??

    Ponder, please, from the flip side, He, IS, and KNOWS, and we are only learning. He has so much more, in store for us.

    Hmmm, for someone who can't hardly breath, I sure type long notes, huh? His Shalom, as you ponder.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 5:50 AM
  • Thanks, Arley.

    Humans invented science.

    Many historians note that widespread application of scientific methods for studying nature arose out of the European enlightenment. Institutionalization of scientific methods in universities (or in apprenticeship/mentorship) begins sometime in the 16th to 18th centuries and this persists today.

    Science offers an alternative to faith and superstition. I like Carl Sagan's quote, so I will leave you with this to ponder:

    "A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." -- Carl Sagan, quoted from the United Universists front page

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 1:41 PM
  • Seek your own path, as you may,

    Soon you'll find there's but one way,

    The way rejected by those who say,

    No Thanks, to God, I'd rather play.

    The call has sounded, lend an ear,

    Perhaps, tomorrow, or in a year,

    You'll know too late, you didn't steer,

    To God's, strait and narrow, marked so clear.

    I've offered thought, for you to ponder,

    You say, you'd rather go look yonder,

    So smart, and yet, you make me wonder,

    You'll wait too long, and hear God's Thunder.

    I will miss you.

    PS: did you mean to say 'Universalist front page?'

    BTW, IMO, Carl knows now, what you 'will' learn.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 2:27 PM
  • Thanks for the poem (preachy as it may be)...

    "did you mean to say 'Universalist front page"

    No. Universism is a philosophical stance. A Universist is a person who practices Univerism. I copied and pasted the quote (including the source) from the website on which I found it.

    Here is an interesting quote from Carl's wife on the day he died...

    "Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each other's eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever." -- Ann Druyan, Epilogue to Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 2:42 PM
  • Should I keep watching? Or is it okay to stop being afraid?

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 12:46 AM
  • If you are not 'Saved in Jesus,' keeping the watch may not be worth your time, B, as you wouldn't see His truth coming. and

    No, Imo, You need fear where you are, in your eternity, as the part of God's word, addressing Salvation, places the unsaved as having a future, not exactly cheerful.

    I'll keep you in my prayers.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 8:12 AM
  • And if you are saved in Jesus, there's nothing to fear.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 11:03 PM
  • I dunno, now that it looks like JC might have had a wife, he seems just a little more like a man, and a little less like the alien who is going to descend from the clouds and kill billions of humans anytime here.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 2:59 PM
  • A fourth century translation of a second century Greek text that is missing about 33 words and is full of incomplete sentences. Yep, you've got a winner there Benevolus.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 6:36 PM
  • You seem nervous.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 7:11 PM
  • Benevolus, In a small way, you may well be right about Jesus having (note the tense) a Wife. We, the Church are His Wife, in a Spiritual way, IMHO. That is how I see it. He covenanted with anyone who believes in Him, in the same manor as the Old Hebrew format. The Bride Price is paid (Death for our Sin), We accepted, by drinking of his Blood, and eating of his Body, as we do in Communion, using 'Fruit of the Grape,' and Matzat (Unleavened Bread)as sufficient substitute. Each time we take Communion, we remind ourselves Jesus is our God, King, the Bride Groom, and we are the Bride, in Covenant with, and waiting for Him to come, like a thief in the night, to snatch away His Bride, the Church.

    So, like I say, you are partly right, IMHO.

    If you wish to put Jesus down, please do so elsewhere, as I welcome Pro-Christian Faith comments. This is not a forum for debate, yet you seem to always try to rankle people. Please stop. Your belittling of others, only belittles other's opinions of you. It is too bad you so strongly resist having a Joyous Eternity, with us, and Jesus.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 8:09 PM
  • How did I put Jesus down? That certainly wasn't my intention.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't God/Jesus going to doom billions and billions of the people God allegedly created to an eternity in hell?

    Please forgive me if 'joining you' in eternity with creatures that are so malevolent is not at the top of my 'to do' list.

    In the meantime, you may welcome whatever kinds of comments you like. I do think that I am within my rights to read and comment as I see fit though, so long as I do not violate the terms of the site.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 8:20 PM
  • Nervous? Not at all. Sound research, as always, will prove the Word of God is true. Many places in the Bible speaks of the bride of Jesus, the church body.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 10:58 PM
  • Sound research? I thought the whole deal was predicated on faith? Is there scientific evidence of Jesus's supernaturalness? I would be VERY interested in that research.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Sep 21, 2012, at 12:42 AM
  • The eyewitnes accounts of the Gospels. The near 240,000 manuscripts that corraberate what disciples witnessed. The testimonies of the born again's changes in their lives when they accept the gift of grace. These are observed evidences of the actual presence of Jesus. Some are repeatable, some are not.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Sep 21, 2012, at 2:14 PM
  • The eyewitness accounts of the gospels documented 60+ years after the alleged resurrection? What about the fact that eyewitness testimonies in the Bible itself contradict each other? What about the science that proves eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable?

    Hmmm, I think there is a reason gas stations began putting those stickers of rulers on their was to help eyewitness testimonies of robbery have a little more coherence. One person saw a 5' 10" suspect, another 5' 6", another 6' 3".

    What is it you say, Chunk? Nice try?

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Sep 21, 2012, at 5:23 PM
  • The testimonies of four completely different men, each with their own perception of what they saw. Each however, arrive at the same observation.

    Three different gas station attendents oberserve a robbery. All three report a suspect with a wide variance in height. Still, all three observe a robbery.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Sep 21, 2012, at 9:22 PM
  • Except that for your analogy to be complete we would have to wait 60 years to get the testimonies of the children and grandchildren of the attendants who witnessed the robbery. In the interim, who knows what crazy stories might get made up and passed on via word-of-mouth. A normal robbery (read: crucifixion) passed on through stories might become more and more embellished until all of a sudden, most of the testimony isn't true at all.

    If you want an example of this, line up 15 people and tell the first one an elaborate rumor and tell them to pass it on to the next person. Then have the first person and the last person say what the rumor was to out loud. Researchers have done this experiment many times. The result is always the same. The rumor changes drastically in the span of about 5 minutes. Now think about that line not being 15 but 1500 people, and the time frame not being 5 minutes but 60 years.

    Lucky for us, our gas station attendants testimony would only be one piece of the evidence for a robbery. This is because our justice system operates on concrete evidence. Hence, video cameras in gas stations because human testimonies are not reliable. And even video evidence is not always enough to convict.

    Point is, the threshold for proof is much higher outside of religion because anyone who believes in a text written about magical events by people 60+ years after these magical events took place, does so not because of hard evidence, but because they have faith these tales are true.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Sep 26, 2012, at 5:34 PM
  • Many, if not most of the authors of those 240,000 texts that mention the existence and detailed events of Jesus life, were written during his time on earth. Many authors were historians and politicians of the Roman empire, just as they chronicled Roman events, they chonicled the events of Jesus. To add credibility, most of these writers were secular.

    The events that happen after the teen years tend to be retained in memory much more intact than earlier events. My own experience and the experiences of many. Cannot clearly remember events of grade school, but junior high and after remain clear. Not quite 60 years, but it matches very close to the events a lady wrote down in her diary. Hmm...

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Sep 27, 2012, at 3:24 PM
  • "To add credibility, most of these writers were secular."

    How could so many accounts be written during a time when so few were literate? How many of those "secular" chronicles made it into the Bible? How many secular reports included supernatural activity? If these aren't in the Bible, how do we know they are truth in the "word of God" sense? Can you site any of these reports? Where can one find these accounts and read them for himself?

    Also, human memory mostly deteriorates according to research. Synaptic function is negatively effected by age, and the reduction of synaptic activity impacts how easily and accurately memories are stored and recalled. Incidentally, this probably explains why you cannot recall your pre-teen years very well. Sucks to the passage of time!

    But not only does research prove that humans embellish events/rumors, but also that as we age, we forget and misremember. Furthermore, many of Jesus's enemies would have been established Orthodox Jews and Roman elites, which means they may have been literate. But this was a period of time in which poor people almost categorically could not read or write. Which means most of the stories upon which Christianty now hinges would have been passed along via word-of-mouth, for 60+ years.

    I suspect that at that point, the most inspirational and fantastic stories were selected by a few literate men and written down, and that likely hundreds of other verbal versions of the story of Jesus were lost forever.

    From those stories that made the cut, the selections were whittled down again for main stream consumption, and thus you have (for example) a wide range of competing and contradicting stories all with varying degrees of importance for christians. Think: the gnostic texts vs the Old Testament vs the New.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Sep 27, 2012, at 4:10 PM
  • That is why many texts were written by historians and politicians, who were literate. Keep in mind, Luke was a doctor. So we can fully discount your illiteracy argument.

    The purpose of the Christian Bible is to point the way to a life with Christ. The Bible does not explain the how's, but the why's. Why the Earth was created they way it was. Why man and woman were created. Why perfection left when sin entered. Why man became slaves from our sin. And so on.

    There are plenty of gnostics out there who cherish their knowledge of Christian principles. Principles that many don't believe themselves. The proof of their existance lies hoard of books they have studied, not by the lives they have touched. Their books sold, and they are forgotten 30 seconds after they take their last breaths. On the other hand, a simple person who accepts their grace through their faith in Jesus, and through that faith, does Christ's work here on earth, is remembered as an inspiration for generations.

    There were thousands who witnessed Christ's miracles, not all could have been illiterate.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Sep 27, 2012, at 10:07 PM
  • Do some research Chunk, you will find your version of history extremely lacking in factual grounding.

    Almost anyone who was poor at that time would have also been illiterate. Most scholars put literacy rates in the ancient world at 10% (at the highest). This is because if one received an education it was generally through private tutors who tended to cater only to the wealthy (those who could afford to pay for reading and writing lessons). For logistical reasons, soldiers were taught basic reading and writing (but fierce debate exists as to whether the basic reading and writing skills of soldiers should be counted as literacy, which often means a higher level proficiency).

    Moreover, widespread circulation of literature was time consuming and very costly because everything was hand-written by scribes. So not only were the poor almost categorically illiterate, but there was also very little in the way of reading material. In fact, widespread literacy doesn't really emerge until the printing press was invented by Gutenberg in Rome around 1440.

    More to the point though, Rabbi Michael Higger's translation of the Rules of Soferim (11:2) goes:

    A town in which there is only one who reads; he stands up, reads (the Torah), and sits down, he stands up, reads and sits down, even seven times.

    This is a pretty clear indication that even scripture acknowledges that in some towns, only one person was able to read. As we know, Jesus's followers were not the wealthy plutocrats in charge of Rome. Nor were they Orthodox Jews who were mostly literate. And I would not fear speculating that Roman soldiers did not cast down their allegiances and flock to join Jesus either. Jesus and his followers were the poor, the down-trodden, the meek. Not the wealthy, literate, and powerful rulers of the ancient world.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 3:46 AM
  • Actually, there are Jews, even orthodox Jews, who willingly chose to follow Jesus. Ever heard of a guy named Saul? Does his writing, some from within a prison, read like the writings of an illiterate? No.

    And Greeks? A Greek tax collector who worked for the Romans. Would the Romans accept an error by an illiterate? No.

    What about Luke? A physician, historian, and journalist. He chronicled the events of Jesus life by interviewing those who witnessed the events. He went on to follow Paul and his disciples during his ministries.

    Constantinople, a Roman emperor who converted to Christianity.

    History is full of people who accepted the life and spirit of Jesus Christ. They went on to do great things for humanity with it. The words, the teachings, and the life of Jesus Christ, is without error, and is true.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Sep 29, 2012, at 4:16 AM
  • Chunk,

    Of course the people who could write were literate. What sort of argument is that? We know that Saul/Paul was literate because he made up stories and wrote them down.

    You have failed to make a convincing argument regarding literacy rates at the time. Something like 9/10 people were literate at the time Jesus lived (and well after). Almost all of Jesus's followers (i.e., the poor) would have been illiterate. This is not a controversial claim, it is a fact.

    The bottom line is, you have to suspend logic and evidence and have a very strong faith in order to believe in what the bible offers as truth.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 3:38 PM
  • ^^^ That is: 9/10 were Illiterate

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 6:43 PM
  • Those 240000 manuscripts are the written journals of observations of the events surrounding the life of Jesus Christ. So obviously, many were capable of documenting what they saw. It is fully possible that is the literate population.

    I also do not buy the garbage that literacy rates is a direct relationship with wealth. It's not the case today and it sure is not the case then.

    By the way, you have never explained what you find wrong with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Please explain.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 11:03 PM
  • Chunk,

    Why is that you are ignoring the facts I have laid out before you? Fact: worldwide literacy rates were extremely low until the printing press made mass publishing possible. Fact: in most cases (9/10 by scholarly estimates), only those who could afford to pay a private tutor could become literate--except in the cases of Roman soldiers who were taught very basic reading and writing skills. Fact: religious scripture from the time states that in some towns, only one person was literate!

    Why do you ignore these points?

    I think I know. You see the difference between our arguments is that mine are backed up by actual scholarship. You seem to 'just have faith' that people who were poor during the time of Jesus could read. This is wrong. There is no evidence, whatsoever, to support that claim.

    More importantly, you are wrong about wealth and literacy. Appallingly wrong. There is STILL a relationship between wealth and literacy that exists today. In fact, researchers from every decade since at least 1970 have documented this relationship in dozens of countries.

    Below is a brief bibliography (that I am sure you will ignore because these fact are not convenient for your misguided argument). These are a handful of studies that all found that SES is linked to low literacy rates, and that low literacy is a predictor for high school failure. It's not rocket science, Chunk.

    Battin-Pearson, S., et al. (2000). Predictors of Early High School Dropout: A Test of Five Theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92; 568-582.

    Cairns, et al. (1989). Early School Dropout: Configurations and Determinants. Child Development 60; 1437-1452.

    Ensminger, M.E., & Slusarcick A. L. (1992). Paths to High School Graduation or Dropout: A Longitudinal Study of First Grade Cohort. Sociology of Education, 65, 95-113.

    Jimerson, S., et al. (2000). A Prospective Longitudinal Study of High School Dropouts: Examining Multiple Predictors across Development. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 525-549.

    Lloyd, D.N. (1978). Prediction of School Failure from Third-Grade Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1193-2000.

    Luo, Y. and Waite, L. J. (2005). The impact of childhood and adult SES on physical, mental and cognitive well-being in later life. Journals of Gerontology, 60B, S93-S101.

    Seriously, Chunk, try doing research, THEN posting.

    Regarding Jesus's teachings, I don't find what he was alleged to have taught particularly troubling (or enlightening). I am simply indifferent. My point here would simply be that most people can figure out the moral lessons of any religion without all the make believe stuff.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 12:10 AM
  • "The testimonies of four completely different men, each with their own perception of what they saw. Each however, arrive at the same observation."

    I missed this somehow, Chunk. You do understand that nobody who wrote about the supposed resurrection was actually there, right? My understanding is that Paul is the earliest author of the resurrection. He was born in 5AD.

    I am surprised a person who has given himself so thoroughly to a belief system doesn't realize that these four men didn't actually see anything they recount.

    This fact does, however, explain why their stories contradict each other so much.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 12:27 AM
  • While I did not write about the observation of the resurrection, the four disciples did observe the tomb was open, a feat that would require the work of many men which the Roman guards would have noticed. The body of Jesus was gone. The disciples saw him afterwards. No contradictions.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 7:10 AM
  • Chunk,

    Why do the four stories of the resurrection all claim that Jesus first appeared in different places? Why does Mark contradict himself?

    According an old version of Mark, Jesus reveals himself to Mary Magdalena at an undisclosed location, and in an another old version of Mark, Jesus doesn't reveal himself at all.

    Matthew claimed that Jesus first appeared near his tomb.

    Luke puts Jesus puts several miles from Jerusalem, near Emmaus when he first reveals himself.

    John corroborates Matthew with regard to the location of Jesus's first appearance. But John and Matt contradict Luke and Mark.

    Then we have differing accounts of who saw Jesus first. In Mark, it is Mary Magdalena who first sees Jesus and then later Jesus reveals himself to the others.

    But in Matthew, Jesus reveals himself to two Mary's and later to "the eleven".

    In Luke, we get yet another story, as Jesus first appeared first to "two" at Emmaus. But it isn't clear who the two are. It could be any combination of Cleopas and Mary M., Joanna, Mary mother of James, "other women, and/or Peter. Then we have Simon who sees Jesus, then "the eleven".

    John has Jesus appearing to Mary M alone, then to the disciples without Thomas, and then to the disciples with Thomas.

    The stories all contradict what the women did upon discovering the tomb. They were afraid and kept quiet; they were overjoyed and ran away; they stoically leave the tomb to tell the others; Mary tells the others the body has been stolen.

    There are contradictions in the details of Jesus's behavior after the resurrection. In particular, where and when Jesus rose to heaven is a tale in the bible that is replete with contradictions.

    This tome is supposed to be the word of god, right? To be taken literally? Why then can't these alleged witnesses get their stories straight? Without the resurrection of Jesus, there would be no Christianity, so one would think that getting the story down accurately would be important. Why wouldn't Jesus have intervened and "ghost-authored" (like the pun?) these manuscripts? Why allow the stories to so widely vary, casting doubt on the veracity of the entire religion?

    Invariably, from my Sunday school teachers as a child to friends I have today, the answer is: 'it is a test of faith'.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 12:50 PM
  • What you are seeing is more conflict than contradiction. It is likely the source of you conflict is chronology. Mark was on the scene first, Mary M. says nothing and fled. Mary M. then returns and meets Matthew and Luke, is now more settled and tells her story.

    Nobody alive today was there at the resurrection. Like all historical events of the past, we must rely on journals of those who were there. Much like the American Revolution. We rely on faith that the founding fathers formed a nation that follows God's will, freedom. We as followers have faith in the promise God gave to His followers, freedom.

    So let's see the real problems you have with Jesus.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 9:32 PM
  • Chunk,

    Finally you own it..."we rely on faith". That is my point, there is no evidence of any resurrection of Jesus, just shoddy historical accounts. I do like how you side-stepped the whole conundrum of the "word of god" could have so many contradictions (and no, if you bother to read the bible you will find it is not a matter of chronology, it is a matter of widely varying stories).

    Like I said, Chunk, I don't have a problem with Jesus. I do have a problem with those who claim that there is hard evidence that supports the magical resurrection of Jesus. If a person wants to have faith that that really happened, s/he will hear no opposition from me. If someone claims that Jesus's magical resurrection is historical fact, they are mistaken, and I will happily debate them on that point.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 2, 2012, at 12:29 AM
  • Yes, that's why it is called faith. Jesus said he would rise from death and he did. The disciples saw this and chronicled it. God, through Jesus, has kept every promise He has made to his believers, why doubt Him.

    I receive God's grace through my Faith in Jesus Christ. I have faith that through repentence my sins are forgiven. Can your faith in mankind do the same? It is through God's grace that I can do the work of Jesus and not allow my fellow humans opinion deter me. Can you claim the same? Is science that forgiving? Of course not.

    The Bible is a historically accurate documentation of the human experience. The bible is accurate in it's description of the results of sin. Sin's destruction of humanity, nations, even entire civilizations. Not only can these events be found in the Bible, but in ancient history studies. Again, know the difference between a contradiction and conflicts, because so far you've only offered conflicts.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Oct 2, 2012, at 5:28 PM
  • Chunk,

    What would you say to a student who said, 'Man made global warming is real because the Journal of Man Made Global Warming had 4 articles, by four men, who all agreed, that man made global warming is real?'

    You have faith that he rose from the dead. You do not have evidence. Your only evidence is the book that wants you to believe that he rose from the dead. When the premise of your argument is also the conclusion, this is called circular reasoning.

    "Can your faith in mankind do the same?"

    I can forgive someone's "sins" and someone can forgive mine, without religion. I don't believe in superstitious and magical father figures who will punish or not punish us based on our actions on earth. So the only reason I act morally is because it is logical and reasonable to do so. I don't act morally because someone else told me a fairy tale that scared me into my behavior.

    "Can you claim the same? Is science that forgiving? Of course not."

    Of course it is. The whole point of science is to understand the world. This involves being wrong. As Carl Sagan said, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

    Furthermore, the bible is not historically accurate. That is completely untrue. In fact, the bible is chalk full of inaccuracies of every type.

    These are just from Genesis...

    Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19).

    Massive ancient floods leave obvious signs in the archaeological record. There is mention of a massive worldwide flood in Genesis, "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered(7: 19-20)", and yet there are no records, whatsoever, of a worldwide flood that covered the earth's mountains (Everest?) at the time, or at any time before or since.

    11:1 "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." We know this from archeological record to be untrue. There were many languages and many dialects that humans spoke throughout the world when Genesis was written.

    I could go on for hours. But I do not need to. If there are any errors in scripture, irrespective of the size of the error (or conflict, or contradiction), the book does not meet the standard of absolute truth that Christians claim. Errors, contradictions, and "conflicts" (your words) exist throughout the bible, so either God is fallible and prone to mistakes, or the book is the work of men and not of divine creatures.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Oct 3, 2012, at 12:56 AM
  • The plants were in place and the photosynthetic process was in place awaiting the creation of the Sun. If you have actual proof, please present it.

    Great amounts of evidence prove a world wide flood. Fossilized (mineralized) remains of living organisms were distributed throughout the Earth, not just localized. The positions of the fossils themselves suggest a sudden flood. If you have actual proof, please present it.

    It would be the zenith of foolishness to believe that language did not originate at a central location. As differing dialects formed, why wouldn't humans be more attracted to those they could understand. If you have actual proof, please present it.

    Even if you take out the book of Genesis, show me the errors of Gods word. Show me where Jesus was wrong. Show me where man/woman could have come up with these Godly principles of life on his/her own.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 10:41 PM
  • "The plants were in place and the photosynthetic process was in place awaiting the creation of the Sun. If you have actual proof, please present it."

    HAHAHA...this may be least scientific, least factual, and most ignorant statement I have ever read! I have pointed out now rampant inaccuracies in the Bible, but you offer nothing in the way of counterarguments except wild speculation. You are of the mind set: 'if it looks like a duck, walks, like a duck, and sounds like a duck, but the Bible says it's a gorilla, then it's a gorilla.' Thanks for the laughs Chunk.

    FYI: There was no worldwide flood. Most of the evidence against, hilariously and ironically enough, comes from those trying to prove it to be so.

    Also, FYI: there are competing scientific theories regarding linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis. There is a good deal of evidence that suggests that there were as many as 20 proto-languages that developed in isolation and eventually into sophisticated linguistic systems. It is likely that humans evolved 150,000+ years ago in the same areas in Africa, then dispersed, then developed language in isolation.

    In either case, protolanguages predate 6,000 years, thus contradicting the young earth theory as calculated by Biblical inference.

    Also, this Christian website puts Noah's voyage at 2458BC.

    Yet we know from the archeological record that Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian, and Austric languages of the Hmong (eventually Chinese) were all languages before 2458BC. So the proclamation that "the whole Earth was of one language and on speech" is not even close to true. Sorry.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Nov 29, 2012, at 2:06 PM
  • And here lies the two opposing world views, the humanistic world view an the world view of God. In order to believe the humanist view, one must have total faith that all the worlds creation was by pure accident. There was no design, no purpose, and no function to life. Life had to evolve over time, millions, if not billions of years. Where did the tools of genetic information, absolutely required in order for this to happen, come from. Unknown at this time. Humans are constantly revising and changing this plan, and what do we know about humans, we miscalculate, and don't always correct our errors. We purposefully leave out data(lie) if it doesn't fit our views, then a whole new study is created to cover the dishonesty(lies). Here, survival requires a great amount of energy to do. It is optional if genetic information has to be added.

    The world view of God shows design, intelligent design I might point out, purpose, and function. All seemingly very intensional. Survival is seamless, does not require great amounts of energy to do it.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Dec 2, 2012, at 2:44 PM
  • "In order to believe the humanist view, one must have total faith that all the worlds creation was by pure accident."

    First, I don't think you know much about Humanists or Humanism. Second, no faith is required to believe evolution. Observation and science have made evolution a fact. The only folks who debate this are the ignorant.

    Faith is needed to believe anything other than evolution, because intelligent design cannot, by its very essence and nature, be scientific.

    -- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Dec 3, 2012, at 2:12 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: