<

10 Reasons the Crucifixion Story Makes No Sense

Does God exist?  You wouldn't think so given the bizarre crucifixion story.It’s Good Friday, and I’d like to rerun one of my most popular posts, about the crucifixion.

I’m afraid that the crucifixion story doesn’t strike me as that big a deal.

The Christian will say that death by crucifixion was a horrible, humiliating way to die. That the death of Jesus was a tremendous sacrifice, more noble and selfless than a person sacrificing himself for the benefit of a butterfly. And isn’t it worth praising something that gets us into heaven?

Here are ten reasons why I’m unimpressed.

1. Sure, death sucks, but why single out this one? Lots of people die. In fact, lots died from crucifixion. The death of one man doesn’t make all the others insignificant. Was Jesus not a man but actually a god? If so, that fact has yet to be shown.

It’s not like this death is dramatically worse than death today. Crucifixion may no longer be a worry, but cancer is. Six hours of agony on the cross is pretty bad, but so is six months of agony from cancer.

2. What about that whole hell thing? An eternity of torment for even a single person makes Jesus’s agony insignificant by comparison, and it counts for nothing when you consider the billions that are apparently going to hell.

3. Jesus didn’t even die. The absurdity of the story, of course, is the resurrection. If Jesus died, there’s no miraculous resurrection, and if there’s a resurrection, there’s no sacrifice through death. Miracle or sacrifice—you can’t have it both ways. The gospels don’t say that he died for our sins but that he had a rough couple of days for our sins.

4. Taking on the sin vs. removal of sin aren’t symmetric. We didn’t do anything to get original sin. We just inherited it from Adam. So why do we have to do anything to get the redemption? If God demands a sacrifice, he got it. That’s enough. Why the requirement to believe to access the solution?

5. The reason behind the sacrifice—mankind’s original sin—makes no sense. Why blame Adam for a moral lapse that he couldn’t even understand? Remember that he hadn’t yet eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so who could blame him when he made a moral mistake?

And how can we inherit original sin from Adam? Why blame us for something we didn’t do? That’s not justice, and the Bible agrees:

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin (Deut. 24:16)

6. Jesus made a sacrifice—big deal. Jesus is perfect, so his doing something noble is like water flowing downhill. It’s unremarkable since he’s only acting out his nature. What else would you expect from a perfect being?

But imagine if I sacrificed myself for someone. In the right circumstance, I’d risk my life for a stranger—or at least I hope I would. That kind of sacrifice is very different. A selfish, imperfect man acting against his nature to make the ultimate unselfish sacrifice is far more remarkable than a perfect being acting according to his nature, and yet people make sacrifices for others all the time. So why single out the actions of Jesus? Aren’t everyday noble actions by ordinary people more remarkable and laudable?

7. What is left for God to forgive? The Jesus story says that we’ve sinned against God (a debt). Let’s look at two resolutions to this debt.

(1) God could forgive the debt of sin. You and I are asked to forgive wrongs done against us, so why can’t God? Some Christians say that to forgive would violate God’s sense of justice, but when one person forgives another’s debt, there’s no violation of justice. For unspecified reasons, God doesn’t like this route.

And that leaves (2) where Jesus pays for our sin. But we need to pick 1 or 2, not both. If Jesus paid the debt, there’s no need for God’s forgiveness. There’s no longer anything for God to forgive, since there’s no outstanding debt.

Here’s an everyday example: when I pay off my mortgage, the bank doesn’t in addition forgive my debt. There’s no longer a debt to forgive! Why imagine that God must forgive us after he’s already gotten his payment?

8. The Jesus story isn’t even remarkable within mythology. Jesus’s sacrifice was small compared to the Greek god Prometheus, who stole fire from Olympus and gave it to humanity. Zeus discovered the crime and punished Prometheus by chaining him to a rock so that a vulture could eat his liver. Each night, his liver grew back and the next day the vulture would return, day after agonizing day. The gospel story, where Jesus is crucified once and then pops back into existence several days later, is unimpressive by comparison.

9. The Bible itself rejects God’s savage “justice.” This is the 21st century. Must Iron Age customs persist so that we need a human sacrifice? If God loves us deeply and he wants to forgive us, couldn’t he just … forgive us? That’s how we do it, and that’s the lesson we get from the parable of the Prodigal Son where the father forgives the son even after being wronged by him. If that’s the standard of mercy, why can’t God follow it? Since God is so much greater a being than a human, wouldn’t he be that much more understanding and willing to forgive?

If we were to twist the Prodigal Son parable to match the crucifixion story, the father might demand that the innocent son be flogged to pay for the crime of the prodigal son. Where’s the logic in that?

10. The entire story is incoherent. Let’s try to stumble through the drunken logic behind the Jesus story.

God made mankind imperfect and inherently vulnerable to sin. Living a sinless life is impossible, so hell becomes unavoidable. That is, God creates people knowing for certain that they’re going to deserve eternity in hell when they die. Why create people that he knew would be destined for eternal torment?

But don’t worry—God sacrificed Jesus, one of the persons of God, so mankind could go to heaven instead.

So God sacrificed himself to himself so we could bypass a rule that God made himself and that God deliberately designed us to never be able to meet? I can’t even understand that; I certainly feel no need to praise God for something so nonsensical. It’s like an abused wife thanking her abuser. We can just as logically curse God for consigning us to hell from birth.

Perhaps I can be forgiven for being unimpressed by the crucifixion story.

Photo credit: Wikimedia

About Bob Seidensticker
  • The_Last_Midianite

    Bravo.

    I often have been amazed at the contradictions in Christian doctrine.

    I don’t agree with every word, but so much of it seems direct and sensible.

    Numbers 31:17 “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

    • john homeless

      I say to you, that this site is evidently ran by atheist or satanist, A real christian doesn’t even ever factor in the death of Jesus Christ, there is no negotiation. It just the way it is. The problem with people like you plague this earth today, without people like you well i guess the world would be perfect. Lets say someone creates a website about your mama that died and speaks of her as a whore, Jezebel or whatever you know is not true, your gonna anger at that rite. Well I say to you Jesus is my father and you have come against him therefore I don’t like you. Only through the Holy Spirit can I forgive you, so you are forgiven, one more thing. If you come to Jesus today you will be saved, by his blood shed on the cross on that day of Calvary, you nor i were there, if you get to know Jesus he will show you truth.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Thanks for your input John. Looks like we’re not going to agree on this issue.

  • Retro

    Bob’s listed 10 points. I hope a theist will post a rebuttal for each point, and we can further the discussion here in the comment section.

  • Bob Calvan

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

    “The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.”
    Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
    It deserves to be heard.

    “Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work.”

    Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University
    It deserves to be heard.

    “Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.”

    Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

    • Orbital Teapot

      ««« Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work »»»

      It may be true or not, but there is still NOTHING ID Theorists have managed to get published in real scientific journals, peer-reviewed by real scientists. All that they do is publish popular books and give popular talks in addition to trying to get their crap taught in public schools.

      ««« “Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.” »»»

      So? Has this guy become a creationist and, after being an evolutionary theorist, now believes in literal truth the biblical/quranic narrative(s) of the origins?

      Or maybe the quote is taken out of context, and he only objects to the truth of some mechanisms of evolution without rejecting evolution as a whole?? The words he uses are ambiguous.

  • Orbital Teapot

    To all,

    About this Stanley Salthe, I found this, from Wikipedia:

    ««« For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation”, and said that evolutionary biologists were being unfair in suppressing competing ideas. He said that “They deserve to be prodded, as it were. It was my way of thumbing my nose at them”, but was unconvinced by intelligent design and concluded “From my point of view, it’s a plague on both your houses”.[12] »»»

    So? This guy is an atheist and does not believe in ID. Hardly a support for fundamentalists.

    • Retro

      Great research Teapot!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

      The next paragraph in the Wikipedia article reads:

      At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a “theory in crisis”. “It’s laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution,” said Davidson. “There’s always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there’s no real scientific controversy about it. … When I joined I didn’t think they were about bashing evolution. It’s pseudo-science, at best. … What they’re doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion.”

      So it seems that a Christian retracted his signature from this list because he felt “misled”.

      Seems like the Discovery Institute is being rather sneaky, and these scientists don’t know what they are actually signing.

      • Orbital Teapot

        hi Retro, Yes, the statement of the so-called Dissent is very vague and it may embrace both crazy young-earth creationists and respectable scientists who harbor some uncertainties about the mere mechanisms of evolution.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Great detective work, thanks.

        • Orbital Teapot

          Hi Bob,

          Obviously, the very vagueness of that statement of Dissent is part of the tactic of ID creationists. They are attempting to have us think that anyone who doubts some part of what they call “Darwinism” (which alternatively refers to the fact of evolution, to its mechanisms and to a naturalistic worldview) must be on their side and an ally in the culture war. It’s like saying that anyone who doubts the absolute goodness of unrestrained free market must be a communist (or a stalinist?).

  • Rick Townsend

    Bob,

    It is sad to me that you are passing off this recycled angry screed as if it were “clear thinking about Christianity.” It is anything but. And there are so many errors that they can’t all be refuted. But lets start with one issue.

    3. Jesus didn’t even die. The absurdity of the story, of course, is the resurrection. If Jesus died, there’s no miraculous resurrection, and if there’s a resurrection, there’s no sacrifice through death. Miracle or sacrifice—you can’t have it both ways. The gospels don’t say that he died for our sins but that he had a rough couple of days for our sins.

    Now, I know you have read the Bible enough to know this is not accurate. The Gospels and the later writings about what happened on Calvary clearly do say that Jesus died, and that he died to pay for sins. Certainly as they reflected on the events surrounding the death of Christ, the disciples in later writings were able to state more definitively what the meaning and symbolism was, but even in the narratives themselves, the truth is clearly different than you portray.

    So since you claim otherwise, I have to conclude you choose to disbelieve that narrative. On what basis do you do so? What proof compels you to believe that the narratives as clearly written are wrong, and on what basis do you claim the Bible states that Jesus did not die but had a few bad days? Since you know the Bible states something different (he was tortured and killed for no sin of his own), what do you hope to accomplish by misleading readers as to the content of the texts? And since you dismiss any possibility of the truth of the Gospel narratives, why should we believe you to be an enlightened observer objectively sifting the evidence and

    [clearly thinking] about Christianity?

    You disclose your agenda.

    And how can you conclude that if there is no death there can be no resurrection? Do you get a resurrection if there is no death? No. So your statements in that section are illogical and contradictory.

    That is just a start, which I always hold out hope will generate some genuine consideration on your part. I’m usually disappointed. Surprise me.

    Rick

    • Retro

      What proof compels you to believe that the narratives as clearly written are wrong, and on what basis do you claim the Bible states that Jesus did not die but had a few bad days?

      Death, by definition, is a permanent cessation of all vital functions.

      Jesus didn’t sacrifice His whole life, He merely gave up a few days. If Jesus died, and was permanently dead, then you could say He actually sacrificed His life.

      If I sacrifice $10,000 by giving it to a charity, but on the third day I take the money back, did I actually sacrifice anything?

      • Rick Townsend

        Part of what you wrote is quite astute. Normally, we would all agree that death is permanent. Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the disciples, soldiers, priests, women including Mary (Jesus’ mother) and other witnesses in attendance, actually saw a dead Jesus, and that when they saw him alive several days later, THAT was the miraculous part that changed their lives, their conclusions about who Jesus was, and generated the belief we call Christianity? It is the miraculous nature of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection that caused many to believe in him.

        But some remained rebellious then, and today many follow that rebellion and refuse to even consider the evidence objectively, without agendas, and without being open to the possibility that Jesus was who he claimed to be.

        • Retro

          Part of what you wrote is quite astute. Normally, we would all agree that death is permanent.

          That’s all Bob was saying, that Jesus’ death was not your typical dead forever death. Jesus’ death was only temporary, so it was “a rough couple of days.”

          Jesus’ sacrifice then was not His entire life, but a few days out of His life.

          Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the disciples, soldiers, priests, women including Mary (Jesus’ mother) and other witnesses in attendance, actually saw a dead Jesus…

          Good point. Technically, one would have to witness the dead body of Jesus in order to be a witness for the resurrected Jesus. This would disqualify anyone who wasn’t at the Crucifixion to see His dead body.

          …and that when they saw him alive several days later, THAT was the miraculous part that changed their lives, their conclusions about who Jesus was, and generated the belief we call Christianity?

          Sure, for the handful of people that actually saw Jesus dead.

          Everyone else would have had to take someone else’s word for it that Jesus was actually dead. And, as you mentioned in your previous post, “Do you get a resurrection if there is no death? No.”

          That’s the problem with miracles, they’re only miracles to the people that actually witness them firsthand. To everyone else, miracles are simply hearsay.

          But some remained rebellious then, and today many follow that rebellion and refuse to even consider the evidence objectively, without agendas, and without being open to the possibility that Jesus was who he claimed to be.

          The Disciples didn’t believe the women when they first reported Jesus had risen, and they ran to the tomb to see for themselves. Thomas didn’t believe Jesus had resurrected until he could physically touch and see Him.

          If the Disciples who walked, talked, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus firsthand during His lifetime couldn’t believe the Resurrection until they seen it for themselves, then why should any of us today believe in it without also seeing it?

          Were the Disciples rebels because they didn’t believe it until they saw it for themselves? Did the Disciples have an agenda not to believe before they saw the evidence? Weren’t the Disciples open to the possibility that Jesus was who he claimed to be?

        • Rick Townsend

          Retro,

          Thanks for your reply. I am confused by some of your points however. Your main point seems to be that the miracles were only miraculous for those who were firsthand eyewitnesses. You stated:

          Sure, for the handful of people that actually saw Jesus dead. Everyone else would have had to take someone else’s word for it that Jesus was actually dead. And, as you mentioned in your previous post, “Do you get a resurrection if there is no death? No.” That’s the problem with miracles, they’re only miracles to the people that actually witness them firsthand. To everyone else, miracles are simply hearsay.

          If I get what you are saying, then the miracles weren’t actually miracles for you and me who didn’t see them firsthand. By this logic, the moon landings didn’t occur for us because we didn’t see them personally. And Elvis and Whitney Houston similarly might still be alive because we didn’t see their dead bodies. Caesar Augustus, Jesus and Herod similarly didn’t really exist because we didn’t see them personally. Surely this can’t be what you mean, so can you clarify?

          While we have different standards for evidence of things which occurred in antiquity than for contemporary events. That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, it just means we need to use appropriate investigative techniques.

          Rick

        • Retro

          If I get what you are saying, then the miracles weren’t actually miracles for you and me who didn’t see them firsthand.

          Unless you see a miracle firsthand, then all you have is someone else’s story about that miracle.

          I guess if the miracle left behind some physical evidence, then you’d have some evidence that the miracle occurred. Usually, miracles leave no physical evidence behind, so all you are left with is a story.

          Did Jesus’ resurrection leave behind any physical evidence that we can look at today?

          By this logic, the moon landings didn’t occur for us because we didn’t see them personally.

          We have lots of physical evidence for the moon landings. We have rockets, moon rocks, film and TV footage, photographs, and lots of other other documentation.

          And Elvis and Whitney Houston similarly might still be alive because we didn’t see their dead bodies.

          Perhaps, but it wouldn’t affect me one way or the other. My eternal salvation isn’t determined by what I believe about Elvis or Whitney Houston being alive or dead.

          Caesar Augustus, Jesus and Herod similarly didn’t really exist because we didn’t see them personally.

          If we found out today that Caesar Augustus never existed, would it really matter that much to you and me?

          You claim that I must believe that Jesus existed, died, and resurrected or I’ll burn in Hell for all eternity. This is a very serious claim, with very serious consequences, so you need to back it up with something more than just a story in a book.

          While we have different standards for evidence of things which occurred in antiquity than for contemporary events. That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, it just means we need to use appropriate investigative techniques.

          It doesn’t matter how long ago an event happened, the standard of evidence is the same.

          Of course, if the event happened a very long time ago, we might expect that little or no evidence would have survived. The less evidence we have, the less certain we can be.

          Relatively recent events, like the Moon landings, will have much more evidence, and so we can be much more certain.

          What evidence do we have that Jesus resurrected? All we have are the Biblical accounts.

          I’ve read the Biblical accounts, and the Disciples didn’t believe the women when they reported that Jesus had risen, and they didn’t believe until they seen it for themselves. Thomas didn’t believe Jesus had resurrected until he could physically touch and see Him.

          So I ask again: If the Disciples who walked, talked, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus firsthand during His lifetime couldn’t believe the Resurrection until they seen it for themselves, then why should any of us today believe in it without also seeing it?

        • Retro

          Your main point seems to be that the miracles were only miraculous for those who were firsthand eyewitnesses.

          The main point I’d like to make clear is that someone who didn’t witness the death of Jesus couldn’t be a witness of the Resurrection.

          If you see someone alive, and a week later you see them again and they’re alive, there’s no reason to believe that they died and resurrected.

          If you see someone alive, and a week later you see them again, and they claim that they had died and resurrected, there’s no evidence to believe that they resurrected.

          You have evidence for a resurrection only if you witness someone dead firsthand, and then see them alive again firsthand.

          Does this make sense?

        • Retro

          If I get what you are saying, then the miracles weren’t actually miracles for you and me who didn’t see them firsthand.

          Let me illustrate my point further by asking a few questions:

          If Jesus simply disappeared for a few days, and reappeared claiming to have died and resurrected, would there be any witnesses around to discredit His story?

          Unless there were people with Jesus the whole three days to witness that He was alive for those three days and never died, there’d be no witnesses to make the counter claim that He didn’t die.

          Likewise, unless there were people who seen Jesus’ dead body, there’d be no witnesses to make the claim that He actually resurrected.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve been away for a few days. Just a few comments that I hope won’t overlap too much with what’s been said.

          Rick:

          The Gospels and the later writings about what happened on Calvary clearly do say that Jesus died

          And they’re wrong, aren’t they? Their own stories contradict them.

          You and I know what “died” means. “Died” means gone and never coming back. Popping back into life after a day and a half is most clearly not dead.

          You can have the miracle of the resurrection or the sacrifice of death. You can’t have both.

          Retro’s example of “sacrificing” $10,000 to charity but then taking it back a few days later is excellent. Not much of a sacrifice, I think you’ll agree.

          on what basis do you claim the Bible states that Jesus did not die but had a few bad days?

          Are we reading the same gospel stories?? He was back in action after 36 hours.

          “Misleading readers”?? We must be talking about different things.

          And how can you conclude that if there is no death there can be no resurrection?

          I don’t know what you’re referring to.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Rick:

          I haven’t seen your reply.

          The Gospels and the later writings about what happened on Calvary clearly do say that Jesus died

          Are we on the same page about the death and resurrection question?

          You can have the miracle of the resurrection or the sacrifice of death. You can’t have both.

        • Nox

          But we don’t have any witnesses to the resurrection. We have books written 40 to 90 years after 33 AD for the primary purpose of claiming there was a resurrection, claiming that the apostles saw a risen Jesus (and doing so with numerous plot holes). We have nothing written by any of the witnesses, only the anonymous assertion that they were witnesses.

          Even those only claim that Jesus appeared to a small group of people who were already his followers, and in most of these incidents they don’t recognize him as Jesus until later. In one of Jesus’ post resurrection appearances, he appears as a ghost and disappears right in front of them. In John’s account, he appears to Mary Magdalene and she confuses him for the gardener.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Nox:

          Thanks for the link to the long list of contradictions.

          “Well … if they agreed too much, you’d say it was collusion! Yeah, that’s the ticket!” is a pretty poor rebuttal to me, but I hear it all the time. If God is so smart, you’d think that he’d have a way to communicate to us that didn’t look like the ramblings of cult members.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        • Rick Townsend

          No, it means that God the Father accepted his payment as complete. If he had stayed dead, THAT would leave broken the deal. We’d never know that the payment was adequate to the task.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Sounds like we’re in agreement then that “dead,” at least as it applies to all living things here on earth, doesn’t apply to Jesus. If he was dead, it was just for a day and a half.

          Again, the Jesus story can have the miracle of the resurrection or the sacrifice of death but not both. The gospels as I read them pick the resurrection. Therefore, no death.

  • Rick Townsend

    Retro, you said,

    Let me illustrate my point further by asking a few questions:

    Then you asked only one question:

    If Jesus simply disappeared for a few days, and reappeared claiming to have died and resurrected, would there be any witnesses around to discredit His story?

    Answer: NO, but this isn’t what we are told happened, so it is irrelevant.

    Reference this statement :

    Unless there were people with Jesus the whole three days to witness that He was alive for those three days and never died, there’d be no witnesses to make the counter claim that He didn’t die.

    By this standard, you can accept no claim whatsoever that you didn’t personally observe. You can’t live life this way in reality. And the narratives state that his body was NEVER without the witness of the Roman soldiers and likely others most of that time as well. So your assertion falls on this point.

    Similarly, you claim:

    Likewise, unless there were people who seen Jesus’ dead body, there’d be no witnesses to make the claim that He actually resurrected.

    True, but the best evidentiary documents we have indicate this isn’t what happened, so again your assertion is simply made up. There WERE people who saw his dead body and testified to it.

    • Retro

      Then you asked only one question:

      Thanks for the correction.

      By this standard, you can accept no claim whatsoever that you didn’t personally observe.

      You’ve completely missed my point. The people in the BIBLE can only claim that Jesus resurrected if THEY witnessed Jesus’ dead body firsthand.

      What do I care if 500 people seen Jesus alive at some point? Unless they seen the dead body, they have no way of knowing that He was actually dead. As you said yourself, if there’s no death, then there can be no resurrection.

      If I am to take their word for it, I need to know that at least they witnessed what they claim to have witnessed.

      True, but the best evidentiary documents we have indicate this isn’t what happened, so again your assertion is simply made up. There WERE people who saw his dead body and testified to it.

      How many seen the dead body and then the resurrected body? How many are actually named in the Bible? It certainly could not have been 500 people. Look it up in the Bible and make me a list.

      You still haven’t answered my other question, so I’ll ask it again:

      If the Disciples who walked, talked, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus firsthand during His lifetime couldn’t believe the Resurrection until they seen it for themselves, then why should any of us today believe in it without also seeing it?

      • Rick Townsend

        The disciples who walked, talked and witnessed Jesus firsthand ALL came to the same conclusion about him. Unanimous. No controversy. That isn’t good enough for you?

        Lots of people saw the dead body—soldiers, disciples, followers, townsfolk, priests, the women who steadfastly remained at the foot of the cross, random gawkers. Many of those saw him alive afterwards. That is the testimony. They all agree. There is no documentation of ANYONE claiming hoax at the time. That’s not good enough for you to even consider it might have been true? Are you not willing to consider that the Bible might be true? Is it not possible this evidence is at least worthy of serious consideration?

        That is about all I can say on the subject. You need to decide if there is a possibility of truth and look at the evidence with an open mind. If you aren’t willing to do that, then no amount of words from anyone will convince you to do so. That is the rebellion that is dangerous and will leave you without hope of forgiveness. I am hoping for a more objective response. But I’m not optimistic you are capable of that.

        Jesus is a real historic figure. He lived a perfect life, and died not for his own sins but for ours. His resurrection indicates that God accepted his payment and it is complete. We can choose to place trust in that just as you choose to place trust in an attorney to represent you in court. No one forces you to choose a particular one, or any one at all. In the same way, you can choose to ask Jesus to be your advocate with the Father. He is willing to do so if you are willing to consider the truth of Who He is. No one can force you to do so. No one can prevent you from doing so. Only your own free will limits your options in this careful consideration.

        Use that free will wisely.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Rick:

          The disciples who walked, talked and witnessed Jesus firsthand ALL came to the same conclusion about him. Unanimous. No controversy. That isn’t good enough for you?

          Dorothy, the Woodsman, the Scarecrow, and the Lion all agreed that the yellow brick road went to Oz. Isn’t that enough for you to agree that the Emerald City exists?

          Lots of people saw the dead body—soldiers, disciples, followers, townsfolk, priests, the women who steadfastly remained at the foot of the cross, random gawkers.

          It’s a story!

          We’re all familiar with legends like this. Merlin wasn’t really a shape-shifter.

          You may have heard the rumor within Muslim circles that Neil Armstrong heard the Muslim call to prayer on the moon and became a Muslim.

          Or that Kim Jong Il shot 38 under par on 18 holes on his first try at golf.

          Hector Avalos said that, when he was a preacher, he had people raised from the dead in his own church.

          And then there’s Sathya Sai Baba who died last year with millions following him, believing that he could raise the dead and be in two places at once.

          And you’re shocked at the idea that the gospel story could be legend??

          There is no documentation of ANYONE claiming hoax at the time.

          Agreed. So what? Just last week I blogged about the Shroud of Turin. The oldest and best reference to the Shroud is one that not only records its existence but states that it was a forgery and that they have a confession from the artist. So, by your logic, no one could consider it anything but a worthless fake. Obviously, that’s not the way it works.

          That’s not good enough for you to even consider it might have been true?

          I’m happy to consider that it’s true. Give me some serious evidence to support this absolutely mind-boggling claim.

          That is the rebellion that is dangerous and will leave you without hope of forgiveness.

          Pascal’s Wager is always tempting, eh?

        • Retro

          The disciples who walked, talked and witnessed Jesus firsthand ALL came to the same conclusion about him. Unanimous. No controversy. That isn’t good enough for you?

          My point was despite all the advantages they had by living with Jesus firsthand, even the Disciples COULDN’T believe in the Resurrection until they seen evidence of it firsthand.

          What makes Christians today so special that they can do what the Disciples couldn’t?

          Lots of people saw the dead body—soldiers, disciples, followers, townsfolk, priests, the women who steadfastly remained at the foot of the cross, random gawkers. Many of those saw him alive afterwards.

          As we have been discussing, only those that witnessed both can be witnesses for the Resurrection. I know it seems like a minor point, but you can’t be an eyewitness to something that you didn’t actually see. The only people who count are the “many of those saw him alive afterwards.” So again, look it up in the Bible and make me a list.

          Are you not willing to consider that the Bible might be true? Is it not possible this evidence is at least worthy of serious consideration?

          I used to believe it. Right now I am looking into the possibility of the evidence being true or not, which is why I’m being so particular about who can actually be an eyewitness to the Resurrection.

          Many apologists talk about how the the four Gospels could be admissible as evidence in a court of law. I’m simply exploring this idea.

          They all agree. There is no documentation of ANYONE claiming hoax at the time.

          There could be several reasons why we apparently don’t have anyone claiming it a hoax.

          If the claim of Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t widespread until the Gospels were written, no one would know enough about the claim to be able to dispute it. Since the Gospels would already be locked into the written form, no one would be able to add the dispute into the Gospel accounts.

          Also, the Gospels were written to get people to believe in Jesus, so any evidence contrary to this cause could have simply not been put in. The authors of the Gospels were not unbiased news reporters or historians, they were evangelists with a purpose.

          I am hoping for a more objective response. But I’m not optimistic you are capable of that.

          Thanks.

          Only your own free will limits your options in this careful consideration.

          As I have previously noted, despite all the evidence they had of living with Jesus firsthand, even the Disciples COULDN’T believe the resurrection until they seen it firsthand.

          If the Disciples couldn’t choose to believe without firsthand evidence of the Resurrection, then why should we expect anyone today to be able to do it? Are Christians today better than the original Disciples?

        • Rick Townsend

          Retro, Reference your comment:

          My point was despite all the advantages they had by living with Jesus firsthand, even the Disciples COULDN’T believe in the Resurrection until they seen evidence of it firsthand.

          I got your point and thought I answered it. However, another point is that God seemed to shield the contemporaries of Jesus from full understanding until after the resurrection, when it all became clear. This may have been to shield them from willingly going to their respective deaths along with Jesus. No dead disciple could carry on the work of building the Church, and from John 17, we see that protecting the disciples and allowing them to be instrumental in building the church was Jesus’ goal.

          I know it seems like a minor point, but you can’t be an eyewitness to something that you didn’t actually see. The only people who count are the “many of those saw him alive afterwards.” So again, look it up in the Bible and make me a list.

          I made you a list. “Lots of people saw the dead body—soldiers, disciples, followers, townsfolk, priests, the women who steadfastly remained at the foot of the cross, random gawkers. Many of those saw him alive afterwards.” so here’s my list: many soldiers, disciples, followers, townsfolk, priests, the women who steadfastly remained at the foot of the cross, and probably even some of the random gawkers. If that list isn’t not satisfactory, make your own list, please. I’m not currently accepting homework assignments from blog posts.

          There COULD BE (emphasis added) several reasons why we apparently don’t have anyone claiming it a hoax.

          OK, I think I see a pattern here. You DON’T accept evidence that IS available, and you SPECULATE about information that ISN’T available but which if it did exist MIGHT make your point.

          At this point, we are no longer having a conversation, we are simply listening to one side’s evidence and the other side’s rant. I’m not interested in going there.

          If the Disciples couldn’t choose to believe without firsthand evidence of the Resurrection, then why should we expect anyone today to be able to do it? Are Christians today better than the original Disciples?

          All of the disciples DID believe, and as far as we know, the eleven saw him personally, so your point is moot. As for others in the first century, they found the testimony of those who DID see Jesus convincing, and they were a lot closer to the events than you and I are.

          Are we better than the disciples? Obviously not. But we do have the full revelation before us, where they did not. That is enough to make reasonable decisions if you are open to doing so.

        • Retro

          I’m not currently accepting homework assignments from blog posts.

          Yeah, you simply want to make arguements without backing it up with the Bible.

          OK, I think I see a pattern here. You DON’T accept evidence that IS available, and you SPECULATE about information that ISN’T available but which if it did exist MIGHT make your point.

          You are the one that was arguing that the absence of hoax claims proves something. YOU are the one who is speculating about information that isn’t in the Bible, and YOU are the one drawing a conclusion from it. I simply explained to you why I don’t accept YOUR speculation or your conclusion.

          All of the disciples DID believe, and as far as we know, the eleven saw him personally, so your point is moot.

          No it isn’t moot. The Disciples believed because they SAW Jesus resurrected, they had the evidence. Until they had that evidence, they didn’t believe.

          Your speculation about shielding the Disciples from understanding fully in order to prevent them from going to an early death is another SPECULATION… I think I see a pattern here.

          Are we better than the disciples? Obviously not. But we do have the full revelation before us, where they did not. That is enough to make reasonable decisions if you are open to doing so.

          Yeah, we have the full revelation, but none of the actual evidence. It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to believe without the actual evidence. The Disciples couldn’t do it, and neither can I.

          If Jesus is still physically alive today as the Bible claims, then why didn’t He stay here on Earth so everyone through the ages could see and believe? Why can’t Jesus appear to people today like He did to the Disciples? Do you think the Bible gives a valid explanation for the need for Jesus to ascend to heaven, thus leaving us with no evidence? (I’d ask you how the Bible answers these questions, but you don’t accept homework assignments.)

  • Rick Townsend

    Bob,

    Dorothy, the Woodsman, the Scarecrow, and the Lion all agreed that the yellow brick road went to Oz. Isn’t that enough for you to agree that the Emerald City exists?

    Seriously? You raise a fictitious emerald city as if it is some sort of serious rebuttal? Fiction purporting to be fiction is different from history told as such. That’s the best you’ve got?

    And you’re shocked at the idea that the gospel story could be legend??

    Nope. Just disappointed that those who claim to be seriously thinking about Christianity would lump all of the nonsense you did in the same category as a well documented historic narrative about Jesus.

    Just last week I blogged about the Shroud of Turin.

    And who has made any claims in this forum or elsewhere that Christianity rises or falls on the evidence of the Shroud? Rabbit trail.

    I’m happy to consider that it’s true. Give me some serious evidence to support this absolutely mind-boggling claim.

    Been there, done that. The world is filled with order, and we all know that order in the natural world (watches, houses, etc.) come from intelligent sources. ALL of the evidence we have points toward this, yet you REFUSE to consider that to be true. So you are the one in never never land needing to provide proof that order comes from disorder, that matter comes from nothing, that intelligence and consciousness come from cosmic ooze. You have the burden of proof. You simply refuse to pick it up and do the heavy lifting.

    Pascal’s Wager is always tempting, eh?

    It has a certain logic, but I didn’t raise it. Just stating the truth as it is phrased in the Bible. I thought it was time to remind you of what that is, since we get so far afield so easily. It isn’t complicated. You just despise that concept for whatever reason.

    Maybe someday we can talk about that anger issue toward God. Maybe on a Seattle or Dallas overnight rather than a blog post. I’d enjoy that more than this ping pong game… The ball keeps falling off the table and getting into all sorts of dust bunnies on the floor. Once in a while, it is good to get it up on the table, clean it off and remember what is the essence of the discussion. And that essence matters.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Back to your first comment on this post, I want to return to a point you made and that I responded to. You said that the gospels say that Jesus died. My post argued that you can have either sacrifice through death or miracle through resurrection, not both. Someone can’t both be dead and resurrected. The gospels are clear on the resurrection, and the “death” was not permanent, like death always is. Do you agree that, since Jesus didn’t die and then stay dead that we need to have different words to talk about his “death” than to naively say that he died?

      Seriously? You raise a fictitious emerald city as if it is some sort of serious rebuttal?

      Seriously. Obviously, fiction designed as fiction is different from legend (something that’s not intentionally unhistorical). We agree that that’s a major difference. But you see the problem with simply pointing to a written account and taking it as historical. The Wizard of Oz isn’t historical. Why imagine that the Jesus story is?

      Just disappointed that those who claim to be seriously thinking about Christianity would lump all of the nonsense you did in the same category as a well documented historic narrative about Jesus.

      You express disappointment in lieu of an actual rebuttal. Now it’s my turn to be disappointed. I expected a direct response. I’m guessing you don’t have one?

      The Jesus story not only isn’t legendary but can’t be? Show me.

      And who has made any claims in this forum or elsewhere that Christianity rises or falls on the evidence of the Shroud? Rabbit trail.

      Well, you could read what I actually said to see the relevance. You said: “There is no documentation of ANYONE claiming hoax at the time.”

      I said: “Agreed. So what? Just last week I blogged about the Shroud of Turin. The oldest and best reference to the Shroud is one that not only records its existence but states that it was a forgery and that they have a confession from the artist. So, by your logic, no one could consider it anything but a worthless fake. Obviously, that’s not the way it works.”

      Don’t imagine that naysayers would’ve changed things much.

      A direct refutation is preferable to some excuse about why you aren’t obliged to respond to my point.

      ALL of the evidence we have points toward this, yet you REFUSE to consider that to be true.

      (1) I’m happy to consider it to be true. Having done so, I have found (so far) the evidence to be flimsy.

      (2) The elephant in the room is that evolution (which nicely explains order from disorder) is the scientific consensus. You’ve yet to justify the rationale of you, a non-expert, judging that evolution is nonsense.

      You simply refuse to pick it up and do the heavy lifting.

      Yet again, I point to the scientific consensus—Big Bang, evolution, and all that. Do questions remain? Yes indeedy! But the fact that science has unanswered questions gives no support to the “God did it” hypothesis.

      Heavy lifting has been done. Science delivers; religion just promises.

      You just despise that concept for whatever reason.

      I imagine that I despise it in the same way that you despise the concepts behind the other guys’ religions—in other words, not much at all.

      Maybe someday we can talk about that anger issue toward God.

      Who’s angry toward God? Lots of things annoy me, but imaginary beliefs don’t affect me at all.

      Maybe on a Seattle or Dallas overnight rather than a blog post.

      A more in-depth conversation would be great.

      • Rick Townsend

        Returning to a point we have discussed before, reference your statement The elephant in the room is that evolution (which nicely explains order from disorder) is the scientific consensus.

        You have alleged this before. What evidence do you have to support this claim of consensus? And how does this order from disorder explanation work, at the DNA level where it has to proceed to increasing layers of complexity? I haven’t seen that nice explanation.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          What evidence do you have to support this claim of consensus?

          We’ve been over this in the summer of 2008. Surely you’re not asking to go through that pointless exercise again …

          I provided you with a list of quotes from these individuals and organizations:

          * American Association for the Advancement of Science
          * National Science Teachers Association
          * National Academy of Sciences
          * National Research Council
          * Kenneth Ham, Institute for Creation Research.
          * Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International
          * NewScientist magazine
          * Scientific American
          * American Scientific Affiliation: A Fellowship of Christians in Science
          * The Discovery Institute
          * Research!America

          Your response, after 60 back-and-forth emails, was to grudgingly accept consensus but to say that “consensus” simply means a majority. Now, you wanted to know, what’s this nonsense about an overwhelming consensus??

          And it was back to square one.

          Lotsa laughs, I can assure you.

          And how does this order from disorder explanation work

          We see order from disorder all the time when we see a seed grow into a mature plant. I don’t know what you’re asking about when you refer to DNA.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      It occurs to me that your request for me to do the heavy lifting to justify evolution or the Big Bang is like me demanding that you do the “heavy lifting” to explain the internal combustion engine or nuclear power plants. Why would you want to if you knew that I was determined to attack your explanation and would dismiss any suggestion of encyclopedias or reference to the scientific consensus as your capitulation that those pieces of technology don’t have plausible scientific explanations?

      • Rick Townsend

        Great analogy! I accept! I’ll gladly accept your proposal to defend nuclear power plants and internal combustion engines, because they work and are well documented. In the same way, I have previously defended intelligent design with science that has been published in respected major journals. Of course, whenever it is published there, the editor is fired. (Nice open mindedness, huh?) After this sort of event, the information continues to be published in journals at which you would sniff derisively even though they are filled with PhDs.

        So there you go. I accept your offer. Now, do your heavy lifting. It’s your turn. Provide evidence and documentation of how evolution works at the DNA level to produce major change (Macro Evolution). When you do that, I will respond with PhD level information that shows your research to be false. That is your challenge.

        This blog seems to be handing out homework, and you endorse that. So set the pace. I will be watching and waiting eagerly!

        • Retro

          This blog seems to be handing out homework, and you endorse that.

          I asked you to flip through a few pages of the Bible (the book that you read, believe, and trust for your eternal salvation) and make a short list of the handful of people that witnessed both the dead body and the resurrected body of Jesus… and you whine and complain and call it homework???

          You write paragraph after paragraph about what you personally think and believe, but you can’t bother to back it up with a few names quoted out of the Bible?

          You judge me to be “argumentative without thinking (clearly or otherwise)” and then you write the above post to Bob S?

          I’m willing to go through the “tedium of providing biblical references”. Here’s one for you Rick:

          Matt 7:5 “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

      • Bob Seidensticker

        I have previously defended intelligent design with science that has been published in respected major journals.

        And yet we still have that smelly elephant in the room, the fact that evolution also works and is well documented. When you come across a plausible argument to justify ignoring that, let me know.

        whenever it is published there, the editor is fired.

        I can only think of the example of Richard Sternberg and the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, but that case bears no resemblance to what you’re referring to. Tell me the example you’re thinking of.

        the information continues to be published in journals at which you would sniff derisively even though they are filled with PhDs.

        Who cares about PhDs? Certainly not me. Now, if they’re relevant PhDs, that’s a different story. Y’know–practicing biologists critiquing biology and so on. Is that what you’re talking about?

        Provide evidence and documentation of how evolution works at the DNA level to produce major change (Macro Evolution).

        What is this obsession with this fool’s errand? I’m not qualified! If you’re really looking to learn about evolution, do so. Godspeed. If you’re trying to point out the shortcomings in my knowledge of biology, I’ll throw in the towel right now. I’m not a biologist.

        When you do that, I will respond with PhD level information that shows your research to be false.

        And I laugh at your PhDs. What is the point of mentioning “PhD level information”? Why should that interest me in the least?

        By contrast, if you show me that my opinion is not in line with the scientific consensus, I’ll thank you for the correction. Have I mentioned before that I’m not a biologist? I don’t have the qualifications (or the hubris) to pretend that I know enough to overrule the scientific consensus in anything.

        This blog seems to be handing out homework, and you endorse that.

        But you don’t.

        If this were relevant, I’d find this a tempting challenge. It’s not.

        No, I’m not avoiding your challenge because it would show up my fragile house of cards. I’m avoiding it because it’s pointless. Is it not obvious why you and I arguing about biology, pretending that we can overturn the consensus view of the people who actually know, is ridiculous?

        You might as well assign me graduate-level problems in quantum physics and then scold me when I come up short. What’s the point?

  • Rick Townsend

    To Retro,

    Your responses ignoring what I provided—and simply ranting—indicate the futility of answering any of your questions. I gave you a list, but am not going to go through the tedium of providing biblical references. Beyond that, I think I am done answering seriously any of your inputs in the future. You have burned the bridge by being argumentative without thinking (clearly or otherwise) about the sincere efforts I’ve made to answer what I had hoped were genuine questions. They are not. And I am finished responding to you.

    Rick

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Admittedly, I’m not an objective observer. But I’m afraid that this response seems simply to be a smokescreen to cover your not being able to respond. You’re welcome to participate or not as suits you, but Retro’s questions seem to me to be pointed but polite.

  • Pingback: the way of heaven: cease blame and forgive your own condemnation « JRFibonacci's blog: partnering with reality

  • TheRealRandomFunction

    So now we have two people who believe that Bob and Retro aren’t really interested in actual, honest, open minded debate. One wonders how many more people it will take before they stop with the same old “enlightened atheist vs ignorant hick Christian” rhetoric, and think.. “Hmm.. maybe I’m doing something wrong.”

    I mean I understand that for Bob, this whole blog really is just an exercise in intellectual pride than actually encouraging debate, so I’m doubtful he’ll ever change. At some point though, this blog is going to turn from a place where the rare few theists post, into just a skeptic love fest.

    If Bob “the Hammer” posts his opinions, and no one is around to hear them, does anyone care?

    • Orbital Teapot

      Hi Random,

      I’ve been hanging out in forums for some 10 years, and I have come to realize that people changing their mind in an issue of some weight or even honestly and consistently applying the principle of charity, are hard to find. People want confirmations of their beliefs rather than challenges. And when they engage in actual debates, they are more concerned to win than to find the truth, wherever it is.

      In fact, there is some virtue in holding fast to one’s stance, at least to some extent. Because then one looks for better arguments, one thinks hard to avoid giving in, so that the stance tends to become stronger.

      But of course, one should not cling to a stance at all costs.

      So… maybe you should not be too harsh on skeptics for being… human.

      And of course, don’t forget that from the viewpoint of some skeptics, you are biased as well.

      • Rick Townsend

        Orbital Teapot: you stated,

        I’ve been hanging out in forums for some 10 years, and I have come to realize that people changing their mind in an issue of some weight or even honestly and consistently applying the principle of charity, are hard to find. People want confirmations of their beliefs rather than challenges. And when they engage in actual debates, they are more concerned to win than to find the truth, wherever it is.

        This is an important point to keep in mind, and I appreciate the reminder. I am always hopeful that someone who is interested in learning will be influenced positively in these discussions. But I probably should not expect that from regular participants who, like me (and probably you) have thought through the issues and have a lot of background and history on which they base their opinions. Of course, from my point of view, the foundations on the atheist side are quite gelatinous, and based on others who hold strong opinions rather than on the facts on which those opinions should be based. But I keep holding out hope.

        In any case, again, thanks for the reality check!

        • Bob Seidensticker

          This is an important point to keep in mind, and I appreciate the reminder.

          Ditto.

          from my point of view, the foundations on the atheist side are quite gelatinous

          Thanks for the frank statement of your position.

          I’m not sure if you’re saying that there’s symmetry here–both atheists and Christians are equally susceptible to flawed thinking–or if you’re saying that atheists are more guilty of this.

          My own view is that no one who began as an atheist with a deep understanding of the arguments on both sides of this question would ever (or has ever) become a Christian. That is, more understanding undercuts the Christian position. And the same thing acts on the other side of the issue: lots of Christians study Christianity and don’t deconvert, but studying the Bible (and related issues) is an excellent way to become an atheist.

          I explore that more in my post, “I Used to be an Atheist, Just Like You.”

    • Retro

      If Bob “the Hammer” posts his opinions, and no one is around to hear them, does anyone care?

      Well Bob could do what Apologetics.com has done: They still post their opinions and podcasts, but they shut down the forum and restrict the posting of comments. There is no real discussion or debate there.

      Here on Bob’s blog, you are encouraged to answer the challenges, and to challenge the answers. You are free to post whatever you think, and to ask any question you have. What you write is immediately posted.

      Discussions and debates here might not always be pretty, but that’s because we get to see it all like it really is, warts and all, and nothing is hidden.

      Now then RF, your question made me think of a question I’ve always wanted an answer to: If a tree falls in a forest, and it lands on a mime, does it make a sound?

      • TheRealRandomFunction

        Well Bob could do what Apologetics.com has done: They still post their opinions and podcasts, but they shut down the forum and restrict the posting of comments. There is no real discussion or debate there.

        True enough.

        Here on Bob’s blog, you are encouraged to answer the challenges, and to challenge the answers.

        Hah. Always good to start my day off with a laugh, and this is a good one.

        You are free to post whatever you think, and to ask any question you have. What you write is immediately posted.

        I will grant you that. One of the few (and perhaps only) points I find in Bob’s favor, but it is true.

        Now then RF, your question made me think of a question I’ve always wanted an answer to: If a tree falls in a forest, and it lands on a mime, does it make a sound?

        Yes.

        • Retro

          Hah. Always good to start my day off with a laugh, and this is a good one.

          Didn’t like that one, eh? I thought it was a nice adaptation of the Apologetics.com slogan.

          I will grant you that. One of the few (and perhaps only) points I find in Bob’s favor, but it is true.

          You may find Bob to be confrontational, but it goes both ways. There was a time not too long ago that a Jehovah Witness was posting here, and when it was discovered that he was a JW, he was attacked by the other theists.

          So what can we say then? Discussing religion is usually going to get a little messy, but it’s never boring.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Didn’t like that one, eh? I thought it was a nice adaptation of the Apologetics.com slogan.

          I just don’t think its true. His “answers” are usually just something along the lines of “well.. doesn’t it just make more sense to be an atheist?”. Those are words, yes, but its hardly an answer. His “challenges” to things that I’ve said almost never seem to have to do with what I’ve actually said. Rather, he always seems to attack whatever theistic strawman he likes.

          You may find Bob to be confrontational, but it goes both ways.

          I actually don’t find Bob “confrontational”, at least in the same sense that a confrontation with a JW might be “confrontational”. He’s confrontational to me, because I’m not willing to put up with his lack of comprehension of what I’ve said, his constant lack of evidence for his claims, his constant shifting of proof, and his repeated furthering of the meme that all atheists are enlightened “objective” individuals, and all theists are ignorant backwards hicks.

          If you are willing to put up with all that, well.. he’s definitely “civil”.

        • Retro

          He’s confrontational to me, because I’m not willing to put up with his lack of comprehension of what I’ve said, his constant lack of evidence for his claims,

          I’ve re-read what you posted refuting Bob’s idea that the Jesus story is legendary. To be fair, I think Bob attempted to respond to most of the points you brought up.

          You’re main argument, as I understand it, is that 1st Corinthians 15 is too early for there to have been legendary development.

          The main problem with your argument, as I see it, is that you’re not dealing with the things that were written later.

          Let’s go through the passage in 1st Corinthians 15 point by point and compare it to the later writings in the New Testament:

          “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”

          The Passover lamb was not an atoning sacrifice. The blood of the Passover lamb prevented God’s wrath from killing the Israelite’s firstborn sons, but had nothing to do with actually removing sin.

          The New Testament didn’t exist yet, so the Scriptures referred to by Paul must be the Old Testament. If you want to post what OT scriptures Paul is referring to here, it’d be a big help.

          “and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures”

          As we have been discussing, the various burial and resurrection accounts have some conflicting differences. John, for one example, has the crucifixion on a different day than the other Gospels.

          Again, we get “according to Scripture”. What OT verses is Paul referring to here? It’s starting to look like Paul is basing these things more on the OT scripture than he is actual historical events.

          “and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve”

          No New Testament account mentions that Peter seen Jesus apart from the other Twelve . In fact, Peter was part of the Twelve.

          I should also mention that Judas never seen the resurrected Jesus, so using the term “the twelve” when the later writings use the term “the Eleven” makes me suspicious that the story has been mutated.

          “After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.”

          Why aren’t these 500 brethren ever mentioned anywhere else in Scripture?

          If this passage happened so soon after the crucifixion, then why would Paul mention that “some have fallen asleep”? Wouldn’t it go without saying that the greater part remained if it was only 5 years later?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          RRF:

          I’m not willing to put up with his lack of comprehension of what I’ve said, his constant lack of evidence for his claims, his constant shifting of proof, and his repeated furthering of the meme that all atheists are enlightened “objective” individuals, and all theists are ignorant backwards hicks.

          Are we in a “he said, she said” situation, where I think my comments are on target and you think they’re evasive? Or is there some objective way to see who’s at fault here?

          If you are willing to put up with all that, well.. he’s definitely “civil”.

          Nice of you to say, although (unfortunately) I have to disagree with you there. Your approach brings out the sarcastic worst in me. I’d prefer to stick to the topic, but I always seem to get drawn into responding to charges of character flaws. :-(

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Retro:

          The Passover lamb was not an atoning sacrifice. The blood of the Passover lamb prevented God’s wrath from killing the Israelite’s firstborn sons, but had nothing to do with actually removing sin.

          Good point–that’s what Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, was for.

          Again, we get “according to Scripture”. What OT verses is Paul referring to here?

          An aside: William Lane Craig likes to use the argument that Jesus was completely unexpected. This wasn’t the prophesied messiah! In other words, the Criterion of Embarrassment argues that something so contrary to what was expected points to the gospel story as accurate. And yet, he ignores all the “according to the scripture” references in both Paul’s epistles and the gospels!

          I should also mention that Judas never seen the resurrected Jesus, so using the term “the twelve” when the later writings use the term “the Eleven” makes me suspicious that the story has been mutated.

          I’ve heard that the story of the 12 disciples and the (incompatible) story of Judas the betrayer were harmonized together, giving problems like this. Think of Matt. 19:28 and Rev. 21:14, which talk about 12 thrones for the 12 apostles, who will judge the 12 tribes. (There’s a throne for Judas, too??)

          Why aren’t these 500 brethren ever mentioned anywhere else in Scripture?

          Indeed, why isn’t this prominent in every gospel (which came years later)? That there were not just a handful of the inner circle who could verify the resurrection but actually hundreds should’ve key in the gospels.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          You’re main argument, as I understand it, is that 1st Corinthians 15 is too early for there to have been legendary development.

          Close.

          Bob said that to him, the gospels and the resurrection account(s) are the results of decades of “oral history” or “legendary development”.

          As a worst case scenario, 1 Cor 15 demonstrates that there was only 2 decades of “legendary development” possible, and if we are charitable enough to go with the majority of theologians, we have only 5 years. So there was much less time than Bob thinks for there to be “legendary development”.

          If we must distrust any account that was first written down 5 years after the actual event, I wonder how many historical accounts we would have to throw out? Most of them I suspect.

          The existence of a creed which refers to Jesus as having been resurrected from the dead is not in dispute. You can imply that that creed from the very beginning was false. That is not the same argument however as “legendary development”. That’s a separate argument. That’s basically saying the whole story was made up, an argument Bob denies making.

          As for “which scriptures”, come on. You’re the enlightened atheist. You don’t know about all the prophecies having to deal with the crucifixion and resurrection? I thought the rhetoric was that you atheists read the Bible more than theists do!

          As a matter of general principle I don’t get into a “Biblical contradiction fight” with atheists. There are resources out there that address the supposed contradictions you bring up, and none of them impact the existence of a separate creed that says that Jesus was in fact resurrected. That’s the issue here, not whatever other problems you might have. Let’s stay focused.

          If you want to provide some evidence showing that the creed Paul is referring to (and the part you’ve conveniently skipped over) never actually existed, feel free. Supposed Biblical contradictions don’t work as evidence for that.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          RRF:

          I touch on 1 Cor. 15 in this post: “500 Eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ? Not likely.

          If we must distrust any account that was first written down 5 years after the actual event, I wonder how many historical accounts we would have to throw out? Most of them I suspect.

          You’re right that longer time after the event does make the record suspect. But the real issue is that supernatural claims are never part of the historical consensus.

          That’s basically saying the whole story was made up, an argument Bob denies making.

          I never argued that the gospel story was a deliberate fiction. Could’ve been, but that’s not my argument. Instead, I argue that it’s legend, and we all agree that legendary development happens.

        • Retro

          Bob said that to him, the gospels and the resurrection account(s) are the results of decades of “oral history” or “legendary development”.

          If there is development AFTER 1st Corinthians 15 was written, it’s still development. Your claim only works if there is no development at all.

          What good does it do to claim that 1 Cor 15 was written early if it disagrees with later writings? 1 Cor 15 offers no real details, and when we find those details in the later Gospel accounts, they differ from one another.

          As a worst case scenario, 1 Cor 15 demonstrates that there was only 2 decades of “legendary development” possible, and if we are charitable enough to go with the majority of theologians, we have only 5 years.

          If this passage was written only 5 years after the resurrection, then why would Paul bother to mention that “…the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.”?

          Wouldn’t it go without saying that the greater part of the 500 witnesses would still remain alive if it was written such a short time after the resurrection?

          As for “which scriptures”, come on. You’re the enlightened atheist. You don’t know about all the prophecies having to deal with the crucifixion and resurrection? I thought the rhetoric was that you atheists read the Bible more than theists do!

          How nonsensical is it argue that the creed in 1 Cor 15 wasn’t based on legendary development if you can’t even tell me what it’s originally based on?

          If you want to provide some evidence showing that the creed Paul is referring to (and the part you’ve conveniently skipped over) never actually existed, feel free.

          When did I say the creed never actually existed? All I stated was that the creed Paul quotes doesn’t seem to be “according to the Scriptures”. Since this creed seems to be in conflict with the later Gospel writers, then this demonstrates that the story has changed and developed.

          You’ve given no explanation for why no New Testament account mentions that Peter seen Jesus apart from the other Twelve. I also mentioned that Judas had never seen the resurrected Jesus, so using the term “the twelve” when the later writings use the term “the Eleven” demonstrates that this story has mutated.

          So then, who got it right? Who are you going to go with, Paul or the Gospel writers?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Note also that the claim that this was a creed doesn’t much help the apologist. A creed is simply a statement of what someone believes.

          Consider the Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary….” This is not an argument but rather a statement of belief.

          Contrast that with an argument with evidence.

          1 Cor. 15 isn’t an effective apologetic because it’s not trying to be!

        • Retro

          Note also that the claim that this was a creed doesn’t much help the apologist. A creed is simply a statement of what someone believes.

          Good point.

          And what sense does it make for Paul to say it’s according to Old Testament Scripture? Why wouldn’t this creed be based on the life of Jesus and the things He actually said and did?

        • Retro

          An aside: William Lane Craig likes to use the argument that Jesus was completely unexpected.

          Yeah, Craig often argues: “Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world.”

          Which is a simply a bad argument that sounds good only to people who haven’t actually read the Bible.

          We actually have examples in the New Testament where people believed someone had risen from the dead:

          Matt 14:2 Mentions that Herod thought that Jesus was actually John the Baptist risen from the dead: “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

          We see this same story in Mark 6:14 where some people thought: “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

          Luke 9:18-19 Jesus asks the Disciples “Who do the crowds say I am?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”

          People rising from the dead and performing miracles seems to have been a commonplace belief.

  • TheRealRandomFunction

    Nice of you to say, although (unfortunately) I have to disagree with you there. Your approach brings out the sarcastic worst in me. I’d prefer to stick to the topic

    This is laughable, coming from someone who consistently tries to go off topic in order to force everything into a convenient strawman.

    You are sadly predictable in a way though.

    If someone brings up something where you can find a “consensus” against it, you cite the consensus and say that you’re just being humble and following where the experts are going.

    On the flip side, if someone brings up something which is supported by a consensus, then suddenly the only consensus is the scientific one, and every other type of consensus is just due to people having “agendas” (do you have any evidence of this agenda? No.. but that doesn’t stop you from believing in them).

    You consistently cite the idea that one should only believe in things with “sufficient” evidence. Then both you (and Retro) shift to talking about how “important” the claims of theism are and so the normal amount of evidence is not enough. You require “extraordinary” evidence. Yet both you and Retro will deny any biases (apparently, its only theists that can have biases and agendas?).

    You consistently cite how you are searching for the “best” explanation. Yet you don’t ever demonstrate why your idea of the “best” explanation is in fact the “best”, beyond the fact that its “natural” (apparently to you that’s enough). Yet of course, you are the one with the “open mind”.. because you automatically prefer any and all natural explanations.

    Atheists harp on an on about “burden of proof”. To the atheist however, “burden of proof” really is: “I get to come up with whatever half baked idea I happen to like, not support it with a bit of evidence beyond my own feelings, and theists must absolutely disprove it in every form”.

    Yet of course, when I call you on that, I’m apparently not being “charitable”.

    I have to admit though, what really galls me is stuff like this:

    My own view is that no one who began as an atheist with a deep understanding of the arguments on both sides of this question would ever (or has ever) become a Christian. That is, more understanding undercuts the Christian position. And the same thing acts on the other side of the issue: lots of Christians study Christianity and don’t deconvert, but studying the Bible (and related issues) is an excellent way to become an atheist.

    I explore that more in my post, “I Used to be an Atheist, Just Like You.”

    What is said here, implicitly, is that all atheists are smarter (or more studied) than all Christians. To you, no one can ever convert to Christianity for intellectual reasons, its always and forever due to some emotional need for a “crutch” or some such nonsense. Its nothing but a “no true atheist” argument, but worse. At least most scotsmen arguments don’t denigrate the opposition as being ignorant fools. You do.

    As much as you want to deny it Bob, I once was an atheist. I read Hume, Sartre, Russell, and others just as much as I read Augustine, Craig, McDowell, Geisler and others. So the idea that I don’t have “deep understanding”, to put it simply, is ridiculous. Yet I cannot call myself an atheist precisely due to intellectual reasons.

    I know, I know, you don’t believe me. According to you if I just had had more understanding, and more enlightenment when I was an atheist, I would have remained an atheist. Or maybe you’ll go with the “I never was a true atheist” argument. I’m not sure which. The fact that you cannot see that both of those are identical to the same arguments you reject when offered by Christians, and how quotes like what I have up above are both offensive, and just plain wrong has really cemented in my mind that it is absolutely impossible to reason with you or “debate” with you on any theological issue.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      This is laughable, coming from someone who consistently tries to go off topic in order to force everything into a convenient strawman.

      Yes, this is what I’m talking about.

      If someone brings up something where you can find a “consensus” against it, you cite the consensus and say that you’re just being humble and following where the experts are going.

      I’m consistent. If it’s a scientific consensus, I follow it in all cases. If it’s a theological consensus that reaches a historical conclusion, I think I accept that in all cases (I might violate this rule, but I can’t think of any examples). But if it’s a religious consensus that reaches a supernatural conclusion, I reject them all, not just those from Christian theologians. For the reason why, see the post on the Map of World Religions.

      What is said here, implicitly, is that all atheists are smarter (or more studied) than all Christians.

      Nope. I’m pretty sure the post makes clear that there are different kinds of atheists and that smartness isn’t the subject. Let me know if that’s not the case.

      To you, no one can ever convert to Christianity for intellectual reasons, its always and forever due to some emotional need for a “crutch” or some such nonsense.

      Wrong again. And the post makes this clear.

      At least most scotsmen arguments don’t denigrate the opposition as being ignorant fools. You do.

      Or perhaps you delight in being thin-skinned.

      As much as you want to deny it Bob, I once was an atheist.

      I’m happy to embrace that fact.

      So the idea that I don’t have “deep understanding”, to put it simply, is ridiculous.

      You must not have read the post. A Christian who was an atheist just like me would know all the arguments that convince me and take them all one step further. When these ex-atheists talk about what convinced them, it’s never what I would need to hear–the next steps to these convincing arguments.

      Yet I cannot call myself an atheist precisely due to intellectual reasons.

      I know, I know, you don’t believe me.

      Nope, I can accept that. Most Christians in my experience have something not evidence based at the root of their belief (upbringing, emotional needs, community, “personal revelation,” and so on), but if you’re different, that’s believable.

      According to you if I just had had more understanding, and more enlightenment when I was an atheist, I would have remained an atheist.

      Something like this.

      The fact that you cannot see that both of those are identical to the same arguments you reject when offered by Christians…

      I don’t follow. My point is that there is an asymmetry here. (Again, discussed more thoroughly in the post.)

      …and how quotes like what I have up above are both offensive

      I saw much that was offensive, but I’m pretty sure that all came from your pen.

      If you’re referring to stuff that I’d written, if you say it offends you, again, I’m happy to accept that. But I doubt that many of your fellow believers who properly understood my point, would agree.

      it is absolutely impossible to reason with you or “debate” with you on any theological issue.

      If you’re saying that our reaching any kind of agreement on anything of interest is impossible, then I agree.

      It’s nice to end on a point of agreement.

    • TheRealRandomFunction

      I’m consistent. If it’s a scientific consensus, I follow it in all cases. If it’s a theological consensus that reaches a historical conclusion, I think I accept that in all cases (I might violate this rule, but I can’t think of any examples). But if it’s a religious consensus that reaches a supernatural conclusion, I reject them all, not just those from Christian theologians.

      Well in a way, you are right. You are consistent, in that you accept consensus’ as long as they agree with your worldview, and you reject them if they don’t.

      You aren’t consistent in that you’ll talk about how important the “consensus” is with regards to things you accept, and then you’ll turn an about face an come up with almost any reason to reject a consensus you don’t personally like.

      Nope, I can accept that. Most Christians in my experience have something not evidence based at the root of their belief (upbringing, emotional needs, community, “personal revelation,” and so on), but if you’re different, that’s believable.

      So you accept the idea that someone can “deconvert” from atheism due to purely intellectual and evidence based reasons? Or do you just think there’s something else specifically with regards to me.

      I don’t follow.

      If a Christian said “No true Christian would ever do ” you would reject it as a no true scotsman argument. Yet, here you are saying that “no atheist (just like you)” would ever become a Christian, because all atheists “just like you” have a “deep enough understanding”.

      You’ve done nothing but replace the phrase “no true atheist” with “atheist just like me”. Its just as fallacious.

      My point is that there is an asymmetry here.

      The only asymmetry is in your mind. You have a desperate need to believe that all theists are theists for non-intellectual non “evidence based” reasons, because you have desperate need to maintain the intellectual high ground. If you don’t have that, you don’t have anything.

      If you’re saying that our reaching any kind of agreement on anything of interest is impossible, then I agree.

      I’m not.

      I think this quote by you adequately sums up your approach to interactions with theists.

      I don’t follow.

      No, no you don’t. In anything.

      Don’t worry though, while I’m unwilling to engage in an intellectual discussion with you anymore, I’m more than willing to stick around and deal with the arguments you put out. Not for you you understand, but for others.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        You are consistent, in that you accept consensus’ as long as they agree with your worldview, and you reject them if they don’t.

        Right. You could directly confront my statements … or you could just say, “Do not!!”

        The only asymmetry is in your mind. You have a desperate need to believe that all theists are theists for non-intellectual non “evidence based” reasons, because you have desperate need to maintain the intellectual high ground. If you don’t have that, you don’t have anything.

        The desperation is in your imagination, I’m afraid.

        I’ll be happy to be shown wrong (I hate being wrong and would want to jump to the correct argument).

        Again, you’re not addressing the point here. Sure, Christians can believe for intellectual reasons. I’m simply saying that I’ve seen zero atheists like me who’ve become Christians.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Right.

          The fact that you think this is ok, and that you also think that you have an “open mind”, is incredibly revealing. Sad, but revealing.

          I’ll be happy to be shown wrong (I hate being wrong and would want to jump to the correct argument).

          In order for one to be shown wrong, that person must be capable of sight. If they are blinded by biases, assumptions and pre-conceptions, they will never be “shown” wrong, because they will never be able to see anything, period.

          Sure, Christians can believe for intellectual reasons. I’m simply saying that I’ve seen zero atheists like me who’ve become Christians.

          What then do you exactly mean by “atheists like me”? On the one hand, you say Anthony Flew isn’t an atheist like you because he doesn’t understand all sides of the “science based arguments”. Sides that I gather you feel you understand.

          On the other hand, you say :

          He makes arguments that I would never make (and fails to make the primary arguments that I would make if I converted to deism).

          If we use this as our guide, then really what you mean by “atheist like me” is someone who makes exactly the same arguments you do. If that’s the case, then the fact that there are no “atheists like you” simply means nobody thinks exactly like you think. Which, is probably true, but extremely trivial. I mean, nobody thinks exactly the way I think, but I don’t go around bragging about how there aren’t any “theists like me”.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          The fact that you think this is ok, and that you also think that you have an “open mind”, is incredibly revealing. Sad, but revealing.

          This confusion was my fault, I think. The “right” was sarcastic.

          What then do you exactly mean by “atheists like me”?

          Read the post. I’m pretty sure it’s all explained there.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Read the post. I’m pretty sure it’s all explained there.

          I have already.

          Why don’t you tell me where I’m going wrong?

          Should be simple for someone who understands as much “science based ” argumentation as you do.

  • Rick Townsend

    Bob, reference your comment:

    My own view is that no one who began as an atheist with a deep understanding of the arguments on both sides of this question would ever (or has ever) become a Christian. That is, more understanding undercuts the Christian position. And the same thing acts on the other side of the issue: lots of Christians study Christianity and don’t deconvert, but studying the Bible (and related issues) is an excellent way to become an atheist.

    After exhaustive research lasting literally 0.09 seconds (according to the Google Search) I discovered to my absolute shock that you are incorrect in this assertion. The search, “atheists who became Christians” yielded 3.74 MILLION hits, among them this one at Wikipedia. I have to admit, this claim seemed to be quite outlandish, even for you. Do you agree? Do you want to qualify or modify your generalization?

    In fact, it would be more accurate to say that nearly every genuine Christian was an atheist first. At least those who come to faith as adults, some version of non-god belief is a requisite to convert from something to Christianity.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      this claim seemed to be quite outlandish, even for you. Do you agree? Do you want to qualify or modify your generalization?

      Nope.

      The key thing here is that we’re talking about atheists “just like me.” I thought I made that clear in my comment and in the post, but maybe not.

      An example: Antony Flew is a famous atheist-turned-deist. I read “his” book,* There is a god, and let me assure you that he wasn’t an atheist like me. A very famous philosopher, to be sure, but the book gives zero indication that he understands all sides to the science-based arguments that converted him.

      * It was ghost written, but only underscores my point.

      • Rick Townsend

        Ahh. Very helpful. So according to your assertion, to qualify, an atheist must be an atheist just like you, which by definition means he’s still an atheist. And any atheist who claims to be a believer now must by definition not have been an atheist just like you. How convenient and clever!

        I must admit, though, I did not think this level of quibbling would be coming from you. It is a new level of narrowly defined dodging in the face of what seems to be (to me—silly me!!) clearly contradictory evidence in the Wikipedia reference I gave.

        I’m sure you will carefully peruse the 3.74 million or so other hits to make sure there are no atheists just like you in the list anywhere. Otherwise, you can’t really cling to your assertion. I’ll just keep pointing out other potential candidates for you to disqualify. 3,739,999 references to go.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          We could continue with this charade, with me making comments and then you lampooning them, but my time is limited today. No, I’m not arguing that any atheist who’s converted to Christianity doesn’t count anymore. Read the post and respond to what I actually say.

          an atheist must be an atheist just like you,

          Please.

          I said must have been an atheist like me.

          It is a new level of narrowly defined dodging in the face of what seems to be (to me—silly me!!) clearly contradictory evidence in the Wikipedia reference I gave.

          Seriously–it’s all in the post. Just read it and stop with the straw men.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Read the post and respond to what I actually say.

          You almost sound like me here Bob.

          Of course, there are people who do understand what I’ve said. On the flip side, no theist here seems able to grasp the intelligence behind your incredible arguments.

          It must be so hard being you. Well, I guess a prophet is always misunderstood in his own country.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Of course, there are people who do understand what I’ve said.

          Oh, good. Then they can explain it to me.

      • TheRealRandomFunction

        Clearly Bob believes himself to be smarter (or to have a “deeper understanding”) than Anthony Flew, and every other atheist who’s ever had any doubts or (gasp!) even converted to Christianity.

        We should all thank … well something I suppose that we have the opportunity to bask in Bob’s obvious wisdom and enlightenment. He is the hammer after all.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve already made clear that smartness isn’t the subject. (Isn’t there enough material in what I actually said for you to attack? Or is it so ironclad that you must make up stuff?)

          Antony Flew was a very different atheist than I am. Read his book and you’ll agree. He makes arguments that I would never make (and fails to make the primary arguments that I would make if I converted to deism).

  • TheRealRandomFunction

    I’ve already made clear that smartness isn’t the subject. (Isn’t there enough material in what I actually said for you to attack? Or is it so ironclad that you must make up stuff?)

    You said, and I quote:

    A very famous philosopher, to be sure, but the book gives zero indication that he understands all sides to the science-based arguments that converted him.

    Tell me then, oh enlightened one. If you aren’t saying that he didn’t understand all the “science-based arguments” that you understand, then what exactly did you mean?

    Antony Flew was a very different atheist than I am. Read his book and you’ll agree. He makes arguments that I would never make (and fails to make the primary arguments that I would make if I converted to deism).

    So when you talk about “atheists just like you”, you are really being persnickety there aren’t you. If someone just makes a different argument, then they aren’t “an atheist just like you”, I gather, and all those previous comments about “levels of understanding” was just a sidetrack right?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Tell me then, oh enlightened one. If you aren’t saying that he didn’t understand all the “science-based arguments” that you understand, then what exactly did you mean?

      That’s what I’m saying.

      How does that tie in with smartness? You do know that ignorance and stupidity are different things, right?

      As an aside, this would be easier if you don’t imagine insults where there aren’t any.

  • TheRealRandomFunction

    That’s what I’m saying.

    How does that tie in with smartness? You do know that ignorance and stupidity are different things, right?

    My apologies. You aren’t saying he’s stupid, you’re just saying he’s ignorant.

    That’s a world of difference.

    Sheesh. Well alright then. I amend my previous comment. You don’t think you’re smarter than Flew. You’re just more “enlightened”. You simply understand more than he does. You’re not smarter though. No.. you aren’t saying that.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      My apologies. You aren’t saying he’s stupid, you’re just saying he’s ignorant.

      That’s a world of difference.

      Pretty much. We’re all ignorant of lots of things. Saying “you’re stupid” is an insult in anyone’s book, but saying “you’re ignorant” tells us nothing new.

      • TheRealRandomFunction

        Oh come on.

        Well, let’s assume you’re right. That calling someone ignorant isn’t an insult.

        Well in that case, let me state, without the slightest equivocation, that you are absolutely ignorant of orthodox Christianity, and the apologetics argument you purport to “hammer”. You take them and twist them into what, in your unenlightened, ignorant mind, are things you can easily attack.

        I would urge you to end that ignorance, and actually learn some things, but its doubtful you ever will, as you are arrogantly ignorant. Not only are you ignorant of Christianity, you are proud of it. You don’t feel the need to listen to the “consensus” or read apologetics literature (heaven forbid you learn something) because after all they have an “agenda”.

        I’m not insulting you though. I’m just calling you abysmally ignorant. That’s not an insult.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I’m not insulting you though. I’m just calling you abysmally ignorant. That’s not an insult.

          This is supposed to be a new claim? You’re only taking the gloves off now?
          :-)

          The nuclear option is only surprising if you’ve never used it before.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          I’m also a little curious.

          You say Flew is “ignorant”. What, specifically is he “ignorant” of exactly? Even if calling him ignorant is not an insult, its still a claim, so you should still give some evidence.

          How would you, the enlightened, wise, Bob, educate Flew in such a way to destroy his “ignorance”?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          What, specifically is he “ignorant” of exactly?

          He’s “ignorant” of the responses to the “deist apologetics” that “he” used in “his” book.

        • Orbital Teapot

          To all,

          Well, Bob is certainly ignorant of liberal theology, and that’s why he is used to attacking fundamentalist versions of Christianity.

          I wish he could get around to reading some liberal theology rather than keep handling pieces of apologetics made by narrow fundamentalists and poking holes at outdated theologies.

          But of course, liberal theologians are mostly not like Euclid. Bob won’t find “demonstrations” of Christian beliefs there. Or “refutations” of atheism in the same way one can find refutations of vitalism or phrenology.

          But he will find attempts at reconciling religion with the modern spirit.

        • Retro

          I wish he could get around to reading some liberal theology rather than keep handling pieces of apologetics made by narrow fundamentalists and poking holes at outdated theologies.

          I would like to point out that many theists who have posted here would disagree with your assessment.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Teapot:

          Outdated theologies? You think what I’m concerned about is as relevant to modern society as Zeus worship?

          I’m not sure what you want. If you’re saying that some elements of liberal theology are very nice, then I might well agree with you. But there’s nothing to write about there. Doesn’t it make sense to focus on where the problem is?

          John Hagee, Ted Haggard, Benny Hinn, and all the rest are making liberal Christians look foolish by using the exact same name for their religion. Aren’t you as concerned as I am about the social impact of these nuts?

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          This is supposed to be a new claim? You’re only taking the gloves off now?

          Well, you got me there. Its hardly a new thing for me to say that.

          Its not an insult though right?

          He’s “ignorant” of the responses to the “deist apologetics” that “he” used in “his” book.

          What are these “responses”?

          What facts or evidence can you bring up that refute his apologetics?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          RRF:

          You’re welcome to take offense at just about anything you want, and I see that you exercise that right frequently. But you might want to look up “stupid” and “ignorant” to understand the differences, if that’s the problem here.

          What facts or evidence can you bring up that refute his apologetics?

          According to the book (again, suspect, because Flew didn’t write it), he was impressed by the typical deist arguments that are popular today–the cosmological argument, the transcendental argument, “why is there something instead of nothing,” and so on. I haven’t addressed these arguments much in this blog, but I will with time.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          You’re welcome to take offense at just about anything you want, and I see that you exercise that right frequently. But you might want to look up “stupid” and “ignorant” to understand the differences, if that’s the problem here.

          I love this not-pology “Gee.. I’m sorry that your offended that I call you ignorant”. Then of course, you follow that up by calling me ignorant yet again.

          Real classy Bob.

          According to the book (again, suspect, because Flew didn’t write it), he was impressed by the typical deist arguments that are popular today–the cosmological argument, the transcendental argument, “why is there something instead of nothing,” and so on. I haven’t addressed these arguments much in this blog, but I will with time.

          I guess I’ll just have to wait to be awed by your obvious wisdom and learning. How long shall I have to journey in darkness, oh wise atheist before you will show me the light?!

          I mean.. it hasn’t happened yet.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I love this not-pology

          Did you get the sense of an apology here? Sorry–my bad.

          How long shall I have to journey in darkness, oh wise atheist before you will show me the light?!

          Yeah–there are lots of topic in the In Box. I’m afraid I won’t apologize for that either.

          They’ll probably be about as convincing as the other posts have been–in other words, interesting and useful for some readers but a waste of time for you.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Did you get the sense of an apology here? Sorry–my bad.

          No, fair point. Reading it again its clear you weren’t even offering a non-pology. My mistake.

          They’ll probably be about as convincing as the other posts have been–in other words, interesting and useful for some readers but a waste of time for you.

          Yeah, I know. I’m just to ignorant to get them right? Oh, if only there was some way I could be enlightened so that I could understand the obvious truth of Bob’s words! I guess I’m just to far gone, I’m just to ignorant. No amount of education could ever have me reach the point where I could ever understand, much less truly appreciate Bob’s sterling wisdom, rapier wit, and utterly correct arguments.

          Oh well.

  • TheRealRandomFunction

    I think this is a good example of Bob’s inability to understand what I’m saying.

    I never argued that the gospel story was a deliberate fiction. Could’ve been, but that’s not my argument. Instead, I argue that it’s legend, and we all agree that legendary development happens.

    I have not once agreed that “legendary development” happens. I’ve said that errors in an account can occur during retelling. That’s it. I’ve never agreed that errors can accumulate to the point that “legendary development” occurs, and I’ve never said that anything simply “happens”, merely that it could.

    Bob’s taken that, and run with it. Since I’ve agreed on the most minor, insignificant point of his argument (errors occur), he’s stretched that to imply that I’ve actually agreed with him on the whole of his argument, (that legendary development occurs). I have not. Nor will I, until Bob provides me sufficient evidence to do so. That is rational right? One shouldn’t believe things without “sufficient” evidence right?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      I have not once agreed that “legendary development” happens. I’ve said that errors in an account can occur during retelling.

      I’m missing the distinction.

      • TheRealRandomFunction

        Of course you are. If you actually got the distinction, we might have had an actual conversation. I’ve tried to explain it to you, and you just never listened, so I’ve given up.

  • Orbital Teapot

    To Bob S,

    Of course, if you want to struggle against the evils of extremism, then do so. There is no shortage of evils to struggle against. It’s not hard to debunk the nutty theology of fundamentalists who speak publicly. But it’s harder to make oneself heard.

    However, if you want to deal with how theologians (of all brands) understand what God means and what Christianity is all about, that is, if you want to address scholarly issues as they are debated in universities, then you need more study.

    • TheRealRandomFunction

      While I agree that Bob needs more study, I think its much harder to debunk the “nutty” theology than you think.

      Bob rarely ever addresses things like the prosperity gospel, and individuals like Benny Hinn and the like. Far too often he’s concerned with plain old orthodox Christianity. If you think that’s “nutty” and “easily debunked”, I’d like to hear how exactly.

  • Rick Townsend

    Bob,

    Reference your comments above about our 2008 emails and their conclusion, I have those emails and have a different outcome. As for my “grudgingly accepting consensus,” that’s not really how it went down. I just gave up after the 92 emails in my conversational record.

    But now, knowing your propensity for detail, what I need is your data supporting the consensus position that an overwhelming majority of practicing biologists accept evolution as the sole mechanism for complexity at the DNA level, and how they use that in their work. You never demonstrated this in your impressive list of journals. I never accepted that as the consensus, but that is the consensus you continually throw out as the gold standard.

    As for your comment, , “We see order from disorder all the time when we see a seed grow into a mature plant. I don’t know what you’re asking about when you refer to DNA.” The plant growth is what we see. What we don’t see is that all the complexity is already in the seed and its layers of well programmed code in the DNA. Where did THAT even greater complexity come from? Even you must admit that the software that defines how a CRC machine functions is more complex than the machine itself. The same is true of a plant. And you can’t explain it, nor can biologists, on the basis of random chance.

    And with that, we are back where we were several years ago. You still can’t advance your argument.

    Rick

    • Bob Seidensticker

      accept evolution as the sole mechanism for complexity at the DNA level

      I don’t know what you’re getting at with the DNA qualifier. This isn’t what we talked about before.

      I’m interested to know what you’re asking for, but my response may be that I don’t know or care and that “evolution is the scientific consensus” is my only point.

      And you can’t explain it, nor can biologists, on the basis of random chance.

      Can’t explain what–how complexity gets into DNA?

      What’s there to talk about here? Are you saying that the scientific community would scratch its collective head and, after an embarrassed silence, agree with you that evolution is no longer the best explanation for why life is the way it is? That’s the only question I’m interested in.

      You still can’t advance your argument.

      My argument is simple: (1) evolution is the scientific consensus and (2) I have no grounds for rejecting it (given that I’m not a biologist).

      Is that the argument you’re talking about? If not, I doubt I have any interest in it.

      Arguing the detailed specifics of biology with me is as ridiculous as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

      • TheRealRandomFunction

        My argument is simple: (1) evolution is the scientific consensus and (2) I have no grounds for rejecting it (given that I’m not a biologist).

        Its important to note how much reverence Bob gives the “scientific consensus”. To Bob, whatever the scientific consensus says is what’s true. He can’t reject it.

        Other types of consensus? Well, he can reject those just fine. For instance, with regards to a consensus of theologians he’s free to reject it because, well, after all.. they all have an agenda. What evidence he has that is ever so perfect and pure “scientific consensus” is agenda-less is beyond me.

        Bob can make up a consensus of historians, even though (of course) he’s not a historian, and claim that the “historical consensus” is that miracles never occurs. What’s his evidence that that’s the “historical consensus”? None.

        (Of course, if one brought forth a historian that actually did believe miracles occurred, Bob would reject that historian as obviously he has an agenda.)

        Its worth noting how selectively Bob treats consensus views. The scientific consensus, when it supports his atheistic / materialistic worldview, is never to be questioned. All consensus’ (consensi?) that run against his worldview are to be a priori rejected.

        • Rick Townsend

          And no matter how you parse it, Bob has a more narrowly defined sliver in which he finds compelling need for focus. “The only thing I’m interested in,” he will say, then deflect to an issue slightly different than what is clearly the point of the discussion. He will then ask, “What are you talking about? Can you be more clear?” It’s never enough to make him truly and honestly evaluate the basis for his beliefs.

          It is all just a deflection and stall tactic that I have seen for many years of discussion with Bob. He’s a great guy, and I truly do love him like a favorite cousin, but we still have our differences.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          RRF:

          We’ve been over this before. I’m not sure why it was confusing the first time.

          To Bob, whatever the scientific consensus says is what’s true. He can’t reject it.

          Respectively: wrong and correct.

          The scientific consensus is the best provisional explanation that we have at the moment. That doesn’t make it true but rather our best guess at truth (for the moment).

          For instance, with regards to a consensus of theologians he’s free to reject it

          Do you do things differently? Do you accept the consensus of Muslim or Hindu theologians? I wonder if you even accept without question the consensus of Christian theologians.

          Communities of theologians from around the world have disagreed forever. It’s not like they’re going to come together and agree on their supernatural questions.

          Y’know–like scientists do. That’s why the scientific consensus is a wee bit different than a theological consensus.

          … claim that the “historical consensus” is that miracles never occurs. What’s his evidence that that’s the “historical consensus”? None.

          And you can burst this bubble with a single example where the historical consensus is that a miracle happened. I’ve never seen one.

          How about you? Whaddya got?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Rick:

          Deflect the issue? I’ve been laser-focused here. My focus is on the scientific consensus within biology.

          Your complaint should be: “Yeah, yeah, evolution is the consensus. Blah, blah, blah. Heard it a million times.”

          The reason I’ve been puzzled is because it sounds like you’re changing the subject. Last time I checked, DNA wasn’t involved. I’d be happy to respond to your question once I understand it.

          No stall tactics here. But I have much less patience for our discussing biological minutiae. You’ve got a carpet bag full of “Oh yeah? Well what about this?” examples of creationism. I’m interested to hear what you think are compelling factors, but you must appreciate the ridiculousness of us (two non-biologists) pretending that we can resolve questions within biology. If you’ve got evidence that can knock down the putrid house of cards that is evolution, take it to the people who can help with that agenda. Convincing me certainly won’t do it. (I’m not a biologist, remember?)

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Do you do things differently? Do you accept the consensus of Muslim or Hindu theologians?

          Perhaps, or perhaps not. Is this the consensus of Muslim theologians on the Bible? Or on the Koran? That makes a difference. What is meant by “consensus”, is another factor.

          What I don’t do, and what you do, is say that all theological consensus that support religion are all not due to actual scholarship, but because they have an “agenda”. You’ll accept the Muslim consensus on the Bible, if and only if it rejects the Bible.

          I am a bit more open minded.

          Communities of theologians from around the world have disagreed forever.

          Sure. And some scientists disagree with evolution. What’s your point? If any disagreement automatically invalidates a “consensus” then no scientific theory is ever the result of a consensus as long as one person disagrees.

          If we are talking about a significant disagreement, then there is no “consensus” in the first place. You point to aspects of minutae as though those completely invalidate the points on which the majority of theologians DO agree.

          Y’know–like scientists do. That’s why the scientific consensus is a wee bit different than a theological consensus.

          As I’ve said before, some scientists disagree with evolution. Even some biologists. So its not like the entirety of scientists are always in agreement. The majority? Sure, that’s reasonable. So let’s look at what the majority of Christian theologians have to say about the Bible, just as we would look at what the majority of biologists would say about biology. Saying that there is some Muslim theologian which disagrees with the consensus of Christian theologians and that that’s important, is like saying that since Dembski disagrees with evolution, that’s important.

          And you can burst this bubble with a single example where the historical consensus is that a miracle happened. I’ve never seen one.

          “God exists! I haven’t been proven wrong yet so it must be true!”.

          Would you buy this argument? Of course not.

          Why then do you expect me to let you off the hook for arguing that “The historical consensus rejects the supernatural! I haven’t been proven wrong yet so it must be true!”.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          But I have much less patience for our discussing biological minutiae. You’ve got a carpet bag full of “Oh yeah? Well what about this?” examples of creationism.

          It’s a shame, but Bob doesn’t realize that every post on this blog is nothing but a “Oh yeah? Well what about this?” post.

          I’m interested to hear what you think are compelling factors, but you must appreciate the ridiculousness of us (two non-biologists) pretending that we can resolve questions within biology.

          I wonder why Bob thinks this is “ridiculous”. Is it a lack of knowledge? A lack of training? A lack of smarts? What exactly?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          RRF:

          Is this the consensus of Muslim theologians on the Bible? Or on the Koran?

          Either one would be fine, but I was thinking about the Muslim consensus about reality (Allah, the Muslim afterlife, and so on).

          What I don’t do, and what you do, is say that all theological consensus that support religion are all not due to actual scholarship, but because they have an “agenda”.

          Nope, that’s not what I say.

          You’ll accept the Muslim consensus on the Bible, if and only if it rejects the Bible.

          Wrong again. I look at the Muslim consensus on the Bible, then at the Christian consensus on the Bible, then at the Hindu consensus on the Bible, and so on and realize that there won’t ever be a real consensus. Each group is in their own little religious silo, and the rules here are very different from those that give us the scientific consensuses that are worldwide within the scientific community and have proven so accurate in our high tech lives.

          And some scientists disagree with evolution. What’s your point?

          My point is that there is a consensus within biology about evolution but there is no consensus within believers (or theologians) about supernatural truth. And there ain’t gonna be.

          If any disagreement automatically invalidates a “consensus” then no scientific theory is ever the result of a consensus as long as one person disagrees.

          Yes, but this isn’t how a consensus works.

          As I’ve said before, some scientists disagree with evolution.

          And I’ve said, who cares? There is a consensus within biology that evolution is the best explanation we have for why life is the way it is. Case closed (at least for the moment).

          So let’s look at what the majority of Christian theologians have to say about the Bible

          And after we’ve done that, let’s look at what the majority of flat-earthers say about the shape of the earth. I suspect you’ll find a consensus.

          Sure, the majority of Christian theologians say that I’m going to fry in Christian hell. And, as I’ve made clear before, this shows why “truth” concluded from one religious tradition is a very different thing than scientific consensus.

          The consensus of Christian theologians is useful for determining what “Christianity” is. That’s fine, but it doesn’t tell me much about reality.

          Why then do you expect me to let you off the hook for arguing that “The historical consensus rejects the supernatural! I haven’t been proven wrong yet so it must be true!”.

          Because that’s how we come to our best guess of reality. Provide your counterexample or admit that the consensus of historians never accepts a supernatural explanation.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          RRF:

          I wonder why Bob thinks this is “ridiculous”. Is it a lack of knowledge? A lack of training? A lack of smarts? What exactly?

          Was that a question aimed at anyone? Or just a directionless lament?

          If you don’t mind my answering, two nonbiologists can certainly discuss biology. They might learn something–nothing wrong about that. The ridiculous part comes when either (or both) imagines that they’re having any impact on biology.

          Say that Rick convinces me that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is a crock of hooey. How will that change what science says? These powerful arguments must be aimed where they’ll do some good–at the biologists. And if they won’t change any minds there … then maybe they aren’t so powerful.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Wrong again. I look at the Muslim consensus on the Bible, then at the Christian consensus on the Bible, then at the Hindu consensus on the Bible, and so on and realize that there won’t ever be a real consensus.

          Ok. I’ll look at the YEC consensus on evolution, the OEC consensus on evolution, the ID consensus on evolution, the biological consensus on evolution, and the mathematical consensus on evolution, and then I’ll see that there “wont be a real consensus” on evolution either.

          My point is that there is a consensus within biology about evolution but there is no consensus within believers (or theologians) about supernatural truth.

          True. But there is no “consensus” amongst different groups of scientists about evolution either. ID scientists believe differently than OEC scientists believe differently than atheistic biologists. There’s even disagreement amongst atheistic biologists I bet.

          Your lament that there is no “consensus” amonst believers is simply a strawman. You are overgeneralizing. If I overgeneralize, I find there’s no “consensus” amongst scientists either.

          Yes, but this isn’t how a consensus works.

          Fair enough. So to you, mere disagreement is not enough to invalidate a “consensus”. What percentage of agreement must there be before we have a “consensus”?

          And I’ve said, who cares?

          Some theologians disagree with the consensus of evangelical, prosperity preaching Christians. Who cares?

          And after we’ve done that, let’s look at what the majority of flat-earthers say about the shape of the earth. I suspect you’ll find a consensus.

          Indeed. Which is why I look for a consensus of experts on the subject matter they are the “expert” on. So for flat-earth, I’d find a consensus of geologists. Just as with evolution I’d want a consensus of biologists, and with the Bible I’d want a consensus of Biblical scholars.

          The consensus of Christian theologians is useful for determining what “Christianity” is. That’s fine, but it doesn’t tell me much about reality.

          Fair enough. What about the consensus of historians that a creed existed which showed that the earliest report of a resurrection was 5 years after the event? That’s not discussing “Christianity”, that is discussing “reality”. You rejected that because obviously all the historians involved were Christians with agendas, so obviously that creed never existed. They just made it up.

          Because that’s how we come to our best guess of reality. Provide your counterexample or admit that the consensus of historians never accepts a supernatural explanation.

          So to you, we come to our best guess of reality due to you making unsupported assertions and claiming that you’re right unless I go and prove you wrong.

          Of course, you do not allow the same liberty to Christians. No.. they actually have to support their assertions. Apparently you are not required to do that.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I’ll look at the YEC consensus on evolution, the OEC consensus on evolution, the ID consensus on evolution, the biological consensus on evolution, and the mathematical consensus on evolution, and then I’ll see that there “wont be a real consensus” on evolution either.

          Do you accept evolution? If so then you know how this consensus thing works.

          The scientific consensus is unified, by definition. Tossing in “Yeah, but Frank Smith of Dubuque, Iowa disagrees!” is meaningless.

          On lots of questions, there is no consensus. But on evolution, there is. And has been for well over a century.

          But there is no “consensus” amongst different groups of scientists about evolution either. ID scientists believe differently than OEC scientists believe differently than atheistic biologists.

          Evidence, please.

          Here’s the evidence in support of your claim that I’m aware of: Jonathan Wells (Disco Institute) and (to a small extent) Michael Behe of Lehigh University support ID. I know of no other biologists. If you do, fill me in.

          I don’t think these two naysayers (and, again, Behe isn’t the naysayer that many creationists imagine he is) tossed into the mix do much to change the consensus view.

          Your lament that there is no “consensus” amonst believers is simply a strawman.

          Oh? Then set me straight. What is the “consensus” view among all believers in the supernatural, worldwide? I didn’t know there was one.

          (I don’t need to tell you the consensus view among biologists about why life is the way it is.)

          What percentage of agreement must there be before we have a “consensus”?

          Do you not know what “consensus” means? I recommend a dictionary.

          Which is why I look for a consensus of experts on the subject matter they are the “expert” on. So for flat-earth, I’d find a consensus of geologists. Just as with evolution I’d want a consensus of biologists, and with the Bible I’d want a consensus of Biblical scholars.

          Agree, agree, agree!

          Nice to see agreement once in a while. Like you, I look to Bible scholars for consensus on what “Christianity” means. Heck–where else would you look? When it comes to the truth of supernatural claims, then I’m looking a little broader.

          What about the consensus of historians that a creed existed which showed that the earliest report of a resurrection was 5 years after the event?

          An interesting question–what would historians say about this issue? All I’ve seen is what Christian historians have said. If you have information on this broader question, I’d like to hear more.

          They just made it up.

          Did they?? Evidence, please. That’s certainly not what I would’ve said.

          So to you, we come to our best guess of reality due to you making unsupported assertions and claiming that you’re right unless I go and prove you wrong.

          Translation: “Yep, you’re right. I know of no counterexample to the hypothesis that historians reject supernatural claims.”

          Hey–I’m just trying to make sense of what I see. If you have a better hypothesis, I’m all ears.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Here’s the evidence in support of your claim that I’m aware of: Jonathan Wells (Disco Institute) and (to a small extent) Michael Behe of Lehigh University support ID. I know of no other biologists. If you do, fill me in.

          Here’s what 30 seconds of a google search came up with.

          http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

          Now, are all of these biologists? No, of course not. As for exactly how many, that would of course depend on your definition of “biologist”.

          I don’t think these two naysayers (and, again, Behe isn’t the naysayer that many creationists imagine he is) tossed into the mix do much to change the consensus view.

          I actually agree. I would even say that if 1000 biologists disagreed with evolution, the consensus would still remain the consensus. Of course, I’d do the same with theology, mathematics, or any of the other sciences.

          Oh? Then set me straight. What is the “consensus” view among all believers in the supernatural, worldwide? I didn’t know there was one.

          If only you actually read what I wrote, you would have read that the reason its a strawman, is that its an overgeneralization. Perpetuating that strawman just shows everyone how unintellectual you are.

          Do you not know what “consensus” means? I recommend a dictionary.

          I looked there. Thing is, you have a habit of defining words differently than the dictionary. So I thought I’d try to figure out what YOU meant by “consensus”.

          You seem reluctant to provide that definition. Perhaps its because you don’t have one?

          An interesting question–what would historians say about this issue? All I’ve seen is what Christian historians have said.

          Actually, at least with regards to the wiki article concerning this creed, it just says “Biblical scholars”. Not “Christian Biblical scholars”. With all your talk about how there could be Muslim biblical scholars, hindu biblical scholars, (atheist biblical scholars?) I would have thought you’d recognize the difference.

          You were the one who jumped to the conclusion that all those “biblical scholars” must be Christian. Not me.

          Hey–I’m just trying to make sense of what I see. If you have a better hypothesis, I’m all ears.

          Sure, I got one. Here it is:

          Since I have absolutely no evidence that historians either reject or accept supernatural accounts in general, I won’t assume they do or they don’t?

          Now, you can whine on and on about how I haven’t danced to your tune. You haven’t provided a scrap of evidence yourself. So in the abscence of ANY evidence, let’s just keep with the hypothesis that a historian may, or may not accept a supernatural explanation? That seems the most supported by the actual evidence. A reasonable, rational person would accept it.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Here’s what 30 seconds of a google search came up with.

          I don’t think much of your 30 seconds of searching. I’m looking for biologists.

          Now, are all of these biologists? No, of course not.

          No, of course not. Because if there were a large number of biologists who rejected evolution, it wouldn’t be the consensus anymore. But it is.

          As for exactly how many, that would of course depend on your definition of “biologist”.

          Someone who has a PhD in biology from an accredited university? Is this a trick question?

          Perpetuating that strawman just shows everyone how unintellectual you are.

          No, but dodging the question and ad hominem attacks don’t make you look too good.

          You said, “Your lament that there is no ‘consensus’ amonst believers is simply a strawman” and I simply asked what this consensus view is.

          Well–what is it? Or does asking a question get me charged with advancing a strawman?

          You seem reluctant to provide that definition. Perhaps its because you don’t have one?

          You just bored today? I encourage you to use the dictionary definition and you’re still worrying this bone?

          I’m happy to accept Merriam-Webster’s primary definition.

          So in the abscence of ANY evidence, let’s just keep with the hypothesis that a historian may, or may not accept a supernatural explanation?

          I let go of a ball and it drops to the ground. I do it again; same result. And again and again and again. You call that no evidence?

          I’m moderately well-schooled in history. Historians note supernatural claims (that the claims were made is history) and yet they never accept those claims as history. Over and over and over again. You call that no evidence?

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          I don’t think much of your 30 seconds of searching. I’m looking for biologists.

          Some on that list were biologists.

          Someone who has a PhD in biology from an accredited university? Is this a trick question?

          What type of PH.D in biology? Evolutionary biology? Just straight biology (no modifier)? Molecular Biology? Chemical Biology? These are all valid PH.D’s. What about those fields that are heavily biological but yet not called “biology”. For instance, what if someone has a PH.D in Genetics. Would that work?

          The reason I ask, is I’ve seen skeptics before, when confronted with a biologist who disagrees with evolution respond “Well.. he’s not an EVOLUTIONARY biologist”, thus moving the goalpost back a bit. I just want to pin you down on what sort of PH.D’s you’d accept.

          Well–what is it? Or does asking a question get me charged with advancing a strawman?

          Repetitively asking a question that I’ve already explained is an overgeneralization and a strawman just makes you look silly.

          When you speak of evolution, you only want the consensus of “scientists” and more explicitly the consensus of “biologists”. Yet when it comes to theology, you don’t ask about the theological consensus of Christians, you ask about the theological consensus of “believers”.

          That would be like me complaining that there is no consensus on evolution because ID, OEC, YEC, atheistic and Last Thursdayist scientists all disagree on evolution.

          I’m moderately well-schooled in history. Historians note supernatural claims (that the claims were made is history) and yet they never accept those claims as history.

          Do they reject those claims? Or do they simply not rule on them at all? You realize there’s a difference right?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          I just want to pin you down on what sort of PH.D’s you’d accept.

          I focus on the consensus of the community of biologists and don’t worry too much about individual biologists.

          When you speak of evolution, you only want the consensus of “scientists” and more explicitly the consensus of “biologists”. Yet when it comes to theology, you don’t ask about the theological consensus of Christians, you ask about the theological consensus of “believers”.

          There’s no inconsistency, I’m afraid. The theological consensus of Christians is quite relevant to the question of “What do Christians believe?” I’m going to find out what that consensus is and then question that??

          Do they reject those claims? Or do they simply not rule on them at all?

          You read a history textbook or some other book that reflects the consensus view. (Nothing wrong with a maverick view, but let’s dismiss those for now.) As far as I can tell, they never include, as history, any supernatural anything. In other words: history rejects supernatural claims.

          Sorry for repeating myself.

  • Rick Townsend

    Bob, you stated:

    My focus is on the scientific consensus within biology… Your complaint should be: “Yeah, yeah, evolution is the consensus. Blah, blah, blah. Heard it a million times.”

    Thanks for correcting me on what my complaint should be. OK. You’ve found another narrow rewording to refocus my complaint. And it is exactly what you have failed to demonstrate.

    Please document that it is the consensus of practicing biologists that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence at the DNA level, where evolution must happen, that evolutionary change leads to macro evolution.

    I have been asking for this as clearly as I know how. I’m sorry if my verbal clarity is not up to your standards. I will stand by for the next deflection regarding why you can’t provide this evidence.

    The reason I’ve been puzzled is because it sounds like you’re changing the subject. Last time I checked, DNA wasn’t involved. I’d be happy to respond to your question once I understand it.

    Even as laymen, as interested bystanders, we have the knowledge to understand what is taught in junior high life science (I know because we taught that to our kids) that DNA is where organisms are programmed to be butterflies or baboons, amoebas or antelopes. So yes, DNA is involved. Do you understand the question now? It is the same question that has been on our table for many years. Standing by for your reflow of the topical direction.

    I admit this has gotten far afield from the topic of this particular blog post, so if you just want to start a new article with this evidence, feel free.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Please document that it is the consensus of practicing biologists that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence at the DNA level, where evolution must happen, that evolutionary change leads to macro evolution.

      I have been asking for this as clearly as I know how.

      And let me try to respond just as clearly: why the change in the question? I thought the question had been, “Show me that evolution is the scientific consensus.”

      My only guess is that you have seen my blizzard of statements from respected sources that evolution is the consensus, you realize that arguing that evolution is not the consensus is no longer tenable, and so you’ve come up with a different question so that you can dismiss my research.

      For example: Ken Ham (Institute for Creation Research) asked, “why do the majority of scientists believe in evolution?” Jonathan Sarfati (Creation Ministries International) said, “evolution-rejecting scientists are in a minority.”

      (“Aha!” you might say. “I don’t see the word ‘DNA’ in those statements! Let the argument continue!”)

      All I have the energy for is showing that evolution is the consensus. If we agree, then that’s great. If you’re just desperately trying to keep this tennis match alive with more questions, I’m not interested, sorry.

      • Rick Townsend

        Since the world of biology starts at DNA, I’m not sure why you’re so dogmatic on the point that I am somehow changing the question. This is the essence of what we’ve been discussing for years, it is the essence of Behe’s and others’ intelligent design arguments, and it is the essence of why evolution is a failed theory.

        Your focus on my changing the question is simply a diversion—the question has been the same essence all along. Complexity comes from the programming source, which comes from a designer, which necessitates an intelligent source for life, which means you are impossibly out of touch if you hold to evolution and random chance being responsible for life in ANY form.

        What’s become clear in biology “experts” is that they give lip service to being in favor of evolution as the in vogue theory. But those who practice at the level where things actually happen (DNA) are largely convinced from what I have read that random chance is not a reasonable mechanism for macro evolutionary change. They can’t even define their terms consistently. Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., states in his recent article, “Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Molecular Cell Biology,”

        The concept of natural selection remains controversial in both the evolutionary and creationist communities. Classical evolutionists still cannot clearly define it as they continue to debate one another over a valid model and definition. Meanwhile, secular molecular biologists are content to leave the debate primarily in the hands of the classical biologists when the hard data needed to validate natural selection in one form or another ultimately lies at the molecular level. This is typical of the compartmentalized nature of modern academics where scientists focus on a single area of specialty research and assume that some other sector of biology will solve the serious problems of Darwinian evolution. … The lack of a clearly defined molecular mechanism to create new irreducibly complex traits as a creative force in evolution is why many scientists have had difficulty characterizing Darwin’s concept for over 70 years.

        I’m sure you will find some reason to disqualify the article, but that is OK. I’ll let you and your other groupies decide if there is any validity to the assertions Tomkins makes. No one except a few of us are reading this far down anyway, so it is like a private conversation!

        At any rate, that is the topic. Any other evidence you supply that doesn’t deal with the DNA / molecular level source of macro change issue is anecdotal. Either respond to this or I will conclude you don’t have any evidence.

        For my part, this is the state of our discussion on this point and it is the point to which I will return tenaciously. I’m bored with answering the diversions. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that naturalism holds the keys to this kingdom.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Since the world of biology starts at DNA, I’m not sure why you’re so dogmatic on the point that I am somehow changing the question.

          ?? Because before your challenge had been “show me that evolution is the consensus” and now you’ve added this DNA component. If answers that were satisfactory for the first question are now irrelevant to the second, then it’s a different question.

          It’s tempting, of course, to point both to Francis Collins (a biologist well respected, I think, by both atheists and Christians) and his BioLogos Foundation. They both make compelling arguments aimed at Christians that evolution is the best scientific explanation. But I’m sure you’re aware of them and aren’t impressed.

          … it is the essence of why evolution is a failed theory.

          Evolution is a failed theory? Great–go tell that to someone who is a biologist. What will he say?

          What’s become clear in biology “experts” is that they give lip service to being in favor of evolution as the in vogue theory.

          I’m not sure that being the scientific consensus for well over a century fits with the idea of being “in vogue.”

          You’re saying that evolution is like bell bottoms and platform shoes–long since past its sell-by date?

          But those who practice at the level where things actually happen (DNA) are largely convinced from what I have read that random chance is not a reasonable mechanism for macro evolutionary change.

          Wait–are you saying that the consensus within biology is that this fundamental tenet of evolution is now flawed? Because that would be quite interesting.

          I’m sure you will find some reason to disqualify the article

          Nope. I’m not a biologist. Who cares what I think? Not even me.

          My question is: what do the people who are actually competent to comment on this say?

          But I’m repeating myself.

          Either respond to this or I will conclude you don’t have any evidence.

          I don’t have any evidence. I’m not a biologist.

          But I’m repeating myself.

          it is the point to which I will return tenaciously. I’m bored with answering the diversions.

          Bored? There’s a lot of that going around.

          You and me haggling over aspects of biology is a waste of time. What’re you hanging around here for? Go tell someone who can make a difference! Go knock down this house of cards that pretends to be science!

          Or perhaps you already know what biologists would say.

  • TheRealRandomFunction

    Sorry, can’t resist quoting this again:

    Nope. I’m not a biologist. Who cares what I think? Not even me.

    I think if you did actually care what you thought Bob, as well as what others think you might not be an atheist. We’d also have the ability to hold an intellectual conversation.

  • TheRealRandomFunction

    I focus on the consensus of the community of biologists and don’t worry too much about individual biologists.

    Ok. You didn’t answer my question. What sorts of degrees in “biology” do you accept ?

    Does molecular biology work? Evolutionary? Chemical? Just “biology”? Which ones?

    There’s no inconsistency, I’m afraid. The theological consensus of Christians is quite relevant to the question of “What do Christians believe?”

    Indeed. Why then do you focus on the consensus of “believers” and not the consensus of “Christians”?

    What you are basically saying is “There’s no consensus, in a group large enough that there couldn’t possibly be any consensus to it.” I might as well say that there’s no consensus amonst “scientists” about evolution.

    After all, then I can take the views of all scientists that disagree with it and treat that view as important.

    You read a history textbook or some other book that reflects the consensus view. (Nothing wrong with a maverick view, but let’s dismiss those for now.)

    Oops. We have a moving goalpost. At first you were quite adamant that the historians don’t accept the supernatural. That that was the consensus. Now, its those historians that reflect the “consensus view”. If I find a historian that believes in the supernatural, you’ll just now reject him as not reflecting the “consensus view”.

    There’s always a moving goalpost with you.

    As far as I can tell, they never include, as history, any supernatural anything. In other words: history rejects supernatural claims.

    A historian doesn’t mention a supernatural account one way or the other.

    A historian explicitly writes “Some people believe in (insert account here). This did not happen.”

    You realize these are two different statements right? I mean, I know you have great difficulty understanding what others say. You don’t care what you think, (as you’ve said) so its no surprise. But this is a rather simple, obvious difference. I’m not even asking you to explain the difference between the two statements. I expect that to be beyond you. I just want to know if you can understand that there IS one. Do you understand that? Will you even answer? Or will you continue to run away scared, continually moving the goalposts as you go?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Why then do you focus on the consensus of “believers” and not the consensus of “Christians”?

      I’m delighted to use the consensus of Christians to know what “Christianity” means. Where’s the problem?

      I might as well say that there’s no consensus amonst “scientists” about evolution.

      You could. You could say anything, in fact. But that doesn’t make it accurate.

      At first you were quite adamant that the historians don’t accept the supernatural.

      And I encouraged you to find a counterexample to my hypothesis. You couldn’t.

      If I find a historian that believes in the supernatural, you’ll just now reject him as not reflecting the “consensus view”.

      Not a moving goalpost, I’m afraid. If you misunderstood my position, apologies.

      You realize these are two different statements right?

      Right. I don’t see an issue worth worrying about here.

      • TheRealRandomFunction

        Right. I don’t see an issue worth worrying about here.

        Let me try to spell out where you are going wrong.

        You said:

        As far as I can tell, they never include, as history, any supernatural anything. In other words: history rejects supernatural claims.

        Now, if they don’t include any supernatural accounts in their historical work, that does not mean they reject those accounts. It simply means they aren’t including them.

        So, if they only evidence you have is a bunch of historians not explicitly mentioning any supernatural claims you cannot logically conclude they are rejecting those claims.

        This doesn’t even deal with the fact that so far your “evidence” is not actually evidence at all, just (in your mind) a lack of historians explicitly endorsing various supernatural accounts.

        You do realize that lack of evidence is not actually evidence right?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Now, if they don’t include any supernatural accounts in their historical work, that does not mean they reject those accounts. It simply means they aren’t including them.

          OK

          So, if they only evidence you have is a bunch of historians not explicitly mentioning any supernatural claims you cannot logically conclude they are rejecting those claims.

          Obviously. And I haven’t.

          Still not seeing any problem.

          I have a hypothesis. You’re welcome to point out a counterexample. You haven’t done so. With you and I unable to find counterexamples, seems that my hypothesis is plausible. Thanks for your participation.

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          I have a hypothesis.

          Your hypothesis: Historians (and the historical consensus) reject supernatural claims.

          My hypothesis: Historians (and the historical consensus) don’t deal with the supernatural claims. They do not reject or accept them, they simply don’t deal with them.

          The evidence provided so far:
          A bunch of historians that you’ve apparently read that don’t mention the supernatural at all.

          Which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence? Your’s, that they reject them? Or mine, that they simply don’t deal with them at all?

        • TheRealRandomFunction

          Is your hypothesis “plausible”? Yes, its “plausible”. Its not supported by any evidence you have so far provided, but its “plausible”.

          The ability to come up with “plausible” theories isn’t really that hard, nor does it require that much intelligence.

          If all you want is naturalistic explanations that are “plausible” then that’s fine. We’ll just both agree you’re biased and close-minded.

  • http://askgodanything.wordpress.com Srch4Answers

    Regarding the Crucifixion post:
    I like it that you ask questions. I’m big on asking questions and getting answers. I recently found this website ShroudOfJesus.com and was blown away by it! It might answer some of your questions and give you new questions to think about.

  • Pingback: God Sacrificed His Only Son For Us? « Tracy's Post

  • Rex

    Your argument: Jesus didn’t die, because he arose on Sunday.

    If Christians, like myself, believe that our spirit enters heaven after death, doesn’t that mean – based on your definition of death – Christians don’t truly die either?

    Compromise: if you are uncomfortable with Christians using the word ‘died’ to explain the process described above, what word would you like us to use?

    Whichever word you pick, ultimately, Jesus assumed the pain and suffering normally associated with the end of life, for no sins of his own, and surrendered his ability to live the normal life of a human being. Phew! There. Is that P-C enough for you? What you offer is an argument over semantics. It does not have an impact on the logic of the crucifixion story.

    Most of the arguments are just as weak/insignificant.

  • Rex

    Your argument: Jesus didn’t die, because he arose on Sunday.

    If Christians, like myself, believe that our spirit enters heaven after death, doesn’t that mean – based on your definition of death – Christians don’t truly die either?

    Compromise: if you are uncomfortable with Christians using the word ‘died’ to explain the process described above, what word would you like us to use?

    Whichever word you pick, ultimately, Jesus assumed the pain and suffering normally associated with the end of life, for no sins of his own, and surrendered his ability to live the normal life of a human being. Phew! There. Is that P-C enough for you? What you offer is an argument over semantics. It does not have an impact on the logic of the crucifixion story.

    Most of the other arguments are just as weak/insignificant.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Rex:

      doesn’t that mean – based on your definition of death – Christians don’t truly die either?

      My point was that Jesus’s “death” was no sacrifice, so let’s not get all awestruck about how profound the sacrifice was.

      if you are uncomfortable with Christians using the word ‘died’ to explain the process described above, what word would you like us to use?

      “Died” is fine as long as they acknowledge all the caveats. If you pushed me out of the way of a bus and died in the process, that would be a really, really big sacrifice. Jesus experienced nothing of the kind, so let’s make sure we don’t confuse them.

      What you offer is an argument over semantics.

      Did Jesus make a profound sacrifice for anyone? Uh, no. He was out of action for 36 hours–not that big a deal. The imaginary Rex who saved my life made the ultimate sacrifice. Trying to elevate Jesus to that level is simply insulting to the person who made a true sacrifice.

      As long as we’re all on the same page, that’s great, but the party line about the crucifixion/resurrection says a lot about sacrifice.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Rex:

      Most of the other arguments are just as weak/insignificant.

      I challenge you to point out the errors, ’cause I’ve missed them.

  • Pingback: hefalimp cardijon

  • Pingback: air duct cleaning 77018

  • Pingback: cialis 20mg canada

  • Pingback: achat cialis generic

  • Pingback: best online slots

  • Pingback: chicken coop ideas

  • Pingback: go to website,

  • Pingback: prix cialis 10mg en pharmacie

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: what is linkedin and how does it work

  • Pingback: free apple ipad

  • Pingback: free background check

  • Pingback: music download

  • Pingback: cialis effet secondaire

  • Pingback: You Could Try These Out

  • Pingback: iphone 5 unlock

  • Pingback: how to stay longer during intercourse

  • Pingback: antihistamine premature ejaculation

  • Pingback: payday loans for bad credit

  • Pingback: cialis prostatite

  • Pingback: automotive

  • Pingback: acheter du cialis pas cher

  • Pingback: Sports

  • Pingback: site

  • Pingback: useful

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: killcorps.com

  • Pingback: tecnosanagustin.info

  • Pingback: siestabeach.info

  • Pingback: cialis 5 mg prezzi

  • Pingback: sendltt.info

  • Pingback: youngleadersacademy.info

  • Pingback: buy youtube likes

  • Pingback: freefacebookcredits2012.info

  • Pingback: angelagiese.info

  • Pingback: zhenrendoudizhu0004.info

  • Pingback: keurig on sale

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: what causes premature ejaculation in men

  • Pingback: small business

  • Pingback: entertainment

  • Pingback: oldvicaragecampsite.info

  • Pingback: persistentsurveillance.info

  • Pingback: zakopane-cyrhla.info

  • Pingback: theultimatesocialmedia.info

  • Pingback: kathydarlenehunt.info

  • Pingback: flowerworks.info

  • Pingback: prix du cialis 5mg en pharmacie

  • Pingback: model

  • Pingback: how do i make my boyfriend last longer in bed

  • Pingback: vitamin

  • Pingback: deluxe

  • Pingback: how to last longer in bed video exercises

  • Pingback: Technology

  • Pingback: Technology

  • Pingback: Real Estate

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: Ceiling Fan Installation

  • Pingback: Drywall Finishing

  • Pingback: Popcorn Ceiling Removal

  • Pingback: Illinois Process Server

  • Pingback: where can i buy shakeology

  • Pingback: www.omegalocksmithchicago.com

  • Pingback: sinirsiz hosting

  • Pingback: restore my vision today reviews

  • Pingback: The Important Things To Know About RemarkaMobile

  • Pingback: free classified ad sites

  • Pingback: download now

  • Pingback: Bee Removal Kingwood

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: Mayweather vs Maidana

  • Pingback: mazda dealer phoenix

  • Pingback: blogs

  • Pingback: hyundai diesel

  • Pingback: my blogs

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: vw garages

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: source website

  • Pingback: minecraftlikegames.com

  • Pingback: podiatric surgery

  • Pingback: blogs

  • Pingback: source website

  • Pingback: Jacob

  • Pingback: Illinois Process Server

  • Pingback: Afford a Home with these tips...

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: my blogs

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: my blogs

  • Pingback: labor day quotes

  • Pingback: mask for face

  • Pingback: webmaster

  • Pingback: my blogs

  • Pingback: my blogs

  • Pingback: gordas con un cache alto

  • Pingback: crochet by number

  • Pingback: courses

  • Pingback: cialis apcalis avis

  • Pingback: webmaster

  • Pingback: audio speaker system

  • Pingback: Nike Coupon Code

  • Pingback: source website

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: source website

  • Pingback: Whatsapp Status

  • Pingback: check out this really exciting exciting web-blog

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: openappmkt

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: blogs

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: source

  • Pingback: modere-neways

  • Pingback: Decentralized Bitcoin Betting (only 0.5% fee)

  • Pingback: lacrosse

  • Pingback: play slot machines games

  • Pingback: chiropractic health insurance

  • Pingback: buy oxycontin

  • Pingback: adipex without prescription

  • Pingback: slots free online

  • Pingback: sigue leyendo

  • Pingback: buy tramadol

  • Pingback: buy adderall

  • Pingback: cerdas

  • Pingback: hydrocodone without prescription

  • Pingback: m88.com

  • Pingback: nlp

  • Pingback: cash for gold

  • Pingback: my sources

  • Pingback: BTCRumor - Bitcoin Directory

  • Pingback: voyage de noce maldives

  • Pingback: dalaman transfers

  • Pingback: wisetrail.com

  • Pingback: CPCS Answers

  • Pingback: perth web designers

  • Pingback: Bee Wild Pest Control

  • Pingback: Exterminator Service Houston Texas

  • Pingback: free online cooking game

  • Pingback: xlovecam token hack

  • Pingback: FanDuel Promo Code

  • Pingback: Bee Wild Pest Control

  • Pingback: badmintonschläger test

  • Pingback: free slot machines

  • Pingback: car insurance companies

  • Pingback: gap visa credit card

  • Pingback: Saree shopping

  • Pingback: table place cards

  • Pingback: best cheapest homeowners insurance

  • Pingback: Womens Lingerie

  • Pingback: Free C#.NET Examples

  • Pingback: online slots uk

  • Pingback: achat cialis europe

  • Pingback: cialis

  • Pingback: articles

  • Pingback: banana blue

  • Pingback: kundalini serpent

  • Pingback: web agency perth

  • Pingback: musica

  • Pingback: perth digital agency

  • Pingback: divorce attorneys in maryland

  • Pingback: monthly seo package

  • Pingback: ath-m50x review

  • Pingback: Loyal 9 marketing complaints

  • Pingback: hecigarette review

  • Pingback: DC spa parties

  • Pingback: Lajme nga Gostivari

  • Pingback: DC Movers

  • Pingback: cerebral palsy disability types

  • Pingback: Forex Broker

  • Pingback: cavaleiros do zodiaco

  • Pingback: trail-gear

  • Pingback: dell laptop akció

  • Pingback: lose weight

  • Pingback: how to be financially free

  • Pingback: Social Security Disability Questions & Answers

  • Pingback: propiedades de la alcachofa

  • Pingback: barter ireland

  • Pingback: hearthstone arena guide

  • Pingback: Android Apps, News & Reviews

  • Pingback: kable grzejne

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Gulf Shores condo Rentals

  • Pingback: for free

  • Pingback: of business

  • Pingback: buy instagram followers

  • Pingback: stopthestresstoday.com/about-me

  • Pingback: how to get rid of razor bumps for men

  • Pingback: www.triplesealinsulation.com

  • Pingback: posizionamento google

  • Pingback: Salesperson

  • Pingback: guttering Surrey

  • Pingback: men's fashion

  • Pingback: mobile atm

  • Pingback: location bureau pas cher st Gabriel Montr?al

  • Pingback: alaska fishing

  • Pingback: authorized sub zero service

  • Pingback: Continued

  • Pingback: letting agents in south london

  • Pingback: MANSION88

  • Pingback: gain followers

  • Pingback: poker strategies

  • Pingback: kinder joy

  • Pingback: pretos a foder brancas

  • Pingback: graphicdesign

  • Pingback: LL.B_LL.M Books

  • Pingback: life hacks

  • Pingback: Sydney Flooring

  • Pingback: Buy Soundcloud Favorites

  • Pingback: engineering

  • Pingback: epic fails 2014

  • Pingback: Education

  • Pingback: Continued

  • Pingback: Wedding

  • Pingback: trail-gear

  • Pingback: add URL

  • Pingback: Pressplay Discount

  • Pingback: Wai Rasco

  • Pingback: Bridal Pins

  • Pingback: Indian wedding caterers

  • Pingback: hotel booking

  • Pingback: car crashes

  • Pingback: best proxy sites

  • Pingback: reviews

  • Pingback: http://blogdexperts.com

  • Pingback: Christian Jewelry Company

  • Pingback: Discounts

  • Pingback: 10 sal ki kamsin behan aur biwi ko ek sath choda

  • Pingback: http://askbrockovich.com

  • Pingback: RONALD REAGAN

  • Pingback: Online shopping

  • Pingback: ganar dinero con clickbank

  • Pingback: funko pop toys

  • Pingback: Tie dye shirts

  • Pingback: RCC Institute of Technology Review

  • Pingback: http://fordounsawmillwind.com

  • Pingback: network marketing

  • Pingback: this blog post

  • Pingback: computer accessories

  • Pingback: ebay promotional codes September 2014

  • Pingback: houston plumbers

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: Build your own haunted house

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: Free Documentaries And Educational

  • Pingback: online book store

  • Pingback: oriental

  • Pingback: Digital Marketing Minneapolis

  • Pingback: Control 4 Canada

  • Pingback: forex szkolenia

  • Pingback: work from home

  • Pingback: Angelina Jolie

  • Pingback: nelson rolihlahla mandela

  • Pingback: Vermont VT Fiat Dealers

  • Pingback: check it out

  • Pingback: http://ritadavidson.com

  • Pingback: marketing platform

  • Pingback: http://ritadavidson.net

  • Pingback: walhalla south carolina

  • Pingback: http://sexynightladies.com

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: Celebrity Movies

  • Pingback: Lottery

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: check this online source

  • Pingback: binary options strategy key indicators

  • Pingback: szczotki techniczne

  • Pingback: formierka

  • Pingback: rowery miejskie

  • Pingback: chiropodists

  • Pingback: antique table linens for sale

  • Pingback: annuaire

  • Pingback: jawatan kosong

  • Pingback: Assembly

  • Pingback: Pocket folders

  • Pingback: angry birds cheat

  • Pingback: llotus

  • Pingback: simply essentials tweezers for ingrown hair

  • Pingback: ensemble matelas sommier pas chère

  • Pingback: source

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: resource

  • Pingback: Tagesdeals

  • Pingback: child abuse compensation claims

  • Pingback: WebForum

  • Pingback: Remarkamobile Videos

  • Pingback: Kokybisktas tekstas

  • Pingback: paydayloanspup

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: online shopping

  • Pingback: ????? ???? ?????

  • Pingback: my site

  • Pingback: my source

  • Pingback: great business

  • Pingback: buy hydrocodone

  • Pingback: buy cialis

  • Pingback: online dating service

  • Pingback: buy ultram

  • Pingback: hotels

  • Pingback: Snapalicious

  • Pingback: Skydiving in PA

  • Pingback: Hesperia Areatza

  • Pingback: windturbine

  • Pingback: recovery supplements for triathletes

  • Pingback: cars 2 surprise eggs

  • Pingback: Kosher auditing China

  • Pingback: Betriebsfeiern Bobingen

  • Pingback: Tens Handheld Electronic Pulse Massager Unit

  • Pingback: strona firmy

  • Pingback: Igrovoy Best

  • Pingback: hurtownia z zabawkami - diki.com.pl

  • Pingback: add a signature to outlook

  • Pingback: Sohbeto Dalariniz

  • Pingback: webdesign manila

  • Pingback: worksheets for kids

  • Pingback: Patrol Ultrasonic Sound Repellent Repeller

  • Pingback: my company

  • Pingback: graphic designers pretoria

  • Pingback: Green Smoke reviews

  • Pingback: kezia noble

  • Pingback: 3 of the Best Ultrabooks on the Market

  • Pingback: Pulse Medical Technologies

  • Pingback: como descargarle el app world a mi blackberry

  • Pingback: click banks

  • Pingback: android tips and tricks

  • Pingback: cheap cialis online

  • Pingback: Bic Ctx

  • Pingback: Google AdWords Advertising

  • Pingback: Dating Love

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: nri matrimony

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: http://www.bypassicloudlock.net/

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: http://suze-formation.com

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: Seduction

  • Pingback: dead rising 3 trainer

  • Pingback: como agrandar el pene

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: pebble tiles

  • Pingback: Bulk SMS in Nigeria

  • Pingback: mytopbrokers.com

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: source

  • Pingback: Computers and electronics

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: showbox download

  • Pingback: Buy a 400ml Can of Hairfor2

  • Pingback: pebble tile

  • Pingback: Garage door repair white plains

  • Pingback: New Zelda- Now an Incredible Open World

  • Pingback: Garage door servie white plains

  • Pingback: Hosting Windows Peru

  • Pingback: buy bullion

  • Pingback: http://humanisticmathematics.com

  • Pingback: http://brucepeterkacfo.com

  • Pingback: http://clevelandmovietimes.com

  • Pingback: alkaline water machine

  • Pingback: Follow us on Pinterest

  • Pingback: http://joesrealestate.net

  • Pingback: Doug Ducey Arizona

  • Pingback: http://stadt-zuerich.net

  • Pingback: http://louisvillemovietimes.com

  • Pingback: Arizona Corporation Commission Election

  • Pingback: http://mozgoreklam.com

  • Pingback: http://kefirgirljuiceplus.com

  • Pingback: arc bouncy castles

  • Pingback: loyal 9

  • Pingback: projektowanie instalacji sanitarnych lódz

  • Pingback: Potensi Wakaf

  • Pingback: dzianiny lodz

  • Pingback: bramy szybkorolowane

  • Pingback: http://podemi.net

  • Pingback: http://suncashadvance.com

  • Pingback: festzinsen anlegen

  • Pingback: sacred geometry

  • Pingback: http://childrenspartywinstonsalem.com

  • Pingback: http://jump-higher.net

  • Pingback: http://chicagosportswear.net

  • Pingback: maszyny do szycia

  • Pingback: tajski boks krakow

  • Pingback: market your business online

  • Pingback: life insurance

  • Pingback: Minneapolis Locksmith

  • Pingback: http://psikr.com

  • Pingback: http://rugbyseacadets.com

  • Pingback: http://eggs-online.com

  • Pingback: http://grahamforsenate.net

  • Pingback: http://souslacanopee.com

  • Pingback: lose weight permanently

  • Pingback: szafki ubraniowe

  • Pingback: security system

  • Pingback: Food and Drink

  • Pingback: http://nvmweb.com

  • Pingback: http://foreignfridays.com

  • Pingback: Visit Website

  • Pingback: need to make money

  • Pingback: menstruacion irregular

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: congas night club

  • Pingback: night club for kids

  • Pingback: http://takingsurvivors.com

  • Pingback: java

  • Pingback: Roof repair Colorado Springs

  • Pingback: online slots promotions

  • Pingback: falowniki

  • Pingback: noze tokarskie

  • Pingback: turnkey

  • Pingback: managed hosting

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: best money lender

  • Pingback: Cris Barros

  • Pingback: Los Angeles Dedicated Server

  • Pingback: Fire Phone

  • Pingback: http://westengineer.net

  • Pingback: http://yuzmek.com

  • Pingback: chapter 13 bankruptcy lawyers

  • Pingback: http://webcancun.net

  • Pingback: http://vanphongpham3m.com

  • Pingback: απ?φ?α?ε??

  • Pingback: Precor treadmills

  • Pingback: horoscope gif android

  • Pingback: injury care chiropractic

  • Pingback: transportation

  • Pingback: organic chemistry tutorials

  • Pingback: desacargar appworld

  • Pingback: szambo ekologiczne

  • Pingback: christmas trusted shopping sites in california

  • Pingback: Resume Writing India

  • Pingback: Brady Bunte

  • Pingback: animated video for business

  • Pingback: about

  • Pingback: paintball parks in san diego

  • Pingback: Mildred Lopez

  • Pingback: Southend - Taxis

  • Pingback: network marketing tips

  • Pingback: wiecej

  • Pingback: pokarm dla psa do domu

  • Pingback: Arvind Pandit

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: resource

  • Pingback: great info

  • Pingback: astrologer

  • Pingback: pink cupcake

  • Pingback: your blog

  • Pingback: wow embersilk cloth farming spot

  • Pingback: mdansby software

  • Pingback: bookmark Mobile Marketing Business Book Solar System In A eMobileMarketingBusiness.com - mobile marketing business book solar system in a

  • Pingback: how to write a novel

  • Pingback: Luigi Wewege

  • Pingback: job interview tips

  • Pingback: review

  • Pingback: HOODS

  • Pingback: Brooklyn Plumber

  • Pingback: Clash of Clans Triche gemmes gratuit

  • Pingback: oc bail bonds

  • Pingback: explain it videos

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: (816) 479-2700 attorney bankruptcy

  • Pingback: blogging

  • Pingback: chiavetta usb rotta

  • Pingback: train

  • Pingback: e file

  • Pingback: millinery

  • Pingback: how to lose weight fast

  • Pingback: hip hop beats for sale

  • Pingback: black hat seo forum

  • Pingback: Gourmet Food

  • Pingback: Asian wedding cakes leeds

  • Pingback: private process server in Chicago illinois

  • Pingback: WWE Hell In A Cell Live Stream 2014

  • Pingback: guaranteed paid signups

  • Pingback: gmailç correo electrónico

  • Pingback: xperia kod

  • Pingback: DUI Attorney Hartsville SC

  • Pingback: l?s upp telia

  • Pingback: South Carolina Injury Lawyer

  • Pingback: Imprimir CPF

  • Pingback: sony kod

  • Pingback: alkaline water

  • Pingback: Injury Attorney Myrtle Beach

  • Pingback: BathPillowbySimplyEssentials

  • Pingback: GTA Invest

  • Pingback: office cleaning

  • Pingback: passive income

  • Pingback: electronics

  • Pingback: website

  • Pingback: online poker

  • Pingback: sewer repair

  • Pingback: Hostgator coupons

  • Pingback: forex

  • Pingback: buy cheap facebook likes

  • Pingback: Themes & Plugins For $15/month ONLY!

  • Pingback: Inside Family Games

  • Pingback: online poker

  • Pingback: lainaa

  • Pingback: new york social psychology elke weber

  • Pingback: web design

  • Pingback: attorney for car accident

  • Pingback: wool fabric shaver

  • Pingback: Watch Live Stand up Comics performing

  • Pingback: internet marketing experts

  • Pingback: caps and hats for women

  • Pingback: buying australian facebook likes

  • Pingback: Funny and Comedy HD Videos

  • Pingback: cabina foto

  • Pingback: this site

  • Pingback: Management System

  • Pingback: Carriers

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: Mca scam

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: samsung galaxy epos

  • Pingback: Tie dye T shirt uk

  • Pingback: surf fashion

  • Pingback: madonna borderline

  • Pingback: canciones para bodas

  • Pingback: Blechercollins

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: fowllowme

  • Pingback: credit repair service

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: lainaa

  • Pingback: here source

  • Pingback: expert interview coach

  • Pingback: roofing bronx ny

  • Pingback: site

  • Pingback: Orlando SEO

  • Pingback: Battery disposal

  • Pingback: The Johnson Sickle Servicer Tool

  • Pingback: comment

  • Pingback: Charm Bracelet Project

  • Pingback: Video production company Sacramento

  • Pingback: great info

  • Pingback: How to make a commercial

  • Pingback: Marin CA

  • Pingback: reverse phone search

  • Pingback: Cake Decorations

  • Pingback: IT Support and Computer Experts

  • Pingback: used car for sale in nj

  • Pingback: http://admediacash.com

  • Pingback: new york for new years eve

  • Pingback: these details

  • Pingback: Free Directory Of Laptops

  • Pingback: bad credit auto loans

  • Pingback: reverse directory by phone number

  • Pingback: make money online in canada

  • Pingback: tiens peninggi badan

  • Pingback: Reverse Phone Lookup

  • Pingback: Video porno

  • Pingback: brother printer repair

  • Pingback: escorts thailand

  • Pingback: affordable satellite internet

  • Pingback: keygencyberghostvpn

  • Pingback: in here

  • Pingback: hair extensions

  • Pingback: Aditya Mittal

  • Pingback: life insurance quote

  • Pingback: Luis Souto ecommerce development Turkey

  • Pingback: help here

  • Pingback: ind v wi

  • Pingback: Rc drones with camera

  • Pingback: cyberghost serial

  • Pingback: hot lesbian sex

  • Pingback: yellow october

  • Pingback: MAKE MONEY ONLINE

  • Pingback: internet providers

  • Pingback: domain

  • Pingback: car insurance rates

  • Pingback: Luis Souto ecommerce development El Salvador

  • Pingback: great info

  • Pingback: new small business loans

  • Pingback: your blog

  • Pingback: how to get more google plus followers

  • Pingback: my blog

  • Pingback: cosas para el jard?n

  • Pingback: my website

  • Pingback: resource

  • Pingback: site

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: blogger

  • Pingback: homepage

  • Pingback: phone services

  • Pingback: ligar facil

  • Pingback: Chicago Flat Fee MLS Listing

  • Pingback: frameless shower doors houston

  • Pingback: Online Loans

  • Pingback: moneys life style

  • Pingback: michael shawn majeed toronto

  • Pingback: logo quiz answers

  • Pingback: real estate

  • Pingback: sites

  • Pingback: (816) 373-9080 birth injury

  • Pingback: (816) 524-0404 divorce attorneys

  • Pingback: house

  • Pingback: investigator

  • Pingback: independent artist

  • Pingback: nap the vcoin

  • Pingback: follow me

  • Pingback: my home

  • Pingback: wedding toronto

  • Pingback: travel mask

  • Pingback: demenageurs paris

  • Pingback: best sleep mask

  • Pingback: OMAN and GULF

  • Pingback: best sleep mask

  • Pingback: homes line

  • Pingback: IT Services

  • Pingback: calling cards

  • Pingback: 8 ball pool coin hack

  • Pingback: texas real estate

  • Pingback: funerals perth

  • Pingback: Welding consumables

  • Pingback: Clash of Clans Astuce

  • Pingback: weight loss

  • Pingback: Chicago For Sale by Owner

  • Pingback: Youth enhancing bodyshaping system

  • Pingback: big picture instagram

  • Pingback: Wholesale Alpaca Products for Your Store

  • Pingback: make money

  • Pingback: responsive multi-purpose theme

  • Pingback: apple iphone 5s 32gb black unlocked

  • Pingback: school system

  • Pingback: how to make money while traveling

  • Pingback: pikavippi.fi

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: best follow

  • Pingback: americana music

  • Pingback: toys with apps

  • Pingback: lainaa heti

  • Pingback: hen weekend brighton

  • Pingback: hen parties in brighton

  • Pingback: lainaa heti

  • Pingback: This Is Where You'll Find The Best Of The Best

  • Pingback: free ps vita games

  • Pingback: the diabetes protocol review

  • Pingback: New Ebay Promo Codes November 2014

  • Pingback: credit score for free

  • Pingback: perfectenders

  • Pingback: pest control hertfordshire

  • Pingback: free coupon

  • Pingback: The Orient Pricing

  • Pingback: best car insurance

  • Pingback: new social network website

  • Pingback: free website software

  • Pingback: zobacz

  • Pingback: Identity Design

  • Pingback: facebook 2014 hackear facebook

  • Pingback: minnie mouse

  • Pingback: online shopping

  • Pingback: Ebola outbreak

  • Pingback: how to root your android phone

  • Pingback: kakprosto.ru

  • Pingback: musica mp3

  • Pingback: the best whiteboard software

  • Pingback: www.kakprosto.ru/

  • Pingback: kinder surprise

  • Pingback: Celebrity Wisetrail

  • Pingback: ve may bay gia re

  • Pingback: visit site

  • Pingback: Baby bibs

  • Pingback: Ten EP

  • Pingback: ???? ??????

  • Pingback: pet sitter

  • Pingback: iPad Repair

  • Pingback: ofermedia

  • Pingback: Incredimail

  • Pingback: GreenSmoke review

  • Pingback: Catcare

  • Pingback: rebirthing consultant

  • Pingback: Military Challenge Coins

  • Pingback: telechargement films gratuit

  • Pingback: telecharger film streaming

  • Pingback: penis enlargment

  • Pingback: Trill

  • Pingback: this site

  • Pingback: simple online jobs

  • Pingback: online casino in uk

  • Pingback: best bets today

  • Pingback: online betting no deposit

  • Pingback: enlevement epave gratuit 94

  • Pingback: advanced warfare hack

  • Pingback: hip replacement lawsuit

  • Pingback: Free web host

  • Pingback: cheap hotels websites

  • Pingback: ebizvarsity

  • Pingback: advanced warfare hacks

  • Pingback: natur energie ag

  • Pingback: egg surprise

  • Pingback: yeti

  • Pingback: Ping Pong

  • Pingback: Raccoon Removal NJ

  • Pingback: Naheed Ali

  • Pingback: Behnam Tabrizi article about change

  • Pingback: travel dating

  • Pingback: Official Music Video

  • Pingback: Carefully curated vintage home d?cor

  • Pingback: your site

  • Pingback: leather sofas

  • Pingback: Gourmet Cooking

  • Pingback: advanced analytics

  • Pingback: MattCJustice

  • Pingback: how to sell product online

  • Pingback: my

  • Pingback: doublju fake review

  • Pingback: cheap tickets for aladdin

  • Pingback: "iphone 6" case

  • Pingback: Tristar Gas Phoenix

  • Pingback: carpet cleaning Brisbane

  • Pingback: alkaline water

  • Pingback: ultimate bugout ration

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: dumpster rentals in Franklin WI

  • Pingback: article source

  • Pingback: agree with this

  • Pingback: fuckbook

  • Pingback: Landscaping Preview

  • Pingback: check here

  • Pingback: blog

  • Pingback: Abbreviazione degli URL

  • Pingback: latest party dress designs

  • Pingback: ez-quick Bike Rack installation

  • Pingback: warsztaty kulinarne malopolska

  • Pingback: bike carriers

  • Pingback: Tool to remove facebook Likes

  • Pingback: Removing Likes

  • Pingback: Delete Facebook Likes

  • Pingback: All Natural Viagra Pills Save $$$

  • Pingback: flash photography

  • Pingback: Diet reviews

  • Pingback: Mediterranean lifestyle

  • Pingback: Mr Matt Justice

  • Pingback: Matthew Justice

  • Pingback: access whatsapp online

  • Pingback: link

  • Pingback: how to hack a mobile phone text messages

  • Pingback: xxxcams.mobi

  • Pingback: invisalign Ridgewood

  • Pingback: french wine

  • Pingback: Zerin Business Consulting Inc

  • Pingback: Green Smoke e-cigarettes

  • Pingback: general

  • Pingback: blogger

  • Pingback: Celebrity Sexy Images

  • Pingback: julegaveideer til hende 2014

  • Pingback: F1-Karting

  • Pingback: great info

  • Pingback: anti aging

  • Pingback: who is johnny the healer

  • Pingback: Colorado commercial epoxy floor coatings

  • Pingback: ibogaine

  • Pingback: The Hotsawce - bring some flavor to your day

  • Pingback: iptv

  • Pingback: web directory

  • Pingback: women's clothing

  • Pingback: Taimur Khan is a co-founder of Blueberry

  • Pingback: Traveling Tips

  • Pingback: Taimur Khan is a co-founder of Blueberry

  • Pingback: send homeopathic medicine to usa

  • Pingback: driver

  • Pingback: 120w

  • Pingback: Betting Sports,

  • Pingback: brian poncelet

  • Pingback: how to meet women

  • Pingback: picking up women

  • Pingback: massage couple paris 18

  • Pingback: Scottsdale AZ Pool Builders

  • Pingback: guttering

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: follow this link

  • Pingback: Everest

  • Pingback: web sphere training institutes in bangalore

  • Pingback: House and Home

  • Pingback: get

  • Pingback: Online Business Idea

  • Pingback: kangen water

  • Pingback: HD- DishLatino Max

  • Pingback: Look At This

  • Pingback: Selskap

  • Pingback: canada viagra

  • Pingback: Alquiler coche

  • Pingback: kliknij tutaj

  • Pingback: Cloud Computing News

  • Pingback: phone verified accounts

  • Pingback: ISDN Service Provider London

  • Pingback: visit website

  • Pingback: wedding car hire in huddersfield

  • Pingback: Power Sellers Center Article

  • Pingback: Power Sellers Center Help

  • Pingback: custom apps development

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: Power Sellers Center Alaska

  • Pingback: huntsville commercial plumbing

  • Pingback: huntsville water leaks

  • Pingback: African Music

  • Pingback: bass instruction

  • Pingback: plumbers in huntsville

  • Pingback: hostgator promo

  • Pingback: ada service dog

  • Pingback: hostgator promo code

  • Pingback: makeanygirlwanttofuck

  • Pingback: hand

  • Pingback: Automotive

  • Pingback: this page

  • Pingback: facebook fans kaufen

  • Pingback: Buy Edu Backlinks

  • Pingback: Buy YouTube Services

  • Pingback: education

  • Pingback: improve your community

  • Pingback: autounfall

  • Pingback: motorradunfall

  • Pingback: language of desire

  • Pingback: Credit Card

  • Pingback: aliexpress

  • Pingback: produkter

  • Pingback: fundraising ideas for schools

  • Pingback: law

  • Pingback: Shipping pets from Sri Lanka

  • Pingback: k.michelle my life episode 5

  • Pingback: sons of anarchy season 7 episode 8

  • Pingback: health foods online

  • Pingback: Occlusion Bands

  • Pingback: earn more

  • Pingback: find out here now

  • Pingback: Blood Flow Restriction Training

  • Pingback: sub zero service codes

  • Pingback: sub zero service ice message

  • Pingback: www.mcchip-dkr.com

  • Pingback: youtube traffic

  • Pingback: organize events

  • Pingback: ecotuning

  • Pingback: vendita droga

  • Pingback: armi

  • Pingback: troijan

  • Pingback: gruas burgos

  • Pingback: huge balloons

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: forex no deposit bonus

  • Pingback: technology

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: Cashcashcash

  • Pingback: Avoid bankruptcy

  • Pingback: Hack Wifi password in Windows 7

  • Pingback: Avoid bankruptcy

  • Pingback: travel

  • Pingback: obat majakani

  • Pingback: from this source

  • Pingback: website designer Grand Rapids

  • Pingback: code de la route

  • Pingback: free wordpress migration

  • Pingback: polecam

  • Pingback: Fixed betting games 2/1 1/2

  • Pingback: play online slots

  • Pingback: list my home

  • Pingback: online slots promotionscasino payments

  • Pingback: gladiator heels

  • Pingback: Shondra Crummett

  • Pingback: Usenext kostenlos

  • Pingback: Kazakh National Medical University in Almaty

  • Pingback: cleaner

  • Pingback: enlace

  • Pingback: cialis order now

  • Pingback: free taco bell gift cards

  • Pingback: finance jobs

  • Pingback: Actor websites

  • Pingback: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5g3GyAtU5w

  • Pingback: awareness

  • Pingback: outsourcing

  • Pingback: find out here

  • Pingback: freelancers

  • Pingback: Aircraft Charter

  • Pingback: best site

  • Pingback: portland house buyer

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: sell house Portland

  • Pingback: sri lanka murder

  • Pingback: Life Insurance Videos

  • Pingback: belclimb.be - Worth and traffic estimation | The Belgian ...

  • Pingback: antalya masaj

  • Pingback: UND Aviation

  • Pingback: Jokes And Pictures

  • Pingback: Buy UND Aerospace Degree

  • Pingback: diabetes miracle cure book

  • Pingback: classical music for babies

  • Pingback: sell my house fast

  • Pingback: series streaming gratuit

  • Pingback: streaming illimite

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: use this link

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: Sleeve Lebanon

  • Pingback: Free PC fonts

  • Pingback: guaranteed seo

  • Pingback: Obat alami jantung bengkak

  • Pingback: online pet store

  • Pingback: webwinkel

  • Pingback: storage auction

  • Pingback: bforex

  • Pingback: HIMS pilot

  • Pingback: online asian art

  • Pingback: chicago faucet repair

  • Pingback: overhead door West Haven Connecticut

  • Pingback: experts

  • Pingback: NYC movers

  • Pingback: lifecell anti aging cream

  • Pingback: karma double dots oorbellen

  • Pingback: Web proxy

  • Pingback: commercial insurance provider in Flat Rock

  • Pingback: check out this insurance company

  • Pingback: Transportation Management System

  • Pingback: voip provider

  • Pingback: top voip providers

  • Pingback: long beach

  • Pingback: taco man long beach

  • Pingback: voip provider

  • Pingback: they help with claims

  • Pingback: music choice

  • Pingback: Organic SEO SERVICES FOR CHEAP

  • Pingback: canon rebel xsi

  • Pingback: windscreen repair essex

  • Pingback: bad credit loans

  • Pingback: Overhead door yonkers ny

  • Pingback: samsung 3d blu ray home theatre system ht d4600 refurb

  • Pingback: south loop loft

  • Pingback: clowns

  • Pingback: ways to make money online

  • Pingback: izmir masaj

  • Pingback: toronto actress

  • Pingback: buy ibeacon

  • Pingback: vacation rental by ower

  • Pingback: djs

  • Pingback: +veranstaltungsplaner +in

  • Pingback: naples pet sitter

  • Pingback: Cheap flights

  • Pingback: we buy your house

  • Pingback: Hotel Bookings

  • Pingback: dog walker naples

  • Pingback: web design for lawyers

  • Pingback: Hosting Experts

  • Pingback: sex toys

  • Pingback: germes-trans com

  • Pingback: American (man)

  • Pingback: get free traffic

  • Pingback: strona www

  • Pingback: std testing

  • Pingback: link

  • Pingback: mca benefits

  • Pingback: how to sell your home oakland county

  • Pingback: venus factor

  • Pingback: victoires equipe algerie

  • Pingback: Fake Steroids Canada

  • Pingback: make money on the internet

  • Pingback: Steroids Scammer Canada

  • Pingback: Continue reading

  • Pingback: afspraakjes

  • Pingback: hospitality business

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: Prediksi Bola

  • Pingback: Western & Sunset Appliance (213) 817-5668

  • Pingback: upholstery supply

  • Pingback: stanton optical roseville

  • Pingback: ?????????? pantip

  • Pingback: read full here

  • Pingback: blood testing

  • Pingback: check this

  • Pingback: read here

  • Pingback: Videos Porno

  • Pingback: peixoto swimwear

  • Pingback: www.youtube.com/watch?v=soDiRUewy4o

  • Pingback: http://yourhealth.asiaone.com/content/mans-nose-deformed-after-botched-laser-procedure

  • Pingback: dai hoc hang dau

  • Pingback: Early Christmas Loans

  • Pingback: Analistas e commerce

  • Pingback: masöz

  • Pingback: izmir masöz

  • Pingback: hay day cheats

  • Pingback: mallorca escort

  • Pingback: wedding cars halifax

  • Pingback: wedding cars wakefield

  • Pingback: landscaping in pittsburgh pa

  • Pingback: MIKEGEARY1

  • Pingback: sistemi di gestione roma

  • Pingback: XXX

  • Pingback: News

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: hollywood gossip

  • Pingback: St.Lucia

  • Pingback: logo design

  • Pingback: m88

  • Pingback: Medical insurance

  • Pingback: Fun88 Bet

  • Pingback: business

  • Pingback: psn code generator

  • Pingback: INCOME VERIFICATION

  • Pingback: TOS Game

  • Pingback: snow cone machines

  • Pingback: Vietnam dong exchange

  • Pingback: Web Design Dubai

  • Pingback: quanto zucchero posso usare

  • Pingback: mom bloggers and product reviews

  • Pingback: new baby gift basket food

  • Pingback: purchase Vietnamese Dong

  • Pingback: health

  • Pingback: money

  • Pingback: training course site

  • Pingback: Bushnell Oak

  • Pingback: SEO Tools

  • Pingback: ftb mods

  • Pingback: seo services

  • Pingback: technology

  • Pingback: more info

  • Pingback: Usenet kostenlos

  • Pingback: oplichterij

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Bushnell, Bushnell Oak

  • Pingback: ???? ??????

  • Pingback: wienescort

  • Pingback: witryna

  • Pingback: general goods products uk

  • Pingback: viagra samples

  • Pingback: reverse your diabetes today

  • Pingback: valuable wood working instruction

  • Pingback: french

  • Pingback: online casino games report

  • Pingback: reverse your diabetes today reviews

  • Pingback: dance studios

  • Pingback: wix vs weebly

  • Pingback: the superior singing method

  • Pingback: videos porno

  • Pingback: regarder match streaming direct

  • Pingback: shop

  • Pingback: saut en parachute soulac

  • Pingback: Cubase

  • Pingback: fmtrader نصب

  • Pingback: implants

  • Pingback: sydney escorts girls

  • Pingback: escape singapore

  • Pingback: escape game singapore

  • Pingback: latest fashion trends

  • Pingback: uk firms look for european language skills

  • Pingback: Dresdner Christstollen kaufen

  • Pingback: galatasaray trabzonspor live stream

  • Pingback: River City Door

  • Pingback: work at home moms

  • Pingback: maximum shred

  • Pingback: CMS EXPERT & DIGITAL STRATEGIST

  • Pingback: read nigeria news online

  • Pingback: Anti-Aging Kosmetik

  • Pingback: Dragon City Hacking

  • Pingback: buy youtube views

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: sport products

  • Pingback: site

  • Pingback: massage paris

  • Pingback: upgrade dropbox

  • Pingback: Awesome knife

  • Pingback: orjinal lida

  • Pingback: Visit this website

  • Pingback: build-a-bear workshop

  • Pingback: witryna

  • Pingback: beat makers

  • Pingback: abstract art

  • Pingback: Car Rental Stansted Airport

  • Pingback: witryna www

  • Pingback: Final Cut Pro X Effects

  • Pingback: link

  • Pingback: Travel trail

  • Pingback: important

  • Pingback: koto anau

  • Pingback: fitness

  • Pingback: important purifiers

  • Pingback: Makeup brush set

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: Organic merino wool blankets

  • Pingback: escort agency directory

  • Pingback: organic blanket and throw

  • Pingback: Merino wool neon blanket wrap

  • Pingback: Uni Bank Panama corrupcion

  • Pingback: source painting

  • Pingback: xxx

  • Pingback: russia

  • Pingback: great supplies

  • Pingback: daniel0516

  • Pingback: buy likes on instagram

  • Pingback: discount coach handbags online store

  • Pingback: gas engineer jobs abroad

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: wellness

  • Pingback: beginners course to saxophone

  • Pingback: descuentos

  • Pingback: CAN 2015 streaming

  • Pingback: cheap ammo

  • Pingback: viagra store

  • Pingback: mindfulness meditation

  • Pingback: vegan

  • Pingback: Get free money

  • Pingback: music therapy

  • Pingback: pantofi la reducere

  • Pingback: zahnarzt heidelberg

  • Pingback: solutions

  • Pingback: air ambulance card

  • Pingback: maduras

  • Pingback: stryker hip recall lawsuit

  • Pingback: happy birthday to you

  • Pingback: investment

  • Pingback: orijinal lida

  • Pingback: Instagram private profile viewer

  • Pingback: online life assurance

  • Pingback: Digitized Canvas Measuring

  • Pingback: http://www.kutahyasanaltur.com

  • Pingback: vapor wholesale

  • Pingback: cps

  • Pingback: gambling

  • Pingback: Illinois Process Servers

  • Pingback: free sexy models

  • Pingback: clothing

  • Pingback: fancy walking sticks

  • Pingback: learn to sing vocal harmony

  • Pingback: novelty techpoint

  • Pingback: menopause supplement reviews

  • Pingback: learn to sing course

  • Pingback: naples

  • Pingback: muslim marriage events

  • Pingback: buy traffic

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: Emanuel Laflame

  • Pingback: buy moncler

  • Pingback: JVZoo API

  • Pingback: L?s mere om dyrl?ge

  • Pingback: pet sitter


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X