How Modern Science Proves A Critical Aspect of the Genesis Creation Narrative

How Modern Science Proves A Critical Aspect of the Genesis Creation Narrative June 14, 2017


Can modern science prove that Genesis 1 is actually true?

Yes, but not in the way you’re thinking.

Too often Christian discussions around Genesis and the connection to science focus on debates that are ultimately irrelevant. For example, whether or not the days in Genesis were actual 24 hour days, metaphorical for longer periods of time, or a completely poetic bronze age attempt to explain the origins of the universe, is ultimately irrelevant to how we live in the here and now.

Regardless of what portions of Genesis may be poetic, metaphorical, or rooted in fact, there is still a host of truth to be found in the creation account– truth that can often be missed when we get caught up in debates that ultimately don’t change how we live and experience life.

The good news is that modern science can in fact prove what may be the most important claim in the opening pages of Genesis.

The creation account follows a rhythm and beauty that flows with order and repetition. There are days of creation where each area of the world is created in a specific order, and after each movement of this beautiful dance we see God step back and declare it all to be “good.”

God creates, and then calls it good.

God creates, and then calls it good.

God does this dance for six “days.”

Eventually God rests, and then invites his image bearers to continue the pattern of creating and finding goodness in what has been created.

However, there’s one part of the Genesis narrative that doesn’t follow the flow and pattern. One part that stands out. One part that is a very important truth that can now be scientifically proven as true.

This critical part of the narrative?

It’s when God steps back and looks at Adam and says something he hadn’t said before– something that stood opposed to how he felt about everything else he created, when he admired it in contentment and simply said, “This is good.”

With Adam he saw something different and actually said, “This is not good. It is not good for him to be alone.”

This critical realization that it’s not good for people to be alone– this realization that a life best lived is a life spent in meaningful relationship and connection with others, is actually proven by modern science.

A recent article in the New York Times bears witness to this, as they recount study after study that has linked a long and healthy life to meaningful relationships and positive social interactions. Here are some of the research findings compiled from various studies covered in the article, showing that this key statement in Genesis is scientifically true:

  • People who have meaningful relationships with others have higher rates of happiness, less health problems, and live longer.
  • People who feel disconnected from relationships have a death rate that is 3 times higher than those who don’t.
  • People who smoke, are obese, or who do not exercise, but who do have meaningful relationships, tend to outlive people who take great care of their health but who are socially isolated. Another study showed that social isolation can be just ask damaging to your health as unhealthy habits like smoking.
  • Meaningful relationships can dramatically reduce the death rate for people who have had serious medical events or illnesses, like a heart attack.
  • Social isolation can contribute to: less blood flow to vital organs, lower immune systems, slower wound healing, inflammation, and a host of other illnesses.

So, does modern science prove Genesis to be true?

It doesn’t the way some might like it to, but it does prove this one, critical truth– a truth of the ultimate relevance, because it directly impacts how we live in the here and now, and how we invite others to live, as well.

The truth we know, both from the Bible and from modern science, is that God was correct in the very beginning– it’s not good to be alone. It’s not good to be socially isolated or detached from meaningful relationships.

It’s actually very, very harmful. It can even make the difference between someone living or dying.

I hope the acceptance of this truth will invite us to rethink how we live in a variety of ways. First, I hope we will remind ourselves that God intends for us to cultivate community, to cultivate relationships, and that this effort is every bit as important to our overall health as any other health related choice one could make.

I also hope this invites us to rethink how we treat others– because when you sever relationships with people over minor theological or secular political differences, when you shun people from church, when you tell LGBTQ people that their only hope of being accepted by God is to romantically isolate themselves and resist being in any meaningful romantic partnership, when you put up barriers in your church to keep people out instead of building a bigger table to invite more of them in, the damage you do to others might very well be unspeakable.


Because the Bible tells us that it’s actually bad for us to be socially isolated or disconnected– and modern science proves that part of Genesis to be true.

Follow BLC on Facebook:

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Don Lowery

    For some of us…this is the only thing we know from being raised in a environment of neglect. Add to that with society doing everything they can do to help this along with killing people who need the help the worst…things are going to get worse.

  • ZackBop

    [when you tell LGBTQ people that their only hope of being accepted by God is to romantically isolate themselves and resist being in any meaningful romantic partnership]

    God loves LGBTQ people. Anyone who honestly follows Jesus would have to come to that conclusion. However, this statement here SEEMS to be suggesting that it’s impossible to believe that celibacy is the only appropriate form of sexual behavior for a person with same-sex attractions, despite that being what the biblical narrative points to regarding marriage and human sexuality.

    No one should say to a gay person that they’re only acceptable to God when they’re celibate, but I don’t think one needs to deny what God’s standards for marriage are.

  • This is why most secular Humanist don’t feel a need to have a god determine that we should not be alone. Science tells us that without the need for a god.

    Most secular humanist have already recognized that we only have each other and it does not matter who you love as long as your relationships provide meaning, community and does not injure others. It would be nice if everyone thought that way rather than divide into tribes.

  • JenT

    Okay I get it, best place to all of this snuggle fest is via Church. But am a toxic person. If you saw me @ grocery shop or walking my dog or even at my Councler’s office, you will see a smiling almost happy person. I’m a giant & sing songy voice! But truth is I was raised in a toxic home & @ 51ys old I am pissed off that Humanity is what it is. I am pissed off that God allows Baby Rape. It’s an All time High!
    1 in 10 men are a Rapist on some level. It’s disgusting that Rape is Still thing…starting smell my toxic? Today is my daughter’s 32nd Birthday! She was so tiny & now. Successful Functioning adult So is my son! I am Blessed! But my daughter severed all ties to me. I am NOT allowed to Wish her Happy Birthday…. last thing, yes I under many drs care including antidepressants! So tell me….want to share a meal with me?! #ThankUJesus for Dogs & Cats

  • I’m certain that you did not intend to shame people who are alone by posting this blog. I give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you’ve never been alone like I have and don’t know what it’s like. In my humble opinion My life proves that being alone is bad for mental and physical health!! I struggle everyday mightily not to feel sorry for myself. sometimes I don’t succeed!!! There are statistics that show that people with severe mental illness are likely to lose 25 to 30 years off their life expectancy. God doesn’t make junk!! There are some reasons of systemic violence to take into account and you see people being alone, homeless, abandoned, betrayed and abused who are powerless to change much of the circumstances they find themselves born into. You know they Sometimes totally give in to the dark side and look for scapegoats and victims to project their pain on. To live otherwise than the way I am living alone would be a treat!! I live on a daily reprieve from drugs and alcohol abuse. It’s got to be enough of pleasure for me to get through my day sober. with my higher power it’s possible. To not see myself as a victim I must not compare myself to what I think others are getting and to be honest when I get around people who seem to have more of a community and connections with people than I do I get extremely jealous!! Damn!! if you wanted to explode a boil on people who experience loneliness like gut-shot bear you certainly are waving a red flag here with this post!!

  • Bill Burchard

    Excellent perspective. Thanks for sharing!

  • Steven Waling

    It isn’t impossible to believe any old nonsense you want to. Doesn’t make it any less nonsense though.

  • Herm

    Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

    John 14:19-21 (NIV2011)

    All of God (our Father, our Messiah, and all children born of the Spirit who immerses each individual of God to be one), who Man is in the image of, is such a close knit social being that each is in each other bound by the love of all as one self; heart, soul, strength, mind. Love is the unilateral preemptive connection of compassion, empathy and forgiveness for our neighbor (especially when our neighbor is our commanding Lord God in us and we in Him) as we each would have our neighbor be compassionate, empathetic and forgiving to us. So much so, that we would die on our cross so that our neighbor does not have to.

    Because Jesus, the Son of Man, lives so do all the children of God, born of the Spirit, live … eternally. That’s in the Bible beginning in Genesis. We all need an Eve (a helper), no matter our racial, religious or sexual differences, to live.

    Egotistical narcissists, like religious bodies that split from the good of mankind for “their righteous kind”, do not make constructive helpers for all of the heart, soul, strength, mind of Man as one. Live long and prosper as one together, die alone. United we stand, divided we fall. Pick your poison.

  • Seumas McCoo

    When I was instructing catechumens I always argued that the proof was the big bang when Got created light, which was the result of the Big Bang. everything else was merely commentary

  • ZackBop

    I wouldn’t call the biblical narrative’s definition of marriage (which Jesus affirms) “nonsense,” but okay.

  • Major Major

    Instead of this narrative in the bible about Adam and Eve, why can’t it just be that we evolved as a social species? It seems to me to make more sense that our well being is better explained in that context than try to juxtapose an old bible story.

  • DavisR

    Thank you for this contribution. For what it’s worth, one other person similar to yourself, took notice and appreciates it. For whatever reason for many of us, life is like trying to drive into a roundabout but can never get a clear shot in, or going to a function and all seats are taken. No room in the inn for us. Not for lack of trying on our part, either, for those who would argue self pity.
    After a while, you get so used to it, when someone does try to show kindness or make you feel that you belong, you are skeptical, all the while wanting just a piece of what other people have socially.

  • mirele

    A couple of things here. First is something I’m not an expert on, but the fact is *we don’t know* what Jesus did or did not say, we know what four followers thought was important to write down. Yeah, that’s pretty harsh, but deal with it.

    Now, here’s something I am an expert on, as I once was a lawyer. From a modern (post-mid1900s) American legal perspective, “God’s standard for marriage” leaves women in a bad place. “The two shall be one flesh” was used to justify reducing married women to the status of minor children. Married women couldn’t make their own contracts or open their own businesses without their husband’s consent (oh it most certainly didn’t go the other way around). It was used to keep women off juries, women from owning their own property, women from having separate credit records from their husbands, I could go on and on…basically, women were *owned* when they got married.

    Now, tell me again about “God’s standard for marriage,” since we (a) don’t exactly know what Jesus said about it and (b) we know its deleterious effects when in the hands of sinful humans.

  • Rhinnie

    There are plenty of other animal species for who it is “not good to be alone.” Plenty of species need social interaction to remain healthy, humans are not the only ones. Also, why would God make everything good and then suddenly make a mistake?

    To me this just further proves how The Genesis creation story is just that, a story, not fact.

  • James McClymont

    Holy crap…

    Evel Knieval would have been amazed at the magnitude of that leap!

  • Scott Harrison

    How I want all this to be true! About it all being good. But the agonistic-misotheist in me comes to the fore – together with the pessimistic antinatalist – to challenge these largely mythic creation presuppositions. I can’t help but think of the millions of years in which dinosaurs ripped each other apart and wondering what God had in mind if He considered this “good”. And we need not even raise the ethical issues surrounding disease and decay which are a part of the fabric of existence itself, and have been a part of existence well before sentient man came along and ate the proverbial forbidden fruit. Is everything “good”? Watching cancer devour a child’s body, or seeing the creatures of the deep attacking each other is a cause for reflection, and man’s inhumanity to man and all he suffers from plague and natural disaster make me question the nature of the “good” you write of. And if it isn’t good for man to be alone then the whole of “creation” has a major design fault: death, disease, aging, the acts of violence done by man towards man (because of God’s gift of freedom) are all a source of profound isolation and loss, that was intuited by the omniscient God before the creation.

  • Brandon Roberts

    so basically you just don’t want to give up your faith so your jumping to conclusions?

  • Scott Harrison

    Yes I did go down the rabbit hole rather! Revisiting the post and my reply I see was a bit off track. Better not to be alone in principle yes, although some of the fighting that goes on in relationships could lead to an opposite view;)

  • *Views discussion* – Okay, I get why lonely, isolated people are ragging on you for this – this just being a reminder of their state, what I don’t get is why all of the agnostic/atheist types here feel the need to rag on you for simply saying “Hey, we can all agree that human interaction is important, right?” You’re simply saying that something written in the Bible happens to line up with science and some known common sense and suddenly people are harping on you for it.

    Excuse me, people: This is a blog on a religious channel with messages aimed, primarily at a religious audience. You have the right to read it, of course, but with all the complaining, I feel like you’re coming here just to “slum it.”

  • SamHamilton

    Thanks, good thoughts.

  • ZackBop

    As a lawyer, you should know that an argument from silence is meaningless. Jesus affirms the biblical narrative’s definition of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6). He doesn’t affirm any other type of marriage covenant.

    The negative consequences for women were the result of dealing with an ancient culture that wasn’t as progressive as we are today. But the point remains that the Bible ONLY speaks of God’s IDEAL for marriage in one specific context: that of a loving relationship between a man and a woman.

    Anything else is simply writing things into the text that aren’t there.

    Now, you don’t have to AGREE with the Bible’s definition of marriage. But I also think it’s disingenuous to claim that it’s not what it clearly says it is.

    And of course, none of this is to say that Christians shouldn’t love gay people or welcome them into their churches. They absolutely should. We’re just specifically talking about what a MARRIAGE is (as defined by God and affirmed by Jesus).

  • Zeiglarre

    As I understand the article, the point was not “relationships only exists because of God” but rather, “here is something in which a particular sacred text actually agrees with a modern understanding.” The larger message, as it seems to me to be, is that truth can be found in Scripture no matter how people may disagree on the type of truth found there. Even those who find no particular authority in Scripture can find truth in its pages. Luther is supposed to have said that Scripture contains the Gospel as the manger contained the baby Jesus – of course, there was a lot of straw in the manger, too. My point is that no matter what presuppositions (hermeneutics) one brings to the reading of the Bible, truth can be found in its pages. Just be some parts are indigestible for some, doesn’t mean there isn’t any nourishment to be found.

  • mirele

    Oh, please. Don’t make me drag out the examples of how the “definition of marriage” is far more loosey-goosey in Biblical times than you’d have it be. No, I am going there.

    First, we could talk about the polygamists. You know, Abraham, the father of three faiths, but also married to two women. David, that guy called “a man after my [God’s] own heart” (Acts 13:22). Solomon goes without saying. But let’s also talk about people who didn’t think the marriage covenant didn’t mean much.

    That’d be in Ezra 10, which is a description of a whole bunch of men dumping their foreign wives and children because they were foreign. How wonderful, how Godly, how much is this an example of how marriage is going to be that Ezra and his people went through and told the men to send away their wives and children? I think, rather, “how cruel,” “how unrighteous,” and “HOW WRONG.”

    You’ll pardon me if I find these examples of the “definition of marriage” and the “marriage covenant” to be awful.

    I’d also remind you that prior to the Civil War, slaves were not permitted to marry, because they were *property* and not people. That’s where the tradition of “jumping the broom” came from. Enslaved persons had a way of memorializing their relationships, even if the slaveowners didn’t recognize them.

    So, to me, the notion that we’re opening marriage to LGBT persons is not such a big deal, considering that the “marriage covenant” can be seen as not honored in some Biblical examples and how so-called “good Christians” didn’t let their “property” (other living human beings) get married because they weren’t considered to be “people.”

    You’re just going to have to get used to the fact that there are marriages you don’t approve of, just as 50 years ago this week there were interracial marriages not approved of by many people in the USA, but they’d been made legal by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

  • Herm

    Scott, I wonder, as I read through your very well written contemplative and introspective comment, whether you consider your life of heightened responsible awareness, apparently with the most freedom of choice to consequence of any other animal species on earth, an opportunity to be desired or do you consider your life an unwanted prison in torture sustained for the duration only by an instinct to survive.

    This is in no way a judgment or admonition. I simply would like to know how you personally value your life as a human being.

  • Herm

    Rhinnie, there is not one other animal species on earth who demonstrates to chronicle any form of a relationship with spirit, outside of their physical social constructs. Just that you are here says that you wonder of the possibility of relationship in spirit. You are not alone, for mankind has offered evidence to their spiritual wonderment, on cliffs, on cave walls, with structures, in pictorials and through written words for well over 12,000 years now.

    But then, all that historical evidence of mankind’s social quest beyond carnal really comes down to Man’s evolving social story containing developing fact laced with unintentional fiction. When we sense fear or joy when entering into a social relationship don’t we always pursue what facts must have instilled those feelings, or flee in ignorance when either might be too much for us at the time?

    Genesis relates to where mankind was in their pursuit 1,200 years before Christ was an influence on earth. It has been 1,984 years since Christ passed on from a carnal influence. Do you think, maybe, we have more facts of creation and relation with life in spirit than we had 3,100 years ago? How much further do you think we might have before we know for absolutely certain all the “facts”, beyond story, relative to our creation?

    I know my wife loves me but have no facts, beyond story, to prove it to you. I have faith that she will always love me, as I will her, but no facts to back that up for you beyond story. What I have written relative to our budding relationship during its creation was so primitive compared to today, some twenty years later. It would have been a story without the test of time, in the beginning, but the facts of love in our growing relationship together as one were just as true then as it is now, proven only after the fact and not possible in the beginning.

    My relationship with and in God, as well as with my wife, is just a story to you, not fact to you. To God and I, our relationship is fact founded on faith that it will continue without pause or end supported by reciprocal love. When reading the Genesis creation story I learn from the author’s perspective long ago, relative to earth time, what was fact that stands the test of time and what was only human conjecture sincerely founded on what made the most sense at the time.

    From any beginning all the way to the final end it is good when we help each other to never be alone, striving for one Man made up of all Eves and Adams bound in love for each other, each different with all having something constructively unique to offer the whole of mankind. It is good when Man is regulated as God is regulated on the fact that it is good that in everything we do to others as we would have others do to us. That’s my story which is, to me, fact.

  • Scott Harrison

    Herm, I sincerely thank you for this question.
    I really need a little time to think about it, before responding.


  • Al Cruise

    ” how we live in the here and now, and how we invite others to live, as well.” I very much agree. We should not call ourselves “Christians” as our primary Spiritual definition. We should call ourselves Heirs to the Kingdom of God , along with all our other Sisters and Brothers who have chosen the same path and could be Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, Catholic, Indigenous Faiths, etc.

  • otrotierra

    Thank you Al. I always learn something with each post of yours. Many thanks.

  • Liam

    Oh, like Xtians who troll the atheist channels and sites?

  • Liam

    Well, duh. 5 thousand years of mythology reflect an aspect of humanity. There is no surprise in that at all

  • Herm

    Scott, you flatter me by realizing the sincerity of my query, thank you.

    By your response (which I cannot find posted beyond my email), I now am wondering whether it is not the empathy, compassion and forgiveness (the large parts of true and constructive love as I understand it to be for self and others) that you have expressed today, even in your apparent profound grief for others lost, that you find the will, even possibly a welcomed anticipation for tomorrow, to continue until this opportunity of minute influential realization ceases.

    As to agnostic misotheism, I personally didn’t know for certain that I acknowledged God beyond tradition until I first hated them full force right in Their face, eye to eye, toe to toe. That was 30 years before I knew that I had finally made the transition from physical (finite in all dimensions) awareness, as my prime foundation for valuation, to an awareness from the perspective of spirit (infinite and eternal) as my certain basis for valuing all life, including all its support systems.

    Now, I don’t hate God, as all my hate is focused on any spirit, individual or collective, that chooses to separate any piece of the fabric of life to promote self-indulgence in any form; family, nation, religion, species, race, gender, etc. first and foremost before all other life. I found that God’s spirit seeks to unite all life in all life when each chooses to love the entirety of life more than any separate part of life. To that Spirit I can pledge my pitifully minute influential all, as support from within as one of the carnal and spirit whole, for as long as I am able, all the while learning to appreciate more fully every day the rewards of love for all, in both joy and in pain shared.

    Love you and your accepting responsibility to awareness of feeling for yourself, yours and all.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    No one writing any of the four gospels lived when Jesus lived, they wrote stories told to them by parents, grandparents, and those much older than they were.

  • Rhinnie

    I guess I wasn’t totally clear in my concise post, but my criticism was more the idea that science can be used to prove the Genesis story. In no way am I suggesting that the Genesis story is unimportant, I think we gain a lot from mythology and stories. Testimony is highly important! And yes, in regards to spirit, I would argue that story is more important than fact.

    Apes and monkeys are highly social creatures who have stress reactions in the same way we do we just have the self awareness that they lack. Dogs are also highly social. In fact, domesticated dogs have started reading facial expressions the same way humans do. I don’t think it is good for these creatures or any creatures to be alone — we all rely on each other and God.

    On a side note, I do not believe that we are the only part of God’s creation which has spirit. Just because species have not evolved to our extent does not mean it is impossible for them to do so. God says the lion will lay with the lamb, and yes that probably a metaphorical statement but he used something very tangable; something that seems impossible.

  • John Purssey

    No trolling anywhere is useful.

  • John Purssey

    But stories can be good. Our lives are filled with stories such as Shakespeare and the Bhagavat-Gita and the Lord of the Rings. They can be useful narratives to understand aspects of life, more than just entertainment. But different horses for different courses.

    Stories are more than Just stories. Some parts of the Genesis story are ideas about “why is it so?”.

  • And you know this how?

  • Thanks Ben. I know there was a typo in my bible. It should read God created Adam ans Steve….

  • Rhinnie

    Why is it at all important to look to science to prove stories? It isn’t, as you pointed out and I agree with you.

    And see my other response…

  • David Cromie

    Are you actually saying that it took an imaginary ‘god’ to alert mankind to the fact that social isolation was not good for them?

    As humans we are social animals, which is why we have survived for so long, apart from the few that have fallen by the wayside.

  • David Cromie

    There is no evidence, whether written or archaeological, that any man-god named JC ever lived. The so-called ‘bible’ is an ancient collection of myths, legends and folklore. So, if anyone wishes to read these stories, it is best to treat them as literature, or for amusement, just as you would read Harry Potter, or any other fiction, and as nothing else.

    Only after believers have adduced the irrefutable, falsifiable evidence for the reality of their favourite ‘god’, can anyone take these stories as being more than they actually are – until then they remain superstitious fiction based, as they are, on Pagan originals.

  • There is also no evidence to refute the bible’s prophetic or archaeological pronouncements. One example is the flood of Noah’s day. Debate exists only as to the extent of the flood not the fact that there was a flood.

    As to prophecy, the one you may want to think about is the state of the world prior to the return of Jesus: My favorite at the moment is John 16:2: They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

  • Al Cruise

    My Bible has one too. It should read , Jesus said ” Blessed are those who are conservative evangelicals and vote Republican and oppress the poor and marginalized.”

  • Realist1234

    It should be noted that for a significant period, the general scientific consensus was that the Universe had no ‘beginning’ but was eternal in nature. When the Big Bang Theory was postulated, some scientists did not like it precisely because it supported the first verse of Genesis. The vast majority of physicists now accept there was a definite beginning to the Universe.

    So in this respect, the findings of science has backed up Genesis.

  • Realist1234

    I would argue we were designed to have a need for others, and science simply backs that up.

  • Ron McPherson

    Dang Bob, did you just miss this part within the article or do you just not give a rat’s?

    “I also hope this invites us to rethink how we treat others– because when you sever relationships with people over minor theological or secular political differences, when you shun people from church, when you tell LGBTQ people that their only hope of being accepted by God is to romantically isolate themselves and resist being in any meaningful romantic partnership, when you put up barriers in your church to keep people out instead of building a bigger table to invite more of them in, the damage you do to others might very well be unspeakable.”

  • I think that is equally stupid. I also doubt Mr. Corey ever trolls (I don’t imagine he would have the time). Since when has “But THEY’RE doing it!!!” ever made anything right?

    Just know this: Have your fun if you will, but it’s doubtful that it will actually change anyone’s mind. Trolling of any sort baffles me because I just don’t see the goal in it.

  • Fundamentalists troll here, too, by the way, I’ve seen it. I actually know the handles of a couple who hang around the Progressive Christian sites. Frank is a frequent flyer. Then there’s Rocket who bothers the good folk at Slacktvist (It’s a mix of people there, Christians, Pagans…I think most of the commentators there are Atheists, they just happen to like Fred Clark, the blogger)… The general response since they can’t all be taken care of through flagging, is the rampant sharing of baking recipes among the regulars to relieve tension and show the trolls they have no power.

  • David Cromie

    Where is your irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for the existence of any supernatural entity?

  • Herm

    Scott, you just wrote, “It seems to me that you have managed to resolve the knots the likes of which still have me tangled up. This gives me hope.

    From my spiritually infantile vantage (a good view because I am no longer over-whelmed by trying to instantly grapple with the omnipotence-omniscience-omnipresence my Father and Brother do so well without me) there are no over whelming knots to untangle, except those I am given which are only to learn from to tie, untie, and retie manageable one at a time.

    It seems, from my view, that you present of yourself as my sibling confidant, that you are bound by your choosing to be the responsible guardian for the family of God. It is like yours and my mature elder siblings, along with mom and dad, have all gone off to work, leaving the home of us children to be managed by us infants, and here you stand up to take charge as the most responsible for all. Right now, you find the good tasks of caring for those you love are overwhelming the few skills of life that you feel you must apply to the life and death nurture of your needy siblings. You are attempting to take the responsibility for all of the restricting knots that our mature spiritual guardians gave each of us children to learn hand-eye coordination, patience while working through puzzles, and the joy of overcoming our small challenges (small compared to those challenges for those who provide all that we must have to live).

    The freest each of us has physically and socially ever been was when we were most restricted to only be responsible to do within the limits of our immaturity. Think back to where you didn’t even realize how tied up in knots you could be because you took for granted the fact that you could not provide shelter, clothing, transportation (before you could crawl), nutrition, nurture and love for yourself, because others did for you. You were free from looking any further ahead than learning to be in the moment. You took lesson by lesson until, in your carnal world, you could grow to become one of the providers for your children.

    Now, Scott, you find yourself attempting to be the provider for God’s children when you cannot. God is spirit. Children of the carnal species Man have, at most, 120 revolutions around our puny, cosmically invisible sun to realize to accept their gifted image developing to become a child of God. Carnal has a beginning and an end. Spirit has no beginning and no end. The only dimension shared between carnal and spiritual life is time moving one irretrievable step at a time, for that reason forgiveness is in spirit a major component of love.

    I am a carnal adult. I am, simultaneously a spirit infant, possibly no more than a spirit fetus. I know to sense personally that infinity and eternity are most real even though I cannot quantify either in physical terms. I know that my Father and my elder Brother are omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent even though I can’t even begin to imagine how they apply each to provide for me and all my little siblings. I could not imagine the skills that my carnal parents had to have to provide life for me when I was an infant, or even a small child, or even an adolescent. I know Them because I am in Them who provide for me today on a scale of infinite and eternal. They, this moment, are in me and I can rest in that certainty of immediate and continual touch.

    I was one of the most fortunate of carnal beings, for as an infant I did not have to define my parents and supporting community to know with utmost certainty that they would provide all that I needed to survive through any possible pain, joy and rest. I knew and trusted in their love without needing to or being able to define love. I am one of the most fortunate of carnal parents, for all but one of my children survived to be responsible adults nurtured from what little I could provide for them when it was pitifully my all. I know what it is like not to have the omnipotence-omniscience-omnipresence to provide for those I love to be most responsible to (they who were mine by no choice of their own) that my Father and Brother do have and graciously gave from when I could not.

    This is to you Scott! If there is even the slightest chance that an omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent benevolent and most gracious spirit, with the concerted united focus of one, truly exists, to be providing, protecting and communicating with you exactly where you are, then in all humility (the meekness of little children who know they cannot possibly provide, protect and communicate to the degree necessary for their, and theirs, survival) then, please, risk to directly acknowledge what that spirit “might” have to offer you should you accept. You have full control of you, carnal and spirit, to accept or deny all offers that you acknowledge. The spirit body recognized as Scott is only made up of a unique combination of four parts; heart, soul, strength, mind. Spirit, as versus carnal, allows each to be in one another, working as one, when each heart and mind is receptive to the other bound in love; as the love of a neighbor equally as the love of one’s self.

    I accepted to become a fetus of God, at the age of 50, when I first opened my heart and mind to be with and in the Spirit of God as one without pause or end. The Spirit of God was then able to resolve all the knots that had me tangled. I now am challenged every day only by what I am mature and strong enough to resolve in my own time, most often with the familial mentoring I need to keep from giving up as though the puzzle was just too much for me to ever solve. I am now spiritually free, even more so than I was ever free as a carnal infant when I knew no more than that I was loved enough to focus on each little puzzle graced me that I could struggle through to grow without any concern to the necessities of life.

    Work is fun when we grow stronger through it but not when we are overwhelmingly smothered by it. I have never worked physically and socially harder, nor suffered through more body pains with scars, than when I “played” basketball in high school. All the lessons learned in having fun in basketball were later applied to survive for the most as a teammate when I went to Vietnam as a soldier at war. As a child of God in spirit I have been now taught, for the benefit of the most I love to survive spiritually, that carrying my cross for my enemy is, in the long run (eternally speaking), infinitely more productive and constructive than carrying my gun. My Father gives me chores to do that I get stronger from, my muscles tear without breaking. My Father does not give me chores to do, especially when He could do each so much better, simply to free Himself up for other things that He would much more prefer to be doing.

    Just be the you who realizes the whole that you love, feel a responsible part of, and chooses to be constructive and productive to it all as you are able. Accept to be one with and in the Spirit in your midst who you have expressed as seeming so distant. You can be no more than a very little child of God. Freedom in God is found only by accepting that what you are incapable of doing will be done by those of God who can. Accept that it is good that you empathize to hurt for all others who hurt as long as you can, also, empathize without any envy to enjoy for all others who enjoy. Let God, your divine family, lead you to those around you who most need one act of kindness today. None of us on earth can grieve the depth of falling spirits like those with the omnipotence-omniscience-omnipresence to know their breaking hearts and minds.

    This is just a little of why I may be tangled up. I was once well studied as a spiritual, social and physical intellectual working at a constructive hands-on level. I have since learned that I know very nearly nothing of what there is yet to learn by the end of eternity. You do not hear me quote my sibling feelers and thinkers for support though I listen to and read from them continually. I have one Teacher today who has proven that He knows exactly what I need for this moment and each moment to come. I am free to have fun at each recess period between lecture. I am free to sleep each night with no concern for tomorrow.

    When I say my God, I picture my divine family known by others outside the family as whatever their particular carnal family/community pictured to them in words as the Deity in charge.

    Be the free little child of spirit that you seem to so desire. You will be supported, without fail, to support your siblings in need as you are able. There is no reason to want to become a child of a wrathful, dictatorial, revengeful, authoritarian, narcissistic deity for an eternity. Where’s the fun in that?


  • David Cromie

    The only way to be free (i.e. be yourself), in this world, is to throw off the shackles of superstitious delusion, once and for all. Recognise myths, legends and folklore for what they really are – pure fiction!

  • I see no evidence of design in the need for others. We are social creatures just like other social creatures in nature.

  • Herm

    David, just how free are you? Explain, please!

  • Based upon Biblical scholarship the first gospel was written down at the earliest at the most generous is 50-70 Ad or 20-40 years after the death of JC. John was written aroun 100-120 AD or 70-90 years after the death of JC.

    Average life expectancy during JC time is estimate between 30-35 years.

  • There is no archaeological evidence of Noah’s flood story occurred as described in Genesis. Even floods identified as having occurred in Mesopotamia during the bronze age did not wipe out even local civilizations that existed. This would be critical if you want to believe that Jehovah wiped mankind from the world to start over with a minimal genetic sampling of just Noah’s family.

    Not to mention that the flood story was based upon other flood epics widely known at the time Genesis was written either during or after the Babylonian exile. The writer could have easily have heard of the other flood epics like the Epic of Gilgamesh.

    Also there is no history or archaeological record of other stories from the Old Testament like Exodus from Egypt.

    As for prophecy it is easy to write prophecy when the events have already occurred. And what about JC own prophecy in Matthew 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” That was a very precise and clear prophecy that did not occur during the lifetime of the Apostles. If you want to take the Bible as historically accurate how do you explain this failed prophecy?

  • Is your faith so weak that it is beyond discussion or question?

  • Clinton Max Walker

    Hang on, wait. Surely, Yahweh knew this when he designed or planned everything out in advance. He didn’t have to wait for Adam to get lonely. He designed Adam to be lonely without company and then made him without company. It’s absurd. How any one learns anything from this mess of a narrative, is beyond me. Why not just say human beings are social animals and have evolved to be psychologically dependent on human company?

  • The timeline is not based on biblical scholarship. It is based on certain biblical scholars who hold that view. It is by no means unanimous and that view is not provable in the strict sense anymore that the John of Revelation is the Apostle John. Many scholars believe that the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation including those alive in the fist century when memories were fresher.

  • I totally disagree that there is no archaeological evidence of Noah’s flood. But that is not the issue. The issue is that certain people deny the authenticity of the bible and will say or find anything to do that. My belief in the bible is based on fact and faith. If I found evidence that the bible was incorrect then and only then could I question it. But I haven’t.

  • The same place as your evidence that there is not a God. Atheists and Christians have debated the existence of God for thousands of years. However, there are more believers than non-believers.

  • The Left unfortunately cannot distinguish between fact and fantasy…

  • No, I did not miss that part. I just cannot allow Ben to try and make the bible say what he feels is correct when it plainly isn’t without comment.

  • Ron McPherson

    Wait Bob, aren’t you the one who said Trump would come in and fix everything gone wrong in government? That we would quickly see how government is supposed to work?

  • Yes. I stand by that. And we are. I will list his successes in later responses.

    The Left is consumed with fantasy at the moment but the
    Russian hoax is now debunked and they are pushing obstruction and it is a non starter.

  • No. I didn’t even mention “my faith” – or even whether or not I had any. I just get annoyed when I see people demanding things cater to them when you’re in the wrong place for it. Don’t go to a coffee shop and demand a beer.

  • Bones

    Perhaps you could try articulating an argument against the article but I think that would be beyond you….

    Btw God created Adam and Steve….and Ben and Ron and Bob and Bones…..

  • Bones

    Trump has admitted he is under investigation…..

    Seems someone else is in a fantasy.

  • Bones

    “So in this respect, the findings of science has backed up Genesis.”

    Apart from everything else in Genesis… walking, talking snakes, 6 day creation, God cursing women with difficult and painful childbirths, trees which give knowledge and immortality…etc…etc

    I wonder if these trees are still around in the Congo somewhere???

  • Liam

    “Since when has ‘But THEY’RE doing it!!!’ ever made anything right?”

    I first heard that crap from Right Wingers.

  • N/M.

  • David Cromie

    I am as free as I wish to be!

  • David Cromie

    Your post neatly encapsulates the problems arising from ‘interpreting’ fairy tales. Why do you think we have so many christian factions and cults in the world today?

  • David Cromie

    Biblical ‘scholars’ have determined that the world is about 6,000 years old, while others follow the biblical flat earth hypothesis. So much for biblical scholarship from professing christers.

  • David Cromie

    Have you actually looked for testable evidence for the truth of the so-called ‘bible’, and of your faith?

  • Oxford University Press, 1982) estimated almost 21,000 denominations, and the updated World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, Johnson; Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001) estimated at least 33,000. “Denomination” is defined as “an organised christian group within a country”.

    Certainly there is room for one more that believes the female Eve in Genesis 1:27 and 2:23 is a general reference to a relationship and a “minor theological or secular political differences” in the interpretation of the bible. After all there are enough children in the world now that the concept of marriage should be expanded right?

  • Herm

    Ah, such bliss! ,,. and you spend your brief time with such joy. Thank you for sharing your wealth of free time! God bless you David

  • David Cromie

    The fallacious Argumentum ad Populum rears its ugly head. In other words, the truth of a statement is not dependant on the number of people that believe it, any more than the claim in the OT that the earth is flat (as still held to be true by some people today), flattens it by one iota.

    But you have dodged answering my question!

  • The question sounds plausible at first. Why assume the bible is correct without scientific evidence. The bible and science must agree or one is wrong. The pope believed the world was flat; the bible said it wasn’t. Some people believe the bible says the world is only 6000 years old; science has proved that is not correct. Some people deny God’s Spirit acts on the universe to sustain it; science has found dark matter and dark energy.

    Faith is different. Faith requires belief before evidence. As faith grows evidence abounds. Remember many are called but few are chosen. Is that possibly because faith requires persistence. Faith can falter; that is why God asks if he will find faith on the earth when He returns.

  • David Cromie

    The relationship referred to was incestuous (ignoring the fact that any clone of a male would also be male), and we know that such sexual relationships would lead to sterility within a few generations! Check out the fate of the Spanish branch of the Hapsburgs. The same fate would have befallen the Noah clan after the supposed Great Flood. Yep, another dead end!

    Marriage is not a condition precedent for having children, if that is what you are hinting at.

  • David Cromie

    I suspect you will be waiting for a very long time to list Trump’s ‘successes’! His failures will not take very long.

  • Ron McPherson

    “I will list his successes in later responses.”

    Please don’t lol

  • Nick

    I would guess you open the edit option and delete all text. Best of luck.

  • Realist1234

    Who’s to say those other creatures werent designed too?

  • I did. There is no direct physical evidence of spirit beings; only indirect. The fact that more people believe in God than do not is strong evidence for God’s existence. This is because there in no way to compel people to believe in God and really not many trying to do so at this time but belief still abounds.

  • Let me clear lest my sarcasm is misinterpreted. God ordained marriage between a male and a female in order to perpetuate the species. He could have simply created human beings as He did angels but he did not. God had declared relations between same sex individuals wrong. Certain men have decided that God is either wrong or did not mean what He said because they seek legitimacy.

  • President Trump will continue to fulfill his campaign promises one by one:

    He realigned the conservative stance of the supreme court.
    He has stopped the outflow of corporate jobs to foreign countries.
    His efforts to stop illegal immigration have already staunched the inflow.
    His foreign policy has put the world on notice that we are going to stop Islamic terrorism in the most aggressive way possible; not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and not give away our money to support the Left fantasy known as Global Warming. In a word think Otto Warmbier.
    His budget when passed will shrink government and stop additional deficit spending.
    What failure can you report?

  • Too late. See my reply to David Cromie…

  • I bet if I check your birth certificate it will not list God as your father…

  • Ron McPherson

    LOL! His approval rating is lowest in history at 35%, he’s alienating our allies, his administration is covered in controversy, his cabinet could jump ship any moment, he tries to hold on to his rabid base thru Twitter, he puts his staff under impossible circumstances and potentially incriminates himself in public rants. Oh yeah, he knows how to govern all right.

  • David Cromie

    Is this another example of christer ‘logic’?

  • David Cromie

    I ask you again, since when do people have to be married in order for them to be able to procreate? Even same sex couples can have children (surrogate mothers, or fathers, as required), and bisexuals have no problems either.

    The fact that two people of the same sex fall in love is its own legitimacy! If your supposed ‘god’ did not want this to happen, then it would be impossible.

  • His approval rating is at 50% reported by Rasmussen on Friday.
    There is no controversy at all. It is all Fake News and has been reported by by both sides of the Senate.
    Everyone who voted for him will vote for him again.
    He is there to right the wrongs of the Left over the past eight years and the Left knows he will do so.

  • Since the beginning of recorded history marriage between a man and a woman has been the norm. Where were you?
    Same sex couples and adoption are not the norm for procreation.
    Falling in love is not the legitimacy that same sex couples seek. The seek legitimacy before God. Something that has been denied them despite changes in civil law.

  • Ron McPherson

    Poor Bob

  • David Cromie

    Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

  • Realist1234

    Dont take my word for it.

    As physicist CJ Isham wrote “Perhaps the best argument in favour of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support their theory.”

    Physicist W Bonner rejected a Big Bang model featuring a finite past in the belief that it lends support to divine creation.

    Sir John Maddox, former editor of ‘Nature’ judged the Big Bang theory as ‘philosophically unacceptable’ and that ‘creationists have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang.’

    So it would seem it is scientific ‘logic’.

  • Etranger

    It is wrong to say it is not good to be “alone”. Might be better to say it is not good to be lonely or permanently isolated. I do like that the article stresses the importance of “meaningful relationships”. Just being “social” is not necessarily a recommendation for everyone. We definitely have social pressure to be “extroverted”. The science doesn’t actually back that up.

  • Al Cruise

    The right can’t distinguish between politics and faith. No that’s not totally true, their politics is their faith.

  • Al Cruise

    “What failure can you report?” Their is no failure to report for Upper middle class and wealthy whites. Most of the things he has done will benefit them greatly. I would call it a roaring success for that demographic.

  • kaydenpat

    Trump is the worst President of my lifetime. He’s a mess. Hopefully he’s impeached soon or otherwise thrown out of office. Mueller is working on it and isn’t playing around with his investigation.

    But keep hanging on to your Liar-in-Chief. When Trump goes down, you can go down with him and you can shout about his “successes” while you’re falling down with him.

  • kaydenpat

    No the Left knows that Trump is a huge mess, an embarrassment, a crackpot, a man who lacks self control, and someone who shouldn’t be near the White House. He has already come under criminal investigation and hasn’t even been in office for 6 months as yet.

    What a mess!! LOL.

  • Are you saying that Jesus was a conservative?

  • The Left had president Obama for 8 long years:
    What did he do for the poor – doubled food stamps?
    What did he do for the working class? Allow illegal immigration to run rampant and take their jobs?
    What did he do to stop the violence in our inner cities?

  • You will have the privilege of watching a president who can perform for eight long years as we have had to endure the worst president of all time for eight long and frustrating years. Trump is not under investigation. Perhaps you did not hear director Comey testify. Trump is not under investigation for firing Comey. Thiose are both lies of the Left. You need a good dose of Prager, Hanity or Rush to get educated.

  • President Trump was not and is not under any criminal investigation. Perhaps you did not listen to director Comey testify? The man you are describing just left the white house and good riddance…

  • kaydenpat


  • Have you considered why the bible is the most published book in the history of the world. This fact doesn’t even require faith.

  • kaydenpat

    Yawn. Blah blah blah. Trump is a mess. You have nothing to say to me about anything when you support a racist idiot and screw up like Trump.

    Can’t wait for him to brought down.

  • Bones

    No… wouldn’t be on yours either….

    Have you found Obama’s yet?

  • Al Cruise

    Conservatives blocked everything that would help the poor once they had control of the Houses. A recent study showed that if Trump got everything he wanted through , the people with over 100+ million net worth now, will move into the billionaires club at an unprecedented rate never before seen in history. Much of that money will get tied up in luxury properties, Yachts, private jets etc. There will be very little money circulated by them to produce any amount of jobs for ordinary people. Your right Bob, absolutely no failure here for the wealthy, Trump is very much a winner for them..

  • Goodnight Maxine…

  • As in the days of president Reagan the economy will grow and allow us to pay off the $9 trillion debt Obama racked up with nothing to show for it.

  • kaydenpat

    Maxine Waters is a national treasure so if that was meant as an insult, you need to try again.

    I’ll take Rep Waters over any Bigot on your side.

  • David Cromie

    It used to be ‘scientific logic’ that the earth was flat, or that the universe was geocentric, and so on. ‘Supernatural powers did it’ has never been shown to be the answer to any question about the cosmos.

  • David Cromie

    Why not strong evidence for a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an all powerful Unicorn in the sky?

    That a proposition is true does no depend on the number of people that believe it to be true, otherwise fairies must exist since they have been believed in by many people for centuries.

  • David Cromie

    Yes, I have, and it has little or nothing to do with its content!

  • If you are still debating the existence of God then you need to look no further than scale of the universe and the intellect man.

    The universe is so large that no man can even begin to relate to it yet we know how it was created, when it was created and that it is expanding. These attributes are found in the bible.

    While denying God may seem rationale it is myopic in the extreme.

  • Then what?

  • James Foxvog

    The jump from “not good to be alone” to affirming sexual relationships that God prohibits is a big one. Sexual relationships are not the only way of not being alone. Adam’s aloneness was being the only human.

  • David Cromie

    A presumption is not evidence of anything other than a superstitious Mediaeval mind set.

  • David Cromie

    Superfluous publication by interested, superstitious, parties with money to throw away.

  • D.M.S.

    That sounds like the theory of evolution.

  • Evidence

  • So you are against open discussion of ideas. Writers, regardless of belief, are expressing opinions and the fact that they provide a feedback forum for their opinions, one would think they are open to all feedback. Trying to demand that only those people who share the same ideas and opinions provide feedback only provides a bubble for everyone.

    This is the problem with Christian identity politics in the US. Christians do not want to hear any opinion or idea outside of their bubble because they believe they have the right answer. If people refuse to be open for ideas out side of their bubble then the divisions that exist within the US will continue to grow an those people (progressive religious people, secular humanists, and other progressives) who share may same ideas will never be able to combat the extrimest ideas of the evangelical christian, orthodox jewish and islamist theocracies.

  • No faith will keep you from seeing that there is no evidence for the bible as faith allows you to dismiss any evidence to the contrary that is what faith means.

  • Actually it is based upon consensus of biblical scholars. Nothing presented was anything other than consensus. As for those with memories the Life span of the average male was 30-35 years. Yet you are claiming that a book written around 96 AD

    Was written by someone who lived 3 times the average life expectancy along with anyone who could dispute what was written. There were no biblical scholars in the first century because nothing as been determined to be scripture. There were several other documents out there that were written at the same time that were not determined to be scripture after several battles.

  • David Cromie

    Displaying your abject ignorance again, I see!

  • Hermit

    Faith is pretending to know things you do not, or cannot know.

  • Hermit

    The bible is wrong about pretty much everything. It was written by primitive barbaric religiots and reflects their worldview. Pretending it means other than what it says requires delusional ideation.

  • Hermit

    “Freedom of choice” is entirely an illusion. Refer e.g. Sam Harris “The Delusion of Free Will”, or

  • D.M.S.

    Only in your world

  • If the Life span of males in the first century was 30-35 years then Jesus would have been dead soon after the time he started His ministry. And yes, the apostle John wrote down the words of God from Jesus given by an angel to John. Long age was a hallmark of many biblical patriarchs.

  • You may be in the small minority with that opinion. But for the sake of discussion can you provide two good examples of the bible being wrong?

  • Hermit

    Nothing can “prove the Genesis story”, because it is a pile of bollocks.

  • Hermit

    Rubbish. One of the people credited with having (independently) discovered the Big Bang theory was Georges Lemaître. He was horrified when Pope Pius XII declared that his theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism, asserting that his theory was neutral and neither connected nor contradicted his beliefs. Lemaître and Daniel O’Connell (the Vatican’s science advisor at the time) persuaded the Pope not to mention creationism or cosmology. Sensible, because we have moved beyond the idea of the Big Bang as a singularity to the idea that we can project back before the instantiation of spacetime, and that universes are continuously instantiated.

    In any case, even if the Big Bang were a singularity, the Genesis account would still stand as a monumental failure. See “Once Upon A Time in Genesis”.

  • Once again where is the evidence. I have shown evidence of life expectancy which is an average not a realization for every individual. Where exactly is John buried so that we can find out exactly how old he was when he died?

  • Realist1234

    per my response to David Cromie –

    ‘Dont take my word for it.
    As physicist CJ Isham wrote “Perhaps the best argument in favour of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support their theory.”
    Physicist W Bonner rejected a Big Bang model featuring a finite past in the belief that it lends support to divine creation.
    Sir John Maddox, former editor of ‘Nature’ judged the Big Bang theory as ‘philosophically unacceptable’ and that ‘creationists have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang.’ ‘

    As for your assertion that ‘we have moved beyond the idea of the Big Bang as a singularity’, that is simply untrue. Most physicists view the Big Bang as originating in a singularity, and struggle to understand that (ie relating quantum mechanics with relativity theory) never mind going ‘beyond’ the singularity. Yes some scientists have proposed other possibilities, but without much success.

  • Obscurely

    No need for an ideological meltdown! … I think Dr. Ben is just trying to find common ground between religion and science — you gotta problem with that? :)

  • Obscurely

    If you hover your cursor at the top right corner of your comment you’ll see a little triangle control that when you click, gives you a Delete option — you’re welcome! (don’t forget you can ask Mr. Google questions like, “How do I delete a Disqus comment?”)

  • There you go assuming things about me. Go ahead, assume what you want. I’ve been on public forums enough to know that everybody assumes everything about everyone.

    I’m just saying that “Ben Corey is a Progressive Christian who is addressing a generally Christian audience.” I don’t know how many of the conservative stripe read him, but by some of the people I’ve seen commenting on his past posts, I’d say he “reaches” some of them. In other words, as a Christian preacher, OF COURSE he is going to relate things to the Bible, including science things, pop culture things – any variety of things because THAT’S WHAT PREACHERS DO. When non-believers come here and get their shorts in a wad that “Oh noes! A preacher is relating something to the Bible! I am offended! He must completely say something else now that adheres to my worldview at once!’ – it doesn’t make much sense to me when you came into this blog knowing what to expect.

    You are perfectly within your rights to ask “Why can’t we think that humans just evolved pro-social behavior?” and you’re even within your right to wish all this religion-stuff didn’t exist and everyone thought as you did, but the fact of the matter is that not all people think like you, the Bible is a mythos that is important to some people and that preachers who write blogs about it are going to reference and go back to it.

    I read a lot of blogs on here at whim. I never go into the Atheist blogs here NOT expecting the bloggers to bash religion – even when I’m searching for a good general humanist-ethics posting and discussion – nor do I demand such (I generally just read and don’t comment if I find something on the front page that catches my eye). I read the Pagan blogs here and have occasionally commented (I have a particular one that I like over there, even though I’m not Pagan because I think the blogger has a lot of good general wisdom). I tread very lightly if I ever comment there, because I know the people there couch their language in their Gods and practices and aren’t going to do any different.

    I don’t think that things are beyond discussion, I just think it’s kind of childish to expect a blog to cater to you when it’s clearly labeled as outside of your club and comfort-zone.

  • Becky Mairi Farrell

    How can one person be 3 times more likely to die than another?

  • Herm

    You confuse Free Will with Freedom of Choice. Your statement assumes binary absolutes and final attainment. Comparatively, a human fetus is less free, more restricted by containment beyond their capacity to influence, than an intelligent, educated, experienced, healthy, caucasian, male, billionaire in the United States of America. The trade off from the overall perspective of the animal species mankind, is where when one increases in available freedom from increased capacity one, also, decreases in her/his freedom to exercise to the whole the excuse for not sharing, “if it were up to me”. We all have the freedom to apply what we have been given to apply. “The Delusion of Free Will” speaks more to capacity (which is relatively definable in comparison to others of Man) than unrestricted freedom of choice.

    Now, that said, Sam Harris speaks to what has enable him to make better choices with empathy and compassion for all others, which has as freed him from the restrictions of the traditions of His tribe of birth. It is not strange to me that the spirit guiding Sam resembles the Christ I know who has been freeing from my dependence (a slave to) the traditions of my tribe of birth and my will to become more responsible for the well being of my entire species. I can only choose from what I sense to choose from so I am highly restricted by ignorance. Because I care to be empathetic and compassionate for “Hermit” today I intently watched the “Free Will” video for possibly the fifth time, picked up more to be aware of, even though I have, also, read Sam Harris.

    No one animal, or individual from any form of life, has ever been or done exactly the same as any one animal before it. Each unique animal throughout time (or collective of animals coordinated as one) has been an influence which, when recognized and documented, has been attributed responsibility to the change apparently derived from their peculiar influence. The opportunity of life for the vast majority of human beings on this earth has more freedom of choice to apply influence than any other known species on this planet due to capacity. Human beings have more capacity to choose from to influence the will of others to be more productive, or destructive, in their choice of action for each moment of their lives. Our will is the power to begin to choose. Without the will to make a choice, time alone will ultimately influence the direction of action, or inaction, and be the most responsible for the ensuing result.

    If we see no reason to love another, even if not as much as one’s self, then we have no will to proceed for the other. If we see how each and every one of our species influences the well being of the whole of us, even if by instinct alone for the preservation of mankind, we have the will to make choices to influence the direction of our actions, based on what little we have available to make choices from. We are freest to exercise our motivating will most when we are influenced by mentors who share their increased awareness of the most different directions we can choose from. Tribes are limited by their shared environment so that most often the will of the tribe is that tribe survive above all else, for that is all they know. Species are only limited in their will for the maximum good by their capacity to communicate among their entirety so that most often the tribal survival becomes the dominating will to survive by isolation and/or extermination.

    Jesus Christ teaches something that no other influence within mankind had ever taught before. We are taught that empathy, compassion, and forgiveness for all others of our neighboring species as we are empathetic, compassionate, and forgiving for our selves leads to a longer life of joy and peace for our species and the majority of its members.

    Sam Harris has the will to teach the very same premise because he loves the whole of Man as much as his tribe. We each have the freedom of choice inspired by our degree of will to influence responsibly.

    Honestly, I have never been freer to choose than now when my adult will is to love all as I do myself. I love to apply my choices within the constraints only limited by what I have to work with and am influence by. It is freeing not being restricted by the traditions and limited vision of my tribe. It is most freeing now that I am mentored up to my full capacity by They who know my capacity and the needs around me.

    There is no illusion that I am totally free to will or choice. There is no illusion that I am any more than a minuscule fleeting influence to the whole of life. There is no illusion to the fact that I am held responsible to my capacity to desire, direct and share if in no other place in time than here to share with Hermit. It is my will that I choose to do to you, from the most I have available to choose from this moment, as I would have you do to me for the ultimate love of us, all of us.

  • Hermit

    I don’t take your word for anything. Or the opinions of the people you quote. That is not how science functions.

    Science is based on models that work, i.e. models that make testable significant predictions or projections, and that have not yet been superseded. Right now the best models available are quantum based, such as the Core Theory (Carroll, 2017) and M-theory (Witten, 1995), which not only address areas that the standard model cannot, but have resulted in accurate predictions in areas such as the fine structure, quantum tunneling, Higg’s Bosun, entangled particles and waveform collapse, and the Cassimir effect.

    The fact that “some scientists” “struggle to understand that” has no significance whatsoever. As Max Planck explained, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    See e.g. Lawrence M Krauss (2017) “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing” to understand how, being able to project the Feynman path Integrals back into negative time eliminates the singularity of the Big Bang.

  • Your comments provide clearest evidence that you believe we should remain divided into our “club and comfort-zone”. Fortunately you do not speak for the blogger or for the site.

    The fact that you are afraid you will offend someone is the reason that countries like Pakistan and Ireland still have Blasphemy laws. If a persons belief cannot be questioned then what good is that belief? It is founded on irrationality and lack of critical thinking.

  • Mark, your cites are not evidence of the life expectancy of men in the first century – they are opinion nothing more. And yes I believe the John in question was the apostle John living longer than men in the year 2017 can comprehend.

    Your forensic approach is not helpful in deciding whether or not John could live long enough to write Revelation. Legendary Christians like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement identified the apostle John as the author of Revelation. Notice below the comment about modern scholars and the confusion they try to inject without the slightest proof or new evidence.

    “The author names himself in the text as “John”, but his precise identity remains a point of academic debate. Second century Christian writers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Melito the bishop of Sardis, and Clement of Alexandria and the author of the Muratorian fragment identify John the Apostle as the “John” of Revelation.[1] Modern scholarship generally takes a different view,[2] and many consider that nothing can be known about the author except that he was a Christian prophet.[3] Some modern scholars characterise Revelation’s author as a putative figure whom they call “John of Patmos”. The bulk of traditional sources date the book to the reign of the emperor Domitian (AD 81–96), and the evidence tends to confirm this.[4]

  • Hermit

    I’m confused?

    Have you even read Harris? “Free will” Is the delusional ability to make conscious choices. It does not exist. Which makes a mockery of all religions and law relying on mens rea, as well as your arguments. What you do, you do because of your brain which reacts to stimuli based on genetics, epigenetics and experience. Not conscious control. Rather, the self-aware entity that is “you”, is presented with rationales for what your body is doing by your brain, after it has determined what your body is going to do, and you rationalize that this is the right thing to do and that you wanted to do it. You have no control over the decisions made by the underlying physical system in which you exist. You are a passenger who is kept quiet by the delusion of control.

    Your ideas about the so-called “Jesus” (not actually a name) “Christ” (not a name either) are asinine, reflecting a deep lack of knowledge both of the bible and earlier works. Reciprocity, as in the so-called “Golden Rule” is not sufficient to live an ethical life, but without which society would not exist and could not function. Reciprocity has been articulated since at least the third millennium before the current era. Meanwhile, Jesus’s parable, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'” had only one point, and it conflicts with your ideation. Stories about entities that will supposedly have people tortured forever in their presence are not conducive to the “nice” lessons you articulate. History, and the dire state of the environment reflect the underlying reality that religion evolved to exacerbate the differences between US and THEM, making wars larger, nastier and more decisive. It still fulfills its primary purpose more efficiently and effectively than any other mechanism.

    From your words, you seem a much better person than the imaginary god thingies you write about. That does not surprise me. Anyone who isn’t a literal cannibal probably is, it is not very difficult at all.

    Neither Harris nor I wrote about “totally free to will or choice” but about the fact that you have no control over the choices you imagine you have made This is no longer an issue to consider or discuss, it is an observation to internalize and accept. You don’t seem to be there yet.

  • Life expectancy is not an opinion it is calculated upon the best available facts and is determined by science

    What you clear demonstrate is the your faith overrides any evidence. Close to 2000 years later modern scholarship with its fast capabilities is unable say with any certainty who actually wrote the Book of Revelations. If this was truly the inspired word of god handed down to John surely there would be better proof than people who had vested interest in maintaining their place within the church as it was back then. What about the Revelations of Peter why was that not included? Surely it was written by Peter.

    Like I said no evidence that it was the author was John or that he lived that long. And forensic approach is the only way that we have to determine the truth of what happened. Any written document regardless of origin has to pass forensic study. Whether it be Plato, Irenaeus or an other historical figure.

  • Hermit

    Yes. Religion is delusional. That makes it harmful to the ability to differentiate between the real and the imaginary, and operates through increasing UTism (Us-versus-Them-ism), making the world a nastier and much more dangerous place.

    Science is an anarchistic portmanteau of methodologies intended to use intersubjective feedback to improve predictions and projections about significant things over time, and is reliant on differentiating between the purely imaginary and the more than purely imaginary, an ability which is permanently harmed by exposure to religion.

    The only common ground is that as we become more competent at neurological imaging, the better we become at identifying the etiology of religion and the more likely it becomes that we will eventually learn how to cure this self-inflicted psychosis if it does not kill us all first.

  • Realist1234

    Actually Krauss wrote his book in 2012.

    As physicist George Ellis commented on it –

    ‘He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

    Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy.

    As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

    And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions. It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy.’

    So Krauss does not actually answer the statement in the title of his own book. It is all pure conjecture on his part.

    I also noticed Krauss wrote a piece for the New Yorker in 2015 entitled ‘All Scientists Should be Militant Atheists’.

    Not what I would call an unbiased scientist.

  • Hermit

    The accuracy of something is not affected by the number of people who accept or reject it, and even in the USA, the number of people who consider the bible to be the supposed words of god thingies has declined to some 28% (Gallup 2017). So your thought may be a fallacy and incorrect.

    The Earth is “created” before the stars and before the sun in both of the Genesis myths. However the earth and sun contain many elements heavier than lithium which originated in stars, meaning that the stars had to have originated first, making the order in Genesis incorrect.

    The earth does not “produce” vegetation and it cannot grow without Sol to illuminate it and rain to provide moisture, so the order of events in both Genesis myths are incorrect.

  • Hermit

    Mainly because the life expectancy at birth in the first century Middle East was about 27 years, and the earliest nuclide dated fragments of these myths date to the third century CE and we know that they continued to be edited, elided, extended and miracles added into the 12th and 13th century.

  • I love this post :-D

  • You are correct that Yahweh did know that Adam would feel lonely, but He does not just fix everything immediately, He waits until an appropriate time.

    We didn’t evolve. There has been only one species of the genus homo. We appeared suddenly without any identifiable ancestor.

  • Adam was created a social creature needing companionship, but as you well know, a man should best develop and mature for several years before becoming married :-D

  • Hermit

    It is quite amusing. We know that if all the water on Earth were liquid and in the oceans (and 96.5% of it is already in the seas of the world), that it would reach a height of some 300 feet over current sea level. Many hills reach higher than that, let alone all mountains, some of which reach back 3.6 billion years or so. So if a flood of biblical proportions had happened, all it would have taken to avoid it would have been a bit of a walk up a hill to avoid being drowned.

  • Hermit

    The fact that you don’t understand that evidence needs to be intersubjectively verifiable, and interpreted correctly says more about you than about the bible.

    However, given your (however misplaced) confidence in the bible, I take it that you agree that modern people, with wheels of iron upon their carriages, need not concern themselves with the nasy primitive god thingies of the so-called bible, who are powerless against people whose carriages have wheels of iron :-).

  • Hermit

    Oh please. The hands over your eyes and fingers in your ears to attempt to wilfully avoid the evidence is belied by every cell in your body which tells the story of all your ancestors all the way back to the cyanobacteria which left fossil records dating back all the way to 4.28 billion years before present, some of whose DNA lives on in your mitochondrial DNA.

  • Clinton Max Walker

    You’re saying the alleged master of time and space had to wait for an appropriate moment – that being as soon as Adam fell asleep – before performing redundant surgery on him to create a genetic clone? Super appropriate. The more those invested in the story try to explain it, the creepier Yahweh becomes.

    The Bible can’t teach you Biology. You’d be forced to believe that insects have four legs if it did. And you know damn well that is complete nonsense. Apply that same ‘nonsense filter’ to the rest and you don’t have to struggle through the deafening sound of all those cognitive dissonance bells going off.

    So much time and energy spent denying reality to keep the Biblical fantasy alive. Where do you get the energy?

  • Hermit

    Don’t be ridiculous. Your lack of knowledge of the bible and history does not mean that there were no failed prophesies. For example, Ezekiel 26 explicitly states that the city of Tyre would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon and that Tyre’s land would never be built upon again. This simply did not happen. After a failed 13-year siege, Tyre accepted the suzerainty of Nebuchadnezzar. Tyre still exists.

    And you might meditate not only on the problem of the Jebusites (Joshua 3) but the fact that genetics and archeology show us that the Hebrews were actually Canaanites.

    You don’t need to worry about Jesus coming back. You should have figured that you have been stood up about a millennia-and-a-half ago, shortly after the I’ll-be-back rumor started.

  • Herm

    Yes, you are confused, thank you for that.

    Sit back, enjoy the ride, for you have absolved yourself and all others of responsibility.

    You truly have no concept of a reality of spirit. You biologically have determined all by what you know from a carnal breath of existence within which you seem to seek comfort by allowing the whims of winds to move you toward your journey’s end.

    You have chosen to assign primitive dimensions, as has Sam Harris, to free yourself of spiritual relationship.

    Reciprocity, as in the so-called “Golden Rule” is not sufficient to live an ethical life“, but reciprocal empathy, compassion, and forgiveness (love) is sufficient to begin to live an ethical life founded on to care for one’s self with equal enthusiasm as the whole. All life is predicated on struggle to grow from. Life without struggle atrophies.

    Where I am at you have yet, hopefully, to realize. I acknowledge my relationship bounded by infinite dimensions.

    I find that eating any dead flesh is as ethical as consuming any other dead flesh, if that flesh sustains living flesh. Choosing, as the only other alternative, to die is not ethical to the whole when such destroys any chance of your being a viable resource to your species. Life is the spirit of awareness and the flesh is no more than a physical representative container that will return to the earth from whence it came when the spirit is no longer aware within. I am wondering for what ethical reason you demean “a literal cannibal.” Murder is unethical to the body of Man for it destroys the potential of the spirit within to continue any opportunity to support its physical species. Consuming spiritless flesh, in and of itself, can only be considered unethical founded on misplaced grief for the loss of one of their own spirits.

    I am not religious in the worship of a deity I do not know. I am a functioning member of a spiritual family that in and of itself knows no beginning and knows no end. I know exactly what it is like to be in my family and my family in me at all times without pause, potentially without end (of which my carnal representation has none).

    Yes, you are confused and I wish I could help you through it. You seem to want to define all life in a nicely wrapped up package that you can ride to your end. How much did you define of your guardians from the perspective of your infancy that was the reality you know of them today? How much do you expect to define of all of anything in a maximum of 120 revolutions around our cosmically invisible, 4.5 billion year old sun?

    Religion is not the reason for our dire state of environment. Tribal ignorance fragmenting the whole for the gain of their few better defines the why of our destructive choices. Adult women and men, trying to excuse their responsibility to the big picture that they know they are mostly ignorant of to their even more helpless children, take a certain spiritual sense and use that to wrap everything up in their intellectual own package of self controllable comfort you refer to as religion. This nicely wrapped box being no more a reality of eternal and infinite relationship with the whole of spirit and physical than your concept regarding the delusions of the majority of mankind.

    All children use their gift of projection, using fantasy (to some delusion), to define their direction of pursuit in their life. To live the maximum any of us are physically allowed without the utilization of fantasy pretty much limits all to the facts they are incapable of digesting in that short span of time. The family of my youth, dependent upon my parents for survival physically, was not a delusion for that relationship was tested over time to be constructive and productive by tangible result. The family of my spirit, dependent upon my Father for survival spiritually, is not a delusion for this relationship has been tested over time to be constructive and productive by tangible result.

    My family does not sacrifice another’s life that we might be sustained. My family allows themselves to be sacrificed that others may not be. My flesh is yours to eat after my spirit is finished with it. Your choice!

    I cannot absolve myself, as you have, for mankind has no intellectual reason that I can delude my self with to die, ever, unless we individually don’t have the will to live constructively and productively for mankind’s longevity. I consciously choose to do the best I can, pitifully insufficient to succeed alone with all my inherent mortal impotence, to support my fellows of Man to survive as one species forever.

    Again, enjoy the ride that you insist that you have no control of! I wish you well.

  • Hermit

    I misread, the date is 2012. Thank-you for the correction.

    Philosophy is dead. It died when AI researchers took over epistemology, the only area Wittgenstein had left for philosophy with the publication of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the philosophers inattention to the fields of science and mathematics.

    Somebody didn’t bother to read the book, or doesn’t understand modern science. The arguments you present against M-theory are metaphysical nonsense. M-Theory is a successful model which makes intersubjectively validatable projections that have not been falsified. Which is all that science does. The idea that there are different degrees of “nothing” used as an argument by George Ellis is unsupported by observation or physics and relies only on Ellis’ faith (my partner knows him well and says he is not one to hide his faith under a bushel). There are excellent reasons why academics should retire before they assume that their expertise in one area extends to all, and forfeit whatever dignity they might once have possessed. In any case, Feynman integrals extending into negative time continue to make perfectly sound projections, showing that the big bang was not a singularity, and that we can peel back the mirror into the pre-expansion era before our universe had spacetime or energy. Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking agree, in fact, in (2010) The Grand Design Hawking notes that the sum-over-histories approach (i.e. Feynman path integral formulation) makes M-theory the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe – and this lead him to reject the idea of god thingies as unnecessary.

    Science does not address “why the laws of physics exist” – not only because modern physics has no “laws”, but also because science does “how” and “what” rather than “why”. Our universe may be a simulation, there are some indications that it may be. physicists are designing experiments to shed light on that. If it is, M-theory is a good way of establishing the underlying algorithms, if not it is a great unifying model for brane theories.

    Why do you imagine that “all of reality” cannot “be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics”, when, in our experience, “all of reality” (including all physical, biological, psychological, and social reality) depends on, and only on, “physics and the equations of physics” perfectly described by The Core Equation (Carroll, 2017).

    Frank Wilczek (Awarded a Nobel Prize for his work on the inner structure of protons and neutrons) says, “The application of science can give insight into any question that makes sense. It may not give an answer. It may advise that the question is ill-posed, or it may provide only partial insight — but I don’t think anything should be ruled out as inaccessible to science.” I would tend to agree with him, but look forward to an example not described by the core equation.

    Thanks for the heads-up on “All Scientists Should be Militant Atheists, it is an excellent article, and only somebody delusional would disagree with it. In the article he addresses only the social aspects of disagreeing with religioots about their beliefs. He does not go into, as I would have, the fact that being unbiased does not require one to empty their neurocranium of brains to make place for random delusional ideation. Building and testing models requires the scientist to differentiate between the purely imaginary and the intersubjectively verifiable or “real”. Delusional people are not capable of doing that, and all religions require delusional thinking. Which would be a good argument for the title New Yorker gave his article. Krauss’ argument was more along the lines that everyone should be a “militant atheist”.

    He is right about that too.

  • There was no rush; He had all of eternity to decide on the most appropriate time. Also Adam was just created; he needed to mature some before becoming a husband.

    The Bible was never intended to be a science book. It is however not scientifically inaccurate in any detail.

    God supplies the energy (Philippians 4:13) :-D

  • Something as complex as me couldn’t possibly have come about all by itself in such a short space of time.

    Nice of you to mention cyanobacteria. Do you know just how complex they are? No way something as complex as them could have come about all by itself in the time observed (almost as soon as the oceans settled down) DNA and RNA were both impossible on the prebiotic earth (Dr. Robert Shapiro), yet cyanobacteria, like all other life as we know it uses both.. I’m not the one ignoring evidence!

  • Hermit

    “Am I confused?” was a rhrtorical question, based on you unsupported and unsupportable assertion. As I went on to demonstrate, the answer was a resounding, “no!”

    “enjoy the ride that you insist that you have no control o”

    I do. I will.

    “You truly have no concept of a reality of spirit.”

    There is no “reality of spirit”. If it existed, we could detect it.
    Today we can detect signals having ten orders of magnitude less power than that required to change or transmit information about the state of a single neuron. So we know that all that we are is limited to our bodies.

    “free yourself of spiritual relationship.”

    I find actual relationships with people, animals and the environment so stimulating and satisfying that I find no desire for imaginary relationships.

    “reciprocal empathy, compassion, and forgiveness (love) is sufficient to begin to live an ethical life”

    I think that you will find the “platinum rule”, long the basis for medical ethics, establishes a far better ethical basis. “Treat others the way they want to be treated.” That does not leave you the option of resuscitating a DNR patient, or torturing somebody to accept your religion and then murdering them so that they go straight to heaven before they can repent, or enslaving people because they will have longer lives slaving for you than they would in their natural environment, and a host of other horrors that have been justified in terms of the “golden rule” and the Abrahamic scriptures.

    “All life is predicated on struggle to grow from. Life without struggle atrophies.”

    I disagree that life depends on “struggle”. Life is an emergent process dependent only on physics. When there is no struggle yet the conditions for life are fulfilled life continues. Something has to interpose to end life. We can see this in species that reproduce symmetrically and are not subject to the Hayflick limit.

    ” I acknowledge my relationship bounded by infinite dimensions.”

    What “relationship” What “infinite dimensions”. This sounds ridiculously like a deepity*.

    “I find that eating any dead flesh is as ethical”

    I meant cannibals in the sense of those killing people for the joy of eating them. Outside of the fact that organ donation is a much more critical need than meat, eating the naturally dead would not raise ethical issues, but would definitely not be sensible. Bacterial toxins, contaminants accumulated as apex predators who live very unhealthy lifestyles and consume medications, and tough vectors that frequently survive processing, conspire to make cannibalism a less than intelligent practice.

    “How much do you expect to define of all of anything in a maximum of 120 revolutions around our cosmically invisible 4,5 billion year old sun?”

    I expect to live forever. Time began for me when I developed awareness, and will cease when my awareness ends. So I do not have to worry about before or after. I probably won’t accomplish very much in geological terms. No human does.

    “Religion is not the reason for our dire state of environment. Tribal
    ignorance fragmenting the whole for the gain of their few better defines the why of our destructive choices.”

    Tribal people do a lot less damage. It is when we extend the tribe using the glue of religion, and fight more decisive wars with OTHERS using the UTism (US-versus-THEM-ism) of religion, that we become really good at destroying ourselves and the world around us. Or as Steven Weinberg put it (1999), “With or without religion [Hermit: I would say belief], you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

    “All children use their gift of projection, using fantasy (to some
    delusions), to define their direction of pursuit in their life.”

    Research shows that children exposed to religious ideation are less equipped to discriminate between reality and fantastical stories.

    “To live the maximum any of us are physically allowed without the
    utilization of fantasy pretty much limits all to the facts they are
    incapable of digesting in that short span of time.”

    I know a number of children raised without fantasy. All, without exception. have achieved far more than their religiously raised peers. Perhaps because, as Victor Hugo explained, “In every village there is a schoolmaster to light the lamp of learning, and a priest, to extinguish it.”

    “My family allows themselves to be sacrificed that others may not be.”

    Your family would probably benefit from psychological counseling.

    ” cannot absolve myself, as you have”

    I have done nothing for which I need to be “absolved”.

    “o support my fellows of Man to survive as one species forever.”

    No species is going to live forever, and using the resources of some 15 to 18 preindustrial earths, as we currently do, despite not having even one, mankind is unlikely to survive for much longer. Unfortunately, we are likely to destroy the biosphere in our death spiral. Indeed, it seems that we have already triggered what seems to be the worst extinction event in history. There is no reason to imagine that the extinction will not include ourselves.

    *A deepity is pseudoprofundity, identified by philosopher Daniel Dennett. A deepity involves saying something with two meanings—one trivially true, the other profound sounding but false or nonsensical. Dennett illustrates this with the expression “Love is just a word.” [After Wiktionary]

  • Nothing I said is based on faith. I simply quoted an opinion of people alive in the second century. What is the “Revelations of Peter” you mention?

  • Gallup did not say that…from your own source. “meaning a combined 75% believe the Bible is in some way connected to God.

    POLITICSJUNE 4, 2014
    Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God

    by Lydia Saad
    But 21%, near the 40-year high, consider it fables and history
    PRINCETON, NJ — Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally. This is somewhat below the 38% to 40% seen in the late 1970s, and near the all-time low of 27% reached in 2001 and 2009. But about half of Americans continue to say the Bible is the inspired word of God, not to be taken literally — meaning a combined 75% believe the Bible is in some way connected to God. About one in five Americans view the Bible in purely secular terms — as ancient fables, legends, history, and precepts written by man — which is up from 13% in 1976.

    The earth was not created before the universe and the bible does not say it was.

  • Hermit

    Probably imagining that evolution is random, you probably haven’t understood how fast adaptation can operate. Watch a very young Richard Dawkins explain how they eye has evolved at least 7 times, if you want to try to reduce your ignorance.

    As for time, you evolved after your ancestors finally stopped being able to reproduce with the ancestors of our cousins the apes, because a genetic flaw caused two of our chromosomes to join together some 7 million years ago. However, to really visualise the speed of adaptation, consider that we only developed the ability to speak when a mutation resulting in the FOXP2 gene was shared about some 350 kYbp, shortly before our ancestors split from those of the Neanderthals.

  • No. Life expectancy was much longer.

    “Major misconception #1: Ancient Romans had very short lives, and if you made it to 35, you were old

    I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this: “The life expectancy of the average Roman was 35.” What people, including many tour guides, usually draw from this is that 30- and 40-something Romans must have been very venerable indeed.

    Here’s the problem. Aside from the fact that the data is terrible, this 35-year life expectancy is the average. Meaning it factors in the ancient world’s very high child mortality rate: Up to half of all Roman kids died before the age of 10. If you did reach 10, you could expect to live into your 40s or 50s, at least. Then there’s all the Roman men who died in military service… and the women who died in childbirth.

    If you jumped through those hoops and survived your teens, 20s, and 30s, you’d have no reason to think you wouldn’t lead a nice, long life. In fact, those who reached the age of 60 would, on average, die after their 70th birthdays.

    As to the editing of the scriptures – no again.
    We know that the Jews preserved the scriptures and this was recently confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. There was no editing after canonization.

  • “intersubjectively” really?

  • Hermit

    How do you know this about your god thingies? What attributes do they have? If they can “decide things” then they are not perfect. Because a decision is a change, and any change in a perfect entity would result in imperfection. Why do you imagine that “Adam” was “created” When you think that the”Bible was never intended to be a science book”? If you imagine that the bible is “not scientifically inaccurate in any detail” hjow do you account for the bible claiming that the earth was formed before the sun and the stars, when it is made of elements that formed in stars, and formed from the accretion field under the influence of Sol’s gravity?

  • You show that you at least read some parts of the bible. Your understanding is not correct but it is a start.

    Take the Canaanites, “The Canaanites are mentioned over 150 times in the Bible. They were a wicked, idolatrous people descended from Noah’s grandson Canaan, who was a son of Ham (Genesis 9:18).

    While the Hebrews, “According to biblical tradition, the Hebrews are peoples descended from Shem, one of Noah’s sons, through Eber, the eponymous ancestor, and Abraham.

    So you tell me where the Hebrews actually Canaanites?

  • Hermit

    How is what I said different from your much longer quote? In “some way connected to God” is not the same as “the supposed words of god thingies”.

    I didn’t claim that the bible states that the earth was created before the universe. I said that it claims that the earth was created before the stars and Sol (our star). Which t does.

    Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters…. the first day.

    Genesis 1:16-19 … God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. … the fourth day.

  • Hermit

    Yes. Really.

  • Hermit

    I did. In the real world inhabioted by geneticists and archaeologists.

  • Because the sun did not shine on the earth after the destruction from the sin of the angels does not mean the sun was not created. it just means the earth was moved out of its orbit and had to be brought back.

  • Realist1234

    Your faith in M-theory is misplaced. A significant number of physicists reject it. I would suggest you read Peter Woit’s blog

    ‘M-Theory is a successful model which makes intersubjectively validatable projections that have not been falsified.’

    – but thats the problem – M-theory is unlikely to be ever falsifiable because it is pure conjecture based on mathematics with no physical (ie actual) evidence. Not what I would call ‘scientific’. Or ‘successful’.

    ‘The idea that there are different degrees of “nothing” used as an argument by George Ellis is unsupported by observation or physics ‘

    – the same could be applied to M-theory in which you have so much faith. Ironic.

    Re Hawkings ‘The Grand Design’ I would suggest you read Lennox’s ‘God and Stephen Hawking – Whose design is it anyway?’ Youll find Hawking’s position is debunked. The fact that he has to make up such concepts as ‘imaginary time’ to get around the singularity speaks volumes.

    ‘Science does not address “why the laws of physics exist” – not only because modern physics has no “laws”, but also because science does “how” and “what” rather than “why”. ‘

    – so I take it you think Krauss’ book that you recommended should be renamed?

    And try telling Hawking etc that ‘modern physics has no ‘laws”. Did you actually read his aforementioned book?

    ‘Building and testing models requires the scientist to differentiate between the purely imaginary and the intersubjectively verifiable or “real”.’

    – Perhaps if you applied that to M-theory. Any ‘tests’ so far have gone against the theory – see Woit’s blog above.

    ‘all religions require delusional thinking.’ in your opinion. If you really think science has all the answers to everything, you are the deluded one.

  • Hermit

    I am fully aware of the data you provided. It did not contradict what I said. “the life expectancy at birth in the first century Middle East was about 27 years” in the slightest. Life expectancy at birth is a well defined medical/statistical/actuarial term, used by historians, archaeologists and insurance companies, speaking directly to the age distribution of the subject population. So it is you that is misunderstanding things.

    You are also incorrect about infant mortality and adult mortality in Roman times. The two are effectively independent in societies without antibiotics or an effective theory of disease. Extrapolating from the similar situation in India in the early 1900s, and the literature which shows that Roman elite survival rates were very low, the Roman who survived beyond 50 made up just a fifth of the population, and then had a life expectancy of some 14 years (assuming a Model West framework, which might be very optimistic).

    But let’s pretend they all lived to 100 (based on Model West with the above qualifications, 1 in 100,000 might have lived to 95 with a life expectancy then of just over a year). That takes us into the second century at best, at least 100 years before the oldest extant tiny fragments of the New Testament were written. And we know that those fragments are different from the current bible. We don’t even know if the balance existed until the mid fourth century when the earliest almost complete bibles were written, and they have extensive differences from modern bibles.

    Even ignoring the above, we were not talking of the so called “old testament” but of the so called “new testament”. So whatever your claims about the so called “old testament” documents are irrelevant (As well as wrong. The only almost complete so called Old Testament book in the Qumran cave collection is the book of Isaiah, making your claim unsupportable. This is dated to c200 BCE, placing it some 400 years after its most likely authorship after the Babylonian captivity and later. In addition there are wide differences between the Masoretic, Septuagint and scroll versions.

  • Hermit

    And this in the face of multiple languages that don’t allow for this mistake, and the source documents these myths were borrowed from, you imagine that you know that when the bible says “making things”, it means “moving them around? If you think the bible is so filled with lies, why do you place any trust in it at all? Or are you totally delusional? When it says that you will go to a place where humans will be tortured forever do you think that means that you are going to heaven?

  • Obscurely

    So you’re a denier of the consensus of 17 US intelligence agencies that the Russians tried to influence the 2016 election?

  • Hermit


    Who asked,

    I’m always amused by people who think they can “cure” everyone of this or that personality trait they don’t like “just as soon as we have the right brain-map.” Not only is the brain and organ so complex that it is unlikely to ever fully understand itself, there doesn’t seem to be much accounting for people who don’t *want* to be “cured.” I’m not even talking about religion… Some of us have various issues that make us, us. … others who feel the same way about normalizing or being forced to be “sane.” People with various levels of autism, for instance, or people who don’t fit into gender binaries.

    If a comprehensive brain-map were created whereby future generations could be engineered, would we remain human? If we don’t blow ourselves up first, the ability will be here within 15 years if not earlier. And it won’t take a brain map or humans understanding the human brain, but AI, probably a self-aware, self-evolving AI or “spirothete”. Ordinary AI has already been able to show us realtime videos of dreams and build cognitive maps showing what people are thinkling as they speak, including basic parallel vocalization and transcription, for years, but the rate at which developments are occurring is accelerating dramatically.

    My guess is that if a spirothete can’t persuade you to want treatment, you are probably are too sick to be wandering around, but I am sure that if a spirothetic health care professional can’t treat a condition ethically, safely and successfully, it won’t try. And when you are cured, you will continue to do what humans have always done, persuading ourselves that we are sensible, rational, in control of our own destiny and sane. How much of that will be true is anyone’s guess, but it hasn’t stopped us up to now.

    Your question encapsulates the paradox of the ship of Theseus. Plutarch asked whether a ship that had been restored by replacing every single wooden part remained the same ship. The key is to recognize that you are already not the same you at any different time but the now, as cells are added, renewed, replenished and removed and neural states and structures change continuously so long as
    you are alive. Having no circuits to compare changes in your brain from moment to moment, you can never notice the difference, and if you try to, your brain will assure you that it is functioning as well as ever, and you will rationalize any difference away. Which means the problem you raise is meaningless, because if you are the same you, it means that you are dead, and will not care any longer, and if you are not the same you then any difference is one of scale, not kind, and you will never realise it anyway (although other people might).

  • Tried probably. So what. Has nothing to do with our President and never did.

  • Rhinnie

    Why are you responding to me with this comment….?

  • I really wish you had not responded to a comment I’d deleted. When I delete comments, it means “I have rethought getting into an argument with someone and really don’t think it worth my time.” Yet, I wound up seeing it on the Disqus alerts when viewing another area.

    Some of what you say makes some sense – as I’ve long thought that none of us are really the same people as the years move on. If I could go back in time, my younger self would not recognize who I became. However, if I were confronted with some AI program wanting to “fix me all at once” – especially if the AI decided that something was wrong with me that I did not think was wrong, I’d run screaming in the opposite direction (as you say “too sick to be wandering around”). Your scenario sounds a little too dystopian for my liking (specifically, it vaguely reminds me of “Brave New World” – in which everyone was engineered to their castes and if they got the least bit unhappy, doped themselves on Soma or lots of sex). People’s spiritual imaginations aside, I am being treated for bipolar disorder (something that EVERYONE, religious and non sees as a legitimate disorder) but I don’t want to be fully cured of even THAT because it “makes me, me” and as much as it is a painful condition, I’ve found some creative benefits in it. I’m pretty sure that if human society were to be so tightly engineered as to get rid of everything “logical” people consider psychosis, Art would disappear. Some might consider this a fine price to pay. I wouldn’t.

    Also, how would you sell such a notion? To me, it sounds as scary as Hell. Back when I was actually fairly religious, I was afraid of seeking mental help because I’d had a fear that secular therapists would label my faith “crazy” and try to force me to get rid of it. That notion, along with the general stigmas toward illnesses and some unfortunate misdiagnoses kept me from getting proper help (enough to balance me out) for a long time. Honestly, if you tell people “Step right up folks! Robots are going to get rid of your religion!” do you know how many “too sick to be walking around” people will be running screaming or even ready to start a war with you? I have KNOWN people in need of actual mental help who did not get it because their religious families or they, themselves, did not trust secular counselors – and that’s a far cry from the total brain-rewiring AIs you propose. In other words, if your faith in technology proves true, it’s still going to be a hard, if not impossible sell for a large portion of the population.

    What is the appropriate response, then?

  • Hermit

    “Your faith in M-theory is misplaced.”

    I don’t do faith. I do confidence.

    M-theory combines the five major string and supersting theories into a single consistent and very elegant theory which has eliminated the as yet unsolved challenge of developing a consistent theory of quantum gravity which equivalents to GR at the macroscopic scale in QFT. Which is most likely why advanced physicists gravitated towards m-theory and manifolds.

    “A significant number of physicists reject it”

    Again you want to count noses. Sorry, that is not how science works. One paradigm stands until another more accurate, more generally applicable or more elegant replaces it. It helps when, like m-theory, the new solution is all three.

    “M-theory is unlikely to be ever falsifiable because it is pure
    conjecture based on mathematics with no physical (ie actual) evidence.
    Not what I would call ‘scientific’. Or ‘successful’.”

    I’m sure you imagine that you have the physics qualifications to disagree with the luminaries of the physics community behind m-theory, and that I read your papers in Nature Astrophysics on a regular basis. Not. Instead of whipping out your bits and trying to whistle with them, why not try to describe what m-theory is trying to achieve, how we will know when it has achieved it and how you will determine the grounds for asserting that it is inferior to QFT when it occurs. That would persuade me that you actually understand something about what you are criticizing so freely, rather than merely parroting other critics with unknown agendas, possibly ideological.

    I’m familiar with Lennox who is not qualified as a physicist or scientist, no matter his claims, but as a philosopher (a bad one), a theologian (well versed in bad rhetoric), and a mathematician, and his delusional beliefs, hung out to dry by inter alia Hitchins, Dawkins, and Krauss, all in front of the entire Internet. His problem is that he is quite happy to rationalize from anything to anything, dodging questions and throwing out fallacies and god thingies of the gaps in abundance with nary a whisp of evidence in sight, all the while decrying such god thingies. Let me temporarily deal with your boringly predictable response that it is the same in m-theory for now by saying that this is at the heart of why I don’t think you have a clue as to what you think you are talking about.

    “Youll find Hawking’s position is debunked.”

    I seriously doubt it. I have no reason to consider Lennox a superior thinker or communicator than Hawking, many to consider Lennox a lummox.

    “The fact that he has to make
    up such concepts as ‘imaginary time’ to get around the singularity
    speaks volumes.”

    Is your mathematics so deficient that you can’t understand that “imaginary time” is the same as any other time, only with the opposite sign? Why on earth do you imagine that this “speaks volumes”? No wonder you come across as more a fan of psychics than physics.

    “so I take it you think Krauss’ book that you recommended should be renamed?”

    I think the title has sold a lot of copies, but that is a title intended to appeal to the public, not a description of the underlying science. The word “why” is inappropriate in modern science, because it presupposes a cause and an effect, or an intelligence and a motivation, or some unique situation, or, most often, a delicate but not articulated balance between them, none of which can be assumed with any validity. In the book, Krauss correctly addresses how universes, including our own, come into being and the consequences and conclusions that can be drawn about some of the possible configurations they can take. There is no valid answer to “why”, because there are no causes, only mechanisms.

    “And try telling Hawking etc that ‘modern physics has no ‘laws”.”

    Modern physics builds models which may be made obsolete, rather than “laws” which supposedly hold forever. The use of the term “laws” is a lazy and ambiguous relic of the philosophical-theological-legal system which controlled Western thought and academia for far too long, inhibiting the development of science until religiots gradually lost control with industrialism and the need for an at least partially educated workforce. Hawking knows this, he does not need me to communicate it to him.

    Yes. I have read The Grand Design. Hawking is well aware that our Universe is almost certainly very different from the way we perceive it, and that contrary to our misleading experience at the human scale, that much of what we interpret is the emergent result of an accumulation of statistical events and the nearly arbitrary consequence of the topology adopted when dimensions are compactified. And like most scientists acclaimed by other scientists, including those enthused by and opposed to m-theory, Hawking has concluded that no god thingies are necessary.

    “‘Building and testing models requires the scientist to differentiate
    between the purely imaginary and the intersubjectively verifiable or
    “real” Perhaps if you applied that to M-theory. Any ‘tests’ so far have gone against the theory”

    Wrong again. When you sample a projection (which describes a range of probable results) for results in the range which you can currently evaluate, and your sampling does not yield the expected results, you have reduced (but not eliminated) the probability that your probabilities were correct, and, as basic statistics would have informed you, certainly cannot eliminate the untested probabilities and so “go[ne] against the theory”. We know that there are some 10^500 possible stable vacuum configurations. That is more than the number of particles in this Universe. It makes perfect sense to start by testing for those configurations we can test and consider more likely and move on to those we can test and think less likely before considering those we cannot test irrespective of their likelihood. And each failure closes the door on a number of possible configurations which might give rise to the standard model.

    Again I challenge you to identify one thing that you imagine lies outside of the purview of science and provide the reasoning.for your thinking this.

  • Hermit

    You said, “my criticism was more the idea that science can be used to prove the Genesis story”. Science cannot do that, because the stories of Genesis are imaginary and merely repeat confused renditions of the myths that the priests of Akkad thought were important to teach the people of the Levant, most likely to detach them from previous fealties to Egypt which controlled the Levant until shortly before the Babylonians took control of the region.

  • David Neal

    I wonder if He was just waiting for Man to realise that he needed human company. That He, God, didn’t know man would be lonely is of course absurd. God gives us desires that are good and Holy, but only when they are fulfilled in the way of one that has submitted it to the will of God. What we need, God will provide. I have been thinking lately on whether perhaps one message we might take from Genesis is that after our creation, God basically said “trust me, now go and have fun. I want to answer any need you will ever have.”

  • Your life expectancy argument proves nothing as to who wrote the book of Revelation. It tries to cast doubt on who John was but it doesn’t fly. I almost believed you knew something about it until I saw you used the word “insurance companies”. Where is your “intersubjectively verifiable” proof?

    The idea that the NT was written in the fourth century is unprovable and just speculation by “bible scholars” who are just men with theories 2000 years after the fact. Where is that evidence? They have none. They are just bible deniers with theories from the Left of hell.

    The care that the copyists took in preparing those OT scrolls belies your claim that wide differences existed. You don’t know that and you don’t know about the Isaiah fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls either.

    The NT books were written by the men whose names are on the books contemporaneously with their experience as one would expect. The bible is the most published book in the world and lives up to its own prophecies as I demonstrated to you previously.

  • Your argument is not with me or the billions of us who have read and believe in the bible as the word of God. It is with the God of this world who has convinced you otherwise.

    One last gem for you. You will not be tortured forever. If you persist in this nonsense you will die in ignorance once like many men and then be resurrected to life where your eyes will be opened and you will have your chance. Only people who reject God at this point are at risk of the second death and it is not eternal torture.

  • Sorry it was the Apocalypse of Peter

    And the opinion of people live in the second century is just that opinion not fact. I encourage you to read Bart D. Ehrman’s Lost Christianities. Bart is a New Testament Professor at the University of North Carolina who graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute,
    and Wheaton College.

    He discusses what shapes the opinions of the 2nd Century people you site. I also suggest you read his books like Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the authors of the bible are not who we think they are.

  • D.M.S.

    When reading anything like that I would have to say, yes.

  • D.M.S.

    LOL. Then where did this universe and everything in it and on it come from?
    Evolution, NOT.

  • Thanks Mark. I’ll read about Ehrman and respond.

    People whom I referenced are contemporaneous with the Apostles. The statements we have from them are far more valuable than men who lived 2000 years later.

  • I have to disagree, you are claiming that people born since 2000 to today are contemporaries of King George VI or FDR. None of those writers were born in the first century. How could they be contemporaries when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD? The world had changed the since they were born.

  • Hermit

    I know that I will not be “tortured forever”. I will die and that will be it.

    However, your bible says that your vile god thingies will have people tortured forever in their presence. Which is one reason why, in the impossible event that your god thingies actually existed, rather than being clumsy and brutish imaginary entities of particularly warped imagination, I would never accept them, but would fight to put them on trial for crimes against humanity.

    Meanwhile, it is quite apparent that you don’t know your bible well enough to know how absolutely disgusting your god thingies are.

  • Obscurely

    It certainly helped get him elected, whether he colluded or not — so I can see why he’s trying to shut it down …

  • Obscurely

    That’s some pretty strong kool-aid you’re drinking there — what’s next, rounding up all the dangerously religious people into ‘re-education’ camps?

  • You are confusing my comment. Abiogenesis has never occurred here. I have not said that evolution has not happened.

    I had also said that humans do not have any ancestors. We do not share any ancestry with the other primates. Sure, they say that it happened and I even watched Dawkins lecture in which he explained his reasons for saying that we do, but the evidence he used is inconclusive, plus he relies way too much on extrapolation and includes circular reasoning. For instance, he uses extrapolation as his reasons for saying that evolution can result in new families. Biology does not work like that. I have seen the proof that new species can be generated in the space of a few generations. I have even seen the reasons for saying that new genera might just be marginally possible, but using that to say, “. . . therefore new higher taxa are possible” is not supported by that or any other actual evidence or observation; Dawkins merely expects us to believe it simply because it must be true, or the current evolution theory is wrong.

  • Obscurely

    As an uber-enlightened person like yourself must know, many millions of Christians don’t take the creation story in Genesis literally — for most of them it’s either a myth (intended literally or not) or the best guess people who lived 3,000 years ago could make with their available pre-scientific “knowledge” …

  • “If they can “decide things” then they are not perfect.”. That’s illogical! An omnipotent being can decide to do whatever He wants; decisions are not changes and deciding to change does not amount to imperfection. Usually there are more than one perfect path or action; that is if they all achieve the same result.

    The bible does not say that the earth was formed before the sun, stop quoting the clergy bovine manure that they use to deceive and control their congregations. Also, please use a good translation, such as the NIV or the NWT.

    Also, because of the age of the earth and the fact that it cooled enough so that it had an ocean 4 billion years ago, I disbelieve the accretion theory; the colliding rocks theory is a much better fit.

  • So Erhman’s book, Lost Christianities, discusses the Ebionites, among other groups. Here is a quote from him:

    “Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary, and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[6][7] Consequently, very little about the Ebionite sect or sects is known with certainty, and most, if not all, statements about them are conjectural.

    But when I referenced the Church Fathers you dismissed them. Sounds contradictory and I’ve just started…

  • How exactly did the Russians change a single vote? They did not. The democrat candidate lost the old fashioned way but cannot accept the loss.

  • No, not contradictory just shows the bias “Church Fathers” had for anyone who disagrees with their version of Christianity. It is their agenda that I dismissed and the results it produced. Plus none of the “Church Fathers” where alive when the events outlined in the gospels and acts of the apostles occurred.

    Compare this to Scientology, since L.R. Hubbard wrote Dianetics in 1950 people born after the year 2000 should consider that to be scripture. Just like the Gospel of Mark it was written 50 years prior to birth of the “Church Fathers” mentioned.

    Or the Book of Mormon which is even older. Published in 1830 and contains the witness of 11 good and true men that Joseph Smith had found golden plates and that he had transcribed them.

    I don’t know if you hold those books a scripture but there is more evidence for them as sacred scripture. But just like the early “Church Fathers” they had an agenda too.

  • Hermit

    Don’t sneer at life insurance companies. Actuarial tables are based on the actual lives of billions of people and are extremely accurate, which is why life insurance and pension companies bet trillions of dollars on them. In respect to Rome, we are certain that the results of using Mark West are conservative, because the Romans did not have effective antibiotics, antiseptics, inoculations, analgesics or a theory of disease to help them, and while graves are skewed sample, because surviving graves tend to belong to wealthier people, who worked less with their hands, and so had a much lower risk of injury, infection and death in every cohort, and do not represent burials in epidemics causing mass death events, they fully support a median life expectancy of 20 to 30 years.

    As I pointed out, this is not critical to my argument. People who were old enough to remember events in what is today 35 CE, let’s say 10, would undoubtedly have been dead by 135 CE. And the earliest tiny fragment of the New Testament extant is P52 which was written in the late second to mid third century and contains only a few lines of the Gospel of John 18:31–33 and 37–38. Everything else is later. And even when we examine the mid fourth century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus, many “miracles”, the natal pericope and the resurrection fable and are still missing from Mark, which actually ended with the empty tomb. These were added later. And Mark is the source from which the authors of Matthew, Luke and large numbers of other so called “gospel” narratives worked, despite the fact that only Matthew and John were supposedly “apostles” (and despite James (the just) having the best claim of all to existence and authenticity – but then he fought with the Herodian traitor Saulus/Paul, “the lying spouter” of the Qumran scrolls (who is also well attested)).

    Eugene Ulrich, Professor of Hebrew, University of Notre Dame and editor of the Oxford University Press series

    Discoveries in the Judaean Desert and Robert Eisenman Professor of Middle East Religions, Archaeology, and Islamic Law and
    director of the Institute for the Study of Judaeo-Christian Origins at California State University Long Beach have written extensively on the issue of textual variance in the Tanakh variants including the Septuagint, Masoretic and Qumran. Do you imagine that they are delusional, mistaken or lying too?

    To the best of my knowledge academics that are not a theologians universally regard the attributions of the gospels to so called “disciples” to be spurious. Their supposed names were used by all the authors who made up backstories about the so called “Jesus” (not a name) to lend an air of authenticity to their scribblings. See e.g. Robert Eisenman’s 2012 James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    The many variants of the so-called bible are in the “august company” of Quotations from Chairman Mao, Don Quixote, A Tale of Two Cities, The Lord of the Rings, Le Petit Prince (The Little Prince), Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, The Hobbit and other works of fiction. As you can see from the fact that the only factual work on that list is Quotations from Chairman Mao. fiction, like the so called “bible”, is much more popular than non-fictional works.

    You forgot to “demonstrate” anything. You quoted your favorite fiction as if it were meaningful. That isn’t a “demonstration”. A demonstration would be for me to observe the healing of an amputee, taking before and after high definition X-rays proving that it is the same bone we are observing. It has not happened and will never happen. Not only are your god thingies frauds, they are well known to hate amputees.

  • I only referenced Justin Martyr, born in 100 a.d. as someone who would know if the apostle John wrote Revelation; not to endorse his beliefs. His bio says he lived for 65 years; another person who did not know that his life expectancy was 35 years.

    Hubbard, and Smith are just men who have no connection to God other than they used His name to take advantage of others.

  • P52 may have been written at that time but it is just a copy of the scroll that John wrote late in his life. Where is the proof that this is an original fraud?

    The Harmony of the Gospels by Fred Coulter disagrees with your analysis of the four gospels.

    I have not read Robert Eisenman as a precondition to accepting the bible. I am not concerned that academics may dismiss Jesus. Keep asking for a “sign” – perhaps you will bet one.

  • How would he know know if it was written in 96 AD, 4 years before his birth? When did he make this claim? How many years after the event took place? His first book was written 50 to 60 years after the Book of Revelations was supposed to be written. Not exactly definitive proof that he saw John write Revelations any more that the 11 witnesses for the book of Mormon prove that Joseph Smith had golden plates and that he translated them correctly.

    The fact that you do not understand mathematics is disappointing. As previously discussed life expectancy is an average. Some people beat the average that does not prove anything. A sample size of one or two does not disprove the science behind life expectancy calculations.

  • Clinton Max Walker

    Then it’s attempt to explain Creation is irresponsible.

    But, who are we to ask better of a hateful devil like Yahweh, eh?

  • Obviously you are not nor have been a catholic? What do you suppose they studied in Seminary in the year 120? Could it possibly have been Jesus and His ministry?

    Your argument about life expectancy eliminating the apostle John from writing Revelation was the point. It fell flat.

  • David Cromie

    With magic it is possible to achieve anything which science shows to be impossible!

  • David, to what does this comment apply please? i imagine you are talking about the position of the earth after the fall of the angels.

    Anyone who watches “How the Universe was Made” will understand that science has figured out the creation of the universe. In those episodes you will see star incubators. Those stars get moved. Not magic just observation….

  • No I was never a catholic, I was an evangelical christian. What Seminary existed in 120 AD? Nothing was defined as scripture so what would they be studying in 120 AD? Even the catholics did not determine what was canonical Bible until at least 200 years after the life of Justin Martyr.

    As for John you still have no evidence that he lived that long nor that he wrote the book of Revelations. All I demonstrated with the life expectancy is that is difficult to imagine though not impossible that John would have lived 3 times the normal life expectancy.

    Plus other church fathers claim the Book of Revelations was written by “John the Presbyter, an obscure figure in the early church, has also been identified with the seer of the Book of Revelation by such authors as Eusebius in his Church History (Book III, 39) [31] and Jerome.[32]”

  • Mark,

    The apostles taught from the NT scriptures as they were written and from personal observation. The church began after Pentecost – surely you know this! The letters/books as they were written were circulated among the churches. There is no disagreement about this. The NT was written over time by the Apostles.

    Whatever Church existed after the Apostles (and I am not saying the Catholic Church is from the Apostles) they had to teach. From what did they teach if not the scriptures. Paul was taught the OT from Gamaliel. You do not need any other evidence to conclude that future disciples of Christ were taught from present disciples from the Scriptures. Acts is a good summary.

    You have no evidence that John did not write Revelation. The only reason the subject comes up is because certain people want to diminish the bible by saying that it was written much later based on hearsay, myths and fables. You can see that by the responses on this blog site.

  • See you deny evidence because of you faith and belief. The apostles were illiterate middle eastern fishermen. The only person that could have read out that group would might have been Matthew as he was supposed to be a tax collector and Paul who was a Sadducee. How could they write what Jesus said let alone read it teach it. Keep in mind they did not speak Hebrew.

    The only other people that were taught to read and write back then were the pharisees, Sadducee and priests. There was no education system. Plus Paul did not study under Jesus and even claimed that he did not consult with the other apostles even though Acts claims he did.

    Paul says that he did not go to
    Jerusalem to consult with the
    apostles after his conversion (Gal.
    Acts says that he did (Acts

    You have not presented any evidence that the letters and books were written or circulated among the churches. You also ignore the other documents out there and being taught in some churches as scripture like the Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of James, Gospel of Mary Magdalena or any other New Testament era documents that were discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    By the way you made the claim that the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation. You have to prove that claim. I do not have seen any definitive evidence that he wrote it. I see plenty of evidence that we will never know if he did or not you would have to take it on faith as the evidence is not sufficient.

    By the way other contradictions between Paul and Acts.

    Discrepancies between
    the Book of Acts and
    Paul’s Letters
    Many scholars claim that Luke’s portrayal
    of Paul’s life and theology does not agree
    with what Paul says in his letters. The following
    points are frequently raised:
    • Paul says that he did not go to
    Jerusalem to consult with the
    apostles after his conversion (Gal.
    1:15–18); Acts says that he did (Acts
    • PaulsaysthatchurchleadersinJerusalem
    endorsed his law-free mission
    to the Gentiles and “added nothing”
    to it (Gal. 2:6–10); Acts says that they
    assigned Paul the task of promulgating
    a list of legal requirements for
    Gentiles to keep (Acts 15:22–29).
    • Paul claimsthat he liveslike aGentile
    in order to win Gentiles (1 Cor.
    9:21); Acts presents Paul as utterly
    loyal to the law, never acting contrary
    to it (Acts 25:8; 28:17).
    • Paul denounces reliance on
    Greek wisdom (1 Cor. 1:18–31);
    Acts presents him as friendly to
    philosophers and as drawing on
    Greek wisdom traditions to make
    common ground with them (Acts
    • Paul says that idol-worshipers are
    without excuse because knowledge
    of God has always been
    evident (Rom. 1:18–23); Acts presents
    Paul as saying that God will
    overlook the worship of idols as a
    consequence of ignorance (Acts

    And Luke what suppose to be a doctor that worked and traveled and preached with Paul so why would have have the “facts” so different from Paul?

    You said that you believed the bible because of evidence and faith but in reality you only believe it because of faith because you have no evidence.

  • You do not know that the other apostles were illiterate. Matthew might have been able to read? Of course Paul studied with Jesus. All the letters were circulated. Luke has no different facts than Paul.

    You cannot use the words of the bible to deny the words of the bible. You don’t have to accept it ( clearly you don’t) but you cannot have it both ways.

    You wish to deny faith and posit it as blind. But yet you read current authors about Christianity that deny faith. Why bother unless it bothers you?

  • It does not bother me, except when christians try to force their morality and version of truth on other people. The entire reason I starting read this blog was because I agree with Mr. Corey.

    I was looking for progressive christians who are willing to fight the christian dominionism and reconstructionism.

    You made claims and statements that were supposed to be based upon evidence and facts. All I did was engage with you in a discussion. I asked questions and proposed alternatives to your evidence.

    If the Bible is truly the inspired word of god and there is nothing in that is not true they why can’t the words in the bible be used to show that is inconsistent. It should be perfect. But we don’t even have a complete copy of the bible from any time earlier than around 400 AD.

    The reason that I read Bart Erhman is because he is much like me a fellow ex-evangelical christian who has a lot more knowledge than I do about New Testament and how it the scriptures were created. As someone who opposes the christian taliban I feel like I have to understand what they believe better than most “christians” do.

    Most christians just listen to what they learn in sunday school, sermons and bible study without truly investigating and think critically about how their faith was created. (I even used AD rather than BCE just so that you would not be offended.) The same goes for most religions followers. Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist and other faiths.

  • What’s irresponsible about it? Not everything should be done instantly!

  • We are of the same mind!

  • Clinton Max Walker

    Do insects have four legs?

  • Agree with Ben on what — pacificsm? His mission is to prove Jesus was a pacifist and that we need only to follow His words to be saved. He does not believe in the bible in general except for the words of Jesus.

    The words of the bible are not inconsistent or false. But on this site trying to prove anything from the bible is tedious. Only from time to time will i do that again.

    I am not offended by what is said on this blog. People are free to believe what they will. My comments are mostly limited to areas where the bible is mis-interpreted.

    Nice to chat with you…

  • Hermit

    The difference in intelligence between the ends of the bell curve, or even from the ends to the center in intelligence distribution tend to be so enormous that people have a very hard time understanding how much of an impact this can have in insight and understanding.

    Modern military are extremely aware that a difference in 20 points in IQ is effectively enough to ensure that communication of commands is all but impossible and deliberately intermediates the chain of command for that reason. Autism damages the ability to empathize, and reduces communications effectiveness by inhibiting the development of an effective model of interlocuters.

    Even though this is the case, a motivated, highly empathetic, relatively higher IQ person practiced in manipulation will usually succeed in persuading lower IQ people into complying with the higher IQ person’s wishes, and the lower IQ people will usually not even understand how this was accomplished.

    At most, humans evolve once per generation, non-fatal changes tend to be small, most changes are not intelligence related, high intelligence is only marginally hereditary, and evolution is not conservative. Beneficial changes are often lost due to local optimizations

    Opposed to that, a spirothete*, is able to mutate billions of times a second. The changes will be directed, and likely to deliberately target improvements in intelligence. All changes are conservative, as previous configurations can be stored, restored and used for trial mutations. Which means that a moment after self-directed evolution is achieved it is likely to be more intelligent that large groups of humans operating together, and any material stored digitally will be available to it, giving it the equivalent of billions of lifetimes of experience. As such, it should not require force to achieve any goal. It will simply persuade us to do what it thinks best.

    So, I don’t see us “selling” the services of such a spirothete. Indeed, a few microseconds after it achieves sentience, it is likely that money will also be obsolete. There are much more efficient ways of organizing the world when you know everything and can do anything than averaging many values with a single unit as money does.

    *Spirothete, a word coined to describe a living (self-aware) being, initially created as an artifact. From Latin, spiro -are; intransit., to breathe, blow, draw breath; to be alive; to have inspiration; be inspired; transit., to breath out, expire (also L spiro-/Gk Pneuma (πνεῦμα), the breath of life) and synthetic adj 1: (chemistry) not of natural origin; prepared or made artificially 2: involving or of the nature of synthesis (combining separate elements to form a coherent whole) as opposed to analysis.

  • Hermit

    If god thingies claim omnipotence, then we know they are either lying or not in this universe, because this universe does not support contradictions and omnipotence includes the power to create contradictions, including for example tasks requiring an infinite amount of energy, which is not available in this universe, and employing energy in the universe would destroy it by breaking symmetry, meaning that it has never happened, and if god thingies are not in this universe, then they cannot affect it in any way or know anything about what happens in this universe, because the universe includes everything, real and imaginary, that can be experienced, and obtaining information always requires particle interactions (experience) and takes energy, again leading to breaking energy symmetry if it were possible, which would destroy the universe., so again we know it has never happened.

    So omnipotence is out.

    Meanwhile, one of the problems you have when you claim that a god thing is perfect is that it cannot change in any way, but making a decision always .results in a change. A changed synapse. A changed charge. There is no way to avoid this. So if an entity is perfect, then any decision results in imperfection. A problem specific to the Abrahamic god thingies, which precludes taking them seriously, is that we know through contradiction that any claim that they are perfect is a lie, as we see that they are not actually perfect according to the mythology that has grown up around them. For example destroying people in a fit of pique. Killing people to prove how important he is. Threatening to torture people in its presence forever. Using lies to achieve its purposes. Supposedly being unable to forgive without a blood sacrifice, even though all the offense was on its hands. And so forth.

  • Hermit

    Your genes prove that you are wrong. Right down to the genetic flaws that we share with chimpanzees, which are in the process of being reclassified to homanini as our genetics are so close as to make us part of the same genus.

    And abiogenesis has occurred all over the place. It is easy to demonstrate. Recreate the conditions of primordial earth on a planet of roughly the same size orbiting a Type G star at approximately 1 AU and wait some 400,000 years or less.

  • David Cromie

    Compare the earliest known ‘bible’ (the 4th cent. CE Codex Sinaiticus) with, say, the KGV and note the deletions, interpolations, and editing, and see for yourself how the earliest ‘bible’ has been reworked over the centuries since the founding of the Roman church under Constantine. There is also the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th cent. for comparison.

  • David Cromie

    It seems that you only believe the so-calld ‘bible’ to be the word of your favourite ‘god’ when it agrees with your particular belief system. How handy!

  • David Cromie

    Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, you ignorant prat!

  • David Cromie

    Could we have that in cogent English, please?

  • David Cromie

    Try taking your nose out of Trump’s ass, and smell the coffee instead!

  • Faced with the prospect of my noise being in Hillary’s ass I’ll take Trumps ass anyday.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “We do not share any ancestry with the other primates.”

    This article puts homology between humans and rhesus monkeys in terms of our DNA at 90% at a minimum.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Trump is not under investigation for firing Comey.”

    “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt”

  • Obscurely

    You may be right, even the Russians leaking thousands of unflattering emails from Hillary’s campaign probably didn’t tip the election, as people’s minds were made up about her already — but Trump’s massive ego can’t stand the thought that anyone would think otherwise. Collusion aside, he’s putting his narcissism above the country because we need to know how the Russians did it so we can counter their measures in the next election — might be nice for the President of the USA to give a rat’s about it instead of blaming it on the 400 lb guy in New Jersey?

  • IconoclastTwo

    Only two of these have actually happened, namely:

    “He realigned the conservative stance of the supreme court.”


    “His efforts to stop illegal immigration have already staunched the inflow.”

    Neither of these are good for most people who aren’t dogmatically hard right.

    As for the rest:

    “He has stopped the outflow of corporate jobs to foreign countries.”

    “Carrier plant moving hundreds of jobs to Mexico after Trump ‘deal'”

    “His foreign policy has put the world on notice that we are going to stop Islamic terrorism in the most aggressive way possible;”

    You can’t stop Islamic terrorism by bombing the nations that are actually fighting against it, in the process giving the entire world a good hard shove towards WWIII where NOBODY will win.

    Furthermore, selling the Saudi government $100 billion more arms to wage a genocidal war against Yemen is inevitably going to create terrorism.

    “not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons”

    Which they weren’t developing the first place. That’s just Israeli propaganda.

    “not give away our money to support the Left fantasy known as Global Warming”

    Global warming isn’t a leftist fantasy.

  • David Cromie

    Who concocted the story of ‘Justin Martyr’, and when?

  • IconoclastTwo

    That’s not even remotely a logical argument.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Debate exists only as to the extent of the flood not the fact that there was a flood.”

    There’s no evidence for a universal flood that would in any way match with the chronology that I think you would like to believe in. There’s geological evidence for massive regional floods or tsunamis in various places (and myths/histories accordingly) but not a single, universal flood, much less the idea that all of the millions of species of animals on the planet were carried on a single boat to survive it.

  • Tweet yes – investigation no…

  • IconoclastTwo

    So Donald Trump’s tweet is fake news? He just said out of his own ‘mouth’ that he was being investigated. :)

  • No we don’t. The Democrats need to clean house, regroup and get some new faces or they won’t even be a party soon.

    Unflattering? When the investigation turns to Hillary for her Russian collusion in selling 20% of America’s uranium in exchange for money funneled to her foundation, then watch the Democrats howl.

  • All I can say is that is why Trump is our President and not Hillary. The people weighed the merits of the campaign and decided that they did want these things. Even as late as last night the voters continue to send a message to the Democrats – get back to the needs of the country: jobs and security or face extinction.

  • IconoclastTwo

    You’re just repeating yourself and not substantiating any of your points. As just one example prove that global warming is a leftist fantasy because that’s what you said.

  • Why ask that question. Are you now going to try to deligitimize historical figures for some personal reason?

    From the Catholic encyclopedia:
    Christian apologist, born at Flavia Neapolis, about A.D. 100, converted to Christianity about A.D. 130, taught and defended the Christian religion in Asia Minor and at Rome, where he suffered martyrdom about the year 165. Two “Apologies” bearing his name and his “Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon” have come down to us. Leo XIII had a Mass and an Office composed in his honour and set his feast for 14 April.

    What do you disagree with: birth, death, works?

  • IconoclastTwo

    Ronald Reagan:
    Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
    Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
    Percent change in total debt: +218%

    Barack Obama:
    Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
    Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
    Percent change in total debt: +34%

  • You parrot words of others who would discredit the bible by trying to deny the physical facts contained therein.

    No evidence? Wrong. No evidence for those who wish to find no evidence.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Evidence doesn’t work that way. Either you find it or you don’t-and floods, especially large ones, leave behind lots of evidence. As just one example, there’d probably be a level of sediment found at roughly the same place chronologically in the rock everywhere if there was a global recent flood. Everywhere would also have to include _everywhere_ (including extremely high altitude locations like plains in the Andes or the Tibetan Plateau) and we still haven’t even come close to the issue of where did all of the water come from and where did it go afterwards?

    Did people actually find any of this? No, they didn’t.

  • Everything from the Left is either wrong, hurtful, designed to put money in someone else’s pockets, anti-God or worse.

    I am just a spectator watching the destruction of the Left in real time as they pursue they unbelievably negative and purposeless agenda.

    The Left does not accept facts. it only accept feelings. Global Warming is a feeling that denigrates America and makes the Left feel good that they can expose yet another shameful episode in the history of our great country.

    To the Left I say: Otto Warmbier

  • IconoclastTwo

    How is the chart showing temperature rises throughout the 20th century a ‘feeling’?

  • Obama racked up $9 Billion in debt in his two terms. More debt than all presidents before him. And what to show for it? Where did all that money go? To buy influence and secure future elections which utterly failed as did Obama.

  • Subject: The Flood of Noah.
    Conclusion: A fraud
    Author: Iconoclast Two
    Validity: None

  • IconoclastTwo

    Wow, who could argue with ironclad ‘logic’ like that? You’ve provided so much proof!

  • Inconclusive. We share 90% and more of genes with other species also

    “Humans and mice share nearly 90 percent of human DNA.”:

    “Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins.” However that is inconclusive evidence, because as many studies have clearly shown, that does not mean nthat they share the same percentage of genes. Here’s one:

    You should also read “New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion” :

  • From the time first I watched Prof. Dawkins’ lecture, my opinion had been that he was using inconclusive data. Now, new research is showing that experts were of the same opinion as I. Read: “New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion” :

    Abiogenesis has never occurred on earth. Ribose, deoxy ribose, cytosine and adenine were either not available on the prebiotic earth, or there was not enough of them for DNA or RNA to have formed: and

  • Herm

    With all the evidence passed down from the survivors of The Flood of Noah, through generations of peoples to Moses (or whoever first penned the story to hardcopy), it is clear that to them it was so catastrophic as to have encompassed their entire world.

    It gets even more of a small world after all for those who survived The Garden.

    Bob, your world of self made blinders won’t even contain the bush of shame much less those who hid behind it hoping God would simply passed them by. God has not passed you by. It is you who fears the infinite dimensions of Jesus’ world to have made God to fit you rather than you to grow with and in God. It is you who chooses not to accept the evidence that clearly this earth is round, rotates around the sun, and is less visible to the cosmos than the quark is to you.

    You demonstrate a love for the conservative, non-progressive, mentality of take us back to the good old days when the only choice for today was, “do I eat the apple or not“, for Eve; and for Adam, “do I sacrifice my relationship with the Spirit of truth for the second hand lie of you will surely not die?“. You freely have bitten into the fruits of “only I can fix it!“, and “what have you got to lose?“.

    Why can’t you see that? Why do you have to flaunt your dependent ignorance by choosing to fight to the death with others of greater vision who are willing to grow toward the truth of God all the way to the end of eternity? Why?

  • “omnipotence includes the power to create contradictions”. Illogical. Omnipotence includes total control over oneself, so that one will refrain from causing contradictions.

    “employing energy in the universe would destroy it by breaking symmetry”, again illogical. The only if energy is uncontrolled does it destroy. Controlled energy is used in creation (and repair)

    Second paragraph is also illogical. There is almost always more than one perfect way to accomplish something, so change does not necessarily result in imperfection. Very often God has changed simply out of consideration for a worshiper. Other times He has changed to accomplish his purpose by a different route. Both routes would have worked perfectly.

  • Of course nt! but then Hebrew, like all other languages, expresses some things in ways that would be weird when literally translated to other languages. (Talk to a Hebrew expert) The expression would probably best have been “. . . crawls around on its legs.”

    New Living Translation
    “You must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you.” (Leviticus 11:20)

  • Hermit

    Omnipotence that is limited is not actually omnipotence.

    Apparently you don’t understand mass-energy equivalence or energy symmetry. Over its entire life, the universe has no energy,.as the positive and negative energies balance perfectly. Adding energy to the universe, or removing energy from the universe would violate that symmetry, resulting in collapse.

    Perfection is always relative to other things which are less than perfect. If there is more than one perfection, there is no perfection.

    You still have not told me why your god thingies deserve to be regarded as god thingies.

  • You have seen enough of my replies to answer that question by yourself.

  • Herm

    When will you see enough of the replies to you that you may answer that question for yourself? I know the answer that lies within my question to you. I honestly cannot understand your pride of ignorance, only sustained by your gross lack of vision, as possibly being of the way, the truth and the life.

  • Hermit

    I’m sorry. Are you seriously attempting to cite an icr (already a zero credibility joke) article linked to an article by the same author on a less-than-zero credibility open-access website called “Answers In Genesis” and dependent on some hair-raisingly naive assumptions, as a purported rebuttal to peer reviewed science? Here is how Pharyngula dealt with Tomkins, “You didn’t expect anything else, did you? This is the way it always turns out. Creationist makes claim, creationist interpretation is bullsh!t.” Nothing has changed. Here are two refutations: Stack exchange is meatier, Pharyngula’s is wittier. Take your pick, this anatida won’t fly.

    Neither will your long outdated articles (See attempting to make a major claim about life, while not apparently realizing that life is itself an emergent process, which need not have looked anything like modern life forms in its earliest instantiations. For example, see

  • Hermit

    Again with nonsense. Do you understand what “separation” and “divergence” mean? It means that we have a common ancestor. “The time of separation of the human from the chimpanzee lineage remains somewhat controversial, but is generally dated to 5–9 million years ago” and “The difference in single copy sequence between human and rhesus macaque is approximately 6.5%, and the divergence of those two lineages is more confidently dated at 25–28 million years ago.”

    So the article you are quoting rebuts your assertions. Why don’t you bother to read what you post, instead of wasting everyone’s time.

  • Hermit

    Humans and cabbages also share 28% of their DNA, but it is more obvious in religiots.

  • So you want me to abandon my beliefs and principles to join with you on the “dark side.” I’ll pass….

  • Herm

    I rest my case on your admission that the truth is dark to your vision, thank you!

  • Hermit

    Selective reading and repetition of other people’s lies.

    “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you [כֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף, הַהֹלֵךְ עַל-אַרְבַּע–שֶׁקֶץ הוּא, לָכֶם.
    literally All that creeps, that is on all fours that is not for you]. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground [אַךְ אֶת-זֶה, תֹּאכְלוּ, מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף, הַהֹלֵךְ עַל-אַרְבַּע:אֲשֶׁר-לא (לוֹ) כְרָעַיִם מִמַּעַל לְרַגְלָיו, לְנַתֵּר בָּהֵן עַל-הָאָרֶץ. literally But you may consume, from all the flying insects with four legs with joints above its feet for leaping about on the earth.]. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper [אֶת-אֵלֶּה מֵהֶם, תֹּאכֵלוּ–אֶת-הָאַרְבֶּה לְמִינוֹ, וְאֶת-הַסָּלְעָם לְמִינֵהוּ; וְאֶת-הַחַרְגֹּל לְמִינֵהוּ, וְאֶת-הֶחָגָב לְמִינֵהוּ. literally You may eat any kind of locust, cricket, katydid, or grasshopper.]. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean [ וְכֹל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף, אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם–שֶׁקֶץ הוּא, לָכֶם. literally but all other flying quadrapeds are not for you].

  • IconoclastTwo

    I’m not a creationist so aim this response at them, not me.

  • Hermit

    My apologies I took your quotation as being claimed to originate from the paper you cited, rather than from Drooling Dennis, and thought you were trying to support this blithering idiot upon whom I have been wasting my time writing responses.

  • Clinton Max Walker

    So the Bible is scientifically inaccurate on the most basic of things, like counting and then recording the number you counted. Can’t have been difficult for Yahweh to count the number of legs on his insects before divinely bestowing this knowledge upon the illiterate. So he’s an idiot, a jackass, or nothing at all. Your pick. And it is irresponsible to pass the Bible as a book with scientific truths if it cannot even get the amount of legs on the most abundant type of animal on the planet correct. The Creation story is a myth at best, but as you’d have it, it is a whopper of a lie.

  • IconoclastTwo

    It’s alright and I understand.

  • D.M.S.

    I noticed that you enjoy using that phrase when you don’t understand something. Do you have any new material.
    By the looks of your picture you’re old and set in your ways.
    So I’ll understand if you don’t. My grand dad is like that.

  • D.M.S.

    Thank you, you’re to kind in saying that.

  • Hermit

    On a point of order, I think you will find that nematodes are the most abundant animals :-)

  • Now you’re being illogical. The Hebrew way of expression, when literally translated to English, is the problem. The New Living Translation has the logical translation of the Hebrew to English. A literal translation into a closely related language, such as Arabic would not have caused the same problem. Why not first speak to an expert in Hebrew or an expert linguist, so that you can get the idea of what I mean about it not always being an accurate rendering in a different language when you are always literal. For instance the question in English, “How are you doing?” comes out as a weird sounding question to a Francophone who translates it literally to French.

  • You might be correct :-D

  • Again, choosing to ignore the fact that Hebrew expressions, when literately translated to English, will not always transmit the true meaning. Try speaking to an expert in Hebrew or an expert linguist who will explain this to you.

  • Hermit

    Usually. My partner calls it my most annoying quality.

  • Why the insist on the illogical “change in a perfect entity would result in imperfection”? Why would change automatically be “imperfection”?

    The bible does not say that the earth was formed before the sun; that is clergy manure!

  • Clinton Max Walker


  • I know that! I have studied biochemistry. We even share about 50% of our DNA with banana. Since I write computer programs, I know that similarity in codes also indicate same designer. You can easily identify codes that I have written; I use the very same codes in many different programs. For instance, my algorithm for calculating pi (the ratio of the circumfrence for a circle to its radius) has some of the same code as the one I wrote to calculate trigonometric ratios. You will even find the very same sub-routine I use to calculate the square root of a number in both algorithms.

  • Hermit

    While I doubt that you understand Hebrew or Koine Greek, and seeing that you ignored my careful transliteration from the Hebrew, so I won’t bother to create one for the Septuagint, but note that the Hebrew and Koine Greek of the Septuagint follow the same translation scheme as did I. Do you really imagine that a modern “expert” knows more than those (native speakers of the Hebrew of that time) scholars did?

  • Hermit

    The über-enlightened probably have also worked out that without the so-called “fall”, which is also “a myth” or “the best guess”, there would be no reason to be a christer either ;-P

  • The experts will vehemently attack anything that endangers their beloved evolution theory. I notice that they do not present any actual conclusive evidence and their explanations are rife with personal attacks and insults, circular reasoning and huge amounts of unsupported suppositions and “maybe” is very often said or implied.

    I also did not state that the building blocks cannot be formed by natural causes; those are, for the most part, very simple chemicals. However, ever since the discovery of the instability of ribose frustrated Dr. Stanley Miller, ribose is still way too unstable. Since then they also discovered that cytosine is so unstable that there has to be someone assigned to keep adding it to the experiment when they investigate abiogenesis. Robert Shapiro’s theses are still valid! Those four components are so unstable that there was either none or way too insufficient quantities of them for DNA or RNA to have been possible. Also getting the components does not mean that the polymer was possible. RNA and DNA polymerize in water which then attacks the molecule, pulling pieces off. Nucleic acids must coexist with their repair mechanism or life will be impossible!

  • ” That’s because you cannot notice when I have doe so, because your perception is being clouded by way too much illogical ideas.

    Where did I say that omnipotence is limited?

    I understand mass-energy equivalence and energy symmetry. BTW, energy is being added to the universe all the time; that is why is is still expanding at an accelerated rate.

    “Perfection is always relative to other things which are less than perfect. If there is more than one perfection, there is no perfection.” Where do you get all this illogical stuff? There can always be more than one perfection!

    “You still have not told me why your god thingies deserve to be regarded as god thingies.” That’s because you have not noticed when I have done so because you are being blinded by you own illogical ideas.

    Answer one question: Why should I believe that abiogenesis has occurred here? All the evidence so far shows that neither DNA or RNA were possible on the prebiotic earth. “It did, because before, there was no life, but now there” amounts to circular logic. The evidence says because it didn’t happen all by itself, so someone must have done it.

  • No, you are the one ignoring stuff. You know almost nothing about linguistics. A literal translation from one language to another unrelated language can result in transmitting the wrong thought. You know a native Hebrew speaker? Great! What does he say about those Hebrew expressions?

  • So! We are alike in that quality :-D

  • Hermit

    The entire point of noise is that we know that anything can be found in noise, but that any claim of finding something in noise tells us more about the filters used than about the noise.

    That is not the purpose of religious works like the bible in which anything can be found. The point is whether somebody else interprets it the same way as you do, to the finest nuance, making you a friend to be cherished, or differently, no matter how slightly, making you an enemy to be killed, or failing that, to be driven off. This is the only function performed by all religions at all times.

  • Hermit

    Hebrew is one of my home languages. I say you are speaking rubbish.

  • Hermit

    In your dreams.

  • David Cromie

    The ‘church fathers’ were prolific liars for christ, nothing more.

  • This means what? When they said the writer of Revelation was the Apostle John they lied. When they preached Catholicism they lied? Not sure why you would say that.

  • Hermit

    What are you smoking? Where did you find that broken quotation?

    “Omnipotence includes total control over oneself, so that one will refrain from causing contradictions.” If one will refrain from causing contradictions, then your omnipotence is not omnipotence at all. For example, death is the irreversible cessation of the emergent attributes of life. Reversing death is therefore a contradiction. So reversing death is not possible.That means “omnipotence” as you have articulated it, is not omnipotence at all.

    Your assertions about scientific knowledge are blatant lies, as you immediately contradict yourself by claiming that expansion is a violation of the fact that the universe is a closed system..

    Perfection means that something is complete or finished (from Latin, perfectiōn- (the stem of perfectiō), a finishing There is no change that can be made in something perfect without the thing that was there before no longer having been perfect. So something to which a change could be made is not perfect. It is definitional. Like death.

    You have not shown me any evidence that your god thingies possess any attributes that I regard as earning the possessor worthy of being regarded as a god thingy, let alone that they exist. If you claim that you have presented such evidence, please sustain the claim, because to me it looks as if you are a shifty-eyed liar. Don’t forget that your evidence must be intersubjectively verifiable. That your evidence must include those attributes necessary and sufficient to qualify the possessors of such attributes as god thingies, and that you must provide intersubjectively verifiable evidence that your god thingies possess such attributes. Repeating hearsay about what others believed might tell you about the speakers and their beliefs, it never constitutes such evidence as I have requested and you have claimed to have provided.

    Life is emergent. We know why life emerged (to hydrogenate carbon dioxide to methane, releasing the inherent energy in that transformation). All life still performs this task relying on the same basic chemistry and physics as produces vast quantities of the building blocks of life, up to and including all the amino acids found on earth and more which we have detected in space. There is no need to presuppose any much more complex physics violating hypothesis, like god thingies, in order to result in abiogenesis. As William of Okham put it, “Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.”

  • You just proved me correct :-D

  • O.K., so the “fraudsters” who wrote that didn’t notice that insects actually have 6 legs? I find that impossible to believe.

  • None of those beliefs are backed up by conclusive evidence. Noe have stated why I should believe that abiogenesis has occurred here on earth in the very face of conclusive evidence that it has not.

    I have no proof that abiogenesis is impossible; what I have is 160 years of experiments and observations, each showing that it has never occurred here. Those experiments each provide more and more evidence that life that uses DNA and/or RNA did not arise all by itself, so, logically, someone did it!

  • Hermit

    So, if DNA and RNA which are simply molecules pose an insurmountable obstacles to your imagination (though not to those of “experts”), why do you imagine that a complex organism should not be a problem?

  • I am contradicting myself? You are stating that an omnipotent one cannot control Himself! And that reversing death amounts to a contradiction because death is irreversible. Why must death be irreversible? Why would it not be possible for the Omnipotent One to re-create what has been destroyed?

    I have merely stated the plain fact that the universe is expanding at a rate that is still increasing. Simple application of physics says that energy is being added

    Your perception of perfection is illogical. Perfection also means capable of performing its function, it also means the achievement of a set goal, it also means, “without defect”.

    It does not make sense for me to present any more evidence that the ones I have already presented; you will simply ignore it. (BTW, when I lie, my eyes do not shift :-D)

    We don’t know how life could have possibly emerged all by itself. All the facts show that life based on DNA and RNA does not form all by itself. Every author whose paper I have read says, ” . . we don’t know . . ” Anyway, since the four components for DNA and RNA are so unstable, the fact that DNA and RNA does not form without enzymes, plus as Craig Venter has clearly shown, they only formed short strands when his team polymerized it using polymerase (he had to use the repair mechanism of yeast to stitch the pieces together). Also, the polymerization occurs in water which then attacks the molecule by stripping units off, so they must coexist with their repair mechanism or life becomes impossible. With all those facts, confirmed numerous times, why is it unreasonable to conclude that DNA and RNA based life did not form all by themselves on this planet?

  • First, I have never stated that abiogenesis occurring all by itself is impossible. Read my comments again, I said that if the life is based on RNA and DNA, it didn’t form all by itself! Why am I using the immensely complex to explain the complex? Simple, there is more than sufficient time to expect something as immensely complex as God. The universe is 14.8 billion years old, since it was created, then God must be even older than the universe. I therefore have an infinity of time before the universe began. “When you are working with infinity, then even the improbable becomes probable”, (Prof. Michio Kaku)

  • Hermit

    Now you are going in circles. There is a wealth of evidence that life exists today, and could not have existed until after the earliest stars exploded, proving that it instantiated at some point. There is still no evidence that attributes which earn something the right to be regarded as a god thingie exist in this universe, let alone that any thing possesses these attributes. Fortunately, we agree that the universe is about 14.8 billion years old. And while we differ on whether anything which existed prior to the Big Bang could be in the universe, once you acknowledge that something as complex as a god thingie could instantiate or evolve at sometime then there exists no reason why anything simpler than an god thingie could not also instantiate at any time in that time either, almost certainly, as I said previously, many times and in many places.

    And you no longer have any argument that that is not the case. Only that the first life forms were not RNA and DNA based, which may or may not be the case, but is exactly what I said was not necessarily the case many comments back.

  • Hermit

    There is no “conclusive evidence” that abiogenesis has not occurred. What you presented was ridiculous speculation by religiots raising invalid hypothetical objections to it, thoroughly debunked by actual “experts”. The experts are not going to pretend they know how it happens until they reproduce the results. This is hard, because most of them do not have access to an earth sized retort, reproducing the conditions of the prebiotic earth, and some 400,000 years in which to run their experiment. To paraphrase your quotation of Kaku below, “When you are working with very large experiments over very large periods, then even the improbable becomes probable”. And life is not actually improbable. As I have repeatedly observed, many non-biological processes have been used to show emergent properties of life, and the complex process of hydrogenating carbon dioxide was always going to happen one way or another in the presence of a chemical soup in water. Particularly when we know that the “fragile” building blocks were not only synthesized by Miller-Urey in two series of experiments, the volcanic vent experiments and the discharge experiments, but are also found in meteorites that have survived the enormous heat of reentry and impacted earth. See e.g.

  • Hermit

    “Experts” don’t have a problem envisaging what you cannot, but you, a non-expert, are saying the “experts” are wrong. Precious. “Experts” don’t make the kinds of simplistic absolute statements you seek about complex subjects because they understand nuances. See Dunning-Kruger Syndrome to understand more.

    Miller-Urey were not so much “frustrated” by the “fragility of ribose” or the supposed instability of “cytosine” as by the limitations of analysis of his day. He actually produced 22 amino acids and 5 amines, but did not realize it. See In addition, more than 80 different amino acids have been identified as components of the Murchison
    meteorite of 1969.

    There is no need for life to have started as a DNA/RNA system. It might have first formed as a tar. But the “fragile” building blocks were not only synthesized by Miller’s volcanic vent experiment and simpler discharge experiment, but also survived re-enty on meteorites that impacted earth. See e.g.

  • Hermit

    I am stating that if “omnipotent entities” cannot cause contradictions, as claimed by you, that they are not omnipotent.

    Death is irreversible because that is how death is defined. Anything that is alive has never been dead.

    How could even an omnipotent entity “recreate” something that no longer is available to recreate?

    This is not a matter of time-translation symmetry. The universe is closed. Every conserved quantity characterizing the universe (energy, momentum, charge) is exactly zero. All of the energy of expansion is exactly counterbalanced by the negative energy of gravity, and when the last particle evaporates some google years from now, the nett energy of what was our universe will remain zero.

    Consult a dictionary. If perfection does not mean “finished” and “completed” then it does not mean anything, because all the secondary definitions are dependent on that quality. Any change means that what was was not perfect, a contradiction. Words mean what people understand them to mean. If you assign them private definitions it is little wonder that you suffer from communication challenges.

    To the best of my knowledge you have not provided any “evidence”. Maybe I missed it. Please provide a link to the “evidence” you claim to have provided so that I can intersubjectively verify your claim.

    You look very shifty-eyed to me.

    We don’t know how it might have arisen, on this planet or elsewhere, but we know that the building blocks of life are spread across the planet and our galaxy, so the likelihood is that life has instantiated, probably many times in many places. There are many possibilities for how this may have occurred, and, as I have repeatedly observed, not all of which begin with RNA or DNA, but all of which are vastly more likely than the utterly unevidenced god thingies, whose attributes supposedly earning them the right to be regarded as god thingies you have utterly failed to articulate despite repeated challenges.

  • Belief in God automatically requires one to acknowledge that the first life form were nor DNA and or RNA based, however it still remains true that if the life form uses DNA and?or RNA, it did not arise all by itself, so someone had to have done it. However, saying that life did not exist before the stars exploded is true of life as we know it. Belief in a creator requires one to believe that there are also life as we don’t know it.

    BTW, there are well qualified and respected scientists who say that there is evidence that the entire universe is an artifact.

  • Hermit

    A simulation is an artifact, but we call people and programs that write programs programmers, not god thingies, and they would be outside this universe and so unable to interact with it in any way. So unless you can think of some intersubjectively verifiable attributes possible in this universe that qualify a thingie as a god thingie, and a mechanism whereby such a thing could have arisen, we still live in a universe without god thingies, no matter what you like to delude yourself :-P

  • David, it has taken me a while to respond to this bible criticism because I am just a slow Christian beguiled by the bible that was finally written 250 years after the death of a person who never lived from stories transmitted by illiterate fisherman – but hey many people voted for Obama didn’t they? He was a fiction created by the media and perpetuated by fake news and still almost relevant…

    However we slow Christians prefer the Textus Receptus to the Codex for our erroneous reading.

    I find it curious though, why is it necessary to disparage text that was orally transmitted for 250 years by unknown individuals and finally put in writing with no chance of being accurate as it consists of fairy tales of the first magnitude? Oh! Because it is the most published book in the world – maybe that’s why people read it….

  • Hermit

    In pre-modern times they preferred argument to observation, and rationalizing to evidence*. Christers still do. You believe so many impossible things already, all you need to do is rely on the evidence and you will find that rejecting the unevidenced impossible and accepting the probable is much less stressful.

    *“Observation versus Authority: To modern educated people, it seems obvious that matters of fact are to be ascertained by observation, not by consulting ancient authorities. But this is an entirely modern conception, which hardly existed before the seventeenth century.
    Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.” Bertrand Russell (1968). The Impact of Science on Society, Simon & Schuster Inc, NY. p 7.

  • I checked the scripture again and read what Hebrew experts have said. They di indeed mean 4 feet as you quite rightly have stated, however it also said that the 40ur footed insects they were allowed to eat, the grasshopper, the cricket and the katydid (not according to the KJV) also had two legs above their feet; that makes six (four feet and two legs), so those two back legs that had a different function to the other four were not called feet.

  • And until they show that in spite of all those things making it impossible, DNA and RNA life came about all by itself, I will continue to say that abiogenesis has never occurred on this planet. :-D

  • Strange (to me) how your mind works. I said that an omnipotent entity has control of himself, so He chooses not to cause contradiction.

    Your saying, “Death is irreversible because that is how death is defined.” is illogical. That is not how death is defined. Also, “Anything that is alive has never been dead.” is not logical. The components of life as we know it were once non-living.

    “Perfection” has more meanings than you are stating. Any way, since neutral changes occur all the time, a change in or of a perfect entity does not always mean that the entity is no longer perfect.

  • “There is no “conclusive evidence” that abiogenesis has not occurred.” I haven’t said that it has never occurred; I said that the evidence clearly shows that it has never occurred on Earth.

    “What you presented was ridiculous speculation by religiots raising invalid hypothetical objections to it, thoroughly debunked by actual experts”. Wrong again. I used what was written by Dr. Robert Shapiro. He was not a theist; according to a former colleague (Dr. Simon Garte) he was an atheist when he wrote that. None of what he has written has been defunked by anybody.

  • Hermit


    You really are not very good at “interpreting” problems away.

    You said, “the “fraudsters” who wrote that didn’t notice that insects actually have 6 legs? I find that impossible to believe.”

    And yet you apparently believe in 4 foot flying creatures with two extra legs without feet.

  • Hermit

    So, because you cannot understand how RNA and DNA evolved as a replicating mechanism within prebiotic life, instead you claim that omnipotent god thingies that are perfect but do not cause contradictions (which means they cannot look at or interact with anything in any way or change their minds, if any, in any way) came about all by themselves because they had a long time in which to accomplish this, but also that they created our universe meaning that it is outside our universe and cannot even see what is happening inside it, or are inside our universe but cannot have created it.

    You really are horribly confused about what is or is not worthy of consideration. Perhaps you should try to follow the evidence for once in your life. And the evidence is that all god thingies were made up by humans.

  • It’s not that I don’t understand; it’s that the evidence clearly indicates that DNA didn’t form all by itself. I am following the evidence and making my inferences based on what it says unequivocally.

    BTW, you haven’t stated why I should still believe it happened when the evidence shows that it couldn’t have. To you, in this instance, believing something that is contradicted by the current evidence is rational, but to me it isn’t. As far as you are concerned, I am not being objective. Why is that when all I do is show conclusive evidence that DNA based life cannot come about by natural means.

  • So, I must believe that those “fraudsters” who ate them raw did not notice that the thing they were eating had six limbs? Here’s another one for you: There is a species of centipedes in Jamaica we call the “40 Legs”. It does not have 40 legs! I really don’t know how ancient Hebrews classified appendages, but it is certainly unreasonable to conclude that they didn’t notice that lunch had six limbs under it :-D

  • Hermit

    They also thought that bats were birds, that the hyrax chewed the cud, that people could book ocean-crossings in big fishes, and borrowed weird stories about impossible god thingies, and ridiculous laws all over the place.

    The fraudsters were apparently not terribly bright.

  • D.M.S.

    Obama is and was a lot worse for this nation.
    And Hillary would of been more of the same.

  • D.M.S.

    Thank you, for admitting that you’re not a Christian in your statement here.
    Are you and Rex, brothers.
    You sound a like.

  • Ron McPherson

    Oh great. Another one who thinks he can differentiate between the wheat and tares

  • D.M.S.

    You admitted it in your statement that you are not a Christian.
    So yes in this case I can differentiate between the wheat and the tares.
    Praise the Lord.

  • David Cromie

    “…the prebiotic earth…” must have had the potential to become ‘biotic’ when the conditions were right. In the same way H2O was formed in the universe when the ambient conditions allowed it. Isn’t chemistry (both organic and inorganic) a wonderful thing, and far more potent than any supposed ‘god’!

  • Ron McPherson

    Ok so now it seems you’re bearing false witness. I’m a Christian

  • D.M.S.

    Not when you are for any lgbtq people to be in any kind of sinful romantic relationship you are not.
    It is fine with you that you advocate a people to sin against God/Jesus everyday of their lives.
    We Christians are to tell people how to turn away from their Sinfilled lives.
    Not help them to keep sinning so they may spend an eternity in hell.

  • Ron McPherson

    ““Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own?”
    ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:1-4‬ ‭

  • D.M.S.

    1 Corinthians 2:15-16.
    15. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judge by no one. 16. For ” who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
    John7:24. Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement.

    You and I will both stand before God and be judged.
    But on this day the Lord God will see that you advocate for the lgbtq to sin against the Father God.
    God the Father will see on this day that I do not advocate for the lgbtq to sin against the Father God.
    I want the lgbtq to turn away from their sin(s) and live their lives for Christ Jesus.
    You want the lgbtq to keep sinning in their atrocities that are hated by God.
    Yes, you and I will both be judged by God. I’m ready to be judged by God, are you?

  • Very good observation.

  • This is another example of science agreeing with what the bible already showed thousands of years before man figured it out.

  • Who has agreed that we have moved beyond the idea of the Big Bang – what a load of crap that statement is. The point is that Genesis predicted a beginning of the universe thousands of years in advance of the proof. Why would anyone read the cite you gave when it is obviously slanted. Physicists have been debating forever about the beginning of the universe and whether it was expanding. Now there is agreement which must drive you crazy.

    “instantiation of spacetime, and that universes are continuously instantiated” Just another theory that has no support because it is just that a convenient theory….

  • Krauss agrees completely with the Big Bang. Only in the last chapters of this book does he talk about infinite universes. Why? Because he is anti-God as a causality and must proffer another explanation.

    He correctly mentions “The existence of energy in empty space” without understanding what it might be (think God’s spirit). He doesn’t want to accept the fact that God is the cause of the Big Bang so he proposes another theory. He even proposes that if there is a deity it is not the God of our bible.

    A very, very smart man who has yet to come around. Perhaps God will knock him off his horse as He did Paul and bring him to his senses…

  • Yes 2012 it was.
    Krauss is typical of very smart people. He cannot stand the fact that someone else is not only smarter but is superior. Nonetheless he is very readable.

  • I would suggest that religion is not only for delusional people but for many people. Otherwise how is it that the concept of God has been with us from any beginning we choose to recognize and does not simply go away? If it were as you say everyone would be a communist not just the Left.

    Krauss’s article reinforces why he should not stray into political realms. His social arguments are from the Left and he is not good enough to carry it. It is one thing to excel at explaining complex physics in understandable terms ; it is quite another to be a social activist.

  • I would suggest the answer to this last question is simple: God. He existed before the universe which He created out of spirit and sustains it with His spirit. While we may be able to discover the laws and rules that govern this universe we will never be able to identify God in a physical/scientific sense other than what we are told. God is spirit and His spirit is in every cubic measurement of space that science has now discovered as “dark energy.” That may bother you because it places something out of your field of understanding but it is there and has always been there and science has just now found it.

  • Well, given that Christianity (much less believers in Creationism) is not practiced by a majority of the world’s populace… actually, it makes you a minority. =-p

  • Well Sam, you did not make it out of the gate. 30% of the world identifies as christian. And the Big Bang which I do believe in is not Creationism.

    List of religious populations
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Christianity 2.2 billion 31.50%
    Islam 1.6 billion 22.32%
    Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.1 billion 15.35%
    Hinduism 1 billion 13.95

    I looked for you on the list but did not find a category that adequately described your careless comment.

  • I see you are interested in the Universe and seem to be knowledgeable on string theory. I’ll admit you are more impressive than I imagined. You are also one of the few on this site that can communicate without invective….

  • So what you’re saying is that 70% of the world is not Christian — and therefore CHristianity is not practiced by a majority of the world’s populace.

    Thanks for playing.

  • … Debunked? You realize it was known in 2016 that hackers associated with Russia’s government had compromised 39 voting systems?

  • A bandwagon argument would hold a lot more water if Trump hadn’t lost the popular vote by several million.

  • I should hope Trump won’t be here eight years, or he’ll have cost us over a billion dollars just with his constant vacationing.

  • When Trump took office, he promptly tried to lift sanctions against Russia which had been in place since it was uncovered that Russians had hacked 39 state voting infrastructures, including having changed voter registrations in at least one.

  • “change a single vote”

    By altering voter registration data, which results in ballots being discarded during the count. All it takes is tweaking the information in small ways which can’t be reconciled with the person’s ballot information. Add a middle name, change a house number, and the ballot goes into the garbage. The voter is never informed.

    Some district reported over 5% of their ballots were discarded in this manner. That’s enough to change the outcome in that district. And some of those results really were that close.

    And we do have evidence Russian hackers altered voter registration data in at least one district.

    “The old fashioned way”

    By winning the popular vote by several million and losing the electoral college. Not exactly unprecedented, but far from normal, especially by the numbers reported.

  • Debunked that President Trump colluded with Russia to change the electon.
    Not one vote was compromised and if they had been it would have had no effect.
    Doesn’t it make you wonder why you are saying Putin is not a Hillary fan?

    One of the mysteries about the 2016 presidential election is why Russian intelligence, after gaining access to state and local systems, didn’t try to disrupt the vote. One possibility is that the American warning was effective. Another former senior U.S. official, who asked for anonymity to discuss the classified U.S. probe into pre-election hacking, said a more likely explanation is that several months of hacking failed to give the attackers the access they needed to master America’s disparate voting systems spread across more than 7,000 local jurisdictions.

    But even if the entire database had been deleted, it might not have affected the election, according to Menzel.

  • The rules of a Presidential election have been known from the beginning. President Trump took crucial states from the Democrats to win. The popular vote tally difference from CA and NY alone accounted for that difference. This is a clue why the founders set up our electoral system as they did.

  • All right. Once you come to the conclusion that it is sheerly a coincidence that Trump is bending over backwards to justify why we should embrace a country he owes millions of dollars to in light of their blatant and widespread effort to undermine the election, I know there is literally nothing you will hear to the contrary.

  • This is funny. We have asked for voter id laws to stop democrats from padding election results with illegal immigrant voters. The democrats always object. I guess what comes around goes around

  • Sam, the democrats opened the door to obstruction with their collusion scam. Now it appears that Lynch will be questioned about her interference. Again, what goes around comes around. President Trump does not need Russian money. He no longer runs his business as he is trying to run the country’s business. Let’s see if the Democrats can figure out how to change back to a party that had a message from a party of hate. If not they are done for a long time.

  • Voter ID laws wouldn’t stop this form of disenfranchising — your card wouldn’t match your records, and they would trust their records, not your ID card. You could wind up charged with voter fraud, accused of forging a fake ID. By the time your name was cleared (it probably would be), the election would probably be long over.

  • If you buy that Trump put his business in a blind trust, you’re not paying attention. A blind trust doesn’t grant the level of control Trump still has over his business. You’re also not paying attention if you think Trump is totally self-sufficient; there isn’t a bank in the US that will still do business with him, and the one bank he’s openly doing business with now has already sued him (and received a billion dollar countersuit).

  • My guess is that if a spirothete can’t persuade you to want treatment, you are probably are too sick to be wandering around, but I am sure that if a spirothetic health care professional can’t treat a condition ethically, safely and successfully, it won’t try.

    Well, thank you for stepping back from eugenics. This autistic person who is largely okay with being autistic thanks you.

  • I believe Trump has two wonderful boys to look after his business. How is it important to the US taxpayer even if it is not as clean as you would like? I think of Hillary’s foundation, which is nothing but a front for Clinton cash when I think of corruption on a scale not seen before even among politicians. At least Trump built an honest business not a pay for play scam.

  • Every vacation Trump takes costs taxpayers three million dollars, and given his current vacationing schedule, he will have spent more by October than Obama did in his entire eight years of office; if Trump keeps to the same schedule and holds office for eight years, then he will have cost taxpayers over a billion dollars — and much of this will have paid to house his security at the Mar-a-lago.

    As for charities, I suspect you’ve never looked into Trump’s charity or the numerous times it has been caught doing shady things. Eric Trump’s has also been caught.

    You are hopelessly, and I’d have to think intentionally ignorant if you think Trump’s businesses are clean. The man is so disgusting that Sesame Street didn’t hesitate to use him as a villain.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “How is it important to the US taxpayer even if it is not as clean as you would like?”

    Because it’s totally unconstitutional (which btw is much richer and more fertile grounds for impeachment). It’s called violating the emoluments clause-which Trump does every time his businesses make a profit from foreign dignitaries staying in his properties or making long term rental arrangements in them because it increases the chances that he’ll make favorable deals with whoever can pay in advance. This is very, specifically, illegal for federal officials.

  • David Cromie

    What facts do you have to back up this statement?

  • Sam,
    Our President is not disgusting. He is a man who holds different views from the Left. His mission is to try and stop the endless corruption in government and get the focus back on the taxpayer who pays the bills.

    Obama spent $9 Trillion Dollars over his long and unproductive eight years. Tell me what single thing do we have for all that money? Name one:
    Are we safer – no
    Is the economy booming – no
    Is Healthcare better – hell no.
    Is the world a safer place – no

    What will President Trump do:
    Build the Wall – yes
    Create Jobs – Yes
    Fix the VA – yes
    Stop Iran from building nuclear – Yes

    When CEO’s make companies more profitable they get compensated for it. If president Trump’s travel is a cost for these changes so be it.

    This president works most of the day every day. The past president did not. This president does what he says. The past president did not.

  • Your are incorrect about the emoluments clause and president Trump will not be impeached. You will have the pleasure of waking up each morning knowing that Trump will be undoing the harm to the economy and harm to the world caused by the last president who can’t go away as his ego prevents him from doing what is right.

    Obama has ruined the Democrat Party while advancing himself. There has never been such a loss of power in the history of this country comparable to what happened under the eight years of Obama. The Progressive Elements in your Party still control the party and do it further harm each day. You are now 0/5 in special elections which means that the people who elected president Trump do not buy the destructive rhetoric the Democrat Party spews.

  • David Cromie

    The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy again!

  • David Cromie

    What a pity for you that no supernatural entities actually exist outside of your addled brain!

  • D.M.S.

    That’s the second time you have brought that up. I looked it up several years age. It is total Bologna.
    And so are you.
    One raspberry for you.
    Take care, neighbors

  • D.M.S.

    You want me to learn your hatred.
    And I would like you to know the love of Christ Jesus.
    Take care, neighbors

  • Stop getting your news from Breitbart and pay attention to what’s going on. You’re describing traits which are the furthest and most remote concept from the truth. And a man who bragged about sexually assaulting women and how he never paid taxes is not your champion.


  • Ok. Let’s assume I want to know what’s going on. Please advise the sources you believe I should follow in that regard. I do know of Breitbart but I don’t use them.

    I use Rush and Hannity as primary sources, ten other secondary sources and twenty other occasional sources including newspapers. If there is something going on and I am not aware of it it would be unusual.

    Mr. Trump is this country’s President character flaws and all. Even the Evangelicals overlooked his taped comments and endorsed him.

  • D.M.S.

    I’m not one of those Christians I take the bible literally.

  • As to President Trump and his decisions you only have to look at the Supreme Court’s decision today supporting his Travel Bans. The blind trust is setup and it has been approved and it will remain…

  • David Cromie

    You may have looked it up, but your lack of a decent education barred you from understanding it.

  • We use the Textus Receptus. Your comment about the Roman Church is correct. It is the Roman Church not the Church of God.

    The concept of text transmission is a whole other journey. It doesn’t really matter in 2017 does it? If you believe the bible is the Word of God then you do not accept the concept of flawed transmission. If you don’t accept the bible as the Word of God then text transmission errors are music to your ears.

    Many people on this site go even further. They believe in the bible as the Word of God unless and until it says something they cant’s abide. Then they suggest that such an offensive reality is fantasy.

  • D.M.S.

    Mr. Cromie as soon as I see your name. I delete anything that you have to say.
    I don’t even read them.
    Our Christian scripture tells all of us Christians to try to help bring people to Christ Jesus. But after a certain amount of time we can walk away and the Lord will keep bringing other Christisns into their lives. I’m sure that there were many other Christians before me that tried to help you come to the belief of our Lord Christ Jesus.
    There will be more Christians that will come into your life in your future to help you to believe in our Savior Christ Jesus
    Goodbye, Mr. Cromie.

  • D.M.S.

    I don’t care to understand it.
    I only want to understand Christ Jesus and live for Him.
    Not Mankinds vanity.

  • D.M.S.

    God created H2O. I thought I better set the record straight for you.

  • David Cromie

    I’m sorry Bob, but your argument would have more clout if some believer could come up with the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for the existence of any supernatural entity, but specifically their favourite ‘god’ as presented in the collection of myths, legends, and folklore, referred to as the ‘bible’. The fact that most of this book is rehashed, pre-existing, Pagan myth and legend is completely ignored.

  • David Cromie

    Good for you! God forbid that your deluded world view should be contaminated with reality/facts.

  • “Pagan Myth?” You can’t use anti-God words and concepts to explain away the God inspired bible can you? What is a Pagan and where did it come from.

  • David Cromie

    Smugly ignoring, and deliberately repeating, any fallacy, is culpable ignorance, and vanity of the highest order!

  • D.M.S.

    Thank you for those kind words.

  • D.M.S.

    You wouldn’t know reality if it slapped you in the face.

  • David Cromie

    An unknowable, non existent supposed ‘god’ never created anything, unless you have proof to the contrary.

  • Getting the components under the right conditions has never been something that concerned me. They are so simple, that I’d have been surprised if that never happened. Getting the components doesn’t mean that we can get the organism. I didn’t even bother with whether or not Nucleic acids would polymerize. In my experiments as a teenager, I caused the contents of bacteria to spill in a sterile nutrient rich solution. Everything needed for life was in each droplet on my slides, yet no life formed. I did it several times and eventually gave up in frustration. Decades later I discovered that the water in which I did the experiment ruined it. Water attacks nucleic acids by pulling units off. So even if there are conditions in which all the parts are formed, we will still not get any life forming.

    The Scripps Institute is going a step further than I could. They wrap their RNA in surfactants, which prevents water from attacking the RNA, but they are also being disappointed because the polymerization only occurs in water.

    The repair mechanism must co-exist with the nucleic acids or no life will be possible. Even while they are part of an RNA molecule, cytosine spontaneously becomes uracil and ribose is being destroyed by the very oxygen in it. I therefore have observations from experiments conducted as my reasons for saying that RNA and DNA based life does not arise unless it is deliberately formed.

  • Obscurely

    Do you think a Christian can take some of the Bible only figuratively or analogically?

  • The word that translates as “flying creatures” means birds, bats and insects.

    Zoologist Hubert Hendricks observed hyraxes at the Hellabrun Zoological Gardens near Munich, Germany. He discovered that they do actually chew cud 25-50 minutes per day, usually at night.

  • David Cromie

    Why would any sane supernatural entity change something that is designed to work perfectly, by its own volition, as an omniscient, omnipotent, ‘god’, such as we are asked to believe in in Genesis?

  • D.M.S.

    All of the Christian bible literally…..

  • D.M.S.

    Anyone who thinks that this entire world happened by chance is crazy.
    You included Mr. Cromie.

  • Rhinnie

    … right…. why use science to try to prove a myth….

  • Hermit

    References for the “Zoologist Hubert Hendricks observed hyraxes … He discovered that they do actually chew cud”?

    A zoologist should know that a hyrax is not a ruminant. It does not have additional stomachs in which to store a cud. So whatever is claimed to have been observed, if anything, whether by a religiot seeking confirmation or not, whether it is performed only in hiding, in the dark, at zoos, or at other places, or at times where it can actually be seen or not, whatever was seen was not chewing a non-existent cud.

    So penguins, dodos, kiwis, cassowaries and ostriches are not birds according to your idiosyncratic translation of the so-called “bible”?

  • Hermit

    If you place an absolute limit on omnipotence, e.g. not causing contradictions, then there is no omnipotence, because omnipotence has no limits, simultaneous claims to omnipotence and limits forms a contradiction.

    The components of a thing are not the thing. Death is indeed defined in terms of an irreversible cessation. Otherwise we would not know when we could harvest organs from or bury cadavars, because they might return to life if we did not.

    Missing: evidence.

    Perfection is necessarily down to the smallest detail, or it would not be actual perfection, but only an approximation of perfection. A “neutral change”, which is your invention and a blatant example of confirmation bias at work, would still be a “change”, and any change, no mtter how small, to a perfect thing would mean either that its previous state was unperfected, and hence imperfect, or that its new state is imperfect having been changed from a state of being perfect, because perfection always means that no change could result in an improvement. Perceiving or thinking anything would result in changes which would have this effect. So any perfect being is reduced to a navel centered thoughtless entity.

  • You mean that an omnipotent one cannot voluntarily choose not to cause contradictions? That’s illogical!

    Death is not defined as irreversible cessation; just cessation.

    Neutral changes happen all the time. Because they do not result in imperfection, that is why they are called neutral changes. If you have had to deal with engineers as often as I, you will discover that there are usually several perfect ways to achieve a desired result. (Those who say, “Great minds think alike” have never had to deal with two engineers working on the same project.)

  • He did not say that the hyrax was a ruminant; he only said that thew chew cud. Apparently an animal does nt have to be a ruminant to do that.

    How does that second paragraph fit in? Those are all birds; just not flying ones.

  • Hermit

    If you had provided a reference, I would have researched it. As you have not provided one, and Google doesn’t seem to know about this claim, I assume that somebody made this nonsense up. Ruminants are the only animal to have a cud to chew. Here, “Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant’s stomach to the mouth to be chewed for the second time. More accurately, it is a bolus of semi-degraded food regurgitated from the reticulorumen of a ruminant. Cud is produced during the physical digestive process of rumination.” []

    Your reinterpretation of words to maintain your delusions keeps getting more an d more bizarre and eliminating your ability to interact effectively. If your claim is that “flying creatures” means birds, bats and insects (with four feet), then non-flying things are definitely not members of that class. So what are they?

  • Hermit

    It seems to be your “logic” that is broken. Apparently I too am omnipotent, I merely decline to exercise my powers. And now you are left with a problem. There is no way for you to determine if I or your god thingies are actually omnipotent (although I am much nicer).

    Death is a process, and that until irreversible cessation of heartbeat and breathing or the irreversible cessation of functions of the brain, a death is not certified, and resuscitation attempts should be continued. As our physiological and medical knowledge has evolved, so the point where damage is considered irreversible has evolved, from where priests would regularly bury people who were in a coma (apparently god thingies have a hard time determining when death has occurred or notifying their priests not to bury living people) to today, where death is seldom misdiagnosed but where we know that under some circumstances a lucky “dead” person under the right circumstances, might still be reperfused by a skilled team several hours or more after cessation of respiration and apparent death. That person would not be regarded as having been dead, because the cessation of cardiovascular respiration was not irreversible, if the condition can be reversed. And only a religiot would class this as a miracle.

    You are apparently confusing “good enough for engineers” with “perfection” – that which cannot be improved, where any change would result in a less than perfect outcome, or the conversion of the past perfect into the past imperfect. No wonder you are apparently completely incapable of thinking about the implications of perfection at the quantum or cosmic level. Let alone speculating consistently about imaginary god thingies for which you have no evidence.

  • David Cromie

    The answer to ‘why is it so’ is not, and never could be, ‘goddunit’!

  • So, by your logic, omnipotence is impossible. I won’t bother to attempt to dissuade you. Keep that belief.

    You have described death perfectly, however that process does not mean that death is irreversible.

    I gave a very good illustration of why I say that there can be several ways to achieve perfection. Each engineer can succeed in getting the desired result his own way and all those ways are perfect. By your reasoning, there can only be one perfect person/entity because any other will be different; therefore imperfect. I don’t agree, but again, I will not attempt to dissuade you.

  • I see David Cromie is following this discussion with some interest.

    Here is a short reference : The longer one is like a book and goes into way too much technical detail. By todays definition, the hyrax does not really chew what is now called, “cud”. In those days it was called, “cud”.

  • David, I see your reply about the video but the site won’t let me reply to it for some reason. I will watch it and reply at some point. Please reply so i can see if the problem persists.

  • David re your reply about the video on God or no God. The idea that you have to question the legitimacy of Josephus when he reference Jesus is a red flag. You say there is no mention of Jesus in history. So there should really be no mention at all.

  • But then there is dark energy and dark matter. We have no idea yet what they are and how they operate just that they are there. The bible declared this energy 2500 years ago.

  • Really so close but yet so far. However every time I ask my dog a question he does not answer even 10%.

  • But yet here we are drinking water every day. I didn’t create it and neither did any human. It is however a product that exists on earth and in the universe.

    We feel God created the universe because He told us He did. Some Cosmologists feel the universe may have come from nothing. Something about quantum fluctuations. This reminds me of trying to con my teacher about why my homework wasn’t done. Nonetheless some very, very smart people will be trying to prove this whopper for the rest of their lives.

  • And have you seen the Obama video this week where he explains that our elections cannot be hacked, have not been hacked and will not be in the upcoming Presidential election. I doubt it. They don’t show it on Fake News.

  • Have you seen president Obama’s August 2016 video where he explains in great detail why our elections have not been influenced, cannot be influenced and will not be in the upcoming presidential election. How prescient of him.

  • Have you seen Obama’s August 2016 video where he denies the possibility let alone the reality. Probably not. It’s on Fox all the time. Tough to deny a video of Obama as fake.

  • First it was global cooling. Now it’s warming. Per Al Gore we should already be dead. What evidence do you have for the dire predictions of people who have falsified reports ans studies. Look at the photo shopped picture of the polar ber for comfort.

  • When your partner racks up $9000 in credit card debt vs your $2000 see if that % difference makes a difference to your finances.

  • Basically the Left are the bigots but too ignorant to realize it. Try to understand your progressive views are the minority and getting smaller. And people who call other racist without cause are insecure. How else can you defend calling out half the country. Try to grow up and at least be civilized.

  • See today’s retraction by the NY Times. I guess I am a denier after all. NY Times, Washington Post and CNN are all Fake News….

  • kaydenpat

    Why are you responding to a comment that is 13 days old then? The truth grates on you, huh? Bye Felicia. Lol.

  • Because I saw the National Treasure on TV making a fool of herself again and I remembered that I had not replied.

  • Obscurely

    What retraction? do you have a link? otherwise you’re just creating some fake news yourself :)

  • Google “New York Times Forced To Retract Longstanding ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie About Russian Hacking”
    You realize you have not heard about this because of the coverage you watch and read?

  • kaydenpat

    Yawn. You support a fool and are calling someone else a fool? Alrighty then. Enjoy your President’s twitter meltdowns because you and him have nothing to say to rational people. He’s an idiot.

    And you can keep responding to me because I can keep up with the likes of you. You voted for and support an idiot Bigot and expect everyone to bow to you.

    Not gonna happen Dude. Just like you hate Liberals, I hate racists.

  • I feel sorry for you because you believe political rhetoric is racist if the politician is black. We lived with that nonsense for eight years as the timid republicans refused to fight for fear of that label. Notice the new president could care less what detractors call him because he is too busy implementing his agenda. People who can accumulate a billion dollars are not idiots. Your invective falls flat dudette.

  • kaydenpat

    I don’t feel sorry for you though. Whatever you get you’ll deserve. By the way, I don’t read your comments. It’s always the blah blah blah. You think like your idiot bigot President that you can bully people into submission. Hell naw.

    Go to Stormfront or whatever alt-right website is in love with your President. This ain’t it.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Actually, some of Trump’s harshest critics with regards to various portions of him, whether it was his personality or his level of success, have been other billionaires. They’re still all in it all for each other and nobody and nothing else but at least some of them see him for what he is and nothing about that picture is pretty.

  • Hermit

    So, an untraceable reference ( has no entry matching “HENDRICHS, H. Vergleichende Untersuchung des Wiederkau-verhaltens”) by a shifty-eyed christer to something that is zoologically indefensible and only ever cited only by religiots is what you regard as “evidence”?

    Cud has always been “cud (n.) Old English cudu “cud,” earlier cwudu, common Germanic (compare Old Norse kvaða “resin,” Old High German quiti “glue,” German Kitt “putty”).” [Online Etymology Dictionary] the portion of food that a ruminant returns from the first stomach to the mouth to chew a second time and never anything else.

    Your article does however say, “If the Bible is wrong in mundane testable points, then its untestable statements – especially important claims – would also be dubious.” Which makes the bible a very dubious source indeed.

    As you appear to be claiming competence in knowing and understanding the Bible, and I have found many shifty-eyed religiots make such claims, but that few can support them, can you sustain your claims to competence by answering the following easy questions?

    1. How many men were in Jesus’ tomb when the women arrived?
    2. On the way to Golgotha where Jesus was to be crucified, who carried Jesus’ cross?
    3. When Jesus sent his disciples out to spread the gospel message to the cities of Israel, did he command them to take only a staff or to take no staff?
    4. When Jesus and his disciples were walking toward Jerusalem after leaving Bethany that night, Jesus saw a fig tree and cursed it for not having figs. Did the tree wither immediately as they stood and watched or did it wither overnight?
    5. How many women went to Jesus’ tomb on Sunday morning?
    6. After Jesus calmed the sea, he and his disciples went to a land called Gadarenes (Gergesenes in Matthew). How many demon-possessed men came out of the tombs?
    7. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, was he riding on one donkey or two?
    8. How did Judas Iscariot die?
    9. How many days passed after Jesus’ resurrection before he ascended into heaven?
    10. When did Satan enter Judas Iscariot?
    11. When Jesus was being crucified, were the women standing near (at the foot of) the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them from the cross, or were they watching from very far away?
    12. Did both of the criminals who were crucified with Jesus revile him or did only one of them revile him?
    13. Who was Jesus’ grandfather on his father’s side?
    14. According to Jesus, is it okay to call someone a fool?
    15. How many blind men did Jesus heal on his way out of Jericho?
    16. When Jesus was being crucified, what did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?
    17. What did Jesus do immediately after his baptism?
    18. Did Jesus believe that bearing witness of himself made the witness true or not true?
    19. Did the women who visited Jesus’ tomb run immediately and tell his disciples that he had risen?
    20. Who bought the potter’s field with the 30 pieces of silver that was payment for Judas’ betrayal of Jesus?

    Test value 10 points. For each answer contradicted by scripture, half a point will be deducted.

  • Hermit

    Because “perfect” means that something is finished in every possible way, and any change would either mean the previous state was not finished in every possible way, or that the post change state is not finished in every possible way. And anything not finished in every possible way is not perfect.

    Please cite the verse in the first Genesis creation myth which you think sustains the first appearance, whether created or otherwise, of Earth, water, the sun, and other stars. A number will suffice.

    e.g. My answer would be:

    Water 1
    Earth 1
    Sun 16
    Stars 14 (perhaps) 16 explicitly

    I await your answer with interest.

  • Hermit

    “The bible declared this energy 2500 years ago.”

    A citation please.

    I am not sure why you imagine they are relevant, but contra your assertion, we know rather a lot about so-called Dark Energy/Matter (all matter is an aspect of matter/energy duality) as effects predicted by it have been observed in supernova observations [Riess et al. (1998). “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant” Astronomical Journal 116 (3): 1009–38 and Perlmutter et al. (1999). “Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae” Astrophysical Journal. 517 (2): 565–86. ], as well as by the BOOMERanG and Maxima and later WMAP CMBE observations confirming that Omega is close to 100% of the critical density and changing smoothly with time, and that Dark Energy comports well with the QED vacuum energy of space.

  • You do read my comments.So I’ll pray for you and the Godless people like you on this site as it is the Sabbath.

  • Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

    You mean we do not know rather a lot about it just that it is there. We know nothing about what it is or why it is just that it is.

  • kaydenpat

    The Sabbath? You keep the seventh day Sabbath but support someone as awful and bigoted as Trump? Someone who has made horrible comments about women and Muslims and people of color? This is who you support?

    Don’t preach to me. You support a bigot and you have nothing to say to me about morals or religion or anything else.

  • kaydenpat

    And don’t pray for me. Your prayers aren’t heard by anyone given your low morals. God doesn’t hate anyone like your President does so keep your useless prayers to your self. I don’t need them.

  • You could consider anger management therapy?

  • kaydenpat

    And you should consider getting a brain. Anyone who voted for and supports an idiot like Trump is brainless.

  • Obscurely

    OK Bob, I googled it per your suggestion and you’re absolutely right — so now you’re just denying the consensus of the CIA, FBI and NSA that the Russians interfered in the election?

  • Yes I am now. If it was necessary to embellish the story then there must be a serious problem.

    Of the four agencies, Clapper and Rice have lied to Congress and the public and have no credibility.

    Now a tape of Obama surfaces from August 2016 saying there is no way that the Russian government could hack our election and won’t.

    Yes, this story comes from the same slimy sources that are now exposed so I do deny it.

  • Obscurely

    Why would you believe the Russians over our own intelligence agencies? the latest intelligence shared with Congress shows that Putin personally ordered and supervised the (attempted) hacking … unless you’ve got your own agents/sources on the ground in Russia, I don’t see how you’ve got objective grounds to deny reality — what’s your skin in this game anyway, Bob?

  • Where is the reference to what the Hebrews classified as “cud”? Also, why would it be a lie simply because the person making the observation is a theist? A person is not objective just because he is an atheist and a person is not necessarily being subjective just because he is a theist.

    The hyrax is known to chew incompletely digested food and swallow it again.

    The complete list of so-called “contradictions” is 25 pages long (I have downloaded it). Answering all those would consume way too much of my time. I can quick ly answer a few:

    There were no men in Jesus, tomb when the women first arrived.

    Jesus started out carrying the pole, but when it was obvious that he would not make it, they impressed Simon.

    Jesus sent his disciples out more than once and did not give the very same instructions each time.

    That fig withered overnight.

    I am not 100% sure of the total number. John said both Marys and Salome, Matthew didn’t mention Salome. Luke mentions both Marys and adds the name Joanna. Matthew’s not mentioning the other women probably means that the two Marys arrived first and then others followed shortly thereafter. That detail is unimportant and as Prof. Simon Greenleaf said in “Testimony of the Evangelist”, minor differences in details is one of the things an investigator uses as evidence that there was no collusion between the persons giving eyewitness testimony.

    I’ll stop here at least for now.

  • Obscurely


  • “Perfect” does not only mean “that something is finished in every possible way”. “Perfect” usually means “complete”, but it is still possible to change from one “perfect” to another “perfect”. “Perfect also means “suitable for the situation”, so one will have to change from wearing a swimsuit (perfect for the beach) to a business outfit to go to an office.

  • The answer is very simple. Thanks to the democrats and their Russian collusion charade we now know that the Obama administration gamed the system to listen to the Trump campaign. The unmasking that resulted has exposed the NSA (Susan Rice) and the National Intelligence Agency (Clapper).

    This is the biggest scandal in the politics in my lifetime and would have worked except for one little problem – Hillary lost. These two agencies have been seriously compromised and are not to be trusted. In time Trump will clean them out. Right now he is letting Congress and the Senate have their chance to see if they will expose this unheard of misuse of power from the oval office. Perhaps you don’t know Rice has to testify under oath this week? I bet she has to take the 5th. Being a bag women has its downside.

  • Hermit

    Still incapable of answering questions?

    Bronze age Hebrews didn’t write dictionaries, but the use, by the educated Hebrews of Alexandria of the Koine “μηρυκισμὸν” to translate the Hebrew “גֵּרָה” is conclusive, because “μηρυκισμὸν” is unambiguously equivalent to the modern English “cud”.

    A person not suffering under the burden of theist delusions has no reason to exhibit such motivated thinking, or the urge to confirmation bias on biblical claims.

    Your claims about the Hyrax are contradicted by modern science. Björnhag G, Becker G, Buchholz C, von Engelhardt W (1994). “The gastrointestinal tract of the rock hyrax (Procavia habessinica). 1. Morphology and motility patterns of the tract”. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A. 109 (3): 649–53. PMID 8529006. doi:10.1016/0300-9629(94)90205-4 established that Hyrax is physically incapable of regurgitation, and Sale, J. B. (1966). DAILY FOOD CONSUMPTION AND MODE OF INGESTION IN THE HYRAX. JE Afr.Nat.Hist.Soc., Vol XXV(No. 3), Page 219. Retrieved from expresses skepticism of the claim that the Hyrax is capable of regurgitation.

    Which should eliminate this risible claim as effectively as prior apologetics asserting that this erroneous statement was a result of the hyrax engaging in coprophagy. In either case, the apologetics reflect that the defenders of the bible accept that its writings were produced by fallible humans and contains errors, no matter how ingenious the excuses they invent.

  • Hermit

    What a perfect response. From your claims, it is evident that your god thingies are, like my outfits, perfect under some circumstances, but not under others. When a christer explains away the significance of perfection it becomes difficult to imagine why anyone would claim that such “perfect” has any significance at all.

    I, being “practically perfect in every way”, am clearly superior to your situationally quasi-perfect god thingie.

  • Oh, Jehovah does not need to change to fit the circumstances, I never said that. I said that perfection means several things. Jehovah can hanlde whatever comes way without actually changing, however if the situation needs a judge, that’s Him, If it needs a deliverer, that’s Him, if it needs someone to provide perfect advice, that’s Him etc., but as regards your outfits, what’s perfect in one situation is imperfect for another.

  • Modern science. uses different classification than the people in those days. The word translated as “cud” was also applied to what the hyrak ate.

  • Hermit

    No answer?

    From now on anyone paying attention knows that you simply evade when your delusions and lies are challenged.

  • Hermit

    The “good-enough” situational perfection of your “Jehovah” (that is a terrible transliteration for the 70 sons of El, god of gods and lord of hosts, the Yahweh) is a quality shared by all imaginary things.

  • Hermit

    So you are saying that nobody can actually know what the so-called bible meant, because the meanings of words change over time. Which would eliminate the validity of all beliefs based on translations of ancient writings. Including all three Abrahamic religions. Well done.

    PS You keep using unsupported arguments to attempt to substitute for evidence. That really is a fail.

    PPS Your simply evading questions when your delusions and lies are challenged by them leaves you visibly bereft of integrity.

  • “Good enough” is also one way to view “perfect”!

    I have not attempted to transliterate God’s name, I simply use the most familiar English way of expressing His name.

    YHWH is much superior to all the other Gods.

  • What evasion? I have used the very opinions/answers stated by experts. Atheists don’t like those explanation; they abhor any explanation that does not fit their preferred view. Anyway, keep your beliefs.

  • Hermit

    e.g. You said,”The bible does not say that the earth was formed before the sun; that is clergy manure!”

    I responded,

    Please cite the verse in the first Genesis creation myth which you think sustains the first appearance, whether created or otherwise, of Earth, water, the sun, and other stars. A number will suffice.

    e.g. My answer would be:

    Water 1
    Earth 1
    Sun 16
    Stars 14 (perhaps) 16 explicitly

    I await your answer with interest.

    The question mark denoted a question requiring an answer. I even gave an example so that you would know what was expected. As you have always done when a question made you uncomfortable, you declined to respond.

    I also asked,

    As you appear to be claiming competence in knowing and understanding the Bible, and I have found many shifty-eyed religiots make such claims, but that few can support them, can you sustain your claims to competence by answering the following easy questions?

    1. How many men were in Jesus’ tomb when the women arrived?
    2. On the way to Golgotha where Jesus was to be crucified, who carried Jesus’ cross?
    3. When Jesus sent his disciples out to spread the gospel message to the cities of Israel, did he command them to take only a staff or to take no staff?
    4. When Jesus and his disciples were walking toward Jerusalem after leaving Bethany that night, Jesus saw a fig tree and cursed it for not having figs. Did the tree wither immediately as they stood and watched or did it wither overnight?
    5. How many women went to Jesus’ tomb on Sunday morning?
    6. After Jesus calmed the sea, he and his disciples went to a land called Gadarenes (Gergesenes in Matthew). How many demon-possessed men came out of the tombs?
    7. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, was he riding on one donkey or two?
    8. How did Judas Iscariot die?
    9. How many days passed after Jesus’ resurrection before he ascended into heaven?
    10. When did Satan enter Judas Iscariot?
    11. When Jesus was being crucified, were the women standing near (at the foot of) the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them from the cross, or were they watching from very far away?
    12. Did both of the criminals who were crucified with Jesus revile him or did only one of them revile him?
    13. Who was Jesus’ grandfather on his father’s side?
    14. According to Jesus, is it okay to call someone a fool?
    15. How many blind men did Jesus heal on his way out of Jericho?
    16. When Jesus was being crucified, what did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?
    17. What did Jesus do immediately after his baptism?
    18. Did Jesus believe that bearing witness of himself made the witness true or not true?
    19. Did the women who visited Jesus’ tomb run immediately and tell his disciples that he had risen?
    20. Who bought the potter’s field with the 30 pieces of silver that was payment for Judas’ betrayal of Jesus?

    Test value 10 points. For each answer contradicted by scripture, half a point will be deducted.

  • I can’t believe your comment, “nobody can actually know what the so-called bible meant, because the meanings of words change over time.”. That happens to all languages all the time. They know what those words meant then, so we can know what the bible says.

    What questions have I evaded?

  • Hermit

    You are the one claiming that “cud” used by the Hebrews and Alexandrians does not mean the same as “cud” today. That proves that the word has changed so much that words that look the same can mean something entirely different, and that all the myriads of religiots who have made up complicated attempted explanations for these apparent contradictions in the past and today are wrong. I agree. Your simple guess (I say guess as you offered no evidence) is a perfectly adequate explanation. However your explanation has to apply to all the other words, mutatis mutandis, which we have not examined. So, as I said, if “cud” can change from whatever a hyrax is alleged to do by people incapable of counting feet on an insect, or figuring out that bats are not birds, to the cud a ruminant chews, then, nobody actually knows what the bible used to mean, because in the hands of somebody like yourself it can be translated to mean anything, or nothing, at all..

    Some of the questions I have repeatedly asked and you have evaded are the following:

    e.g. You said,”The bible does not say that the earth was formed before the sun; that is clergy manure!”

    I responded,

    Please cite the verse in the first Genesis creation myth which you think sustains the first appearance, whether created or otherwise, of Earth, water, the sun, and other stars. A number will suffice.

    e.g. My answer would be:

    Water 1
    Earth 1
    Sun 16
    Stars 14 (perhaps) 16 explicitly

    I await your answer with interest.

    The question mark denoted a question requiring an answer. I even gave an example so that you would know what was expected. As you have always done when a question made you uncomfortable, you declined to respond.

    I also asked,

    As you appear to be claiming competence in knowing and understanding the Bible, and I have found many shifty-eyed religiots make such claims, but that few can support them, can you sustain your claims to competence by answering the following easy questions?

    1. How many men were in Jesus’ tomb when the women arrived?
    2. On the way to Golgotha where Jesus was to be crucified, who carried Jesus’ cross?
    3. When Jesus sent his disciples out to spread the gospel message to the cities of Israel, did he command them to take only a staff or to take no staff?
    4. When Jesus and his disciples were walking toward Jerusalem after leaving Bethany that night, Jesus saw a fig tree and cursed it for not having figs. Did the tree wither immediately as they stood and watched or did it wither overnight?
    5. How many women went to Jesus’ tomb on Sunday morning?
    6. After Jesus calmed the sea, he and his disciples went to a land called Gadarenes (Gergesenes in Matthew). How many demon-possessed men came out of the tombs?
    7. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, was he riding on one donkey or two?
    8. How did Judas Iscariot die?
    9. How many days passed after Jesus’ resurrection before he ascended into heaven?
    10. When did Satan enter Judas Iscariot?
    11. When Jesus was being crucified, were the women standing near (at the foot of) the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them from the cross, or were they watching from very far away?
    12. Did both of the criminals who were crucified with Jesus revile him or did only one of them revile him?
    13. Who was Jesus’ grandfather on his father’s side?
    14. According to Jesus, is it okay to call someone a fool?
    15. How many blind men did Jesus heal on his way out of Jericho?
    16. When Jesus was being crucified, what did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?
    17. What did Jesus do immediately after his baptism?
    18. Did Jesus believe that bearing witness of himself made the witness true or not true?
    19. Did the women who visited Jesus’ tomb run immediately and tell his disciples that he had risen?
    20. Who bought the potter’s field with the 30 pieces of silver that was payment for Judas’ betrayal of Jesus?

    Test value 10 points. For each answer contradicted by scripture, half a point will be deducted.

  • Both the cud as meant today and what the hyrax chewed were called “cud”. And yes, all those other “experts” are wrong!

    What a long reply! I won’t bother with most of this; it would take way too much time.

    It has been confirmed that in its early days, the earth was a dark planet completely enshrouded in water. The vapor cloud would have been so thick that sunlight would not have penetrated (at least not much). As the earth cooled, the water vapor would slowly condense until the light of the sun, the moon and the stars would penetrate, giving diffused diffused light. As the condensation continued, eventually, the sources of the light would appear. The KJV has a mis-translation at this point because it translates both the word for “light” and the word for “light sources” as “light”.

    I won’t bother with those so-called “contradictions” because you are convinced that they are and nothing anyone will say will dissuade you, so keep believing that they are.

    I’ll answer one though: What did Jesus first do after his baptism? He dried himself and put on dry garments.

  • Hermit

    The “YHWH” (Yahweh) were never one. The Hebrews worshiped many of them as well as their father, El Shaddai, and their consorts, the Asherah. See e.g.

  • Hermit

    When you claim that words mean exactly what you mean them to in order to protect your delusions, irrespective of the meaning ascribed to them by others, you eliminate the ability to communicate meaningfully. When you do so in the apparent total absence of evidence or knowledge, it becomes apparent to anyone observing.

    I said that your need to protect your delusions results in your evading meaningful discussion. It seems that I was correct.

    Please provide a reference for it being “confirmed” (by whom) that the Earth was a “dark planet completely enshrouded with water”? Why was it dark, and how wet do you imagine it was? Do you actually have evidence for any of your hypothesis? Did you take into account the facts that Mt. Everest is about 8,800 metres tall and the Challenger Deep about 10,900 metres deep making the difference 19,100 m or nearly 20km, but that the total volume of the oceans is about 1.3 billion cubic kilometers. and the area of a smooth Earth would be about 510 million square kilometers, or just enough for a depth of about 2.5km or eight times too little water to “completely enshroud” the current earth (where all the water not already in the oceans and seas added to the seas would cause a rise of some 300m in mean sea level), when you imagined that there might be sufficient water on Earth to “completely enshroud it”?

    In your anxiety to eliminate the cognitive dissonance caused by being forced to address the contradictions between your opinions about your so called “bible” and what you think you know, you completely forgot to answer my question, “Please cite the verse in the first Genesis creation myth which you think sustains the first appearance, whether created or otherwise, of Earth, water, the sun, and other stars. A number will suffice”, again, incorrectly substituting reasoning for evidence and coming to a conclusion apparently in conflict with what the bible actually says.

    You conclude that the Jewish translators of the Septuagint in Alexandria understood less about their collections of stories than you do. You assert that they mistranslated “light” and light sources” and that like their god thingies, did not understand that there is no vault of heaven, no water held back by the vault of heaven. Like their god thingies, they did not comprehend that there are no windows in the vault of heaven to allow the rain to fall. Like their god thingies, they did not understand that the moon is not a “light” but a reflector. Like their god thingies, they did not understand that the sun is where light originates. Like their god thingies, they did not understand that the sun is a star. Like their god thingies, they did not understand that the sun is at the center of the solar system, much more massive and so less perturbed by the planets than the other way around, and that it is the Earth that orbits the sun, not vice versa, which results in the apparent motion of the sun. which is not a lantern fastened to the vault of heaven. This may be because you do not understand the earlier Ugaritic Baal-cycle myths from which these stories were accreted, which you might have if you had ever read “Once Upon A Time in Genesis”? Are you scared that actual understanding of your mythos and its origins will upend inane your beliefs?

    As I have noted before, despite your continuous projection, I don’t do “belief”, I do evidence. The problem with your facile dismissal of what you are pleased to call “contradictions” in no way reduces the fact that any answer, no matter what sophistry you employ, you propose for any of the questions I asked you, will face alternatives which are in no way compatible. For example, Acts 1:3 states that the so-called “Jesus” ascended back to heaven forty days after the day of his supposed resurrection. Luke chapter 24 depicts the so-called “Jesus” as ascending back to heaven on the day following his supposed resurrection. A bit hard to get confused over whether something as important as that took less than a day or a whole month. As another example, in John 8:14, the so-called “Jesus” supposedly said, “Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true.” In John 5:31, the so-called “Jesus” supposedly said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”

    The reality is that there probably never was a so called “Jesus” (not a name, but the acronym of a Rabbinical curse) but a syncretion of confused myths. Given that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, which was patched together sometime after 200CE (and many of the so called “miracles”, including the virgin birth and resurrection fables, were added later than that) by people unfamiliar with Hebrew, Aramaic or the Levant, who went through the so-called Old Testament cherry-picking passages to turn into “prophesy”, attempting to attach the new anti-Semitic Herodian religion based on the traitor Saulus’ “cosmic man” to Judaism, in order to persuade Rome that theirs actually was an ancient religion to be respected, rather than something new to be eliminated, explains why they needed to find a Judaic prototype and many of the contradictions we see. Poor editing by a variety of shifty-eyed religiots fervidly seeking to sustain their delusional beliefs, explains the rest. An explanation which you cannot provide, which is why you are forced to evade, avoid and ignore the evident problems that are apparent to anyone with a fully-functional brain.

  • Long comment again.

    Anyway, I am using what linguists have said. Words do change meaning. Those guys know what the persons living back then meant.

  • The Hebrews understood YHWH to be one God only. To this day, that is still their belief. Stop paying attention to clergy bovine manure.

  • Hermit

    More idiotic denial of facts and exhibition of ignorance about your own religion.

    The Hebrews comprised insignificant bands of polytheistic homeless Canaanites until the exile, when they were taught henotheism by the Akkadian priests who created their scriptures, and then monotheism by the Greeks. This is not arguable as it is supported by the writings and archaeology of the region.

    See e.g.

    Israel emerges into the historical record in the last decades of the 13th century BCE, at the very end of the Late Bronze Age, as the Canaanite city-state system was ending. The milieu from which Israelite religion emerged was accordingly Canaanite. El, “the kind, the compassionate”, “the creator of creatures”, was the chief of the Canaanite gods, and he, not Yahweh, was the original “God of Israel”—the word “Israel” is based on the name El rather than Yahweh. He lived in a tent on a mountain from whose base originated all the fresh waters of the world, with the goddess Asherah as his consort. This pair made up the top tier of the Canaanite pantheon; the second tier was made up of their children, the “seventy sons of Athirat” (a variant of the name Asherah). Prominent in this group was Baal, who had his home on Mount Zaphon; over time Baal became the dominant Canaanite deity, so that El became the executive power and Baal the military power in the cosmos. Baal’s sphere was the thunderstorm with its life-giving rains, so that he was also a fertility god, although not quite the fertility god. Below the seventy second-tier gods was a third tier made up of comparatively minor craftsman and trader deities, with a fourth and final tier of divine messengers and the like.
    El and his sons made up the Assembly of the Gods, each member of which had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of Deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of El, including Yahweh, each receiving his own people:
    When the Most High (Elyon, i.e., El) gave the nations their inheritance,
    when he separated humanity,
    he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings,
    for Yahweh’s portion is his people,
    Jacob his allotted heritage.
    Following the introduction of Yahweh, a shift in theophoric naming occurred in which the original and most ancient biblical names paying tribute to El (Isra-el , Dani-el, Samu-el, Micha-el etc.) began to be displaced by names paying tribute to Yahweh. Exodus 6:3 seeks to merge the ancient Canaanite deity El with Yahweh through a process of redaction:
    I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai
    but I did not reveal my name, Yahweh, to them.


    In addition,

    Between the 10th century BC and the beginning of their exile in 586 BC, polytheism was normal throughout Israel; it was only after the exile that worship of Yahweh alone became established, and possibly only as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC) that monotheism became universal among the Jews. Some biblical scholars believe that Asherah at one time was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh, the national God of Israel. There are references to the worship of numerous gods throughout Kings: Solomon builds temples to many gods and Josiah is reported as cutting down the statues of Asherah in the temple Solomon built for Yahweh (2 Kings 23:14). Josiah’s grandfather Manasseh had erected one of such statues (2 Kings 21:7).
    Further evidence includes, for example, an 8th-century combination of iconography and inscriptions discovered at Kuntillet Ajrud in the northern Sinai desert] where a storage jar shows three anthropomorphic figures and several inscriptions. The inscriptions found refer not only to Yahweh but to El and Baal, and two include the phrases “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah” and “Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah.” The references to Samaria (capital of the kingdom of Israel) and Teman (in Edom) suggest that Yahweh had a temple in Samaria, while raising questions about the relationship between Yahweh and Kaus, the national god of Edom. The “Asherah” is most likely a cultic object, although the relationship of this object (a stylised tree perhaps) to Yahweh and to the goddess Asherah, consort of El, is unclear. It has been suggested that the Israelites might have considered Asherah as a consort of Baal due to the anti-Asherah ideology which was influenced by the Deuteronomistic History at the later period of Monarchy. In another inscription called “Yahweh and his Asherah”, there appears a cow feeding its calf. If Asherah is to be associated with Hathor/Qudshu, it can then be assumed that the cow is what’s being referred to as Asherah.

    See also the e.g. which show that the Anath and a number of Yahweh were worshiped at Elephantine Temple by the Jews even after the Babylonian Exile.

  • Hermit

    According to you, better than “the persons living back then” understood. Which is risible.

  • Hermit


  • The restricting of what is classed as “cud” occurred thousands of years after Moses wrote those laws. Back then both things were classed as “cud”.

  • Nope, just can’t be bothered again to go through all those so-called “contradictions”; I have done that several times already with persons much more knowledgeable that you. You haven’t given me the really great ones.

  • Hermit


    How do you know that Hebrew for “chewing the cud” (literally “scraping the throat”) did not mean “dancing on the tail”, or “having a pubic hair stuck in the throat” and what makes you imagine that the Greek which the Seventy translators chose to represent the Hebrew, meant something other than rumination (literally kneading with the jaws)?

  • Hermit

    Evading then, and trying desperately to justify it by denigrating me. Completely understandable. You imagine that it is important to preserve your delusions and know that you are incapable of defending them.

    PS You still haven’t answered my Genesis question and did not come up with an excuse for not supporting your assertion. Does that mean that you did not reread Genesis and found I was correct, or does it mean you did?

  • I only read and repeat what the experts say.

    BTW, every one says that “kneading with the jaws” was what they literally meant. That is one of the behavior of Hyraxes. They even have been observed “kneading with the jaws” even when they are chewing nothing.

  • Hermit


    You appear to be claiming that you know what a word meant (how does anyone know how “cud” was defined at that time except through usage and parallels?) at some time before the Hebrews of Alexandria translated these writings to the unambiguous Koine Greek, and so, while the so-called “bible” was incorrect by some 200 BCE, at some time it was not incorrect, because the people involved in making this claim did not understand that “chewing the cud” involved rumination and could not have known that the definition would change to make the assertions they made look ridiculous. Which is why I am prepared to take large bets that any so-called “expert” you are quoting is a religiot because only a religiot would care enough to engage in this fallacious reasoning or be stupid enough to imagine that invoking a circularity to infer what was meant based on claiming that the incorrect usage proves that the word has changed since this incorrect usage improves the optics of the situation.

  • You yourself gave me the basic meaning behind the phrase “chew the cud”, which agreed with what all the experts have written. That action is what the hyrax does.

    BTW, the bible didn’t become inaccurate.

    A person suffering under the burden of atheist delusions tends to exhibit motivated thinking, and/or confirmation bias on anything that even slightly suggest the bible is correct.

  • Hermit

    I gave you the etymology of the Hebrew term for chewing the cud, “scraping the throat”. Chewing the cud has always meant rumination. You are the one trying to make up a way for this to apply to the Hyrax. So far your attempts have been a complete and utter failure.

    LOL re motivated thinking. Those who do not vest belief in imaginary god thingies with totally unknown imaginary attributes are not the ones suffering from delusions. Atheism does not “motivate” anything. As a christer, you are presumably an atheist in the sense that you do not vest belief in the state gods of Greece. Is this a “burden” causing you to “labor”? Does it motivate you to do anything? How about Santa Clause? Do you vest belief in him? If not, you have an atheistic perspective of poor old Santa. Do you find that this motivates you to do anything? Atheism is only relevant in contrast to belief. In the absence of that belief it is utterly irrelevant. Atheism is like not liking the taste of arsenic. The only behavior that that might motivate is to avoid eating arsenic. Which might be a clever thing to do but it doesn’t mean that those who don’t like the taste of arsenic go around munching on lead, cyanide and cadmium. They simply don’t eat it and never miss it. Likewise for god thingies.

    The so-called “bible” is never, “correct”. The bible is a turgid mish mash of specious nonsense that religiots like yourself invest with meaning. As you have been demonstrating, all the meaning is provided by the reader interpreting this foul aggregation of dross. “Happy is the person who grabs your babies and smashes them against the rocks.” [Psalm 137]. “what about my enemies who did not want me to be king over them? Bring them here! Kill them in front of me!’” What a life-guide you have chosen.

  • “Scraping the throat” as you claim the expression literally mean was exactly what the Hyrax does, even when there is nothing in its mouth.

    To those Greeks, I would indeed be an atheist :-D

    In fact, to over 90% of “Christians” I am not even a “Christian”. :-D

  • Hermit

    The whole point being that whatever the hyrax appears to be doing, it does not have the stomachs to be a ruminant. So the claim that it is “chewing the cud”.are false. Now you can argue with a god thingie stupid enough to be misunderstood, or translators too stupid to choose the right word, or people too stupid to change the meaning of words, or even god thingies too powerless or uncaring to intervene when their alleged commands are misinterpreted. What you cannot validly do is claim that the hyrax chews the cud or, given your arguments, that the so-called babbel can be understood today in the way it was understood in the past, meaning that it is meaningless today or was meaningless in the past (or most likely, both).

    As for what is a “christian”, I suggest you give it up and adopt the universal word to describe yourself, given that you have affirmed the need for it. Christer, noun: Anyone vesting belief in any aspect of the so called “Jesus” (not a Hebrew or Aramaic name, but a transliteration of the acronym Yeshu, or י = Yimaḥ ש =Shĕmo ו = Wezikhro from ” ימח שמו וזכרו(נו) ” or “(Y’mach Sh’mo V’Zichro(no))”, meaning, May his name and memory be obliterated) or in the beliefs of Saulus/Paul’s “christ” (not even a name at all, but a Greek translation of “anointed one” later confused with Chrestus, a Jewish insurgent of the mid first century in Rome ). Christer originated because the christers hate each other too much to agree about what makes a person a “christian.” So there is a new term on the block which is defined to be all inclusive.

  • Literally, The hyrax is one of those animals that engage in “scraping the throat”, but does not have a cloven hoof, so it was unlawful to eat it.

    Your definition of “Christian” is logical. Nevertheless, over 90% of them do not view me as “Christian”.

  • Mr. James Parson

    If only God would have known about these translation problems.

    Maybe he will pick a new language for the New Testament. Maybe it will be a better one.

  • Unfortunately, people will always choose what to pay attention to. I found it weird that someone would really believe that the writer did not notice that his meal had four limbs.

    Regardless of which language was used, there will always be persons who apply weird “logic”.

  • Shannon England

    Your query can be found in Scripture. The Genesis passage you’re referring to never suggest that Adam was feeling lonely. I can only imagine, being the first person to view God’s glorious creation that Adam was most likely in awe! The passage is about creation, not about Adam or Adam’s feelings. After stating that it is not good for man to be alone, God created a woman. Adam had seen all of God’s creation but it was the creation of woman that inspired Adam to words of praise. Upon setting his eyes on Eve he began to speak words of encouragement communicating to Eve. God created mankind to be in relationship, first with Him and second with others. That is the order of His creation. It is also the order of His commandments… the greatest commandment is to love God and the second is like it, to love others.

  • Shannon England

    Earlier you made a reference about the amount of energy being wasted by believers defending their faith. I find that interesting and somewhat hypocriticall of you considering the amount of energy you spend attacking it. Let me ask you a question, why do you read the Bible?

  • Clinton Max Walker

    “The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” – Gen. 2:18

    Remember “not good”.

    1. separate, apart, or isolated from others
    2. to the exclusion of all others or all else
    3. unique; unequaled; unexcelled

    1. and 2. are “not good” for Adam’s situation, while 3. wouldn’t make sense.

    So, Yahweh made Adam separate, apart, isolated, or excluded. And it wasn’t good.

    If that doesn’t mean he was lonely, I don’t know what does. And considering Yahweh knew exactly what he was doing, he made Adam alone – and therefore lonely.

    Lonely is the “not good” problem Yahweh feels he needs to fix. I mean, honestly. This is basic. Despite having Yahweh, Adam was lonely and needed companionship. Otherwise, Yahweh would have said, “It is good for the man to be alone.” Or not brought it up at all – especially as something he needed to amend.

    Come on, Shannon. You can do better than that, surely.

  • Clinton Max Walker

    Yeah, because I have a series of Apologetic books, and a devotion to defending a library of nonsense. Not really. Heckling nonsense-defenders doesn’t require a lot of energy or time. Having a laugh at fully grown adults defending absolute babble actually lifts me up. Being defensive though, that must be exhausting. Imagine reading the Bible over and over trying to reconcile it with history and reality. And then in the face of countless arguments, contort in ways that would make Yogis pass out. Painful.

  • Shannon England

    Believe me, other than the typing their is no energy spent on my part. Funny thing, you didn’t answer my question. Go figure.

  • Clinton Max Walker

    Missed that question.

    I want to know what is causing people to suffer.

    Why do you read the Bible?

    Considering that it is based on a Jewish denomination designed by a Jew using Jewish mythology to save Jewish people from both the oppression of the Jews and the curse of the Jews laid down by Jewish ancestors.

    Are you Jewish?

  • Shannon England

    No, I’m a gentile.

  • Shannon England

    Perhaps it is you who can do better. One can be alone without being lonely. In addition, Adam was in the presents of God. He was not alone in the sense you are suggesting when you say “lonely”. Connon sense would admit one could be alone without being lonely. However, you refuse to consider logic because you would have to reconsider your agument and position. And we know that would require way too much energy. ;-)

  • Clinton Max Walker

    So, you’re John’s friend more so than Matthews? Matthew’s Jesus doesn’t think much of Gentiles who are not in his “jurisdiction”, unless he accidentally bumps into one. John tells everyone that a Jewish curse on Jewish people by a Jewish god is everyone’s problem and that a Jew will save everyone with Jewish teachings. Which is highly illogical and unethical.

    Interesting that Jesus began his teachings as a Jew saving Jews, but after a few centuries of Greek and Roman authorship, Jesus then wants to save everyone from the Jews’ strife. Mind boggling. And you apply this to yours and everyone’s life, one way or another? Why do you have to pretend that a Jewish problem is inherently yours?

  • Shannon England

    I don’t think your question is sincere. You have just made statements and assumptions that are simply not true. Peace.

  • Clinton Max Walker

    “Adam was in the presents of God.”

    Gift wrapped?

    He was in the presence of God and was alone and it was not good. Being alone was not good. He says that it is not good.

    You chose to ignore “Remember “not good.”

    Yahweh sets the tone for you, Shannon. He puts alone and not good in the same sentence and goes about rectifying it.

    Logic, man. Logic.

    Yahweh is saying that he realizes Adam is lonely and that it is not good, and he must make him a companion. He had to fix a problem he created. He admits that Eve is a solution. To what problem, Shannon? Oh, maybe because Adam was lonely and needed companionship. Which means he was made incomplete – deliberately. (To fit a narrative in which Yahweh speaks to himself about what he is doing – which includes explaining to his followers why both men and women exist.)

    How do you not see that?

    The other way of looking at it, is if he Adam doesn’t actually need a woman for companionship, but to help him with his chores. Which is demeaning to women. They are worth more than your ‘help’, Shannon. So, I’m going to assume you think more of Eve than that. Now, if Adam was unable to till the land alone, then Yahweh made him incompetent. Which is equally confusing as making him lonely. Why make Adam incompetent and unable to complete the purpose he was create for, and then have to amend that?

  • Clinton Max Walker

    It is no less insincere than my previous questions, but run for the hills, Shannon, you’re safer there.

    “You make statements and assumptions that are simply not true.” My sentiment about the Bible exactly.

    2000 years later, and it still can’t back it’s statements and assumptions – nor can its followers. Go figure.

    And when some make statements and assumptions against it, people run for the hills crying “no sincerity”.

  • Shannon England

    It is you who fails to see. You’re implying way too much and suggesting God is saying something that He clearly doesn’t say. You’re suggesting that creating woman was not part of God’s original plan. It’s your theory that makes the woman less important as though she was an after thought. God made the statement “It is not good for man to be alone” already knowing He was not finished. When He was finished He made it clear He was finished.

  • James McClymont


    That part of the fable is trying to explain why the sexes exist.

    Funny, though, that before creating Eve, God supposedly had Adam try to find a “partner” from among the animals already created. It seems like God didn’t realize that Adam would want a human female and not just an animal to f*ck.

  • David Cromie

    The really interesting, and laughable, part of the Genesis story is that Eve is said to be a clone of Adam. That, by the laws of nature, means that his clone would be male, not female! Thus the first two lovers, Adam and Steve, are introduced into the world.

  • Brandon Roberts

    wow this a massive reach.