If you are right, and evolution is the only answer, then we will all just be dirt-food when we die. But if you are wrong, and the intelligent design people are right and there is a God, then you’ll be in a tough spot.
By the way, did you ever read what the Kansas School Board had proposed? It doesn’t sound like it from your letter.
California Boy
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
“And here I thought I was going to be WORM food. What, exactly, does dirt eat?”
Heathens!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Regarding morality: Why do we think murder is wrong? I think its entirely possible that we simply evolved to think murder is wrong.
Once social structures emerged murder didn’t get you anywhere. Sure you could kill some guy and take his stuff, but then everyone else gangs up on you and either kills you or casts you out of the tribe/pack/whatever. No more descendents. Whatever genetic cues bent you toward murder become reduced in frequency and within a bit of a consensus on whether or not murder is cool.
Of course, it never completely gets bred out… there are some nutty fitness charts associated with this kind of thing.
But as for how athiests can find meaning in anything: Even we accept that eventually we will not exist, and neither will any of our works, the things around us and our experiences while we do exist are still real. So are the pain and joy, sadness and satisfaction that other people experience.
So you live meaning to capitalize on not only your own feelings, but those of others, while you’ve got the chance. Justice and love here and now are extremely important, because it’s all you’ll ever get.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic…. Long-winded rhetoric does not equal logic. An “absolute moral standard” is exactly what is wrong with religion. Those people obsessed with the morality issue tend to look for the immorality of others, rather than of themselves. A lot of people have been tortured and murdered for the sake of morality, as well. The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition?…etc. You call this moral behavior based on a belief in God? Your argument just got deflated. “I don’t need faith, I have experience”—Joseph Campbell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t admit anything you said is sound, Nic, because there are only 24 hours in a day, and no possible way I could read everything you wrote in that amount of time. :) I will say that I appreciate your thoughtful posts. It is a relief from the fire and brimsone ones.
/
In response to what I did read, I will address only one point, as I believe it is the foundation for every point I read. You presuppose that there is a god.
/
You attempted to establish this in your first post, however, there is a basic fallacy in your arguments. Our inability to understand something does not mean that it must be attributed to a divine source. It is supreme arrogance to assume that we have become so advanced that if we do not yet understand a thing, it is beyond understanding.
/
The fact that we cannot imagine a beginning of the universe without something coming before it, does not prove the existence of a creator. The quantum world is filled with examples of things that do not fit with our Newtonian view of the universe. Though we can test and prove the mathematical models that describe the quantum-verse, when we attempt to visualize it, we fail. We are very much like the person that is blind from birth that may be able to give you a definition of the color red, but cannot imagine what it would be to experience the color red.
/
The fact that we cannot explain something, or find it amazingly complex, does not prove the existence of a divine designer. History has taught us that we always have more to learn. Much of what we once believed impossible are simple givens today. No doubt the same will prove true when future generations look back on us and call us primitive.
/
Whether there is or is not a god can be neither proved nor disproved. So, without this foundation to build on, we cannot accept the bible as anything more than an interesting story compiled from the writings of some very human authors. Belief in a creator, which is the foundation of bible, requires a leap of faith… and if we are going to rely on faith, there is not point in considering logic.
/
All of this comes down to a simple choice… faith or logic. When you choose one, it requires rejection of the other. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on testable observation and logic. The two are separate animals despite many attempts to blend them.
/
That brings us back to the purpose of this entire website. Keep religion out of the science classroom and where it belongs, in church. They each have their place and that is where they should remain.
/
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear The Paul,
So you admit that you can’t condemn anyone for murdering your family, right? You just have to blame it on genetic mutations and deal with it, right?
Mr. Mad John Kidd,
You only inflated my argument to new heights. Are you saying that the crusades were absolutely evil? By what standard are you determining that? Thanks for proving my point.
Further, Mr. Mad John Kidd, you can’t rule out the validity of a thing just because its adherents have been, and maybe still are, idiots. Sadly, there is often a huge difference between the actual Christian message, and observable Christian behavior.
Again, thanks for proving my point about the existence of an absolute moral standard maybe since you speak Atheistanese my good friends in here will be able to understand you.
Dear One Eyed Jack,
Thanks for the post. Here’s my reply:
The Christian definition of Faith (Most Christians may not know that this is the correct definition.) is the antithesis of a blind existential leap. The Bible encourages you to measure its message against what you can observe from history, human nature, and the cosmos. It is designed to be empirically tested. Of course, I don’t mean scientifically tested. Obviously, you can recreate historical events. However, that doesn’t stop the truth from coming out in a courtroom. A jury is not asked to close their eyes and convict a man or set him free based on a blind feeling. Nor are you asked to leap into Jesus’ arms.
You are obviously an intelligent individual; therefore, you must understand that the atheist has to close his eyes and leap in order to believe in moral standards. Every one who has commented to me on this site has said, in similar words, “There is no absolute moral standard.” and then moments later, “The crusades were bad.” or “Humans have evolved an understanding that murder is wrong.†Somehow these individuals fail to see. So I reply, “How do know for sure that the crusades were bad?” or “If morals are something we evolved, we could easily evolve into a higher state in which we were amoral, right? Who knows what the future holds? In fact, if there is no God, and we, as people want to do what’s best for the masses and the preservation of life, we should kill innocent people. The guy who came up with the phrase ’survival of the fittest’ was named Herbert Spencer. He once wrote, ‘The poverty of the incapable…starvation of the idle and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong…are the decrees of a large far seeing benevolence.’” Yet, somehow they refuse to see.
Lastly, I’m curious One Eyed Jack, is there any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics to which you subscribe?
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oops! I meant to say that you cannot recreate historical events in the above post. I guess I should proof read before I submit next time.
Hug somebody.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“How do know for sure that the crusades were bad?†…seriously?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stow it people
I am the reason for the steeple
and I will you show you what’s up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
RESPECT
find out what it means to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jesus SON OF GOD
Mighty are his words.
They last forever.
And the congregation shouts Jesus is just all right with me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
God will have the last say, that is right
and if you do not do what is right
it is obvious
you are headed in the wrong direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Dear The Paul,
So you admit that you can’t condemn anyone for murdering your family, right?”
/
Not exactly. I can still condemn them as much as it’s possible for a human being to do so, and if you press me for a natural answer as to why I feel I can do that, my answer is, “Because, in essence, I was programmed to.”
If someone kills my family and I chalk it up to a genetic mutation producing a human monster or a biblical interpretation of the source of human evil, I don’t really see any difference for how I should react. The person is an aberration from the design of a loving and omniscient god or a naturally occuring and unsentient survival program. An aberration either way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Exterminator,
That’s my point exactly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dearest The Paul,
So you’ve personified natural selection, and now it cares about your family. Okay.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic,
/
The discussion of an absolute moral standard is as tricky as any religious discussion. For the religious, a moral standard is handed down from a divine authority. Even among the atheist or agnostic, moral standards are genarally derived from societal norms which have been heavily influenced by religious ideology.
/
Consider crimes of vice such as prostitution and illegal drug use (US based for our discussion). These are victimless crimes. Anyone involved in these activities do so by choice. Nobody is harmed by them, unless by personal choice.
/
We legalize alcohol and tobacco, but outlaw marijuana. Numerous studies show that marijuana is much less harmful than alcohol, yet even possessing marijuana is a crime. Why?
/
There are numerous states in the US where certain sexual acts between consenting adults within their own homes are illegal. Why? You can pay actors to perform sexual acts on film and then sell that film, but you cannot pay someone to have sex with you. Why?
/
The answer is that we do not live in a society of absolute morality. The contradictions mentioned above illustrate that our standards of morality are conditional and situational. They also illustrate how heavily our morals are influenced by religious dogma. There is a greater concern for policing your neighbor’s sin than asking the question “what is moral?”
/
I believe we (the entire human race) are morally immature. Our judgements are still based in religous ideology, and history shows that that we humans have a nasty habit of justifying our worst atrocities with religious authority. If we are to grow, we have to consider moral questions outside of the realm of religion and develop a moral standard that is independent of personal ambitions.
/
My definition of what is moral (good or evil if you will) centers on one idea. Evil is when your actions or inactions will harm to another. Good is when your actions or inaction will benefit another. As with any moral standard there are thousands of ‘what-ifs’ to deal with, but it is a base to build on.
/
RAmen and pass the marinara… as the good book says “Bogart not the tasty red sauce, lest ye not be invited back.”… yes that must be in there somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It isn’t contradictory to say that there is no absolute moral standard and then go on to say that murder is wrong. Murder is wrong by the moral standard that exists right now. In the future that standard may “evolve” into something that we would see as completely amoral. No one can know that, and none of us will ever know that so we just go by the current standard, though it is by no means aboslute.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My good friend One Eyed Jack,
You wrote, “Evil is when your actions or inactions will harm to another. Good is when your actions or inaction will benefit another.”
Atheists believe that we are merely animals, right? Animals kill other animals everyday in the jungle. Is that immoral?
Mr. nyx,
Bravo! I do believe you’ve almost got it!
Now answer me this: Can you imagine a time when you will ever be able to say, “They killed my perfectly healthy and innocent child, but I’m sure glad they did. I mean, it would have been immoral if they did not!”
I have been using extreme examples to illustrate my point; however, it applies to every area of out life. If there is no God, everything is truly relative. If there is no God, everything is a matter of opinion and must be subjectively interpreted. Take aesthetics; is beauty really in the eye of the beholder? Pictures of actual rape are beautiful to some sick individuals, but wait…we can’t call them sick. After all, everything is relative.
Some of you might think that the theory of relativity supports this way of thinking; however, Einstein never intended for his theory to be applied to social concepts like morality or aesthetics.
Atheism: DENOUNCE IT OR DEAL WITH IT!
My good friend Mr. nyx is telling us he is okay with relative morals, but he really is not. If we could follow him around for one day, we would see him acting like every other human; we would see him if acting as if human life has value. We might even see him cringe when he heard dissonance pretending to be music. He has a right to cringe. He has a right to open his heart wide to everyone around him, and value their individuality. That right comes from God. Matter and energy are silent. They do not care about aesthetics. The do not concern themselves with dissonance. They cannot evolve into MEANINGFUL arrangements on their own.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello–
” I think is something wrong with believing without good reason.”–oh, I agree. I’m not suggesting you go out and decide to worship worms because worms are cool. I’m just saying that believing in an unprovable concept such as god isn’t a bad thing.
-
I’m sure someone well-versed in Islam–ie, not me–would be able to come up with tons of proof somewhere. Also, in terms of circular logic, when you were arguing about faith coming from god you used Abraham and plenty of quotes. (unless I missed something along the way)
-
“Matter & Energy + Time + Chance = There is no such thing as right or wrong.”—-fine. I agree with you on that. Ok? There IS no such thing as right and wrong that is not arbitrary. There is only what WE think is right and wrong, but we cannot know if we are right until the day we die and find out. We can have FAITH that we are right, but can we know for sure? No. All morals are arbitrary….most Americans find it disqusting to have more then one wife, some tribes out there find it a-ok.
-
“according to your atheist presuppositions, the only logical conclusion is that our perceiving them as valuable is an illusion. “–first of all, they’re not MY standerds….also, I’m sure some would agree with that. However, that is taking it to the utmost extreme. God is not the only thing to=morals. People can develop morals based on other things. Who are we to impose such arbirtrary standers? Ask the lawmakers who pass laws they feel are best for their people…..ideally, anyway. Who are we to impose….but, hell, who is GOD to impose? Who is ANYONE to impose ANYTHING if you take it that far? Yes, god is good and god is great, but is that enough? Philolosophically speaking, who has the right to decide these things? Do we have the right if there is no god? I can’t answer that, I’m not a deep enough thinker. Something my teacher told me just today……there are no absolutes. Truth and lies do not = right and wrong.
-
You’re right. To have an absolute moral standerd that IS UNDOUBTABLY RIGHT, you have to have god. Which is why I’ll be the first to say that my morals may be wrong. I don’t deal in absolutes so much, I deal in the shades of grey. Murder is wrong=absolute. But what if you kill a murderer….say, a serial killer who goes around tourturing people for fun? What if you were married to one of his victims and you kill him? What if pain and violence is all the serial killer knew, if he never had anyone to tell him, ‘this is not acceptable’? Who is wrong? Both? Niether? I can’t answer that. I have my OPNIONS on the matter, but god may have others. I don’t know.
-
“In fact, if there is no God, and we, as people want to do what’s best for the masses and the preservation of life, we should kill innocent people.”–ah, but it’s not the best for the majority I’m so concerned with…..it’s the best for EVERYONE. What’s best for everyone is staying alive…..so naturally, a murderer doesn’t have my vote because what he’s doing is not best for everyone. (I’m an idealist, can you tell?)
-
“Not if it is historically proven. Are you going to through all of History’s testimony? Further, God wants to prove Himself to you Gill, but not with a silly sign. I challenge you to ask God to reveal Himself to you, and then honestly investigate the claims of Christianity, especially Jesus’ resurrection.”—I have. Trust me. I’ve looked into Chrisitanity, into the idea of having Jesus as the messiah…….and it doesn’t add up. Maybe to you it does. But to me his rebirth hasn’t been proven, and to me the messiah has yet to come. To me, everything that tells you Jesus IS tells me Jesus ISN’T. In my heart I think there is a god, and in my heart I think he’s a just one. I might be wrong, but untill I find out I will just keep living my life as I think I should.
—(I was taught that the messiah would bring peace. I have yet to see peace on earth on anything resembling a large scale. I cannot accept that Jesus is the son of god, so I’ll keep waiting till my messiah shows up. Don’t make the mistake so many Christians make and assume that anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus just doesn’t know enough about him. I’ve done plenty of reaserch, I’ve read the bible–several times, thanks to hebrew school–and I do not and will not accept the notion of god as you have him.)—
–
“You only inflated my argument to new heights. Are you saying that the crusades were absolutely evil? By what standard are you determining that? Thanks for proving my point.”–by the standerd of society, I would pressume, whose standerds may or may not be correct. However, I think the point he was trying to make is that those people believed in god and absolute morals, and did what they did anyway. Obviously they thought god was ok by it. And yet you would disagree. If different people can have different views on god’s moral system, then doesn’t that make it arbitrary depending on what you think god wants?
-
“There is no absolute moral standard.†and then moments later, “The crusades were bad.†or “Humans have evolved an understanding that murder is wrong.‗I won’t say that, for one. I’ll say ‘I THINK murder is bad’ and ‘I THINK the crusades were bad.’ I’m not about to pressume that’s what GOD himself would say. How the heck would I know? I’m just a 17 year old chick with too much time on her hands.
-
Lastly, let me just clarify: MORAL SYSTEMS ARE NEVER ABSOLUTE. I have my personaly feelings on what is right and what is wrong, and–to be honest–laws are passed because everyone wants to live the best life for THEMSELVES. It’s all very self-intrested. Does this make us hypocrites sometimes? Sure. But we’re humans. All I know is that to me, murder is wrong and laws against it are right, so I will support those laws. To me, everyone has the right to be happy as long as they are not imposing upon the happiness of others, as murderers are doing. In order for me to say that, I have to impose upon the happiness of murderers. Is this right? Guess I’ll find out when god tells me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By the way—WHY do you keep saying ‘Atheism: DENOUNCE IT OR DEAL WITH IT!’?? We all read it the first three times. (Whee this is fun….here’s hoping Bobby doesn’t mind us spamming the place.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
youre an idiot apparently, because GOD supposedly FORGIVES.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most Excellent Gill,
I’m sorry I said that the atheist presuppositions where synonymous with yours. As you may have noticed, I’ve been corresponding with numerous people.
You wrote, “Also, in terms of circular logic, when you were arguing about faith coming from god you used Abraham and plenty of quotes.” – I was simply putting forth the Biblical definition of faith. Basically, I used 234,567,890 words to say, “Here is how the Bible defines faith. Other religions such as Hinduism, Mormonism, Evolution, and they like may ask you to leap, but the Bible says be certain. To the Christian faith is knowing not hoping.”
About imposing moral standards, you wrote, “Who is GOD to impose?” – God does not arbitrarily impose rules on people. Every command, law, or thou shalt not is a direct expression of His character. You should pick up C.S. Lewis’ book Problem of Pain. It will give you a picture of God and reality that you might find rather shocking and impressive. I could post my summary of the book, but only if you’re interested.
“Something my teacher told me just today…there are no absolutes.” – Ask your teacher if he or she is absolutely sure there are no absolutes. To say there are no absolutes is an absolute statement. I think you should change schools.
You wrote, “To me his (Jesus) rebirth hasn’t been proven.” – I am going to post a “Case for the Resurrection”. I hope you’ll read it.
You wrote, “I was taught that the messiah would bring peace.” – He did. Remember reading about Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem on what we now call Palm Sunday? Kings rode donkeys into a city in times peace but horses in times of war. Jesus was going into Jerusalem to make peace for the world. He made peace with God a possibility for all mankind by being nailed to a cross.
You wrote, “If different people can have different views on god’s moral system, then doesn’t that make it arbitrary depending on what you think god wants?” – Jacques Derrida, linguist and inventor of the deconstruction approach to literary criticism once said, “We need to interpret interpretations more than to interpret things.†For Derrida and other postmodernist, there is no such thing as objective reality. For these thinkers, all definitions of reality or truth are subjective, simply creations of the mind. Truth is relative, and subject to the nature of the interpreter’s cultural and social experiences. To these thinkers the Bible has infinite truths. However, the absolute truth of the matter is that there was an objective truth and intention behind the writer’s statements and claims. I personally believe that the Spirit, whom inspired the authors, indwells me and illuminates the truth for me. However, I will give you a naturalistic answer: It is always impossible for finite creatures to develop an exhaustive assessment of a text; however, by using the historical, grammatical, literary method of interpretation an individual can get a truthful understanding of the authors original meaning. That’s a fancy way of saying, “Read the Bible just like you would the Newspaper and you should do fine.” BUT you must remember to interpret everything through the appropriate historical context, understanding the writer’s grammatical and literary intentions.
I keep repeating that phrase for shock value. I want people to get passionate. I want people to think.
I am so impressed that you are thinking so deeply at 17 years of age.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just so no one can say that i haven’t made any posts that are relevant to the original comment, here is a link to a very good article. It talks about why Creationism is just as scientific as the theory of evolution.
http://www.icr.org/article/177/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic… Your point could fit on the head of a pin. “The less a man has to say the more words he uses in saying it”—Tommy Dewar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A Case for the Resurrection
/
1 Corinthians 15:3b-8, “…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.†(NKJV)
/
1. Jesus died.
The Koran, which was written in the seventh century claims that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross. There have been quite a few short stories and novels that make the same claim. So let’s look at the evidence:
/
First it should be noted that we have lots of early NON-CHRISTIAN sources that tell us Jesus died on the cross (see Evidence That Demands A Verdict, vol.1, p.81-87).
/
Let’s consider the Biblical account:
· Hematidrosis
Luke 22:44, “And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.†(NKJV)
/
This is an actual medical condition called hematidrosis. It is rare, but it’s real. Hematidrosis occurs when an individual is under extreme stress. Chemicals get released that break down the capillaries in the sweat glands, and subsequently there is a small amount blood mixed with the individuals sweat. This condition causes your skin to be extremely sensitive, which brings us to the next point…
/
· Flogging
John 19:1. “So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him.†(NKJV)
/
Roman floggings were horrible. Usually they consisted of 39 blows, but frequently there were more. It depended on the mood of the soldiers. They used a leather whip with metal balls woven into them. The balls tenderized the persons flesh with deep bruises. The whip also had sharp pieces of bone woven into them, which would cut the flesh severely.
/
The persons back would be ripped and the spine would sometimes be exposed. The whippings would land any where from the shoulders, back, buttocks, or the back of the legs. Many people died from this kind of beating.
/
Medical Doctor Alexander Metherell said, “Because of the terrible effect of this beating, there’s no question that Jesus was already in serious to critical condition even before the nails were driven through His hands and feet.â€
/
· Crucifixion
Jesus was nailed through His wrists (considered part of the hand in the language of the day) to the wooden beam. The nails would have crushed His median nerve. To get an idea of how that might have felt think about when you hit your “funny boneâ€. Now imagine someone taking a pair of pliers and squeezing and crushing that nerve. When the nails went through His feet the pain would have been similar.
/
They had to invent a new word for the type of pain that being crucified caused: “excruciatingâ€, which literally means “out of the crossâ€.
/
When Jesus was lifted up on the cross it would have stretched His arms about six inches in length and both of His shoulders would have been dislocated. This coincidently fulfilled a prophecy written hundreds of years before Jesus was crucified.
/
Psalms 22:14, “I am poured out like water, And all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me.†(NKJV)
/
When a person is being crucified their muscles and diaphragm are stretched into the inhaled position. In order to exhale the person has to push up on his feet so that the tension is eased. This would go on until the person was too tired to push himself up. The person then goes into what is called respiratory acidosis, which leads to an irregular heart beat and the eventual death by cardiac arrest.
/
The Bible tells us that the soldiers broke the legs of the other two men being crucified, but not Jesus’.
/
John 19:32-33, “Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.†(NKJV)
/
If the soldiers wanted to speed up the death process, they would break an individual’s legs so that he couldn’t push up and breathe. They didn’t break Jesus’ legs because they were certain Jesus was already dead. This also fulfilled an ancient prophecy:
/
Psalm 34:20, “He guards all his bones; Not one of them is broken.†(NKJV)
(See also Exodus 12:46)
/
Before Jesus died the enormous amount of blood loss (hypovolemic shock) would have caused a collection of fluid around the heart, called a pericardial effusion. It would also have caused fluid to build up around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion. That’s why when the Roman soldier pierced Jesus side John saw blood and “water†flow from Christ’s side.
/
John 19:34, “But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.†(NKJV)
/
Jesus was dead before the soldier pierced His side, but even if He were not, the spear ripping into His heart would have killed Him.
/
These soldiers were expert killers, and if a prisoner somehow escaped the soldiers would face the death penalty themselves. Be certain that they didn’t mess up: Jesus died.
/
When asked about Jesus after the spear had pierced Him Dr. Metherell said, “There was absolutely no doubt that Jesus was dead.â€
/
2. Three days later His tomb was empty.
There is no doubt that the tomb was empty. Historians don’t doubt that. However, there have been attempts to explain away the resurrection naturalistically. Let’s look at those explanations:
· The Swoon Theory
This theory says that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross. He only looked dead. He was taken down off the cross and laid in the tomb, where He revived. He rolled away the big stone that usually takes a few guys to move. Then He snuck past the guards, and went to find His disciples. They mistakenly thought He had risen from the dead.
/
This theory is ridiculous. We’ve already determined that Jesus was dead, but let’s imagine for a moment that this theory is true. In the condition Jesus was in: Do you think Jesus (naturalistic Jesus) could have moved the stone? Could He have snuck past the guards, or even have fought them off? Could He have walked on those ripped up feet? Could He have fooled the disciples into thinking He was resurrected? Do you think the disciples looked at Jesus in that pitiful state and thought, “Wow Jesus rose again. If we follow Him we can have a glorified resurrected body like Hid?†No!
/
· The Thief Theory
This theory says that the disciples, the guards, or the Jewish religious leaders stole Jesus’ body.
/
Okay, let’s start with the soldiers. Why would they steal the body? So they could get killed for messing up their jobs? I don’t think so.
/
What about the religious leaders? They had Jesus killed to stop His movement. Would they steal His body so that His disciples would think He rose from the dead? No that would cause the movement to grow again. If they did steal the body when the disciples started telling everybody that Jesus had risen they would have brought His body out and showed every one that He was dead.
/
Did the disciples steal His body? I don’t think so. Here are a few reasons:
1. The disciples didn’t expect Jesus to rise from the dead.
John 20:9, “For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.†(NKJV)
/
2. The disciples were hiding.
John 20:19, “the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews….†(NKJV)
/
3. Why would the disciples go to jail, get beaten, and even killed for something they knew was a lie?
/
· The Wrong Tomb Theory
This theory says everybody just forgot which they put Jesus in.
/
1. Ladies first… The women knew which tomb it was.
Luke 23:55, “And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid.†(NKJV)
/
2. The religious leaders had guards placed at the tomb. When the disciples started saying Jesus had risen they certainly would’ve went to the right tomb and silenced the disciples.
Matthew 27:64-66, “Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.” Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.” So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard. (NKJV)
/
3. Joseph of Arimathea certainly would have known where his own tomb was.
Matthew 27:59, “When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed.†(NKJV)
/
· Alien Recovery Theory
This theory says Jesus came to earth from a superior planet and when He died aliens came, restored Him to life, and then took Him home.
/
I’m not even going to answer this one!
/
3. Jesus was seen.
1 Corinthians 15:5-8, “…He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.†(NKJV)
/
Paul is basically saying, “Look we saw Him. Five hundred people saw Him one time, and most of them are still alive. Go ask them they’ll tell you it’s true!
/
Some have proposed that all these people hallucinated. However, five hundred people do not all hallucinate the same thing, not even at a Grateful Dead concert.
/
4. The disciples were changed.
Before the disciples saw the resurrected Lord they were cowards, but after they saw Jesus they were changed men. Consider these three guys:
· Peter
Peter was all ready to fight with Jesus until he saw Jesus get arrested. After that he lost his confidence. He denied he even knew Jesus three times because he was scared for his life.
/
However, after he saw Jesus he was a new man. He goes out in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and preaches that Jesus is the Messiah and that He rose from the dead. Peter is in the same city where Jesus just got beat and killed. Not only was this dangerous, but Peter was in the city where people could check out what he was saying. People could ask those five hundred people, and they could ask about the empty tomb.
/
Peter was so sure that Jesus had risen from the dead that he gave his life for that truth. Peter was never the same after Jesus rose from the dead!
/
· James (Jesus’ brother)
James was embarrassed of Jesus while He was alive (John 7:5). But something changed James’ mind about Jesus. It was the resurrection. James was stoned for claiming Jesus rose from the dead.
/
· Paul
Paul hated Christians. Yet when he saw the resurrected Lord all that changed. Paul gave up a life of wealth, honor, and power to be a tent making missionary. Why? Because he knew that Jesus had risen from the dead.
/
The only explanation for the way these guys turned their lives around is that Jesus really appeared to the. Nobody dies for a lie.
/
Maybe you’re thinking, “Well, Muslims give there lives for their god all the time.â€
/
True, but they have to believe their religion by faith. The apostle’s didn’t. They knew for sure whether or not they had seen Jesus after His resurrection. They didn’t have to rely on a preacher or a book. They had either seen Him, and touched Him or they hadn’t. And they all gave their lives for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
/
Conclusion:
We can be certain that the resurrection was a real space-time occurrence. Jesus really rose from the dead.
/
References:
Case For Christ, Lee Strobel
Case For Easter, Lee Strobel
More Than A Carpenter, Josh McDowell
Evidence That Demands A Verdict, vol.1, Josh McDowell
RE 321 Class Notes, Dr. Cecil Taylor
Journal of Evangelism and Missions, Spring 2004, Vol.3: p.23
Accounting For The Empty Tomb, Lesson One, Don Myers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic… The inherent problem with living in the dark ages is that you tend to miss out (or completely ignore) new developments. Apparently, you have failed to recognize the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision. Intelligent Design is Creationism and Creationism is religion, not science. The rhetoric spewing forth from your keyboard equates to more than simple hot air. It is not only irresponsible, it is, in fact, dishonest as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hello…
“Something my teacher told me just today…there are no absolutes.†– Ask your teacher if he or she is absolutely sure there are no absolutes. To say there are no absolutes is an absolute statement. I think you should change schools.”—Hahah, no way. I worship that guy. Actually, that was just my bad paraphrasing that screwed up the statement. Basically what he said was that you should never asume something is ALWAYS so…always ask questins, because there are always loopholes to be found.
-
“He did.”–for a while. After world war 2 there was also peace. For a while. Then some unhappy humans went back to killing some other unhappy humans, and-wow! War again! When I say peace, I mean EVERLASTING peace, an end to all war. Which hasn’t happened yet, as I see. (How did Jesus bring peace if he ended up being MURDERED, anyway?)
-
“BUT you must remember to interpret everything through the appropriate historical context, understanding the writer’s grammatical and literary intentions.”–Ah, of course. But someone is bound to interpret the rules differently, eh?
-
Why thank you. I try.
-
“we have lots of early NON-CHRISTIAN sources that tell us Jesus died on the cross”–I have no doubt that he did. Many people did back then.
“There was absolutely no doubt that Jesus was dead.‖Again, I agree.
“Alien Recovery Theory
This theory says Jesus came to earth from a superior planet and when He died aliens came, restored Him to life, and then took Him home.”—BEST. THEORY. EVER. Haa, the things people come up with.
My Theory: grave robbers managed to plunder the eygptian pyramids, did they not? So is it not possible that they hit Jesus’s grave for whatever reason? Or perhaps the Roman soldiers didn’t want the body of someone who was obviously influential just lying around. I can’t say for sure as I’m not quite old enough to remeber myself, but there are tons of other choices besides the supernatural/godly.
-
Agian, according to the bible. I can write quite easily that five billion people saw the FSM three thousand years ago. Go ahead, prove me wrong. There’s no evidence that it happened…..but none that it DIDN’T happen either. Also, it is extremly easy to take the number 5…as time goes on a zero gets added to make it look better….and as more time goes on another zero pops up to make it look even better…..or words are mistranslated…
-
“We can be certain that the resurrection was a real space-time occurrence. Jesus really rose from the dead.”—Ah. We can. So all the millions of theological arguments are hereby solved? What if the bible wasn’t around? What if things were mistranslated/invented? And why do I still not think he rose from the dead?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also, something I must ask……why does it matter whether I think he rose or not? I certainly don’t care if you think he did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic,
it’s Ms. Nyx, thank you very much.
My actions correspond with what I believe is right and wrong, and my beliefs have been shaped by the society and environment that I grew up in. I wouldn’t say that I’m comfortable with the fact that murder may one day be considered completely moral, but it could happen. There’s nothing I can do about it, so I accept that fact and I try to live based on what I feel is right.
You wrote that my right to appreciate beauty and value individuality comes from God, but I simply cannot reconcile that belief with the way I feel. To me, chance and choas can be beautiful and can therefore create beautiful things. My right to appreciate beauty and value individuality comes from the fact that I am an intelligent being.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Some have proposed that all these people hallucinated. However, five hundred people do not all hallucinate the same thing, not even at a Grateful Dead concert.”
Valid point, but is the Bible the only record of those 500 witnesses?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Some have proposed that all these people hallucinated. However, five hundred people do not all hallucinate the same thing, not even at a Grateful Dead concert.”
And an add on to nyx’s post
And do we have documented evidence supporting that they all saw it? Did they get the people to write down or at least have someone write them down so that we may have evidence that it happened? It is impossible to try and make claims like these because there are way to many flaw’s in the statement itself.
I mean you do understand how hard it is to believe that a man rose from the dead, right? Nothing was ever written down by Jesus, only what people who supposedly knew him wrote down. Let me use this example:
Elvis Presley died on August 16 1977, we have pictures of Elvis dead a door nail on the autopsy table, yet there are people who claim that he did not die; sound familar? There are people who claim that he will return one day out of no where; sound familar? Now there are two different books delving into the Elvis eating habits, both of which contain his famous fried chicken recipe, but wait both recipes are different, glarring differences in fact. Now try to imagine finding out the correct Elvis fried chicken recipe, 1000 years from now.
It is the same thing concerning Jesus’ life, we have nothing that he had written down, only what others believe he said, we have nothing that could possibly describe his life before taking on the roll of “Son of God”, we have nothing of any evidence that he existed, it is a matter of faith and if you choose to believe it, go ahead, I however won’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Dearest The Paul,
So you’ve personified natural selection, and now it cares about your family. Okay.
Peace”
/
No, it’s a blind force that cares as much as gravity and entropy do. But in the same sense that gravity “wants” things to fall and entropy “wants” systems to tend toward disorder natural selection “wants” me to defend those who are close to me and “wants” aberrations culled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most Excellent Gill,
You wrote, “How did Jesus bring peace if he ended up being MURDERED, anyway?? – He made peace with God for mankind, not peace in human-to-human relations, but in the Divine to human relationship. Please read my post to Laurie on Sep 26th, 2006 at 6:06 pm. It describes this peace in detail. It also details the truth about Hell, and discusses whether or not a loving God could send anyone there.
About Jesus empty tomb, the Roman soldiers had a job to do. They would be killed if it wasn’t done correctly. That’s a historical fact. So no they wouldn’t have let grave robbers come in and steal the Body, nor would they directly disobey there orders. There really is only one logical conclusion, which is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Sounds crazy, I freely confess. However, scholars have tried to prove other wise for years, and they can’t come up with any viable scenario. People don’t accept the evidence because it’s supernatural; I understand that. The evidence is still what it is.
You wrote, “I can write quite easily that five billion people saw the FSM three thousand years ago.” – I could prove you wrong if you wrote that statement within a generation of the alleged event. I could interview the eyewitnesses. The New Testament documents were all written and in circulation during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. In fact, here’s what Paul actually wrote: “He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. ” Paul is giving his readers an open invitation to check out what he’s saying. Certainly, many did.
You wrote, “It is extremely easy to take the number 5…as time goes on a zero gets added to make it look better…. and as more time goes on another zero pops up to make it look even better…or words are mistranslated.” – Have you ever read any of the great works (literature) from antiquity? Do you think they are still in their original state? Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C., and the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400 year gap, and only five manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C., and it’s manuscript authority rests on ten copies dating one thousand years after his death.
When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embracing in contrast. Over twenty thousand copies of the New Testament manuscripts are in existence today, the earliest of which is only twenty-five years older than the original. The Iliad has six hundred forty-three manuscripts and is second to the New Testament in manuscript authority. The earliest copy we have today of the Iliad was written about five hundred years after the original. Yet, no one doubts that we have what Homer actually wrote.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian at the British Museum and second to none in authority in issuing statements about manuscripts, concludes: “The interval then between dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.†No one who knows anything about textual criticism and ancient manuscripts will disagree.
Lastly, Jesus’ resurrection proves He has power over death. This is the final assurance for Christians that they too will live after dieing.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Ms. Nyx,
I apologize for the gender mix-up.
You wrote, “I try to live based on what I feel is right.” – The point of the anthropological argument is to help people see two things. Atheist leap. That is, they aren’t quite as rational as they would like Christians to think they are. And most importantly, that atheists cannot live logically consistently with the conclusions of the atheistic worldview.” It’s obviously hard to admit that we’re leapers. That’s what we’re all in hearing trying to disprove. However, you have shown a true understanding of this reality. Thanks for capable enough to recognize reality.
You wrote, “To me, chance and chaos can be beautiful and can therefore create beautiful things.” – I think that from the atheist perspective art and life do have a certain beauty. I actually find it hard to put into words. It probably isn’t apparent to every atheist; certainly the sensitive atheist senses it. It starts with the fact that everything will be eternally lost and never remembered. Her beautiful face and the sensations her whispers create…they’re lost and forgotten. The vivid appearance of that pigment leaping off the canvass…it’s unseen and unappreciated. But the real beauty is in the observation of this reality. I must admit that there is something truly poetic about that moment to me, but it’s sad…really sad.
You wrote, “My right to appreciate beauty and value individuality comes from the fact that I am an intelligent being.” – I’m not arguing your right to appreciate those things. I’m simply saying that according to the logical conclusions of you atheistic world-view you cannot assign any absolute quality to a particular. That is. Green is absolutely beautiful, or Murdering people is absolutely bad.”
You wrote, “Is the Bible the only record of those 500 witnesses?” In this particular case, yes, the Bible is the only source we have for this occurrence.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Allen
You wrote, “We have nothing of any evidence that he existed.” – please do at least a little research before you write something for people to read. There are lots of NON-Christian sources that document the historicity of Jesus.
I am now going to answer you with a very general answer. It’s 3 a.m. at my house and I just don’t feel like getting out a bunch of books right now. However, if you would like me to be more specific, I will…tomorrow.
The major difference between Elvis and Jesus is that people started saying Elvis was alive years after he died, and they were making this claim in trailer parks miles away from Memphis. Jesus’ followers started making their claims three days after Jesus died and they did it in Jerusalem. If someone wanted to prove them wrong they could have pulled Jesus’ bloody body out into the streets and Christianity would have died that instant.
Further, the Biblical claims are supported by lots of different types of evidence, eyewitness testimony, archeology, ect.
You wrote a bunch of stuff about chicken, and well, it just made me hungry. I don’t see any connection to Jesus or the Bible. Further, I think…nah, never mind.
You wrote, “I mean you do understand how hard it is to believe that a man rose from the dead, right?” – I do.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear The Paul,
Please look up the word personification in a reputable dictionary.
Let me explain your theory to you: Mutations happen. The ones that are not useful die off. The useful ones remain.
Natural Selection cannot want anything.
I know I sound like a jerk; please forgive me.
You’re awesome!
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear nic:
You lie. There is no new testament MS only 25 years removed from the original. Read Bart Ehrman’s “lost christianities” to educate yourself based on the latest archaeological findings, instead of simply making stuff up. The Nag Hammadi scrolls prove that there was a large christian gnostic movement in the first and second centuries after jebus which split from the main orthodox movement. Christianity has been schisming into pieces ever since.
Would the one true god let his religion splinter unless it was always just a human contrivance?
I never really hated the one true god but the god of all the people I hated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HAVE YOU EVER EVEN READ THE BIBLE, NIC?
When jebus died on the cross, according to Matthew and no other gospel, the “graves of the saints opened and those within came out to speak to the people”. WHERE IS THE NON-BIBLICAL SOURCE FOR THIS MIGHTY MIRACLE? The whole story is a heap of hot steaming feces. Where did these saints go after their useless resurrection? Back to the grave when the time was right? Or did they drop dead in their tracks?
Why do I waste my time…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One more note to nic:
You obviously don’t understand the Big Bang. The theory developed because of the observable phenomena of stellar red shift. So, WHY WOULD GOD CREATE AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE, SMART GUY?! The clumping of galaxies happens because of gravity, maybe you’ve read of it.
As Leaky bemoaned years ago, you are engaging in directional mis-education, which is a form of bigotry. You grasp at straws to prove a point which has been consigned to the unscientific realm. Jesus and all the liars after him were the frauds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nic writes, “Atheists believe that we are merely animals, right? Animals kill other animals everyday in the jungle. Is that immoral?”
/
Atheists do not believe humans are merely animals. Human are the only species that has the capacity to make moral distinctions. Animal kill each another for a variety of reasons. This is simply the way of nature. There is no moral question involved.
/
I’ll extend this dilema to humans, which is what I believe you are heading towards. Is there ever a time when it is moral to for one person to kill or harm another person? Yes, there is. Self defense is the obvious example.
/
As another example, imagine a mugging. It is not only permissible, but the obligation of others who would call themselves moral to come to the aid of the victim. Remember that I stated, “through action or inaction.” This is an example where taking the role of a pacifist would be an immoral choice.
/
There are times when violence is a moral course of action.
/
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If we will ever stand in front of god (what you think) noone of us will have a problem with that because we just used our brain which god gave us (what you also think).Not the faith makes you a good human, your actions do.
I don’t care if there’s a god or not.
If it isn’t proved, I don’t think there is a reason to believe in any religion.
Why should I throw my brain away?
(sorry if there are faults in this text; I’m german)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Green can be ugly, and as for murder I refer you to One Eyed Jack’s post.
Yay, I’m not a hypocrite.
/
“Her beautiful face and the sensations her whispers create…they’re lost and forgotten. The vivid appearance of that pigment leaping off the canvass…it’s unseen and unappreciated. But the real beauty is in the observation of this reality. I must admit that there is something truly poetic about that moment to me, but it’s sad…really sad.”–the fact that these moments are fleeting only makes them more beautiful and easier to fully appreciate. It can be sad, but humans would take beautiful moments like that for granted if they weren’t so short-lived. I’d take my fleeting, “meaningless,” beautiful existence over an eternity without pain or chaos or short-lived moments of beauty any day. We only get one life, it just seems a shame to spend it so focused on the “next life.” I’m okay with just having this one. Eternity is one hell of a long time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sir Studmuffin,
“There is no new testament MS only 25 years removed from the original.” – John Rayland’s MS (AD 130), located in The John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.
You wrote, “The Nag Hammadi scrolls prove that there was a large Christian Gnostic movement in the first and second centuries after Jesus which split from the main orthodox movement. Christianity has been schisming into pieces ever since. Would the one true god let his religion splinter unless it was always just a human contrivance?” – First, God is a gentleman; he never imposes upon the freewill of men. He let humanity split from a right relationship with Him. So, to answer your question, yes. And about the Nag Hammadi, those writings were written way after Jesus’ ministry so they are not reliable testimony about Jesus. Just any one wanted to go Dan Brown on me. Bart Erham intentionally misleads people to sell books. See this link: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000
“And many bodies of the saints–arose.” Of course it is not known who these were, nor what became of them. It is probable that they were persons who had recently died, and they appear to have been known in Jerusalem. At least, had the ancient saints risen, they would not have been known, and would not so soon have been credited as those who had recently died. What became of them after they had entered into the city–whether they again died, or ascended to heaven–is not revealed, and conjecture is vain.
You wrote, “WHY WOULD GOD CREATE AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE, SMART GUY?!” – Why not?
The clumping of galaxies does not happen because of gravity. The answer the real pseudo-scientists are giving is CDM.
Please do some research before your next post so I don’t have to waste my time. I don’t mean to be rude, but really.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear One Eyed Jack,
You disappoint me. You wrote, “Human are the only species that has the capacity to make moral distinctions.” What do they measure against? Matter and energy are silent and amoral. Natural selection doesn’t care about anything!!! It is a natural occurrence; please refrain from personifying it in you’re response.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t a lot of these sound like someone who’s going to tell on you to your parents?
“ooh, Bobby, just wait til mom and dad hear about this. You are gonna be in so much trouble. They’re gonna send you to time out.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dearest Chat,
You wrote, “Why should I throw my brain away?” – Christianity doesn’t require you to do that. It encourages investigation. The Bible opens up for empirical testing. The book of Luke might be the best example. Luke was a doctor who wrote a Gospel to Theophilus. We don’t know who Theoplhilus is but here’s what we do know: Luke interviewed eyewitnesses to the things he wrote about, and Luke gave specific details like names, places, and dates. Why did Luke do that? Luke said he did it so “that you may know the certainty of those things (Luke 1:4).â€
Basically Luke is saying, “Theo, my man, look I know you’ve been hearing that Jesus is God and that he died for your sins and then rose from the dead. Man, listen I’ve checked it out and it’s true. I’ve included all the details the names, places, dates, and all that stuff. Go check it out for yourself if you want.†So when Theophilus got the letter he could have taken it to the places Luke talked about and found the people Luke mentioned and said, “On such and such date did so and so happen?†The people would have been like, “Yea man, you should’ve been here. It was crazy man. Jesus was all healing people and stuff.â€
Please read my post to Eric V on Sep 27th, 2006 at 6:24 pm.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Dear The Paul,
Please look up the word personification in a reputable dictionary.
Let me explain your theory to you: Mutations happen. The ones that are not useful die off. The useful ones remain.
Natural Selection cannot want anything.
I know I sound like a jerk; please forgive me.
You’re awesome!
Peace”
/
Okay, we’re having some kind of misunderstading here.
Personification is a literary device, and in that sense, I personified natural selection. In that I described the behaviour of a non-living thing in terms of its beliefs and emotions *without actually believing, or intending to show, that it has any thoughts or emotions.*
/
I don’t think that’s quite what you meant when you said I’d personified natural selection, however, as you added that now it loves my family, and left it at that. I picked up an implication there that now natural selection was supposed to be a god I was following, so I could no longer call myself an athiest.
/
Not so. I don’t find any need to follow the dictates of natural selection. It’s a blind force and its interests (if I were to continue to personify it) are not always guaranteed to coincide with mine. However, if I assume myself to be a product of it, then I recognize that it most likely have a hand in any sort of instict or intuitive belief I have.
/
It’s not very hard to see *why* more concerned, more social individuals will have had, in the long run, an advantage over psychopathic murder machines.
/
So insinsting that a moral code couldn’t come from uncaring matter and energy isn’t really right. The vast majority of people will be evolved to develop a moral code. It won’t always be the same one, but given a similar environment there will be enough agreement for a society to form and come up with a set of rules as to what is acceptable and what is not.
/
This is where the idea right and wrong is coming from. It can even seem to have universal hard and unbreakable rules from some angles. We can develop a moral code from this, we just can’t step back and look at it and say, “This is objectively correct.”
/
We don’t need to though, because we’re evolved to think it’s correct, objectively or not.
/
Now this does open up the door to all sorts of uncomfortable questions, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know the Chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education and without a doubt, he wants to remove evolution from school and put in creationism. If possible, however he likes to use the phrase’ more local control” as a way to deflect questions about his real agenda. He also believes the government is out to get “Christians” and that the best way to prepare is to live off the land and store up a lot of food and weapons.
He speaks well and reads much, but it is all filtered through his belief system and doesn’t entertain information that he doesn’t have a prejudice for ahead of time, unless he has to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
COncerning the myth of this “Jesus” or Joshua of Nazereth please feel free to loook at the comparisons of Jesus and the Egyptian God Horas.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The belief in an athiest agenda is pretty scary, huh? All these people get thinking the athiests are going to come get them, and they’re going to need to fight, and so they get ready to fight…
/
Never stopping to think about it. Never saying “wait a sec… if the athiests don’t believe in our god in the first place how can they be planning against him?”
/
No… instead they get to thinking the very purpose the unbelievers live their life is to destroy belief in the Christian God. Why, we even invented evolution for the *express purpose* of muddying the water in regard to how the world was created.
/
Yeah, the athiests are gonna come get ‘em and the only thing to do about it is get ready for a civil war.
/
Bloody scary, that is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In other news: EVEonline is a fun game but the Tormentor is *not* a combat-worthy ship and it never will be, no matter how you load it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0