Click here to view La Crosse Area Weather
Home > Faith > Story
 Advertisement 

SECTION SPONSORS

Published - Monday, November 12, 2007

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (180 comment(s))

Creationist draws on Bible to explain place in universe
By JOE ORSO / La Crosse Tribune

.
Whether you accept God, accept evolution, accept neither or accept both, it’s true that Darwin shook something loose in us.

From the “Scopes Monkey Trial” to more recent debates among school board members in Kansas, evolution has long been up for debate in the United States.
According to the 2004 General Social Survey, 40.2 percent of Americans believe it is definitely not true that human beings developed from earlier species of animals and 15.1 percent believe the statement is probably not true.

If Buddy Davis has his way, those percentages will grow.

Davis is a dinosaur sculptor, speaker and musician with Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit ministry based in Kentucky that seeks to enable Christians to defend their faith and, according to its Web site, “expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a ‘millions of years old’ Earth (and even older universe).”

Davis will lead a Creation Conference at Living Waters Bible Camp in Westby, Wis., next weekend and speak Nov. 18 at First Evangelical Free Church, 1950 Hwy. 35, Onalaska, Wis.

From his perspective, evolution undermines the authority of Scripture.

“Dinosaurs are used more than any other animal to cause people to believe in evolution and certainly to cause people to believe in millions of years,” Davis said. “That’s not what you get out of the Bible.”

Davis has sculpted more than 100 dinosaurs in more than 25 years.

When he started, he accepted evolution and traveled around the U.S. putting his dinosaur exhibits in malls.

But after reading books on Creationism and meeting Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, in 1994, Davis changed his mind and began working for Answers in Genesis.

Some of his fiberglass sculptures, including a 40-foot-long Tyrannosaurus rex, are displayed at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

“We seem to have shrinked God down into something like a superman image, not as powerful and almighty as what his word says he is,” Davis said. “When the Bible says he knows all the stars in heaven, we believe he knows all the stars in heaven.”

He also believes God created dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on the sixth and last day of Creation.

Dinosaurs, he said, were on Noah’s ark, along with 17,000 to 25,000 other kinds of animals.

In Como Zoo in St. Paul, 1,226 animals live on 11.5 acres.

Davis, who plays seven instruments, also believes the world is about 6,000 years old, calculated through the geneological passages in the Bible.

“I really believe if people check it out with an open mind, then it will start to make sense,” he said.

Joe Orso can be reached at (608) 791-8429 or jorso@lacrossetribune.com.
.
 Advertisement 
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 28, 2007 11:32 AM:

" If literalist Christians actually do posit that the account in Revelation is an accurate 'preview' of the return of Jesus then they ARE saying that his coming again BRINGS tribulation. Revelation is the product of a Christian writer circa 100 CE who is called 'John' but is not the apostle but probably a Christianized Jew who has authored a full-blown fantasy of apocalyptic revenge wherein all unbelievers and even tepid 'believers' get theirs. Plagues, famine, calamities of all sorts are to occur and only the 'righteous' are spared. Millions die. This is hardly a 'peaceful' vision of Christian triumphalism; Christianity as I've reiterated has a LONG history of violence and retribution... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 27, 2007 11:05 AM:

" In the 1980s Ronald Reagan actually alarmed folks with his apparent belief in an imminent apocalypse; he was quite a fan of a best-selling contemporizing of Revelation, Hal Lindsey's popular 'The Late Great Planet Earth' which even became a film narrated by none other than Orson Welles -- in his latter 'serve no wine before its time' days. The prospect of approaching doom never appeared to unsettle RR's regular afternoon nap times but his eccentric sec'y of the interior James Watt, a literalist Christian, remarked that saving wildlife and wilderness was superfluous since 'the end is near' anyway. Reagan too was eccentric but not, as some feared, really crazy so he joked about 'bombing in five minutes' but he still wanted to be alive enough to ride his horse... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 27, 2007 10:54 AM:

" Anyone who has read Revelation knows that the 'time of tribulations' is detailed as horrendous and includes a world-wide reign of an 'anti-Christ' -- in the past that figure has been identified as various pagan conquerors like Alaric and Attila, popes, the prophet of Islam Muhammed (you would expect that!) and at times contemporary politicos -- even Ronald Wilson Reagan, the number of letters in his full name coming to 6-6-6, the 'number of the Beast.' The Beast is to be Satan's minion -- Satan is 'the Dragon' -- and these are clearly 'images' but many Christians certainly believe Jesus will return only with fire and sword; 'when' is ever the question but 'how' (in this apocalyptic context) is not... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 26, 2007 12:35 PM:

" Michael, I'm not going to try to disect Revelations here and now, but I will address literalism. I would classify myself as a literalist, however that doesn't mean that everything in the written in the Bible is to be taken literally. Otherwise Jesus would have hinges on his body (He was a door) and He would also have been a lamb (John 10:7,John 1:29). Literalism recognizes the context of what is being said as true and recognizes symbology. In Revelations it uses symbology to talk about actual people and organizations. The 'Beast' with the 7 heads and 10 horns represents an actual or literal organization. Jesus will come again and rule on this Earth, after the time of tribulations. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:49 AM:

" 'PO'B' doesn't indicate how HE reads Revelation; my point is that MANY literalist Christians do take it well quite 'literally,' hence the popular Tim LaHaye series of books. Now if 'PO'B' is saying that he understands Revelation METAPHORICALLY and SYMBOLICALLY as another 'end of the world' text common to western religious tradition then we actually are on the same page! Wow! Jesus of course makes many remarks that are contradictory -- e. g. does he bring 'not peace but a sword'? Or does he mean it when he says 'Put up your sword'? That's why ALL religions (I write over 'n' over) are not 'clear' but one can cafeteriaize them, picking and choosing what suits at the moment, justifying whatever you want justified by your particular choice of 'God.' That's why a religion lasts rather than fades away... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:38 AM:

" Michael, you have a serious misunderstanding of Revelations and how Christians read it. Now I'll be the first to admit that it is a difficult book to understand, but I have never met any other evangelical Christian who looks at it the way you think we look at end times. I see no calling for Christians to 'make war and devestation' so that Christ can return. In fact, Jesus said that he could return at anytime and no man knows the day or hour. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:10 AM:

" Bush of course doesn't talk such nonsense to generals et. al.; the administration is the governmental arm of the richest and most powerful economic interests and is sophisticated enough to speak appropriately to its most intelligent audiences. But the admin makes great 'hay' from those who want that anti-Islamic crusade yet of course the Bush family has always been deeply involved financially with Saudi royalty as well as with wealthy Saudi families like well the bin Ladens. The admin picked their targets -- Afghanistan and Iraq were supposed to be 'easy' but now they've profoundly disturbed their Saudi pals when they destroyed Saddam only to provide a wide broad avenue for Iranian dominance... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 26, 2007 11:01 AM:

" Well 'PO'B' has always implied a la cold war a rather monolithic Muslim alliance (a 'worldwide Islamic conspiracy'); he often bunches Muslims as all at least potential hatchet men but assiduously dismisses the violence inherent in Christian doctrine. In Revelation the return of Christ can occur only in horrible upheavals and these wars will destroy millions and devastate the planet so that it must actually be 'recreated' as a 'new heaven and a new earth.' Bush has always counted on literalist Christian support for his once Freudian slip of 'crusade'; there's nothing 'crazy' about recognizing the agenda but there's a disingenuousness in stating it and then denying it... "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 25, 2007 5:26 PM:

" So, Phil, you got your bad decapitators and your misguided decapitators. And as for Bush seeking advice, he has as much as said that he consults his almighty on several occasions. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 3:54 PM:

" Of course, Michael, not ALL muslims are 'head chopping' fanatics, but the ones that are, do it in accordance with the Qur'an and Mohammads example. Those people who claim to be Christian and chop peoples heads off for being an unbeliever, would do so in opposition to Jesus and the Bible. You also confuse American defense measures as being some kind of Christian directive. Do you really think GWB calls up his spiritual advisor and asks something like "What would Jesus want me to bomb, today?" Then do you imagine said advisor says something like "Matthew talks about bringing the sword, so Iraq has a lot of unbelievers, you should bring the sword down on them." That's just crazy, Michael. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:21 PM:

" He's still 'stuck'; stuck on me and I on him, to be fair; we shall remain so I imagine... "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:06 PM:

" O'Bates is a funny guy. he posts eight consecutive times and then petulantly informs Michael that he will not be glued to his computer. "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:03 PM:

" Jean de Vallette master knight of Malta, in 1565 while fighting the besieging Ottomans, ordered prisoners beheaded and their heads catapulted toward enemy positions. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 25, 2007 2:01 PM:

" Muslims are not all rabid executioners lusting to chop heads and this is a cruel canard; the western 'Christian' countries bomb them into bits, invade their homes, bully-rag them and insult their religion and yet this 'stereotype' of an ax murderer is deemed more horrid than a rain of destruction, invasion and occupation. I've been told often that Jesus said he brought 'a sword,' not 'peace' so I guess Christians also have their own swordsman; and the Jesus of Revelation is anything but peaceful. So indeed you have both your war and your holy warrior; now you resemble more than know those you attack... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 25, 2007 1:51 PM:

" Rattling off web sites is hardly a 'reply' but I realize it's the best you can do; okay. The war goes on so we shall see; and what 'winning' is may be only enduring, provided this country is willing to continue the expense and its military can sustain itself. The war was unnecessary and botched yet it retains enough support to go on because there's no draft and folks need only pay their taxes, not send their children. You are optimistic; I am not because 'they' must construct their own world; they live there and have the right to do it; we do not... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:52 AM:

" Now, Michael, as you can see, I'm not stuck. I have answered your questions (again). And I'm not going away. However, I'm not going to stay glued to my computor to respond to all of your responses. If I get time today or tomorrow, I may check in to read your responces, but I won't waste time retreading this old worn out path on this thread. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:47 AM:

" One last thing on Christianity and Christians...I believe you are spliting a hair and defining things to fit your preconcieved mindset. Now, I know you'll just say that I'm doing the same thing, but the point is that only one of us will be proved right in the end. Christianity is following Christ and the Bible. Cutting off unbelievers heads is not following Christ and the Bible. Cutting off unbelievers heads is following Mohammed and the Qur'an. Have Christians and people who just call themselves Christians committed acts of evil? Sure, but their acts don't make Christianity evil. Christians (myself included) don't claim to be superior, we claim that Jesus Christ is superior and repeat Jesus's claim that Only Jesus is the way to heaven. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:41 AM:

" Now on Christianity. I will agree to one degree with you that Christianity as a religion won't bring world peace. The ONLY thing that will bring world peace is Jesus Christ Himself, when He returns to rule the World. The peace that Jesus brings to those who accept him as Savior is spiritual peace. Your comparison of Ghandi and Bush is apples and oranges. Ghandi was never the elected President of the United States with all the responcibilities that carries. Your 'ability' to judge others personal life, though, is interesting, but not definative. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:28 AM:

" I'm sure you are getting your information about Afghanistan from the Senlis report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/22/wtaliban122.xml). What should be noted is this is a left wing Brussels 'think-tank.' Just like you will discount a Cato (right wing 'think-tank') I discount this groups ideas. With this groups way of thinking I could say that Grizzly bears control more then 50% of Alaska. What is important to ask is "Does the Taliban control the politics/commerce/education of Afghanistan?" No. They control the caves and desserts. Has Afghanistan taken a back seat to Iraq? Sure,(http://www.thestar.com/News/article/276559) but is it a threat to American or ME security? NO! "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 8:06 AM:

" Michael, your assumptions are that America has just done nothing but kill and destroy innocent Iraqis, but a small internet check will show you some of the building that is going on in Iraq that the Iraqis want and need. Restoration of wetlands (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/23/conservation.endangeredhabitats). Rebuilding Iraq's security forces (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/11/the_real_surge.php). Reconstruction has yielded successes (http://www.portaliraq.com/news/Multi-national+forces+report+on+Iraq+reconstruction+successes__1111399.html). Has there been waste of money and setbacks due to terrorist actions and political and corporate greed? Sure, and they should be stopped. But the idea that America is just destroying Iraq is flat out wrong. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 7:43 AM:

" Michael you mention Iran, which is obviously the NUMBER 1 problem in Middle East stability. Even the Shiites in Southern Iraq know this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102190_pf.html). This is revealing, because Iran is 90% Shiite. What should be done with Iran? Specifically, I wouldn't take anything off of the table. Iran, with it's proven record of supporting terrorism, should never be allowed to build a nuclear bomb. Don't take my word for it, read what a retired General has to say (http://www.jerseyshorejournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=470&Itemid=60). "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 7:36 AM:

" Michael, Iraqi's aren't resisting Americans, they are resisting the terrorist invaders. Apparently you aren't up on the current news so I'll give you some links to read. Even the mob (Democrat) party sees Iraq stratagy succeeding (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25dems.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1195994200-BQF1rlsoWTWOaOx6G11NaA). Iraqi's are uniting against the AQ terrorists (http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/chi-abulnov22,0,408641,full.story). "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2007 7:29 AM:

" Well Michael, I see that you have left the topic at hand (Creationism vs. Evolutionary origins) to pursue your main theme (Christianity/America/George Bush is evil). That's fine, because it shows that you can't dispute the fact that the Evolutionary theory of origins requires as much faith as the Creation theory of origins. Since I have some time this morning, I will address your political/religious rants (again). Hold on tight, because this will take several postings. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 24, 2007 11:42 AM:

" As far as religion is concerned I have pointed out again and again that over 2000 years Christians and self-proclaimed 'Christian nations, empires etc.' have engaged in numerous wars and have often persecuted non-Christians. 'PO'B' just blows that all away by blaming the Catholic church or by saying that Christians who did these things aren't Christian after all. But two millennia of Christianity in the world hasn't brought 'peace' either -- nor will it. The histories of other religions are no better but that doesn't mean Christians have been 'superior'; after all Gandhi was more 'peaceful' than George W. Bush who advertises his Christianity for political benefit. And 'PO'B' in effect just 'dismissed' me below -- which he always does when stuck... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 24, 2007 11:32 AM:

" Actually 'PO'B' has characterized me as someone who 'hates America' and furthermore says I posit that Islam is the real 'religion of peace' and written this several times -- just scroll down. So why are Iraqis resisting US hegemony? Why DID the Bush administration let the chaos continue for years while they kept insisting we were 'winning'? Will bombing Iran make the US position in the middle east more tenable or less? Why is Afghanistan less and less 'stable' after six years? Can the US maintain the 'surge' without conscription? How? 'PO'B' could address many of the issues I have raised re: US policies -- if he wishes to... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 24, 2007 11:18 AM:

" Michael, when you post BS like this "the United States is always right when it attacks another people but they never have a 'side' worth considering." and say it's my view, that's when your credibility is brought into question. I think you do this because if that's what I truely believed, it would be easier to discount me, but the truth is that you know I have never said I believe anything like that. This is when I post my rebuttal to you like...Michael believes the United States is always wrong when it attacks another people, and their 'side' is always more valuable. That's so you can maybe see your error. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 24, 2007 10:51 AM:

" I wrote (far below -- disappeared by now) that a literal view of 'creation' is absurd -- yes like imagining dinosaurs on the ark, or the ark as 'real' at all for that matter. Of course the stories in Genesis are meaningful as religious accounts that explain the relationships between humans and God, between the Hebraic-Israelite people and Yahweh and the requirements (going both ways) of those relationships. 'Intelligent design' as it is presented simply states that evolution could not occur but in short-term 'bursts' and that virtually all creatures 'great and small' are as they were long ago (but only 6000 years or so!) or have vanished. I guess space aliens as 'intelligent designers' could have 'created' us but religionists really mean 'God' -- their God -- so it's no different than the 'old-time' Bible belief... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 24, 2007 10:39 AM:

" I think 'PO'B' often avoids addressing topics directly; he tends to simply dismiss them or present something superficial. Now of course he will accuse me of being 'superficial' -- which is not an 'answer' but a 'so's yer old man!' 'PO'B' argues from his perspective: Christianity is the ONLY religion one ought to follow; the United States is always right when it attacks another people but they never have a 'side' worth considering. My view is that ALL religions are mythologies and should therefore not be thought of as LITERAL accounts, historical OR scientific; and the US has damaged many many folks out there but 'we' never can seem to recognize or even remember who they were. However THEY do remember... "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 22, 2007 10:13 AM:

" Hey Mike...What is your take on the idea of creation and intelligent design? If evolution is real why can't the godfreaks give their god credit for creating evolution? Everyone would be happy. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 22, 2007 10:07 AM:

" Hey Phil....where is the irony in my contributions? I'm channeling the main Founders of this Nation in my expression and belief that the Bible, charming in parts, is little more than man-made propganda. Why couldn't "Adam" eat from "The Tree of Knowledge"? The Tree of Knowledge. Knowledge. Knowledge is forbidden for followers of the Judeo-Christian script. I'm trying to enlighten you. As mindful expressed.....science and creation can exist. I'm open to the idea of a 'creator' or creative force. There is simply too much wonder not to. The Bible is a hinderance to understanding if it is your only source in the 'search'. Happy Thanksgiving. I'm a Lions fan, indoctrinated since birth.....we can bring up results on that deal later. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 22, 2007 10:00 AM:

" Dear "ollie"....You missed the Daily Briefing. Religion has been placed in alot of places it shouldn't be. Bush didn't appoint people to high positions because they had experience and competence, no..he put in folks that think the Apocalypse is on our doorstep and the"rapture" will begin. That's why the discussion is valid. An exhorbinant amount of these pie-eyed dufus appointees were evangelical graduates of Jerry Falwell's school. The utter failure and snafu these true believers wrought upon Iraq should demonstrate to all that the god of the evangelicals is impotent. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 21, 2007 8:51 PM:

" Chatter cat, here are some resources to look at concerning the physics of Noah's ark:(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html) and this one too (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/index.htm) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 21, 2007 6:54 PM:

" Ollie, it isn't a waste of time. Some of the places you mentioned (Sudan, Darfor) are in a mess because of Islamic violence. One of the things that makes America great is the ability to openly discuss what we see as the problems with different religions. In the Sudan, people who speak out against Islam are putting their life in danger. Religion is the motivation behind people's actions. If you understand what motivates people then you'll have a better chance of understanding what the potential solutions are. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 21, 2007 6:29 PM:

" Michael, I post what I see as ironies in yours and BGS's posts. You two are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I also post rebuttals to your sources. I do this so that those two or three people reading this stuff can have at least a chance to see the potential errors in your sources. I'm not asking anyone to blindly follow what I say, I'm stating what I know to be true and giving other people a chance to see why. You guys have a happy Thanksgiving. "

ollie wrote on Nov 21, 2007 5:59 PM:

" WOW ! It never ceases to amaze me how much time people waste fighting over religion and it's many parts. What a colossal waste of time and energy that could be put to use solving the tangible troubles of mankind that are at hand (Darfur, Sudan, etc. and, Hunger, Greed, Incompetent govt., Trumped up wars, etc. etc. etc.). Please....let's get with the program. "

mindful wrote on Nov 21, 2007 3:46 PM:

" no, you are not alone Michael, nor are we.. I post, and I read, and try learning by discernment. Have you ever wondered what comes first, a thought or an emotion? And to the others re:dinosaurs, sounds like you're stuck on the thought that creation and science simply "cannot" exist together. May we all keep an open mind. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 21, 2007 12:12 PM:

" The benefits of exploring not the pre-conceived supposedly literal 'truth' of the Bible but examining its times and comparing with other cultures' often similar religious perceptions help us to understand the religious impulse in all civilizations -- or it should. What I object to are the assertions by 'PO'B' and his like of their religion's superiority to every other when they don't really know much about those religions and moreover they dismiss the 2000-year history of their own whenever it doesn't live up to their claims. I realize they will go on doing that but then I (and I assume BGS and others) will go on objecting. Others who don't post by the way DO read this stuff (they have told me so); we are not 'alone'... "

Chatter cat wrote on Nov 21, 2007 12:10 PM:

" "Dinosaurs, he (Buddy Davis) said, were on Noah’s ark, along with 17,000 to 25,000 other kinds of animals." I am sorry, but the idea of Stegosauruses, Diplodocuses, Triceratops, Tyrannosauruses, and other dinosaurs sailing with Noah on the ark sounds like something from a Gary Larson cartoon and not a scientist. (Or even a biblical scholar) "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 21, 2007 11:20 AM:

" Yes I'm struck by 'PO'B's 'so's yer old man!' responses -- they only assiduously avoid the topics raised. 'What's My Dogma?' could be a contemporary quiz show (as soon as the writers' strike is settled) but what IS my 'dogma'? Tolerance of ALL religious belief but supremacy granted to none? (Sounds Jeffersonian!) And in a certain way 'PO'B' is accusing me of being 'intolerant' of his intolerance! And re: BGS any web site declarations 'P' agrees with are surely true but any books BGS (or myself I'd add) have read are 'speculative.' Faith is necessary for belief in one's dogma, one's ONLY religious 'truth,' but scholarship is not beholden to 'P's presumptions... "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:13 PM:

" again O'Bates attacks welch for the same thing he practices towards me, more or less. I don't argue on his terms, then no argument. Where does the lord thy God stand on hypocrisy? "

Recklessness And Water wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:38 PM:

" I suggest all of you watch the Nova special on ID, and why it is bunk. I also suggest you all take a deep breath. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:23 AM:

" Brian, Mr. Greenburgs claims have been looked at. What is missing from his claims is expertise (he's a lawyer not an archeologist or historian) and evidence. Just because he claims something and gets it published doesn't make it true. This site is one that disputes his claims (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/greenbergg01.html) Now about Egypt being able to expunge any record of a history of Israelite slaves, I can see how easy that would be. How long does papyrus records last? How hard would it be for an absolute dictator or king to have all records removed of such an imbarassing defeat? Not too hard. Even with all the technology of the 20th century, look how much we really know about the Kennedy assasination or all of the crimes of the former Soviet Union. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:56 AM:

" Phil...you missed my point. Avraham, according to the Bible, came from "Ur". According to Biblists....this means Ur existes some 1500 years before Christ. Yet, the truth is, Ur did not become a city until 1000 years after Avraham allegedly left it. Please read "101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History" by Gary Greenberg. Here's something to chew on. Egyptians kept meticulous records of their activities...posessions...wars, etc. Never and nowhere have we found ANY Egyptian recording that mentions enslaving the Jews and then letting them go. It has been credibly argued that those calling themselves Jews are actaully Egyptians who were forced to leave Egypt because they worshipped one God....monotheists...following the beliefs of the Pharoah Akhenaton (worlds first montheist). "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 19, 2007 11:23 PM:

" Michael, I found this quote interesting, "Many religionists have a 'my dog (or god) is bigger (and better!) than your dog-god' mind-set which leads of course to religious intolerance and inevitable conflicts." Michael, you and Brian have a 'my dog(ma) is bigger (and better!) than your dog-ma' mind-set which leads of course to intolerance and inevitable conflicts. I suppose if you want to get rid of conflicts, just get get everyone to agree with you. Of course you know that any attempt to force that, ends badly. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 19, 2007 11:12 PM:

" Brian, I really don't know where you are getting your information from. It makes sense that Thomas Paine didn't believe Ur existed, but Ur was discovered about 1850. I searched both skeptic sites and answers to skeptics sites, and I found very little if any concern about Ur. It appears your beliefs have been put to rest by archeology. (http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/archeology.htm)(http://www.truthnet.org/biblicalarcheology/2/Patriarchalperiod.htm) "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 19, 2007 12:52 PM:

" Many religionists have a 'my dog (or god) is bigger (and better!) than your dog-god' mind-set which leads of course to religious intolerance and inevitable conflicts. As I say below you only have to read the Bible to see those religion-provoked conflicts in action. As a mythological ('mytho-logical,' note) presentation the Bible can indeed make sense as then do the Koran, the Upanishads, the dialogues of the Buddha etc. etc. But perceived as a literal history that happened EXACTLY as is written requires for many (like BGS for instance) suppression of their intellect and even their curiosity, and to repeat: religious literalism (in EVERY religion) is obviously hazardous to human health in every way... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 19, 2007 10:51 AM:

" And another point I make over and over again is that the Bible CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be read as 'history' in the same sense as we would read scholarly history today. The Bible is a mythological account of the creation of the Hebrew-Israelite kingdom-people and so it has of course an historical context -- i. e. it is not set in 'Narnia' or 'Middle Earth' but in actual places. Similarly anyone reading the studies by the great mythologist Robert Graves titled 'The Greek Myths' can learn of the historical parallels in the Greek religion and how the myths represent primal historical events, not LITERALLY of course but metaphorically and symbolically: and so the Bible... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 19, 2007 10:42 AM:

" My point is NOT the 'exact' meaning of the Hebrew; I am speaking of the commandment as presented in English say on most Sunday school levels. It hasn't in the past been so 'qualified' and millions of Christians who don't read concordances grew up with the distinct impression that killing in itself is wrong. At the same time the biblical accounts are full of killing and not only that, God Himself orders these slaughters and punishes those who won't or don't act as His hit men. He replaces Saul with David partly because although Saul went through with His command to kill all the men, women and children of Amalek, he kept the cattle instead of slaughtering it. So out with him!... "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 19, 2007 5:30 AM:

" 'mindful''''disproving the Bible is far more easy than proving it. Avraham, according to the Bible, came from the "Ur of Chaldees" which is in modern day Iraq. Problem is that when Avraham allegedly left "Ur" it did not exist......Ur came into existence over 1000 years AFTER Avraham supposedly left there. There are literally hundreds of predictions and prophecy's made in the Bible (often by God) that failed to come true. Again, the Bible is a man made creation. It contains many fables and myths from civilizations pre-dating the wandering tribes. Aside from the Gospels, the New Testament is Paul's, formerly Saul the murderer, own creation and has little to do with Jesus's words or wisdom. Turn to Deism and open your world to greater possibility. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 19, 2007 5:23 AM:

" Dear "mindful".....I think it is I who should enlighten you and Phil and help you break out of that foolish voo-doo you both follow. I implore you to read about Deism. There are many sites on the subject. Truth is I don't see much of God in the Bible, I see weak humanity. Deist's believe in a Creator or God, our evidence is the splendor of this planet and Universe.....it's a message and language everyone can read and understand, not just the chosen few or Bible interpretors...The OT is little more than a wandering tribes own PR...how convenient they are chosen among all other glorious peoples on the planet. Indeed. Hope you're not wearing clothes made from two fibers.....the Biblical god says it is a serious crime. "

mindful wrote on Nov 18, 2007 8:12 PM:

" Been away, Brian, I so want to "enlighten" you on several issues-especially on "interpretation" of the Bible you call bunk. And on the "Book of Joshua", nature and reason (I love the subject of reason), and perhaps heaven and hell. Thank You Phil for pointing that out, accept it or reject it, it's a choice one makes and our purpose as Christians is to witness, not force NOR prove. Brian, can you "disprove the Bible", I'm also wondering about your use of capitalization of the word "God"? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 18, 2007 8:04 PM:

" Michael, try Strongs Concordance or other reference books for what the original Hebrew writing is. Here is one of the websites used by my pastor: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07523&Version=kjv "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 18, 2007 2:03 PM:

" Well re: below then the commandment ought to read 'Thou shalt not MURDER anyone I don't tell you murder.' The problem is that in NO Christian translation is 'kill' substituted by 'murder' -- or at least in none that I know of, which ought to bring for Christians some hesitancy in their slaughters but never does. Of course Christians like 'PO'B' read the Bible but they read it selectively (as ALL Christians MUST) and have rationalizations and revisions of those texts which require TOO MUCH self-sacrifice for a continuing viable religion. You can't take it TOO 'seriously' you see... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 18, 2007 9:52 AM:

" Brian, you are right that on this site (150 word limit) we could post many verses that would seemingly contradict each other. What a person needs to do is read a whole book of the Bible with an understanding of the context. The context of who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and the time and place it is being spoken about. Adult Sunday School classes do this kind of analysis every Sunday. I suggest, if you are truely interested, you should go to a local church and attend one of these adult Bible studies. They would love to have you and your challenges would be good for them to research themselves. The reason I post websites which answer these questions is because it can't always be answered in 150 words. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 17, 2007 2:35 PM:

" Please explain the jealous and genocidal god of the Old Testament? What is the hidden meaning I'm missing? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 17, 2007 2:33 PM:

" Phil...I wanted to redact the sentence about Jesus and Faith, it was part of His alleged teachings, I didn't review my post before sending it. Alleged....it is all alleged. The Romans quote you show are exactly the ones I mentioned....written by the Christian church's biggest influence...Paul...they give the indoctrinate no logical choice but submission to the religion. And for every quote you give me I can give you an opposite one from the same Bible. Now what kind of word of god is that? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 17, 2007 10:53 AM:

" Oh yeah, a quick study on Jesus talking about faith reveals this: Matt. 9:22 "But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy FAITH hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour." MatT. 9:29 "Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your FAITH be it unto you." In the same way, faith in Jesus today will make your soul healed or whole. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 17, 2007 10:48 AM:

" Brian, youre smarter then asking for the word 'original sin' in the Bible. You know that that is a concept just like Trinity. These words don't have to be in the Bible for their concept to be. Here is one verse for the concept of original sin: Romans 5:12. Your desire to worship God's creation reminds me of Romans 1:18-32. I'll leave you with verse 25: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 17, 2007 5:11 AM:

" I believe in "God" because I witness God's work everyday on this miraculous blue planet we inhabit and abuse. The actions and attributes given to the character called "God" in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, are offensive to universally accepted morals and justice. It's a mafia....Bible thumpers come and tell you you've got all these horrrible marks against you and ...through them only will you be saved. Please. God is too great to limit him to a contradictory and confusing 'book', if He chooses to communicate He will certainly communicate in a unviersally understood language.. I think we owe the Creator much more respect than his biography in the Bible makes Him out to be. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 17, 2007 5:01 AM:

" Phil...Faith. I prefer Reason. Jesus didn't really require Faith, if you check out Jesus' words. Paul, who was Saul, was the big Faith propogandist and he wrote arguments in the Bible that basically say.."you are too ignorant to understand the Bible and verses and God now, but stick with us and we guarantee you won't burn in hell, have Faith"...that, in summary, is the modern Christian church. Jesus, an enlightened MAN, spoke more of actions and deeds. Hey Phil or anyone else....can someone find the term "original sin" in the Bible? (hint...it was made up by the church after so it's not in the Bible) "

Eddie wrote on Nov 16, 2007 9:15 PM:

" Wow....I go away for a few days, and look what happens......the place runs amok!!! LOL.... "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 16, 2007 7:05 PM:

" Sasikala Perumal: typo. should read would not... "

sasikala perumal wrote on Nov 16, 2007 4:25 PM:

" Rick Harsch: In truth it does not bother me that Christians consign all us 'heathen' to hell. I have a loving family and would very much wish to be with them if there really were an afterlife. By the way, what do you mean and god worth his pillar of salt would send the unevangelized to hell? That seems to run counter to what you usually write. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:34 PM:

" Oh and one last thing Brian, I have never said you could prove God. It appears you are trying to make a strawman argument so you can feel good when you tear it down. This topic is on the FAITH page. The Bible is a Book understood and believed through FAITH. While there are plenty of scientifically acurate topics and discriptions in the Bible, it wasn't written as a science tech book. The Bible is neither proven nor disproven by science. You said that God's words could not be written down. That is also unprovable. What is provable is we all will die. Do you know where you will spend eternity after you die? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:26 PM:

" Also, Brian and mole hill want to believe the worst possible answer to what are called 'Bible difficulties.' There are other answers to those misunderstandings. Those 'difficulties' have been known and answered many times. I don't have time today to do it justice, but there are plenty of websites that can help you, if you seriously want some answers. (http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm) (http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties.htm) (http://www.tektonics.org/TK-LEV.html) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:24 PM:

" I've got time for some quick responces. Yes, mole hill, I have read the Bible, even those places where God directs Israel to completely destroy the wicked. God didn't order Israel to destroy what was good and Holy. Michael, you should know that the word translated to English as "kill" is the word for murder. There are converts to Christianity everyday from other cultures and religions. These people convert because they recognize the truth in Jesus. Brian, I watched Christians "lay hands on" my mother and she was healed. Not every Christian has that gift, but some do. "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:06 PM:

" MVA: I think the most important point in your post is the implied necessity to attempt to read into the time. As far as I understand, for instance, Tantric Hinduism, the profound misunderstanding on the part of later 20th century western converts was a result of the failure to grasp that part of the 'goal' was ultimate identification with the god/goddess, and that every ceremony was to be preceded by at least a full day of intense and active ritual. Surely the Bible derives from the cauldron of yearning that indeed had the soteriological at the heart of everyday life. "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 16, 2007 1:55 PM:

" O'Bates, proving he still can't get me out of his mind refers to me to someone else...That's the old evangelical spirit! But what I want to say is that what got me started paying attention to these 'faith' blogs was the lazy condemnation of the doubters/non-believers/heathen. I certainly have no desire to convert any Christians to anything in particular, but I sure wish they could see that it just isn't nice to 'take on faith' that all good Hindus go to Hell. The arguments I read here make me believe in a disgusted God, for any God worth his pillar of salt would send the unevangelized to the fiery demon pit. "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 16, 2007 1:51 PM:

" I have never witnessed O'Bates driectly (or indirectly) responding to the kind of content analysis argument Brian G Smith is making. Welch has tried in the past and O'Bates has ignored every one of them. But now a few other defenders of the faith are paying attention, but so far seem capable of little more than accusations that Smith hasn't read the Bible. The back and forth can be fun, but it sure would be more interesting if someone could pinpoint where Smith is or may be wrong. "

mva wrote on Nov 16, 2007 1:42 PM:

" Yes, there are troubling passages in the Hebrew Scriptures, e.g. passages in Leviticus on stoning. Thus, many people (even scholars)skip over Levit. Yet in Levit, long before Jesus, we read about loving one's neighbor and one's enemies - both radical notions. Also, ideas concerning the humane treatment of animals are found in Levit.(but also, in my mind, a horribly troubling verse about the need to stone an ox in the case of bestiality -here both parties become unclean, the human as well as the poor, innocent animal!) Yet,the whole nature of unclean vs clean was based on a worldview that tried to incorporate holiness into each and every moment of daily life. The command to "remember the stranger" is a major theme throughout the H.S. - a command that for its time, and even for today, is no less than revolutionary. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 16, 2007 12:35 PM:

" It happens so 'seldom' (hmm) that when I find I'm wrong I ought to say it: I thought re: the Jimmy G blog that he had praised this 'JH' thing and was criticizing me as a maligner of character say in the same manner 'PO'B' accuses me. I think now (with 'Bugs Raplin's able assistance) I read Gillman wrong -- I was upset that my response was removed while this 'JH's lies about me remained and were indeed repeated. I was too sensitive and yes steamed up and I wrote too soon and reflected too little. I by the way retract NOTHING re: my criticisms of 'PO'B's ideas but in the above 'spirit' I apologize for any extention of those critiques to his character as a human being about which I am ignorant... "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:46 AM:

" Dear Logan...Now the Power of 'prayer'...positive thinking....this is something independent and seperate from the Bible. I believe there are powers and forces we humans can tap into...some way. Prayer is not an invention of the Biblical people...it has existed for millenia prior. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:30 AM:

" As BGS again shows quite vividly the Bible is as full of prescribed cruelty as any Koran. Sure God says some 'nice' things -- one is 'Thou shalt not kill' (no 'except' notice) -- EXCEPT that it REALLY means 'Thou shalt not kill anyone or anything I don't tell you to kill.' That's the commandment 'in action.' Christians in fact have claimed for centuries since Constantine that they have the 'right' to kill in God's name -- whether Jews, Muslims, so-called 'heretics' of whatever kind and it matters never if those are not violent; killing them is needed so to prevent religious discord. This is the Christian past and its reasoning and behavior (see Calvin in control of Geneva) transcend the church of Rome and even reach into American policies today... "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:23 AM:

" Dear Logan...Why would the Bible, translated and written into my mother tongue English, need an interpretor to tell me what it really means? Why would an all powerful creator of the Universe god leave behind such a muddled and unclear collection of damning stories that need interpretation? When I see a great sunset or amazing sealife while snorkeling among coral reefs I understand God better than the hocus pocus in the bible. But why not enlighten me then? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:18 AM:

" Phil...Ever read Deuteronomy? From Chapter 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." "

Logan wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:16 AM:

" Brian, first off, yes, it's called prayer. We almost lost a family member, where called to the hospital because the doctors said she was not going to make it. We all stood around her and prayed to God that he would make her well. The doctors can't explain how she pulled through, but we know who did. God. Also, if you have read the Bible many times, I have to agree with mindful and say you need help interpreting it. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:08 AM:

" Phil (and others)...Read the Gospel of Mark 16:18 which says those who believe in the Gospels will be able to "lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover." If this is true, then Christians would be able to go to any sick person anywhere and lay their Christian hands on them, and they would recover. Have you ever healed anyone with your Christian hands? It's written in the Bible....this must be true? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 11:03 AM:

" Phil...Quite simply. You can't prove the Bible is the word of God. You beleive it is, but that is not proof. You can not prove that the 'revelations' in the Bible are true....no one can prove a revelation unless you can read the mind of the person receiving the revelation. You are "Christian" by genetic lottery and indoctrination. If you were born to Muslim parents your allegience would be as passionate to the Koran. God communicates to us in a universal language and it is the here and now, our natural existence, that we must decipher to find God. God doesn't play real estate agent or choose favorites... "

Mole Hill Mountain wrote on Nov 16, 2007 10:52 AM:

" Phil...I seriously doubt you have ever read the Bible. I can only assume the only "Bibling" you've been fed is the standard indoctrinating edited versions offered by the various churches. You say the "bible people" are good..? Please read the Book of Joshua as the Biblical god helps the Jewish tribes slaughter numerous populations, old, young, women children and animals. Same in Samuel xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' Nice god you got there. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 16, 2007 10:43 AM:

" As for 'I've got my faith to keep me warm' fine: yet as the exchange between 'PO'B' and BGS indicates the founders were NOT 'Christians' largely but intellectual products of the 18th century enlightenment; i. e. they were 'deists' which meant that okay sure in this pre-Darwin age Something called 'God' created everything but the idea that He intervenes or involves Himself is absurd; just look at the state of the world! 'God is in control' read a bumper sticker years ago but if so He's a petulant angry (FAR angrier than I!) old incompetent. Human creates their gods and those acts of creation actually say a great deal about them for good and bad. (See below...) "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 16, 2007 10:35 AM:

" I tire of a false congeniality at times; true all we are doing is talking but if someone is -- SIGH! -- once more asking ME why I post I should be able to ask Why do you? Jimmy Gillman admonishes me for responding to a post by a 'Johnny Hobo' who is an ungenerous sort of the krustacean species but still a favorite of Jim's, a post in which this 'JH' is allowed to accuse me of being on the dole when I am not and I guess buying DVDs with taxpayer funds which I don't -- having received no such uh 'funding.' MY post responding is removed but 'JH's remains -- why? 'Ideas matter' people used to say but it's all supposed to be 'equal.' No one here believes that but you aren't to say it... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 16, 2007 9:34 AM:

" Brian, you say God's words can't be written. I think you are just playing a word game. In part you are right, because the only record of God physically writting something down was when he wrote the 10 commandments into stone. Primarily though, you are simply stating your opinion. There is no way for you to prove that God didn't speak to or inspire other writers to write down his message. God's message is in the Bible, but it is up to us to either accept it or reject it. You reject it, and that is your choice. God wants us to choose Him, but when we don't he grants us our wish. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 16, 2007 9:28 AM:

" Brian, It's interesting that you wrote "submit to nature and reason." Submit means to obey. Nature told people like Hitler that the weak should be eliminated. Survival is for the strong. Nature has far less compassion than the people of the Bible. Hitler too, reasoned that he was doing right, but look at that result. Man's reason is filled with errors/wrongs/sin. Also you are wrong about compilation of the Bible. The entire New Testament minus about 11 verses can be found in the letters of 1st century Christians. The Bible I read today is the same as the 1st Century writtings. James 4:7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 7:53 AM:

" Phil...I am open to "God" every waking moment, or at least I try to be. God's words cannot be written. To me the Bible is bunk. First slapped together by Constantino in the 4th Century. SOme works were chosen, some not. Break free of the oppression those with the Bible wield over you and submit to Nature and Reason....where God is truly found. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 16, 2007 7:35 AM:

" Brian, one last post...I didn't apologize for Bush's handling of Saudia Arabia, I just admitted that I don't understand why they seemingly are getting special treatment. Another thing, I don't think the raped woman was executed, she was sentenced to 200 lashes. Now if that results in execution, I don't know, but it's a tragedy none the less. While I do support Bush in the War on Terror, I by no means think he has handled everything perfectly. Given that we only had a choice between Bush and Kerry or Gore, Bush was definately a better choice, but IMO, Bush was one of the worst of the Republican nominees. What can you do? Vote for the best choice, and do the best in your life to live out your values. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 16, 2007 7:26 AM:

" Brian, whether you use the word sin or 'wrong' it's the same thing. What you refuse to accept is the superiority of God. By not asking for forgiveness you are saying that you can take care of all of the consequences of your 'wrongs.' Yes, the idea of original sin is oppressive, but God can lift that oppression from you, all you need to do is ask for forgiveness. Saying you don't believe in it won't make it go away. You don't need to go to a church to ask for forgiveness. You can do it right at your computer. All God asks for is a sincere heart. The thief on the cross is in Paradise today, and he didn't jump through the man made hoops you eluded to earlier. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 16, 2007 6:59 AM:

" Brian, I will be away from the computer for most of today and probably the whole weekend, so I'll keep this short. It's good that you recognize that you commit 'wrongs'. What do you do when you realize you commit 'wrongs'? You try to make it right, correct? You apologize or do service or make a payment, right? I'm sure there have been instances where you recognized that your reparations didn't make up for the pain or loss caused by your 'wrong' deed. What was the thing that eased your conscience? Forgiveness of by the one you 'wronged'. Who is greater the one who forgives or the one who does the 'wrong'? Obviously, the one who forgives. That is what the Bible talks about when it talks about sin. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 3:10 AM:

" Phil...In one emotive posting you brought up Saudi's executing a raped woman under their rule of law and then, just below, you apologize for Bush's support, 35 year support, of the same ackbassward society's rulers. Why doesn't George W 'Bandhar' Bush pressure the Saudi's to modernize and let the women drive cars and wear bikinis?....and vote, and live independent lives equal under the law? ? ? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:45 AM:

" Dear 'mindful'...What do you say about the "Book of Joshua" (it's in the Bible, FYI)? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:42 AM:

" Dear Logan...I've read the Bible three times, maybe you saw some Christian Bible cartoons. I can't see how anyone with an inquiring mind can read the Bible and NOT question the absurdities found therein. "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." - Mark Twain - "Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast" - Mark Twain, Reflections on Religion, 1906 "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 16, 2007 2:34 AM:

" Yes, Phil, of course I commit wrongs. The word and concept of "sin" holds too much religious BS for me. The loopy idea of "original sin" I find offensive and oppressive and I'm not alone. You obviously don't understand Paine's writings if you don't see their relevance to this thread. Paine was a Deist, a believer that God existed or could be found in NATURE and REASON. - "The Word of God is the creation we behold and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." - Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason. "

mindful wrote on Nov 15, 2007 5:46 PM:

" Enough from me. Oh, and Brian, perhaps I might be "petulant" but I'd rather be that than have your seemingly offensive demeanor. And a question - if you've read and reread the Bible, have you had anyone of biblical knowledge help you make sense of it, or would you be too stubborn. (read mva below). Also, if you don't mind discussing "anything" as you stated - please do answer Phils question. "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 4:47 PM:

" Agitator, Phil? I hope so. But are you not a hypocrite for putting me in a box as you accuse mike welch of doing? And Bravo to Sasikala Perumal, who in her queit way shows who is in boxes, for the Hindu includes the god of O'Bates. And what does O'Bates say? She is choosing Hell. There is the deep thought one poster called for. To Brian G. Smith: please tell O'Bates what you think sin is or he will stop responding to you. You MUST argue on his terms! "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 4:13 PM:

" Oh yeah, before I forget, THANK YOU Logan and Mindful for coming on board. There are not too many faithful posters on here, and I'm sure BrianGSmith, rick harsch, and Michael Welch, are tired of just dealing with me. As a side note I'm not responding to rick harsch because he has proven to me to be just an agitator who simply wants to stir the pot for stirings sake. To me, that's just a waste of time. Now if he would answer the question of what his definition of sin is, I would be willing to re-ingage him. Any way, I look forward to seeing your imput in some of these discussions. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 4:04 PM:

" Logan, I believe Brian when he says that he has read the Bible a couple of times. I don't underestimate the power of Satan to blind or the power God has given each of us to reject him. It is possible for a person to harden their heart to the calling of the Holy Spirit. However, some are called to till the land, some are called to plant the seeds, and some are called to water. Brian just needs more tilling, but he can't forced into accepting the truth of Jesus's saving grace. Prayer and Scripture are the best tools for tilling. "

Logan wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:47 PM:

" You are correct, the devil is very powerful, but we should keep trying, but by Brian's statements, I can tell he hasn't read the Bible and has no interest in knowing the truth. Good Luck and hopefully they will learn to believe. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:39 PM:

" Logan, of course you and I know that, and we don't want to them to suffer, that's why telling them of their lost condition is an example of love. But, if they just don't want to hear it, at some point we are instructed to 'shake the dust from our sandals' and move on. (Matthew 10:14,15) "

Logan wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:32 PM:

" To Phil: When all is said & done and it is too late for them to repent, they will know what the truth is and believe. They will just be suffering for it. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:12 PM:

" To mindful, Touche'! My response to you and the 11/10 person was meant in humor. Some people on these boards get really bent out of shape with spelling errors, I was just trying to have some fun. Spelling or not, you are correct on the issue of revealing the truth of the Gospel, it is the Holy Spirit, through the Word that convicts people, and not my logic or use of words. I battle back and forth between not engaging with the 'flame throwers' because it tends to just go no where, to the idea of "the only thing for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." I don't want to stand before Jesus having never taken a stand for what I know to be true. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:04 PM:

" Now, Brian, on the topic at hand....do you believe that you commit 'wrongs'? I'll be waiting for an answer. "

mindful wrote on Nov 15, 2007 3:03 PM:

" For Phil, please see your 11/10 (1051)PM post re:spelling, now shame one you. Yes, 1Peter 3:15 is best, I also like Hebrews 4:12. Thanks for your stance. Yet, in the end, we "all" have the same (evidence, facts, etc..) available to us - everything except the reasoning .. that makes us human and discerning and having these debates. But as for power, it is only Gods Word that convicts. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 2:59 PM:

" Brian, are you 'the blog stalker' too? This Thomas Paine discussion can be dealt with at some other time on the Jimmy site. Like I keep saying, I don't see the relevance to this topic here. On the issue of Saudia Arabia, I don't know the exact reason we haven't seemingly done anything for their contribution to 9/11. I do know that that country is split between two families (Faud and Saud). One is like OBL in beliefs and the other is very pro-West in it's openess. I suppose you think Bush should launch a third prong in this war by attacking Saudia Arabia? Maybe he can get more done by working with the pro-Western forces in SA. There are a few things I'm not privey to: 1) the inter workings of US-Saudi relations and 2) whether Bush or anyone for that matter is truely a Christian. "

mindful wrote on Nov 15, 2007 2:40 PM:

" to all - never mind my sarcasm. It's hard-wired in. Michael-your post to me interests me. Too many thoughts for the space to answer. I wonder-if you, like I, ever awake to the reality of "humanity" and "our world today" and are filled with a near rage. Because there isn't one, not one, thing that we can say nor do to change it. Like a crisis. Like a moment of war. All this chat is good but it's then, Michael, that I have my faith to sustain me. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 15, 2007 2:25 PM:

" Phil, you say the Saudi's are following Islam, and you are wrong. The Islam they follow is as correct as the Christianity Hikler's Germany followed. Both regimes hid(e) behind a religion. Anyway, Phil, the Saudi rulers, those who purvey these executions of raped women you speak of....these Saudi scum rulers are hand-holding friends of the Bushes. Bush just sold them another couple Billion in military hardware. So what is our God hearing Chrish-chun President doing supporting this horrific Suadi regime you describe? We are waiting. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 15, 2007 2:16 PM:

" Dear mindful....Petulance suits you. Thank you for 'setting us straight'. I haven't a problem speaking with others about God, gods, creation, afterlifes, souls, spirits, aliens, life, death, etc...Shine some of your brilliance on us silly people, show us you are the Professor. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 15, 2007 2:10 PM:

" Phil...You mentioned John Adams as somehow being contrary to Thomas Paine,...here are some quotes attributed to John Adams ..."The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." - "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." [from "Treaty Of Tripoli"] - "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles." - "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"" "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 1:00 PM:

" One projects from one's own 'box' -- yours is very 'boxed in.' I know enough about war to know it is NOT 'heroics'; the legend of heroics is what is presented (again and again) to those who never actually 'see it' but want some comfort, want to 'believe' that Sonny or Johnny or Jill hasn't been 'changed' by the experience, hasn't understood the real cruelty humans are capable of, that even they are capable of. These 'veterans' SUFFER, not only from damage you can look at but what you can't -- what it has done to their humanity. They are victims too. Those who blithely and phonily start these wars are the real criminals, the real 'evil'... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:57 PM:

" Dear Mindful, What's a fifth-gader? Is is a football player on the University of Florida team? No, that would be GATOR. Hmmmm. Now, do I think this conversation is pleasing to God? I hope so. I'm following this verse as well as I know how...1Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:50 PM:

" Yes, Michael, I personally have never been on a battlefield or a firefight, but how much service did you do on a submarine to judge my experiences? The fact that I wasn't an infantryman, doesn't mean that your statement about soldiers "NEVER" thinking about God is correct. It also doesn't verify your accusation that soldiers are heartless or careless in executing the enemy of freedom. You are right that I don't understand the wounds that battle veterans carry after service, but at least I don't accuse them of being mindless murders like you. I'm learning more and more from your posts how easily you place people into your prejudged boxes. It's just suprising that you demean your fellow veterans when doing so. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:47 PM:

" How 'smart' I am is not the question or even part of the question and it isn't 'the search.' Religion is a hugely important aspect of humanity; it is above all HUMAN and why would anything human be alien to me? I write what 'truth' I can discern; I assume others try to do the same. There ought to be more thought, more investigation, more criticism, not less, about this society and what it is doing to itself and to the rest of the world with its tremendous military and economic power and often in the name of religion -- just see below. We ought to think more about the humanity of religions rather than the doctrines of its keepers... "

mindful wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:38 PM:

" hmm..are any of you smarter than a fifth-gader? Excuse me, that just popped right out. Quite an intellectual conversation going on here but my head is spinning now. So, for U who believe there is no "God" - why are you so intrigued with this issue / or are you "wondering"?. And, for U who believe in our "God" - reminding you to ask yourself if this conversation would be pleasing to Him. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:20 PM:

" You have no idea what war is really like; that's obvious. It ain't roamin' around in a submarine. Soldiers may well think of 'God' in 'God help me!' but of course war is killing; soldiers aren't social workers; they're trained to kill. You have no idea how difficult it's been for many many returning to 'civilian life' to adjust, to try to forget the horrors they've seen and participated in. Wars are presented to the public as models of heroics with flags, gags and chases; it's murdering your fellow man is what it really is, as General Sherman knew -- an honest soldier he. There are hundreds of walking wounded out there with wounds you won't understand... "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:14 PM:

" 'PO'B' you ALWAYS skim past the issues when you can't turn them into justifications for your political views. Writing about Abu Ghraib on another 'Faith' board you downplay it. Do you know at all what American troops 'do' and have done in Iraq? They burst into homes, humiliate people, brutalize them, intimidate their families, arrest them on any ol' say-so; consequently they have FED the insurgency for the past four years and more. The several Jesuses of the NT allow folks to pick the one they like the most: yours is the apocalyptic revenger of Revelation. Because you don't know yourself you can't see that so yes, Father forgive him; he does NOT know what he really wants... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 12:12 PM:

" Michael, your 11:28 post shows your false bias. "Soldiers in real battle situations NEVER think of 'God, home and mother'." Didn't anyone tell you about the dangers of using the term 'never'? "They become brutish and cruel; they shoot first and ask questions later -- sometimes much later." War is brutish and cruel and there is no time in the heat of battle to debate. Soldiers react according to there training. Your insinuation that our soldiers are careless and heartless is very ugly and insulting. The degree of restaint and professionalism they have shown is extraordinary. If the rest of the world thinks that America lets murder and rape go on without punishment, it's because they are being fed biased propaganda. Apparently you too believe our enemies reports more then our own. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:59 AM:

" Michael, your 11:49 post is your false idea of what I support or stand for. I don't excuse criminal behavior or terrorism. The idea of torture is complicated. To some, sleep deparvation is torture, to others panties on the head is torture. To me, I wouldn't define those as torture, but I also wouldn't be personally able to do those things to others. I don't see specific guidelines in the Bible for what can and can not be done to the doers of evil. Even Jesus didn't speak out against stoning, which would be very torturous. I also didn't say 'anything' American troops do is fine. Your falsification of what I have said really brings your own credibility to light. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:49 AM:

" Brian, for the sake of discussion time, I am willing to let the debate of the evil of Islam vs. the Bible to drop for now. I will say as a conclusion to that topic though, that both the Bible and the Koran should be judged by the Context of the text and the time given. I will also say that the world judges Islam and Christianity by the actions of it's people. You have a negative view of Christianity, and that is sad, but it doesn't mean that Christianity is evil. It just means that by what you have witnessed you judge it to be evil. I have a negative view of Islam, and in the end God will be the final judge of who is correct. Now, I'm more interested in the question "Do you believe you have committed any 'wrongs'? "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:49 AM:

" 'PO'B' and so-called 'Christians' like him use their religion for political ends, as 'Godly' justification for their hostilities -- not only against Islam but also as 'PO'B' admits below against ALL other denominations and even political parties he disagrees with. He says 'love love love' but he excuses torture, brutality, criminal behavior -- EXCEPT when Muslims behave so. Anything American troops or CIA or US government-sponsored terrorists do is fine: invade a country that NEVER attacked the US? Sure; the Bible tells him we should do it; it's an act of 'love.' Father forgive him -- he apparently has no idea the extent of the horrors he actually wants done... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:40 AM:

" Michael, I am pro God and good and anti anything that opposes that. Romans 12:9 "[Let] love be sincere. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." Catholicism isn't a root of Christianity. Christianity is rooted in Christ. Christ and his words are eternal, Catholicism is man made and it's words and actions are temporary. If a Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist does things in accordance to Scripture, it is Christian. If not, then it is not a Christian act. Your are right that Calvin and Luther had non Christian attitudes toward Jews, but I'm not a follower of Luther or Calvin, I'm a follower of Christ. Also by your definition of a bigot, Jesus would also be a bigot. He too believe that He was the only way to heaven. "

mva wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:31 AM:

" It's very unfortunate when people take such a literalist approach to the Bible as they are missing out on so much when they take such a simplistic approach. Actually, such an approach in itself is impossible as many Hebrew words often have multiple meanings. The Bible purposely contains irony, contradiction, and paradox. Some of the most violent passages may actually be polemics against violence. The redactors who pieced together the multiple stories of the Bible did so with great care and purposely included stories with multiple meanings and texts containing obvious tensions and contradictions. They did so because they weren't threatened by giving voice to different perspectives on God. For more interesting reading on the Bible, I highly recommended the book "Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures" by John Collins, a noted professor in biblical studies. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:28 AM:

" Soldiers in Iraq serve as per their orders; soldiers in real battle situations NEVER think of 'God, home and mother' but of surviving and not letting their buddies down. They become brutish and cruel; they shoot first and ask questions later -- sometimes much later. You can lacrimose on and on about 'love' but so-called loving your enemies while you advocate someone else kill them for you is the rankest hypocrisy and self-satisfied sanctimoniousness. Most of the world is repelled by that 'America' that insists EVERYTHING it does is sanctified; it can torture, rape and maim and no one goes to jail over it. Religion is just another putrid excuse for conquest... "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:26 AM:

" Phil...That Koran quote doesn't mention rape, so it doesn't apply. please don't make me dig out all of the horrific and unjustice...wicked...Bible quotes !!! We could go on forever. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:21 AM:

" 'PO'B' should know as well as I that protestants have a long 'tradition' of anti-semitism; I mean we've been through Luther and Calvin huh? The church of Rome by the way often PROTECTED the European Jews as well as it could; it was mainly LOCAL lords, kingdoms etc. that used Jews as the ol' scapegoat and they weren't always consistent. (E. g. the SPANISH inquisition was SPANISH-controlled, not 'Roman.') To excise Catholics from Christianity is not only bigotry but perverse: after all this is one of the major roots of the Christian tradition. 'PO'B' is admittedly anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, anti- any religious belief not his own; he sounds more and more bigoted every time he writes... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:20 AM:

" Michael, you don't believe the Bible to be accurate accept for the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). Jesus talks about many types of love. If I love my neighbor or my enemy I should warn them about the consequences of sin. There is also the love of your friends. John 15:12,13 "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Those people serving in Iraq and other places are showing the greatest love by laying down their lives for our protection. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:12 AM:

" Michael, I agree with most of what you wrote about Hitler, but what you should say is that he used "Catholic" language. Catholics today, still have what is called replacement theology, which replaces the Jews as God's chosen to being "The Church" (Of course they mean Catholic Church) as the chosen. The Bible says that Christianity is from the seed of Abraham and the non-Jews are 'grafted onto' the tree of Israel. The Bible says nothing about the Jews no longer being the chosen people of God. I know you will say that Catholic is Christian, but I would say where Catholic doctrine disagrees with the Bible, it is it's own (not Christian) doctrine. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:12 AM:

" Jesus is said by Christians to have 'come' to relieve the world of 'original sin' which is given a sort of fairy tale aspect with the garden in Eden stuff. The point however is that humans are somehow 'imperfect' in that they don't live up to the supposed 'perfection' of behavior that is exemplified by God. God though in the Bible is not to say the least very 'nice'; He's even the first genocidal maniac AND the most successful one according to the tale of Noah. Human generosity is often wanting sure but the nature of life involves struggle of species and humans seek security and wealth so to survive. And hardly any Christians live up to Jesus' 'love [ESPECIALLY] your enemies' so they just say they 'honor' him... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:06 AM:

" Brian if you doubt that lashing a woman for being raped is not in the Koran, then just go online and check out this: [24.2] "(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement." "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 11:02 AM:

" Hitler was born Catholic but he was not a 'believer' really; he was attracted to a legendary view of Germanic romance heavily promulgated especially in the operas of Wagner, so popular as the newly formed German imperial state (founded only in 1866) was emerging as the leading military power on the continent even before the 20th century. Its defeat in 1918 led to a bitterly vengeful 'treaty of Versailles' that humiliated Germany and caused terrible economic hardship and political turmoil. Hitler rose first as a German nationalist but he continually employed the language of Christianity to condemn the Jews as those who had 'betrayed' Germany -- as they had 'betrayed' Christ who was not of course a Jew but an 'Aryan'... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:55 AM:

" Well, for some common ground, I too disagree with alot of Catholic doctrine. When you study Catholic doctrine, like indulgences, you find that it's primary support is from places other then the Bible. I also understand a certain hang up over the word sin. I'll give you my understanding of sin. It is ALL of the wrongs we do. Whether they are intentional or not. Whether they are directed at others or our selves. I have and do commit 'wrongs' everyday. Would you say that you commit 'wrongs'? "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:51 AM:

" 'PO'B' is proselytizing again; it's his shtick. 'BGS' is certainly correct to assert that the history of Christians in this world is as bloody a record as everyone else's. I honestly think it may only be the 'Jains' who are so assiduously non-violent that the most 'orthodox' wear a mouth covering so to avoid accidentally inhaling an insect -- talk about 'reverence for life'! Religious belief is culturally based and moreover ALL religions adapt to the culture, even moreso than vice versa. (E. g.: 'Barbarian' hired thugs-on-horseback were converted into 'Christian knights' but they remained thugs...) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:49 AM:

" Brian, Nazi Germany was not a Christian movement. If you believe it was, then it is understandable why you think Christianity is evil. What can be said is the Hitler and the Nazi movement was ignored by the pasifist Christians in Germany until it was too late. For someone or thing to be Christian, it would have to follow the teachings of Christ. Jim Jones claimed to be a Christian also, but that doesn't make it so. The Inquistion was also an event that had no basis in the teachings of Christ or the Bible. The events in Saudia Arabia do have there basis in the Koran. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:43 AM:

" No, Phil, I should type slower. I already stated I don't buy into the concept of "sin" as put forward by the Bible and the Christian church. I see things as wrongdoing and crimes with earthly accountability-punishment. Sin thru the church can be easily forgiven....read up about the old Catholic practice of INDULGENCES....where for a fee I could have my family Sainted....and sins forgiven. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:36 AM:

" Dear Phil...Please read about Medievel times, the Spanish Inquisition, witch burning..Salem...Christianity has been the bloodiest religion to date, hands down, case closed. The Saudi's practice an extremist version of Islam...Wahhabi. It's BS. It's used to control the masses. There is little difference between Islamic and Christian "Taliban" in my book....History is riddled with Fundamentalis Christian yahoos snafuing the planet up....Hitler's Germany was Christian and look what they did. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:32 AM:

" Jeez, I should type slooooower. Brian, what do YOU define as sin? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:31 AM:

" Brian, what do define as sin? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:30 AM:

" Here's the Saudia Arabia punishment link: (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071115145104.rykb7bub&show_article=1) "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:29 AM:

" Dear Kyleb.....One has to believe in Sin and an obligation of subservience to a higher being.....this doesn't quite describe me. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:28 AM:

" Sasikala, I just read an interesting story that illustrates my point about the differences between the God and directions of the Bible verses the god and directions of the Koran. Saudia Arabia, whose judicial system is guided by the Koran, just punished a woman who was gang raped by 6 men to 200 lashes. Why? For "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape." The god people will learn about studying the Koran isn't the same as the God of the Bible. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 15, 2007 10:25 AM:

" Dear sasikala perumal....Upon reflection, you are correct about Mr. O'Bates. He doesn't appear to be making any journey or search. I was simply trying to reel him in a little. In truth he has conducted a search, but a very short narrow one. There is alot of stuff to read ot there but, tragically, there used to be so much more. Religious fanatics throughout the Ages have sacked and burned libraries filled with incredible Earthly wisdom and burned those individuals who understood this wisdom at the stake. There's far too much mystery on this planet concerning ancient civilizations, their powers and understanding. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 15, 2007 7:07 AM:

" sasikala, it's not my 'position' that consigns you to hell but your 'position' that does. The point you raise about reading the Koran and Bhagavad Gita to understand God can only be correct if God ordained those books. The problem with that idea is that the Bible/Koran/Bhagabvad Gita do not agree with each other. That would mean in your eyes that God contradicts himself, which makes no sense. God can only be found in one of the Books. I have read parts of the Koran and Hadith and those definately are in opposition to the Bible and do not teach about the same God. For arguments sake, if there is a God, He will only be revealed in one of those books, not all of them. The other books would be man's creation of what god they want. "

sasikala perumal wrote on Nov 14, 2007 7:49 PM:

" O'Bates asks how to learn about God without reading the bible. For a start, one could read the Bhagavad Gita, which I saw mentioned once on this post. Or one could read the Upanishads. Or Samkara. One could also read the Koran. The Bible is an alternative, but this anthropomorphic God is less convincing as a deity than the more abstract God of Hinduism. As for the Brian Smith praise of O'Bates, I have seen no evidence that the man is taking any kind of journey. He is stuck in one inflexible position--which incidentally consigns me to hell--in both politics and religion, the two of which are in his comments entirely unreconcilable. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 14, 2007 12:02 PM:

" The Bible is best read as a huge unwieldly novel with a long 'War and Peace'-ish list of characters, the most problematic being of course the great monster-God 'Yahweh' Who presides like a Faulknerian patriarch over the violent acts and sexual indiscretions of His 'Hebrew children,' alternately raising them on high, then blasting them to the depths. In the Jesus section the wandering rebbe believes himself the unknown son of Yahweh and re: his 'Abba' ('Da-da') he exalts himself above all others. At times he expresses sublime idealism -- 'love [ESPECIALLY] your enemies'; other times he rants that 'the end of the world' will come soon and you'll all get yours! What a story!... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 14, 2007 9:53 AM:

" While I believe that the Bible has all of the answers we need to get through this life, I certainly don't know what all the answers are though. I do find confirmation of the Bible in things and events outside of the Bible. One small example is when I first had children. While I knew and believed John 3:16 (God giving his only, one of a kind, son for our salvation), it wasn't until I had children myself that I began to truely understand what kind of love that took. If I was asked to offer up any of my kids to suffer, just to provide the opportunity for others to be saved, I don't think I have that kind of love for others, But God does. You are right, that it would be boring if we didn't have to strugle and learn, but somedays... "

kyleb wrote on Nov 14, 2007 9:29 AM:

" Brian, "and includes Nature, self-examination, open mindedness...under a microscope....in the sands of Mars." How do the noetic effects of sin impair our ability to "see God" in these ways? Or do they? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 14, 2007 9:06 AM:

" Good question Phil. My understanding of God is a continuing personal journey as I seek out the answers most sentient beings seek out. The body of work is much larger than the Bible and includes Nature, self-examination, open mindedness...under a microscope....in the sands of Mars. I found many inspiring stories and passages in the Bible and found the basic teachings of Jesus to be as endearing and as revolutionary as they were in His time. But there are many humans who have been able to capture and express answers and sentiments that feel right....answers as to why? I admire you for taking the journey seriously and hope you continue seeking answers...how boring life would be if one had all the answers. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 14, 2007 7:46 AM:

" Brian, so how do you think a person learns about God without using the Bible? Without the Bible as a guide, God simply becomes whatever you feel to be right in your own eyes. I recognize that you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God, and that's your choice. When I first believed that the Bible was the Word of God it was just 'head' knowledge because I believed my parents and teachers. However, thoughout my life I have personally seen and felt the truth of the Bible as I have relied on it for guidance. This belief of mind isn't just a "I hope it's God's Word" but it is now confirmed in my soul that I KNOW that it's God's word. You'll never know it until you act and live by faith. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 14, 2007 5:11 AM:

" Phil....Your problem, IMHO, is not that you put so much faith in "God"....your problem is that you put too much faith in man. Men wrote the stories in the Bible....not "God". No doubt these men were trying to explain their existence just as we do today. But, in the end, the Bible is man made and the "God" has far too many of man's weaknesses, moods and nastinesses to be taken as something other than man-made fiction. "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 13, 2007 5:24 PM:

" sorry: sorrow "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 13, 2007 5:23 PM:

" To paraphrase the Bhagavad Gita: We did not exist, we exist, we will not exist. What cause is there in this for soorrow? "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 13, 2007 1:24 PM:

" The dinosaur "ranks first among the works of God..." Enough said. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 13, 2007 12:15 PM:

" Big Spender, you haven't popped any bubbles of mine. What I find interesting is your "your wrong" statement. No, I'm not wrong. The Bible doesn't have any contradictions with my dog evolving from a wolf species. My statements about the Bible and the evolutionary theory of origins are correct. What you would be more accurate in saying is that you don't believe what either I or the Bible have to say about human origins. I also believe you could carry that one step further and say that both the Creation theory of origins and the Evolutionary theory of origins can not BOTH be correct. So either you are correct or the Bible is, but science does not prove it out either way. "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 13, 2007 10:47 AM:

" Reply to Phil O'Bates, re: "There is nothing in the Bible against the fact that my little dog has decended from a wolf type dog. What it doesn't support is man descended from an ape type creature. Man was created whole and completely by God." Not correct. Man is just another biological collection of cells--he has much in common with the wolf. Put starkly, humans are mere biological monstrosities evolved from the primorial muck, like the wolf. Like the wolf, man comes with bones, hair and teeth; like the wolf, man is just a collection of microscopic cells, which in turn are just molecules, which in turn, are just quarks and leptons. Sorry to pop your bubble, but reality is cold and stark...there are no gods; all there is, everywhere, is just quantum spacetime and subatomic particles. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 13, 2007 9:06 AM:

" Brian, here are a few sites that talk about other flood stories: (http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html) (http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm) (http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 13, 2007 8:59 AM:

" Big Spender, you are confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution. There is nothing in the Bible against the fact that my little dog has decended from a wolf type dog. What it doesn't support is man descended from an ape type creature. Man was created whole and completely by God. There are plenty of places that answer the skeptics questions in the Bible. (http://www.danofisrael.com/id80.html)If you seriously want more thorough answers go to this site: (http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties.htm) By the way, I heard one of my supervisors who has a degree in biology say "Did you see the sun rise today?" I guess he doesn't know that the sun isn't actually rising. Hmmmm "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 13, 2007 8:30 AM:

" Job 40:15-19 (NIV)"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..." Some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees, and hippos don't feed on grass like an ox. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 13, 2007 7:19 AM:

" I just wanted to note that this discussion has been carried on in a very mature manner. After just reading all of the postings I conclude that this subject is interesting and entertaining. I'm curious what "creationists" have to say about Assyrian, Sumerian...Egyptian, etc...legends and myths that described some sort of great flood (as mwell as a story of Adam and Eve). Truth be told, much of the Old Testament is based on myth and legends of the societies that predated the Jews. "

rick harsch wrote on Nov 12, 2007 5:04 PM:

" As Phil O'Bates is the only creationist arguing here I will come to his rescue. For one thing, if evolution were more than theory, O'Bates would know how to spell. Further, a website is created by man, not by God, and therefore they are all equal, no matter their bias. Finally, for now, apes have never been turned into humans in a laboratory, yet humans have been turned into apes by societies. How do you explain that with evolutionary theory? As stated in Deuteronomy (sp?), 7 or so, 'and man shall revert to the apelike state to destroy the believers in prophets born unto women who copulate.' "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 12, 2007 1:29 PM:

" "God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. Genesis 1:11"...And: ""Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not." The earth is fixed and the sun travels about it. Job 9:7"...And: "The earth is set on foundations and it does not move. Job 38:4-6" See 'The Skeptic's Annotated Bible' for more scientific inconsistensies: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm " " "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 12, 2007 1:20 PM:

" To Phil O, re: "o BGS read Job 40:15-19 about the behemoth. No animal today fits that discription except a dinosaur." You're joking, right? "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 12, 2007 3:56 AM:

" Buellman, one other note, you said that "a 6000 year old earth is easily dismissed by ANYONE with a technical background." What would be more accurate is that a 6000 year old earth is dismissed by many people with a technical background. There are thousands of scientists, geologists, astronomers, biologists, etc. who have a 'technical background' and don't dismiss a 6000 year old earth. While the number of outspoken scientists on 'your side' are greater in number, that doesn't make their stance correct. What makes a stance correct is the weight of evidence, not the weight of the number of people who believe what the evidence is saying. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 11, 2007 11:51 PM:

" Buellman, I agree with you in part....No one can prove God, not even with science. A person comes to God through faith, not knowledge. There is alot of science out there that points to a creator and a young earth, but doesn't PROVE it. The same can be said of evidences that point toward an old earth. In the end, a person will believe in the theory they have more faith in. As for Noah's ark try this site:( http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html) and this one too (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/index.htm) "

buellman2003 wrote on Nov 11, 2007 11:13 PM:

" That website does follow your argument, but I would encourage you to look elsewhere. That website conveniently carries only papers that support the group's position, but there are other papers out there with different views. The truth is, none of us can say for sure if there is or isn't a god. Stating opinions like the earth is 6000 years old makes this theory easily dismissed by anyone with a technical background. The Noah's Ark story does not make sense when the logistics of placing 17,000-25,000 different species on a boat and supplying each with the environment they need to survive (there wasn't refrigeration back then, so I don't see how they could keep some species cold enough, or supply the varied diets) is evaluated. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 11, 2007 10:08 PM:

" Actually the verse that eludes to binding energy that I was thinking of is Hebrews 1:2-3: "By his (God's) Son he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power . . . " Here is a paper that talks about this issue more thoroughly:(http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_tbiatos/) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 11, 2007 9:58 PM:

" Buellman, 'subatomic particle' is a modern term just like 'internet porn.' The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not view internet porn" either but the idea of lusting is still covered. The same is true with 'subatomic particles.' Hebrews 11:3 states: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Can you see subatomic particles? Colosians 1:16,17 'For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." That sounds like binding energy to me. "

buellman2003 wrote on Nov 11, 2007 8:33 PM:

" You both cite a website with an obviously biased opinion. What I read from that site showed an example of molten lava. The core of the earth is basically a giant nuclear reactor and you get all sorts of isotopes under those conditions, so of course you get varying radioisotope dating. My point has nothing to do with radioisotope dating, what I am talking about is the 4n+1 chain, which you should look into if you don't understand. It has nothing to do with dating since the isotope doesn't exist since it all decayed (radioisotope dating is done for partially decayed substances). "God created earth, plants, animals, and humans in an 'aged' form." Why doesn't the bible say God created subatomic particles? If everything is composed of these simple building blocks, you would think the bible would at least reference them. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 11, 2007 7:25 PM:

" Buellman, something else you err in is when you say 'that alone.' There are many area's of science that deal with age and those don't conclusively point to a billion year old earth. One of those is the earth's magnetic field. (http://www.icr.org/article/215/) Another is a young sun. (http://www.icr.org/article/405/) Another is the geographical 'soft sediment deformation.' (http://www.icr.org/article/1101/) Receeding moon distance is yet another example that argues against an Old Earth. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204) "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 11, 2007 6:55 PM:

" Buellman, nuclear decay rates don't all point in the direction you would like. Here are several artical in this link as an example. (http://www.icr.org/rate/) The thing you also overlook is science can not measure the supernatural. Genesis says that God created earth, plants, animals, and humans in an 'aged' form, not as seeds, eggs, or babies. God could certainly create elements in an 'aged' state as well. At best all you can do is guess as to what the original state was. "

buellman2003 wrote on Nov 11, 2007 12:57 PM:

" It can be proved that the universe started as an infinitely dense mass at a finite point in time. The question is why that mass even exits, and that is the only thing god could have created. Humans can create the same conditions that formed the universe in particle accelerators. The earth is far more than 6000 years old. This can be proved by no natural 4n+1 nuclear chains still in existence since they have all decayed away after several half lives. The longest lived particle of this chain is Np-237 with a half life of 2.14 million years. Our planet has been around for millions of years for that reason alone. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 11, 2007 12:57 AM:

" Eddie, I'll also give you this, science has not and will not prove that God created the heavens and the Earth. That's because science can only study what it can observe in the natural world. For God to create the World He would have used what we would understand as 'supernatural' or other then natural power. That means that we cannot know God though our studies of what is natural. However, science also can not disprove God or the Bible account of origins. Consider this question: If all of life evolved from nothing, what would be the purpose of life? For Darwinists the answer would be man has no purpose, there is no eternity, live for today, and life is meaningless. For the Creationist the answer would be that man has a devine purpose with meaning and to live for eternity. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 11, 2007 12:08 AM:

" Eddie, I'll give you one point, suggest is a verb not an adjective, but my main point still stands....the evolutionary theory of origins is not a fact. Like I said in my other post, I'm not a scientist or biologist, but the point about the fruit flies still stands....NO, I repeat NO proof that fruit flies can mutate into anything other then fruit flies. One of the links I posted talks about one place that tried to get fruit flies to evolve through experimentation for 17 years, but to no avail. What I think you are confusing is the difference between the evolutionary theory of origins with the evolutionary study of species. One is scientific observation and the other is guessing. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 10, 2007 11:59 PM:

" I'm not a scientist but here are some links that discuss mutations. (http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp) and (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/antibios.html)and (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html) The few examples given as beneficial mutations are examined. The basic underlying fact is that for the growth of all plant and animal and human life to evolve from simple cells, you would need trillions of positive mutations. The evidence of that has not been observed. In fact the opposite has been observed...mutations don't change one species to another species. "

Eddie wrote on Nov 10, 2007 11:38 PM:

" Phil, you have proven that you know extremely little about biology. Fruit flies (not "flys") are classified as a biological GENUS (Drosophila), in which there are thousands of different species, such as "Drosophila melanogaster". Biologists regularly observe Drosophila species evolve into different species, but they are all still members of the Drosophila genus. Expecting insects to evolve into bats (a different Class - mammalia) is more proof that you know very little of the evolutionary process. Again, all the physical evidence "suggests" (it's a VERB, not an adjective) that humans evolved from an ape-like species. Has evolutionary theory been proven to be 100% complete? No, it hasn't, but it is the ONLY fact-based and logical explanation that we have. It is infinitely more credible than attributing life on Earth to some Bronze Age sky-god. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 10, 2007 10:51 PM:

" Eddie, thanks so much for pointing out the negative spelling mutation. Without people like you pointing out those huge errors, these boards would transend into chaos. Your post just confirms my posts points....no observations (remember that in science a fact has to be repeatable and observed) of one species becoming another. Thousands of mutations have been done on things like fruit flys, but all that gets observed is different fruit flys, not fruit bats or fruit butterflys. You end your post with the correct adjective..."evidence SUGGESTS"...That means it isn't proven. "

Eddie wrote on Nov 10, 2007 10:32 PM:

" Phil, you're (not "your") quite mistaken. You need to educate yourself about basic biology. Mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of the genetic material of an organism. There are several types of mutations, and they can be advantageous, disadvantageous, or neutral towards an organism's survival. Speciation has been observed numerous times; fruit flies, African frogs, and especially the human-initiated creation of domestic sheep are prime examples. If you're expecting to watch an ape suddenly "poof" into a human, then you’re more ignorant than was once thought. The natural evolution of higher-order organisms (like apes) into different species takes millions of years to occur. All the fossil and genetic evidence suggests that this how "Homo sapiens" came into being. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 10, 2007 8:06 PM:

" Eddie, your not being completely honest. Yes, there is evolutionary change that has been observed, but that change has been in a species. There is NO, I repeat NO observations of one species becoming another (example: ape to human). What you also are ignoring is the changes most observed are negative mutations (frogs with missing limbs). That brings up another issue. In the evolutionary theory of origins you have to have POSITIVE mutations that bring about changes in species, but that has NEVER been observed. In fact mutations are known as a LOSS of genetic information, not a growth of genetic information. Evolutionary theory of origins goes against observation (fact). "

Eddie wrote on Nov 10, 2007 7:15 PM:

" Biological evolution is an observable fact, and it has been demonstrated countless times in laboratories. Sadly, Creationists refuse to address this truth. Evolutionary theory is indeed just a "theory" -- a fact-based, logical explanation of how living things exist and change over time. It is the ONLY such explanation in existence. Creationism is not a theory in any way, as it is not a logical explanation. It is based on 1% evidence and 99% religious (and irrational) faith. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 10, 2007 6:53 PM:

" No surprise to read the typical knee jerk responses. There are plenty of sites to counter big spenders site. (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/)(http://www.icr.org/research/)(http://www.trueorigin.org/#to)To BGS read Job 40:15-19 about the behemoth. No animal today fits that discription except a dinosaur. Michael there are thousands of scientists who practice science every day who recognize the gigantic holes in the evolutionary theory of origins. A 'fact' in science is something that is observable or something that can be repeated for observation. Apes DNA is a fact. Human DNA is a fact. The idea that humans 'evolved' from an ape 'tree' is a theory, not a fact. "

Michael Welch wrote on Nov 10, 2007 10:38 AM:

" Anyone who reads the Bible as a 'literal' historico-pseudo-scientific account has to go through a number of hoops and block virtually 99% of real science. But what bothers me most is that the ultimate result is a trivialization of a great and awful book, that tremendous 'novelization' of a human spiritual awakening within a horribly violent and cruel context. The stories are so primal that they have seeped into the western cultural subconsciousness and any westerner who doesn't know them is a 'barbarian.' (He ought to know his 'Homer' too -- and I don't mean 'Simpson'!) Reducing such a psychically powerful book into idiocies like dinosaurs on the ark ought to be a discussion avoided; it makes the whole thing (that 'Bible') ridiculous and childish instead of profoundly disturbing -- as it should be... "

Eddie wrote on Nov 10, 2007 4:59 AM:

" All we can do is pity Creationist con artists like Ken Ham. There is no reasoning with their ilk. They have their denials and willful ignorance so practiced and polished that it would be a waste of time to even speak to them. We just have to keep educating our youth to think rationally, and in time, Creationist movements will fade away. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 10, 2007 3:53 AM:

" I think this Buddy Davis and others like him ought re=read the Bible with an open mind. I've now read it...word for word....three times and if the Bible is some "TRUE WORD" it is a really bad indictment of this alleged Creator God. The Bible is so wrought with contradictions and falsehoods that to say it was written by a "God" diminishes the credibility of this "God". Buddy mentions the "flood" and doesn't mention that this myth/story was found in all civilizations predating the wandering Tribe of Avraham. If dinosaurs existed why no mention in the Bible? Hundreds of animals are mentioned, including Badgers. "

Big Spender wrote on Nov 10, 2007 3:14 AM:

" Regarding "40.2 percent of Americans believe it is definitely not true that human beings developed from earlier species of animals and 15.1 percent believe the statement is probably not true,"...well, that's the same bunch that believes in UFOs, astrological mumbo jumbo, numerology, Santa Claus, Bigfoot, psychic hocus pocus, a hollow earth, the Ptolemaic system, plays the lottery, votes Republican, and has no science background beyond the eighth grade level. Here's a sophisticated and entertaining site that debunks hundreds of creationist claims--do scroll the page awhile: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH800 "


PLEASE NOTE: Comments on stories that frequently update through the day disappear with each update.
The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the La Crosse Tribune.

Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »
Log In - If you have already signed up with The LaCrosse Tribune, please sign in now!
Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, The LaCrosse Tribune requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

**Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
E-mail Address:
Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

First Name:
Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
 

NEWSPAPER ADS

LACROSSE JOBS

TOP HOMES

HomeSeller
Top Homes


 
 
Dailies
La Crosse Tribune
Winona Daily News

Weeklies
Coulee News
Courier Life News
The Chronicle
Houston County News
Tomah Journal
Vernon Broadcaster
Westby Times

 Regional
Inside Preps
My LIVE! Entertainment
Best of River Valley
Business Report
Healthy Living Today
Strictly Golf
River Valley Bike Trails
River Valley Blogs
River Valley Outdoors

Shoppers
Tri-County Foxxy

Marketplace
Newspaper Ads
Local Website Directory
7 Rivers Rentals
HomeSeller
Wheels Website
Outdoor Motors
Jobs

Portals
La Crosse NET
Winona NET

Classifieds
River Valley Classifieds

Links
Lee Enterprises

About Us | Classifieds | Contact Us | Terms of Use | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | Search | RSS | Videos | Advertiser Directory | Add to My Yahoo!
Copyright © 1997 - 2009 The La Crosse Tribune. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.