I don’t believe you when you say you have “literally seen a blind boy healed in front of you”. You are lying to yourself and everyone else when you say. I think you want to believe it happened.

This is just like Benny Hinn claiming he can heal people through the TV screen and then asking for $39.95 for his latest book.

Please don’t be so pathetic.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

You wrote this:

attempts to establish common ground in a love for common principles (the glory of Germany for instance) and subsequently attempts to compromise bit-by-bit until we are dedicated fascists who will fight for “Deutschland Uber Alles!” So to get to the point he is trying to take me away and lead me far from my current fundament.

Does Christianity not do the same thing? Do you not think the common ground in a love for an intangible omnipresent being and the common principles (the glory of God for instance) and subsequent attempts to compromise bit-by-bit until we are all dedicated christians who will fight for “Gott über alles!” So to get to the point he (christianity) is trying to take me away and lead me from my current fundament. Ok I think you get the point.

So you claim you are well aware of this “technique” and yet you fall willingly for it with christianity.

I staggers me that you cannot see the direct correlation between your own behaviour and that of Hitler in the way you tenaciously put your belief system above all else and use it to justify your fanatical world view.

In reading your post the words of the great Maynard James Keenan came to mind for me:

Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

This site cannot be the work of the devil as the devil does not exist. However let us assume for a second that he does, I believe the bible clearly states that in god is all things and therefore the creation, maintanence, the production, the idealogies, cognitvie process behind the posts put forward as well as the conflict itself is a product of god and therefore it is in fact god who is behind the site. That is the site is the work of god.

Don’t worry though god works in mysterious ways, so mysterious not even he/she has any idea what they’re doing. As neither do you apparently because blaming a fictional embodiment of all that is bad for the actions of human beings is indicative of larger systemic problems with our society.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Like or Dislike: 0  1

This site is the work of the devil himself.

It is so sad that you have fallen so far from the truth you once had. It is worrying to see how easily you have ‘jumped ship’ from believing a “false doctrine” to believing in something else with as much eagerness and wholeheartedness as always. The books you have mentioned I have read many times and as usual, it is the same circular reasoning as there always has been. You call it God of the Gaps, I call is science of the gaps. What science does wrong is it views the world with the assumption that EVERYTHING is natural and within our understanding. This worldview has many pitfalls and allows scientists to make bold statements without having any moral or spiritual framework to set themselves within. There are things that science will never be able to understand.

I have literally seen a blind boy healed right in front of me. Mass hysteria you ask? The boy was 4 years old. He did not know what was going on. One minute his eyes were glazed and had a distance in them, the next minute there were pupils and he began touching things as he saw for the first time. What do you call that?

Are you really comfortable dismissing something of that nature?

If so, why?

I can’t answer why others are not healed, but miraculous and wondrous things can and do occur without logical explanations. Is this fair on those who don’t get healed? Perhaps not. But does this detract from hose who do? No.

If you’re OK with dismissing these things then fine. I think this RF place has made you bitter towards God. Approach him in a different manner, you may be surprised at what ‘spiritual’ awakenings you have.

Like or Dislike: 2  2

You demonstrate the way in which circumstance can easily shape belief by suggesting the child you saw “healed” was somehow related to God. This event, in your mind, immediately validated your idea of God – not the aforementioned Krishna or Allah or Zeus or Baal etc. I would be asking myself why.

How do you arrive at this conclusion with this much accuracy?

How would you explain the myriad of personal experiences in every other religion?

Or in secular society? Are they all “of Satan”? Are they all deluded?

Your options are either to disregard their claim (“they’re lying”) or to say it was your God who healed the other – and surely both parties will be attempting this!

You can’t ignore the problems I present with Christianity just because there are “miracles”. Your concept of “miracles” are only valid if the Christian God exists and given your response, you have taken God’s existence and the Bible’s divine-authorship for granted; as you have failed to address any of the issues raised.

The sub-text of your ‘plea-to-the-miraculous’ seems to be: “who cares about the glaring contradictions, immorality and the anti-scientific nonsense: they are all irrelevant because miracles happen!” This is a little like saying, there are X amount of problems with aliens existing, but sometimes there are unexplained lights in the sky: therefore there are martians!

Finally, I do agree that sometimes “things happen” that appear unexplainable. However, the suggestion that “science of the gaps” points to God being the explanation is absurd. This illogical statement demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of science and utterly fails to differentiate the unexplained and the unexplainable. For the ultimate goal of science is to explain these gaps; in contrast to God, who not only fails to explain the gaps – but relies on them for his very existence!

Like or Dislike: 1  0

It is an interesting idea; Jesus being the light that photosynthesized the plants.

The problem with this suggestion lies in the fact that every reference to God or Jesus being “light” in scripture is strictly allegorical; not literal. Taking the creation story in Genesis literally means the whole account is literal. You can’t pick and choose.

As previously stated, God is not “really” light in the same way the Good Samaritan didn’t “really” exist. You can’t back up a literal interpretation of Genesis (ie fact) with allegory or metaphor (ie analogy).

Like or Dislike: 2  0

lol or ever just thought do what the bible says dude

Like or Dislike: 0  2

Like or Dislike: 0  0

One thing I need to clarify – I am not “anti-RF” or “anti” anything, for that matter. I don’t want to be antagonistic or trouble-making. I am aiming to raise awareness to another way of thinking. I am not making any of my own claims, I am simply asking questions and, in most instances, these questions are referenced by scripture :)

Congratulations on completing your degree. In addition to your studies, I am sure you found it challenging studying Darwinism, given it’s direct opposition to the RF/your beliefs. I completely understand and empathise with the feeling of being told you are wrong by someone who is “educated”; I sat through highschool with my (proverbial) fingers in my ears when evolution was taught. I have since, as you know, reassessed my views on this topic; I hope you can let a little logic sneak into your faith department :)

As much as I am intrigued by your claim to disprove “evolution at the molecular level”, with respect, it is only speculation until it is published (or even peer-reviewed for that matter) it still has a lot more to explain than “solve”. For example, if your theory did “discredit” evolution: it would need to provide a new explanation for island and continental biogeography, geographical distribution, genetics, comparative anatomy, DNA sequencing, embryonic development and the sheer fact that artificial and natural selection are observable facts of life! (We are in agreement here, aren’t we?)

On the origin of the cosmos, the Bible has this to say. There are several inherent problems with this account – especially if the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. [As an aside, whether the the story is literal or metaphoric; whether we accept that the "seven days" are actual periods of 24 hrs or whether they represent much longer periods of time (billions of years) - either way there are problems with the Genesis account.]

Genesis vs Common Sense:

1. Light was created before the sun and stars. This makes no sense. (In any case, how was a “day” measured without a star to orbit?) This demands an explanation – other than “God’s ways are higher than our ways” etc.
2. Plants were created before the sun. How did they photosynthesize? (a) if the day was a 24 hour period, permitting a short “wait” for the plants, why doesn’t geology, astronomy, geography, palaeontology etc point to a 6000 year old Earth? or, (b) if the length of time is billions of years per “day”, then how did the plants possibly survive 3 “days” (millions/billions of years) without the Sun? This needs to be explained.
3. Birds were created before other land animals. The fossil record shows the opposite order. This needs to be explained.
4. Finally, and critically; according to the Bible, species are to reproduce “after their own kind”. This presents a fundamental problem with the Genesis account. As transitional fossils exist, fossilized in the exact order they would have evolved (there are no exceptions to this, as creationism would predict). This demands an explanation.

To elaborate, how does this narrow and linear mode of reproduction accommodate and/or explain the vast array of intermediate species that have been documented? Either the fossil record is wrong (or perhaps deliberately created ex nihilo to test our faith?) – or Genesis is; as any reproduction after it’s “own kind” NEGATES any possibility of transitional species. Again, this needs to be explained.

For example, and as previously mentioned, how does Genesis explain the existence of Tiktaalik, Ichthyostega or Panderichthys?

You request “credible evidence for any claims postulated” in reference to evolution. I would like to shift this responsibility back to you, if I may :) The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and painstakingly documented: the “evidence” for ex nihilo creation is zero. I am sure you are aware of several court cases where creationism was ruled “NOT SCIENCE”. (1, 2, 3, 4)

With respect, these need to be answered *before* presenting Jonathan Wells-style p53 red herrings. (Although, this study may interest you) Creationism is only as strong as the Bible’s account (reread that sentence).

Briefly, there are an array of unscientific ideas in the Bible; as I am sure you are aware. Some such examples include: the value of Pi being the integer 3 (I Kings 7:23-26 & 2 Chronicles 4:2-5 ), the Sun (not the Earth) standing still on command (Joshua 10:13), Jesus going ‘up’ to ‘heaven’ in the clouds, talking donkeys/snakes, people walking on water, axe-heads floating etc.

It is obvious the Biblical authors’ ideas were no different than their contemporaries at the time. What is one to possibly conclude? God is testing us? Surely this is more than we can bear?

These PDFs are downloadable on my site; I urge you to read them with an open mind. Think of Paul, urging Timothy, “study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Why Evolution is True (PDF)
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

This YouTube video explains some popular misconceptions.

Or, you may find these Christian-penned pro-evolution books interesting: [1, 2, 3, 4].

One final thought, in reference to the Amalekites you mentioned – have you ever actually read the story? What ultimately needs explaining – is how the God in this story still gets labeled “loving” or even “good”.

Like or Dislike: 1  0