Sinister is the appropriate word for the activities of the Religious Right and the present Government of this country is being profoundly influenced by them. The disarming rhetoric of the Family First candidate in the last election proved to be hollow when it came to implementation of the stated policy of the party.
It is high time such religious organisations status as 'non-profit' was reviewed and their financial activities scrutinised by the Tax Department.
It is also about time for a 'second coming' so the money lenders and usurers are thrown out of the Temple.....
Thanks for a thought provoking article Alan. It should serve as a call to arms for all citizens who want secular government.

About time something positive is done to restore the current imbalance in society's worst enemy: secularism and pluralism.

By taking the truth (creation /ID) out of the curricula and replacing it with theories (evolution), education has betrayed several generations of Australians beyond repair.

Our children deserve to make educated choices instead of being spoon fed manufactured deficient alternatives.

I don't mind Darwinism be offered as a theory but it should have never been passed and accepted as a substitute to God's truth.

Family values and wholesome education are the staple diet of our society.

A casual approach to either can only lead to “casualty”.

As to the Jewish/Israel land issue – that also was predicted and promised by God:

"And the Lord said unto Abram ... Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Genesis 13:14-15).

"I will give to thee (Abraham) and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" (Genesis 17:8).

"Unto thee (Isaac) and unto thy seed will I give all these countries" (Genesis 26:3).

"The land whereon thou (Jacob) liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed" (Genesis 28:13).

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise" (Hebrews 11:8).

I'm interested to know what proportion of the growing legion of evangelicals truly believe they are doing the right thing, and how many see it as a means of cancelling free thought and validating corruption.

The function of the "prosperity gospel" promoted by these organisations is to make moral bankruptcy seem like a Christian virtue, while poverty, oppression, and disadvantage are the individual's fault for not being holy enough.

A flock needs shepherds, not a consortium of abbattoir operators.

"The Truth" versus 'the Theories'

Quotes from a book written thousands of years ago (Genesis) with stories handed down from father to son and translated and rewritten DOES NOT constitute the truth.

Sure theories are just that, theories , just as ID is a theory.
Let our children read all they can, listen to all opinions and then , with a mind of their own, make their choice.

I do not need the government or any other group with Dogmantic opinions telling me what the truth is.

The truth is , I do not know who I am, where I am or what is coming.
I am here and it is now and I plan to enjoy the beauty and mystery all around. I do not want it explained to me.

Coach.
I am sure you are stating your heartfelt beliefs. But what you are espousing is dangerous and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

You state "About time something positive is done to restore the current imbalance in society's worst enemy: secularism and pluralism" I beg to differ, radical religion in all its forms is societies worst enemy.

When ANY group in our society feels morally superior and imposes its views on others we are in trouble.

Is it right to take land from one group to give to another? What compensation was paid?

ID and creation science are not science, as recently judged by US courts, they are religious dogma. Darwinism you state "should have never been passed and accepted as a substitute to God's truth" That is the problem with Darwin's theory, you can never really accept it as fact because to do so would cause a fundamental crisis in your belief system.

I am happy for you to have whatever views you wish, but please do not force psuedo-science on our kids.

Steve

To what extent are the Christian Right (CR) just a front for Right wing rhetoric or Christian beliefs - requires careful consideration and monitoring in itself.

(Lets not forget Jim & Tammy Faye Baker ) And many other evangelical shysters.

While we can take some comfort in the theoretical and constitutional separation of the state and church - the realities of the increase in the CR's influence paints another much more sinister picture.

The corporatisation of Christianity /religion is not that well entrenched in the Western thought but implicit to governance and politic philosophies in the East.

The reshaping of nation states by the Christian Right is already under way. But will it be compatible with democracies that uphold and protect religious pluralism? I don't know. But until we do know I think we should keep a very close eye on the CR's corporate and political movements. When a Church or Christian movement crosses the line of pure religiosity and enter into the realm of politics needs to be clearly understood. When is a Church merely a place of worship and when is it a political party?

Dear Coyote
it seems like you have your mind made up. A few facts would not matter ? :)

Why not have a read of Genesis 10 where we pick up on the 'table of nations' resulting from the 3 sons of Noah.

I know of no document which attempts to outline the branching out of human history in such a detailed and verifiable manner.
Even the 'hook' point of the Flood is contained in 35 known ancient 'myths' from all parts of the world and many cultures. Of those 35, 18 include 'God caused the flood' and 17 include 'warning by God'

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

I read Genesis 5-50 during my holiday (again -for the umpteenth time)
but this time I focused on the 'genealogies' and tribes etc. Mentally I put myself among my wifes people of Borneo, and recalled how I'd listened to complex genealogies from many branches of complex families being uttered in oral tradition as if they had happened yesterday. Then, you go to a different village, and hear the SAME structures uttered by different people, and they are.. surprise the SAME. What we read in Gen10 is so believably natural and true, and is supported by history, archeology and common sense.

The fascinating thing about genealogies is the little 'tidbits' of extra information that often goes with an outstanding name.
Example:

Gen 36:24
<<These are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah. This is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father.>>

This presupposes WIDE KNOWLEDGE of a certain Anah, and the Hot springs he found. Why put this there unless it happened, was real, and related to verifiable events and places.

If you know of any other document which explains the origins of the tribes and races and langauges, in such believable terms, please feel free to let me know.

But re topic, I assure you, it is not 'theocracy' we seek, but 'balance' and in a democracy, we have just as much right as anyone to shape the nation. Thinking is alive and well.

to coach and david

i presume you also belief that leviticus needs to be followed hence you would support the reintroduction of stoning adulterers to death

If you don't then you are advocating only following a sub set of the bible's teachings that you agree with. In fact you would be using god's name in vein to support your ideology and beliefs

Isn't that a sin?

"When ANY group in our society feels morally superior and imposes its views on others we are in trouble."

I agree. It's interesting that Christianity teaches its adherents to be humble, and that the greatest sin is pride. When people get uptight about people who "sin differently to themselves" and use whatever religious/political affiliation they have to denigrate such people, its wrong. The paradox of the Christian faith is, while it teaches all are sinners (and equal), it also teachers that "right vs. wrong" exists, lays out clear directions for what is right, and directs its followers to do so.

Living in a free country as Australia, I have no problem with Christians/church groups contributing as much to the political sphere as any other group of Australians. Where they teach some things are right and some are wrong, these must be weighed up across the balance of the collective thoughts of other Australians to see how much of it is implemented by law.

What I'm saying is that the CR having influence in Australia is not evil; the CR abusing that influence is wrong.

Another thing that really drives me crazy "ID and creation science are not science, as recently judged by US courts, they are religious dogma."

First of all, I don't have too much faith [no pun intended] in what lawyers have to say about biology or theology; its not their area of expertise. One of the two anti-evolutionist scientists presented in that case was NOT a Creationist (Micheal Behe) so I'm not quite sure how it was religious dogma. Secondly, I thought we were trying to decrease the amount of influence Americans had in Australia, not increase :).

Personally I reject that ALL tenets of evolution are science. There are the observable forms of science- microevolution, natural selection, mutations, etc.

Then there's the unproven, perhaps not falsifiable belief that all of these processes combined to push evolution in the opposite direction to which we currently observe it. We currently observe "evolution" making organisms MORE specific, losing the genetic information for whatever seemed "unnecessary" (e.g. dogs with long hair being breeded for cold climates). However this actually prevents against future evolution if those "unnecessary" parts become necessary (e.g. the climate becomes warmer due to global warming, etc.)

Also in many cases inbetween species are hard to even imagine (a breathing bird without a fully formed avarian lung?) let alone find evidence for.

I'm not saying macroevolution is impossible- it's possible, but there isn't enough evidence yet to make it fact or science. Its just a very incomplete theory that many put their hope on as the explanation of life. Until I see some pretty convincing proof akin to the proof atheists seek for God, I find no reason to accept it.

What I believe:

(1) Study the elements of science we can observe.
(2) Make inferences of science based on our understanding (e.g. breeding is possible therefore macroevoling is possible; organisms are complex and it is difficult to even imagine an inbetween species that could exist, let alone find evidence for one, therefore God created the Earth, etc.)
(3) Treat (1) as science and (2) as philosophy until something from (2) can be proven.

The very large, wealthy evangelical "American" style Churches with their wealth and health 'gospel?'are not Christian. Instead they are man's religion.
There is a difference, Christianity is the way of life espoused by Christ and the early Apostles.
Religion is from the evangelicals the health and wealth gospel and large churches.
From the mainstream churches it's the bells and smells and traditions with the pretty coloured frocks for the preachers and their funny hats. numbat

Prof. Michael Behe. His own university and his wedge document.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, an organization that works to promote a Neo-Creationist religious agenda centering around Intelligent design, and is the hub of the Intelligent design movement. The strategy is a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "affirm the reality of God".

The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention by a leaked fund raising tool, informally known as the Wedge Document, used by the Discovery Institute to raise money for its subsidiary charged with promoting its science and education agenda, the Center for Science and Culture, at the time called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). As stated in the Wedge Document, the strategy is designed to defeat "Darwinism" and to promote an idea of science "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The ultimate goal of the wedge strategy is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values.

Michael Behe's own words "Who needs science when you have faith"
Religious Dogma to me !!

Those ardently calling for ID to be thrown out of schools should consider what the implications are for them if they are wrong about God.

ID might not be scientifically testable, nor even scientifically accurate, nor even theologically sound, but it should at least be allowed to be heard in the classroom of ideas if it is ever to be properly refuted. Suppressing its teaching serves to foster ignorance. Do those voices of opposition want their children's generation to remain ignorant of theories like ID and unable to know how to respond? Because that is exactly what will happen if those ardent voices of opposition are allowed to have their way.

"The issue of evolution is but one dimension of a broader Christian agenda concerned as much with theocracy as democracy".

Can people stop using the broad term "Christian" to denote those who claim to follow Christ buy believe in the primacy of the bible and its absolute truth? I know it's a bit of pedantry, but the Catholic church is fine with evolution, and Catholics truly dislike being lumped together with a vocal evangelical minority. It is true that these newer churches have confidence in abundance, yet lack the humility needed to stop themselves from being presumptious over their own knowledge.

Those Christians who set down most of the guidelines for what constitutes science find ID and Creationism to be bad science, and ever worse theology.

"The very large, wealthy evangelical "American" style Churches with their wealth and health 'gospel?'are not Christian. Instead they are man's religion."

Without wanting to digress too far from the topic of this thread, I think you need to consider that those who regularly attend churches like hillsong and consider themselves to be Christian believe their church to be a Christian church. Hillsong, CCC and others like them base their teachings on the protestant Bible, affirming Jesus' atoning death for the forgiveness of sins and his resurrection, even if they have teachings that diverge from historical Christianity (like prosperity teaching). To call them some name other than "Christian" would be to overlook these facts and is hardly fair on those having a genuine faith who attend such congregations.

slasher, sush!! they are keeping that part (along with a few other similar initiatives) quiet for the time being. That will come later once control is a bit more firmly established. Right now the it's all about family values and the like, we're supposed to be scared of muslims not christain fundies.

For the time being the uncomfortable parts of the Old Testament are "fullfilled in the new" and the OT will only be referenced for the "Good" stuff".

Get with the program.

(Just in case it the humour is not obvious I'm being tongue in cheek)

R0bert

Alan, I found your article interesting and the fascinating part is that were youto substitute Qur'an for Bible and use the Arabic term for God (Allah) your text would read not so much like a Christian diatribe but a statement from a so called islamic fundamentalist grouping! Religious extremism in any form is damaging in the extreme and the selective use of scriptural texts as an advocacy tool can become bigotry. Your article clearly illustrates how extremist religious organisations can whip up emotion. As a Muslim I support the CCCs drive to keep creationism/ID on the agenda but as a world citizen and an advocate of the freedom of choice, I ask at what cost? If we support the CCC does that mean that we inevitably also support an organication that advocates the repression and oppression of women, homosexuals and probably, yes you guessed it....Muslims!! I do agree with Alan though and that it is time to begin monitoring the Christian Right and especially for those of the Jewish faith. As a Muslim it is interesting for me that those of the Jewish faith would align themselves with a grouping that so blatantly displayed where their allegiance lay when Jesus (PBUH) was nailed to the cross. Again, thanks for a fascinating article and I am definitely going to watch this space.

Yng
you allege that evolution is probably unfalsifiable. I absolutely agree that for ANY theory to be considered part and parcel of science it MUST be falsifiable. Unfortunately for you, BD, & coach the theory of evolution is falsifiable.
Read this & weep Yng:
"There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
1. a static fossil record;
2. true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
3. a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
4. observations of organisms being created.
Note That: This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified." From TalkOrigins.
Now you claim that ID or creationism is science Yng so provide me with just one point that's falsifiable. Just one or admit that ID & creationism is NOT science & does NOT belong in a science classroom.
By the way for all those interested in the FACTS and not just propagating their own views TalkOrigins examines EVERY single argument used against evolution & demolishes them.
Here endeth the lesson

I think Alan et.al some posters in this forum are over-reacting. Here's some food for thought.

1. The Christian West, flourishing from Europe, built the institutions and systems of government we in Australia (and indeed, many other countries) take for granted. We have the Westminster system of parliament which has (and continues) to serve us well - developed in Christian England, we have democracy from the Greeks (a Christian nation), we have architecture influenced by the Catholic and traditional Protestant churches etc.

2. Why isn't there much (if any) scrutiny of funding to certain organisations/groups which Christians (indeed, a number of faith-bearing people) may disagree with - abortion clinics, certain art projects (e.g. the "P? Christ"), gay and lesbian mardi gras festivals, Late-night phone-sex adverts etc.

.....

Oh, I forgot, of course - they're "acceptable" but Christianity isn't, gosh no - it must be "suspect", perhaps "hiding something" or dominated by nasty Right-wing people?? Hello, anyone see how the balance is weighed against Christianity? And what was Christianity's crime - someone please tell me!?!?

What too of the Christians who feel strongly against abortion? Oh, gosh, forgot again - they're nasty Right-wingers. No, they're not people who might just feel awful when hear that Australia loses a primary school of children every day, not people who might actually feel to reach out and help pregnant single mothers or abused women (Mercy Ministries, Genesis Pregnancy Support). No, Christian conservatives - according to Alan et.al, are trying to shove creationism and religion down people's throats - and they have now dared challenge the Almighty and Most Perfect Book of Evolution. Shame on those nasty Christians (*sarcasm of course*)

No, sadly, Alan and friends think that the Christian "right" (whatever that may be) has something to hide, isn't disclosing its funding or just wants everyone to stop thinking for themselves.

I look forward to Alan's next piece examining the funding of an abortion clinic or perhaps a late-night television phone-sex ad company.

Yungen... very well put and argued !

SLASHER (and Rob)

regarding our 'secret agenda' to stone adulterers etc.. (don't forget disobedient children or people planting two kinds of crop in the one field)

You focused your attention on the wrong book.

DEUTERONOMY is the key. That book is in the form of a treaty (Suzereign/Vassal) where the responsibilities and obligations of both sides are outlined.

<<See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it.>>

The phrase 'in the land' is repeated many times and is strongly suggestive that the many decrees etc, (apart from the 10 Commandments) were more related to the social/political life of Israel in the context of the LAND.

I will concede that the rules/decrees are those of a 'Theocracy' which Israel WAS at that time. They are harsh, but just.

You cannot take the decrees of Theocratic Israel and claim that we 'right wing bible bashing pulpit pounding hyper fundamentalists'
(who in my case wants a 'peoples bank' and State control of Corrections and Telstra) are intending to 'impose' them or that we even recognize those decrees as binding on modern social/political life.

To suggest such is also to totally neglect the fulfillment of the Old covenant in Christ, and the direction set by Him for humanity, which is only a theocracy of the individual heart.

69% of Australians hold a belief in God, and in a Christian tradition of some kind. The idea that such a big majority can have no 'faith' based input to the running of this country is to put it mildly, ludicrous, shameful,undemocratic and tantamount to facism/nazism/communism.

WHO ! decided that the only members of a democracy who can shape its social and cultural flavor are those who believe that there is nothing to believe in ? Not only do we reject that, we reject it to the uttermost.

I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas break. I did. Managed to read through a PD James, an Iain Banks and finished off “Baby, I don’t Care” that Robert Mitchum; he makes Russell Crowe look like a pussycat. Of course I have no intention of exhorting others to read the same literature – that would be pushing my beliefs down other people’s throats. Which brings me to the topic;

Fundamental Christians sure do make a lot of noise. Which would be tolerable except they have an agenda – a political agenda as Alan Matheson so blithely points out. Given the variety of interpretations of the bible, let alone the multitude of religions throughout our little world, it is dangerous for one religious group to gain political power. And that is what the F.C. wants.

Ironic then, the amount of noise these same Christians make about Muslims. You’ve heard it all before – how Islam is all about world domination and evil etc.

Yet world domination is exactly what the Christian Right (or Christian Fundamentalist if you prefer) is about. Have taken over in the USA and would like to do so here.

Interesting to note that of all the posters to OLO the noisiest, and most belligerent are the C.R..

Not too low to sink to bullying if they think it will win an argument.

And these are the same people who make the most vilifying remarks about Muslims. On the same coin, other side, not a single Muslim poster to this forum has ever subjected me to personal abuse. Sure Irfan has gotten a little tetchy – with good reason given the vitriol that pours forth from both the C.R. and the anti-anything that isn’t Anglo Aussie brigade.

What does it all mean? That democracy requires constant vigilance. And to always check a political group’s background before voting eg, Family First – sounds all warm and fuzzy but is Christian dominated.

Democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Our way of life is under threat – not from immigration but from within our own culture.

The CR and Aussie polys are just a new version of hansenism. No caring Christian would be a member so that lives you with the hate filled or the down right corrupt. They hide behind slick marketing but eventually they revealed themselves for what they are and Christian version of the Taliban and no more.

The polys will play will dance with anyone, if they think it will get them votes that’s why most Aussies have little or no respect for them. You have to ask yourself why the C.R. are so keen on controlling other people lives. Why don't they go play with some snakes instead.

Another point I'd like a C.R to point out the family values they are always on about in the bible?

Mark 7.10 maybe ? you know JC says kids should be killed if they don't follow the rules. Or is that one of the ones you guys ignore unless your in power?

Why don't they bring some form of religious education back into school? I don't mean Sunday School type instruction, I mean teaching children about religion, all religion, what each believes and stands for. If religion was taught objectively at school then the ID view could be espoused there. Not as an alternative to evolution but as a religious belief of some Christians.

Religion and education are two different things. You've only to look at the problems in the Arab world to see the dangers of mixing the two.

Boaz, dont insult my intelligence by quoting the bible as a reference work on a question of Science.
Because of flagging belief in the notion of creation due to the advances of science in alternative theories as to how the universe came into being,thinking people have become more and more sceptical about biblical claims.
Childrens spiritual development is the business of their parents and their church or temple, not the role of schools. There was a push to have Religious Instruction re-introduced into my children's primary school but the proposition was overwhelmingly defeated by the parents in a poll. Children need to be taught to think and reason, which should be the prime role of educative institutions, Not to be force fed Dogma.
Bozzie, you answered your own question in your last paragraph.....
"Religion and education are two different things"

Kenny, can you give me a citation for your assertion that "JC says kids should be killed if they don't follow the rules""?

Everyone has the right to choose and practice their own religion.

Similarly everyone has the right to choose not to practice a religion. So called "Family Values" are not the sole preserve of the religious. Values such as honesty and compassion and being good parents are not the sole preserve of the religious. In fact it seems to me that there is little correlation between religiosity and such values and behaviours. Some religious people are honest and compassionate, some are not. There are plenty of examples of both the former and the latter.

I think the religious need to really worry when they see politicians becoming interested in them. Politicians only do so for what they can get out of it.

If Jesus arrived in Australia right now, I'm confident he would either be put in a detention centre or quite quickly charged with sedition - a stark reminder of how far Australia's so called Christian leaders have strayed from Christ's real message.

Crusader: There is religion and there is the way Christ taught.
In all Churches God is working with those that are his.Those He has called but I do not think He is working necessarily with the specific Church.
Hillsong, like a lot of religions, have well dressed, well paid men/women, who have fine large paid for homes and motor cars leading the organisation. All paid for by the congregation - we did belong to one such group.
Christ had no trappings of luxury, had no home, no big bank account, was never investigated for His possible alleged wrongfull use of other peoples money. The Apostle Paul turned the Roman Empire on its ear by causing a massive growth of Christians, He worked as a tent maker.
As I said above there's the way of God or Christianity and then there is man made religion. numbat
PS. Health and wealth "gospel?" is not a part of God's Word. There is more about Christians suffering than wealthy Christians.

Some idea of the Discovery Institute's real aims can be revealed by looking at its funding sources. Nearly all of the Discovery Institute's money comes in the form of grants from wealthy "conservative" fundamentalist Christians. They got around $350,000 from the Maclellan Foundation, a fundamental lobbying group in Tennessee. Their single biggest source of money, though, is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other politically active group --. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.
Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist -- a fringe group of fundamentalists who argue that the US Constitution should be abandoned and the US should be "reconstructed" under "Biblical law". They are the Christian equivalent of the Muslim fundamentalists who want to form "Islamic states" under "Islamic law". Ahmanson is long associated with JR Rushdoony, one of the original founders of the Reconstructionist movement --- and one of the original financial backers of Henry Morris and the ICR (Rushdoony paid most of the publishing costs for Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood". Similarly, the Discovery Institute's Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife.)
Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers.

Fundamental religion in all its forms is dangerous

Onya Numbat... I feel so much better now living in my 7m x 9m section of my shed with 3 grown kids :)

There is no place for a 'prosperity' gospel. While there is indeed much blessing in Christ, we must never forget the COST of true discipleship.
"If any man would be my disciple, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me" (Jesus)

MARACAS I think you misread me. I certainly don't want to insult your intelligence, and I didn't quote from Genesis in connection with the very controversial issue of creation. (Though I may at some other time).
It was more in connection with 'culture wars' and our democratic right to shape the community. (just as you have one)

With regard to my quote from Deuteronomy, I was correcting a falacious view of scripture, in direct connection with an alleged 'secret agenda' of the 'Christian right'.

So, I'm a bit surprised at your response. It sounds like your insight and awareness of how such a book relates to the standing and goals of the Church is a bit in need of some further information. So, I urge you to do some reading please.

There is no need for us to sling 'You insulted me' at others when clearly that was not their intention.

To not understand the relationship between Old testement/Israel/New Testament/Christ/The Church is to totally misunderstand the direction of Christians today.

I underline Numbats point that the 'Church' is that body of believers in every denomination which knows Christ as Lord and Savior, and seek to glorify Him in their lives. A quick comparison with Jesus life and teaching will reveal those who are 'weeds' and those who are 'wheat'.

The idea of a body of "RELIGIOUS LAW" (like Sharia in Islam) applicable to society in a political sense, is foreign to Christs teaching, but we still have a vote and I will use it as I see fit. :)
My vote would never support Abortion, same sex adoption in a gay relationship, nor the outlawing of Religious Ed in Schools.

There's no difference between the god religions. Their aim is control and destruction. I don't argue the bible or the koran, I see them as the same documents. Catholics and protestants where the same as islamic factions. All think their version of fantasy is right and will destroy anything or anyone that gets in their way. I have said before that we are in a religious war that is sweeping the world and all sides will use whatever they can to win.

Last week, the New testament was the true gospel, this week it's the old one. Nothings different,just a repeat of religious history. Fallacy, god loves, god cares, god is good. Fact, god kills, god destroys, god lies, God hates its own followers and turns them against each other.

It took hundreds of years for the bible to take shape, as with the koran. The changes in how its written and interpreted in the last 150 years, shows that it doesn't represent anything but a work of human fiction.

The barbarity and despotic approach of religion is there for all to see. They have nothing but rhetoric and illusion to support their demonic practices. They are obsessed with other peoples sexuality and what they do with their bodies. They want control over every aspect of life, their own are so inadequate and hollow that they need to reinforce their beleifs, by suppressing dissent and crushing individuality. How can you be an individual when you are forced to believe and practise the same thing.

Last time I talked to jesus, he said. Look mate, I'm not going back down there again. Look what they did to me last time and they never had guns or explosives. What are they gonna do when I turn up without a suit and tie and tell them that their religious practise is wrong.

I just told him that next time he goes somewhere and try's to help, pick a place where they are sane. He just said, second coming in another dimension eh, sounds good to me, I'll drink to that.

the Alchemist: Something about answering a fool according to his folly in the Bible.
Again the Bible does state that " A fool says in his heart that there is no God"
Look around my friend - look around. numbat

David.

You are right to say "My vote would never support Abortion, same sex adoption in a gay relationship, nor the outlawing of Religious Ed in Schools." That is your view and you are entitled to it.

What I would like to see is politicians in the major parties to say where they stand on similar issues. The idea of a "conscience vote" is absurd. If candidates at elections would state thier view on these issues we can decide who to vote for. I suggest that this will never happen because being elected is the priority and contentious issues are to be avoided at all costs.

In my opinion if politicians were forced to state their opinions on abortion etc. at election time many would not be elected.

A "conscience vote" is a way for political parties to avoid these issues, maybe it is time to change so we can see what the majority view really is

What a plethora of views about the source of the ideology and the
need to disqualify and destroy. This is the problem that we have to face
up to in science or faith movements. We tend to go round in circles and ultimately what is truth becomes fiction. Each ideology will have its proponents and will seek to promote its own gospel and win the masses. This is how it has been and will always be. Truth is perceived as relative to the social and cultural context we live in. In the end the individual will have to choose what he/she will believe. What we call science today will become non- science tomorrow and vice versa. At the end of the day lets face the facts and call what is black, black and white, white and not grey the issues.
As Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun. We have heard it all before! I believe in creation and evolution is part of it.

Jeshua

Fascinating article. I would like to make a few brief points:

1. I question the need for any organisation to have to work in a hidden or underground fashion in a healthy democracy (Whether or not our democracy is healthy or not is another question for debate). Some of the greatest progress that Western Civilisation has made in recent centuries took place in a time when a range of alternative views was openly debated and expressed (notably the 60's and early 70's). Since that time a range of private agenda groups have assembled and set in place actions "below the radar" to bring their hidden agendas into play in ythe political sphere.

2. Dinhaan: I feel the need to point out that Christianity had NOTHING to do with the formation of democracy. In fact democracy came out of a city state environment which was dominated by a polytheistic set of philosophies that supported the concept of open and robust debate by the people in order to define the future of their society. Whilst private groups engaged in the development of thinking, the implementation of any societal change was openly debated. Discussion was never guillotined and all had the right to express their views. Thus the followers of Aristotle could debate toe to toe with the followers of Bacchus and together shape the future of their society.

I find the desperate attempts by the CR to bring on conflict in the Middle East and try to force a fulfilment of their armageddon prophecies tragic.

Australians have long prided themselves on being accepting of all views. There should be no need for any organisation to hide it's agendas - bring on the debate in an open fashion.

"Last time I talked to jesus, he said. Look mate, I'm not going back down there again. Look what they did to me last time and they never had guns or explosives. What are they gonna do when I turn up without a suit and tie and tell them that their religious practise is wrong."

Jesus came to die for the forgiveness of our sins. Had it been by guns or explosives - equally horrifying but possibly a faster death than crucifixion - the point still remains. He died an unjust death for our sins to bring us to God.

Thanks for the interesting and well written article Alan.

I think I will refer to the religious right as the "Christian Taliban" from now on, for they are quite similar.

They have a similar agenda, similar zealotry, similar intolerance
of others, they wear similar blinkers. Even Mullahs Omar and Bush
seem to have a similar IQ :)

Crusader, get over the guilt, thousands of people die an unjust death every day. Your so called all powerfull god could stop it tomorrow if your theory was correct, but he clearly does not give a hoot..

Please note an astoroid causing an impact 137 larger than the Hiroshema A bomb is assumed may hit Earth in 2036 and American Space science is preparing to deal with this posibility beginning now. Yes America that mixed up society that was founded under its present culture by a bunch of Fundamentalist Quakers.

All those bleeting that Christianity will be the end of free civilisation, should read the religious beliefs of the founding Fathers of Australia, America, and Westminster England. I have to agree with Dinhaan, things under people of Christian faith have not been all that bad.

Those who believe as Kenny that Christians would introduce capital punishment on childern are ignorant of our Christian past. The passage Kenny so delightedly posted on what he thought was a Christian position to "kill ones kids" was a Judaist position that Jesus was adressing to the Judaists from their own law. Kenny please quote things in context. Jesus was addressing adult children that had abandoned the support of their aged parents with the line "My wealth has been given to God" so I can no longer support you. That was the requirement of the Mosaic law, as there was no welfare system for the aged.

Though Alan Mattherson document may be factually true he writes with spin to have us assume its an evil agenda to brainwash us all. He ought to look at the amount of Suadi and Oil Money being spent in America and Australia to change our world view, system of Government and cultural values.

The Christian Right also has well-established form in dropping all scruples to push its agenda. A recent example is an anti-gay petition in the US state of Massachusetts (http://tinyurl.com/74yup), which attracted a record number of signatures by deceiving signatories, and by paying signature gatherers according to the number of people they got to sign: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/206736.htm

(Conservative Catholic MP) Christopher Pyne's comments (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17688832%255E2702,00.html) are a recent local example of the willingness to abandon truth in favour of irrational beliefs about "family values".

Anyone who thinks his beliefs override our shared values of truth and fair play needs to be watched very carefully, regardless of which book he got them from.

I listened to a Gay professor on Sydney Radio espousing the developments of gay and lesbian relationships as a current advance in evolution. Wondefull enlightening stuff.

Unfortunately these acts have been happening for thousands of years, and as far as I know no male apendage has yet dropped of to create a vagina, or a vigina gradually becoming a penis by natural genetic means. Perhaps they assume be generation after generation of removing the penis that they will end up with a vagina. I'd rather allow natural selection just to happen, this type of forced evolution is too expensive. {Isn't Muleing and tail docking banned] Perhaps we will all finish up with male or female organs in the end. Just that some are not satisfied with the hand [well whatever] evolution has originally provided.

Because some believe these are an evolution in human development and the Christian Right must just accept this as natural selection assumes there may not be other human problems predesposing this situation.

Firstly to Steve Madden (and Yabby)

Thanx for pointing out the 'Re-Constructionalist' position- it is unbiblical in my view, (Refer Acts 15) and comes close to denying the fulfillment of the Law in Christ, and the New Covenant in Him.

I was not aware of this group until mentioned in the article and by Steve, and for the record, a return to the 'Theocratic Laws/decrees' of the Israelite nation of Old testament times and applied to the whole community would be awful.

But the real DANGER of this group, is that they are looking (by implication) to use the economic, military and political power of the USA to enforce just such a Theocratic rule on earth.

LET IT BE KNOWN... by all... that some of their supporters are pulling back now due to disagreement about that very thing. (Ahmenson being one of them)

Secondly, whether they are large or small, (they are small) the issue at stake is 'Are they Biblical' ? (NO)

As with any movement or group which has momentum, there will be those who seek to advance their own agenda by hijacking that momentum. The best solution is for ALL of us to acquaint ourselves with the teaching and life of Christ, and the writings of Paul etc (NT) so we don't slip up or be seduced by any of these so called thinkers.

They are the modern day version of the 'Circumcision Party' (also called the 'Judaizers' by Paul in Galatians. So, a good knowledge of the New Testament is the best weapon in refuting such views.

The first Council at Jerusalem (Acts ch 15) cleared up this issue, and I can only guess that it is human ego which is raising it again.

Anyway, thanx to the article author and Steve for highlighting this, but please, try to look at the whole picture, and not throw out 'all' Christians along with amoeba's such as these who would make the inquisition look like playschool.

"Looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Heb 12:2

David.

I think it is wrong to call these extremists "Christians" maybe Amoebas is a much better term.

The frightening thing is that most of these amoebas come from America and see themselves as defenders of freedom and democracy.

I had a very alarming conversation with a 20 year old Yale graduate who stated it was inevitable that America will invade China to keep their only superpower status.

I commend you on your faith, something I cannot or will not comprehend.

Every response to this article is grist to the creationist mill.

It's their strategy: make some preposterous claims regarding well-tested science, then cite any disagreement as proof that evolution is "in crisis".

No argument can be won against creationists. They will accept, without question, any half-baked idea which reinforces their belief, and turn away from any concrete evidence which refutes it.

Engaging with individual creationists is pointless and frustrating. If we're going to write letters, let's write them to Brendan Nelson and register our objection to a dark-ages cult which demeans both science and religion.

Ignorance is stronger than accuracy because it's much easier. Spend your energy where it counts, or we'll wake up to a world where children are taught that a 2000-year-old folk tale is a valid substitute for observable and testable knowledge.

Steve, that convo with the Yale student.. I don't think it would pan out quite like he said, but looking back in history, I would not be surprised. Gengis Khan fought most of his early wars over trade issues, and anyone who thinks the Chinese have forgotten how the British treated them with the Opium wars or the Japanese with the rape of Nanjing needs therapy :)

So, logically, that they would forge ahead with strengthening their power, should be no surprise. That they would also eventually seek a bit of 'our turn' in the imperialism stakes would also not exactly shock. The truth is, there is a latent chinese 'empire' already sitting in most of South East Asia, with one high profile Chinese business identity claiming (just after the post Soharto riots/civil strife/anti chinese unrest) that up to that point they controlled 90% plus of the Indo economy and within a few more years they would have 'the lot' had it not been for the backlash.

These events are very instructive for our own situation in regard to any highly motivated minority whether it be of an Islamic or Chinese or Italian flavor. They tend to chanel trade within their own groups. Ever had an Italian concreter do work for you ? :) I did, and all the associated work.. bobcat.. trucks.. etc.. all Italian. We all do it, well..most, and its quite managable when minorities are small.

So, it should come as no lightning bolt that some elements of the "Christian" (so called) group see opportunities also.

Oh..on your point re my faith .. that you could not or 'would' not ... I'm reminded of the great apostle Paul prior to the Damascus Road encounter :)
We never know just 'how' God is going to deal with us in life. But that is the point.. its about God, not some Bible Basher giving us scriptural stick.

Have you had a peek at Tony Pitts 'Save Australia Alliance' ? I'm not sure about his 'conspiracy' theory re Port Arthur but other points seem well argued.

Bd, “So, a good knowledge of the New Testament is the best weapon in refuting such views.” I have yet to find on these forums anyone that has a good knowledge of the writings you call the new testament. Just like ID, you just quote fanciful words that have no relationship to the original writings, nor what they were about

How can you quote Paul, when he didn't write anything, the writer a jewish scribe, lived about 100 years after the so called event. You refuse to accept the scientific and historical facts that show what you believe and what the man jesus said, are completely different. Not only that but you say you follow in his footstep, really. He said, he was the leader of the non believers and abhorred religion.

Never do you accept the truth that this man never died on the cross, just like many who were crucified. Those that died, died from exposure, loss of blood and shock. He was taken down very quickly, taken to a middle class tomb and had his wounds fixed. It is recorded in Roman history, as well as in historical texts from Asia minor, where he lived out his life

You fools follow a totally false path, whilst the true path the man walked and preached is hidden by your despotic beliefs and actions. The only way the religious can operate is in a underhanded lying way, your credibility diminishes each day as people realise how far from truth you lot are.

The alchemist: Just where, what fairy story do you obtain all the "rivetting?" facts you used in your last diatribe? Alice in Wonderland perhaps?
You exhibit "remarkable?" wisdom and very deep and inexhaustable knowledge. It's a "credit?" to you and you are really showing us all just the type of person you are. In awe and humility. numbat

From a Creationist:
“Both evolution & ID/Creationism are unprovable scientifically. However, logic can have a good go at it. Both require interpretation of evidence and a belief that things have happened in the past, which can not be re-created in a lab (i.e. faith).
“Some evolutionists have considered the duck-billed platypus as a chimera. However, that does not seem to get evolutionists to deny the theory. In the latest Creation magazine there is an article about a bird of prey which has not only sight and smell but also a very good sonar system similar to bats and dolphins, but with no "evolutionary" links.
“A simple line of argument could be along the lines of this:
1. Evolution is a theory of BIOLOGY. Fossils etc. are forensic and circumstantial evidence. If the biology is impossible then this evidence must have another interpretation.
2. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
3. Single cells reproduce by splitting into two. (I just had this discussion with a TOP cell biologist who admitted that still nobody knows how this happens. Believe it or not, millions of dollars are still being spent to try and find the mechanism of cell division. It is extremely complex.)
4. Explain to me how a group of cells got together with another group of cells and decided that it might be more fun to have two cells join together to reproduce, and then design and put together the infrastructure to allow this to happen, as well as designing and building the infrastructure to allow this combined cell to mature into an organism which can then do the same.
“The argument is ‘How could sex evolve?’. It is impossible. Therefore evolution is impossible.”
(Cont. …)

(Cont. …)
“Not only that, a single cell, even the simplest bacterium, is so complicated that nobody yet knows how they work. I work on pianos, which have around 12,000 parts. I can see design in them. Nobody could be convinced that they happened by accident. The design in them is obvious. Yet they cannot reproduce; their workings are understood; and they simpler, by huge orders of magnitude, than even the "simplest" living organisms.
“The design and machinery in each living cell is clear evidence of a designer and manufacturer. ‘There is none so blind as he who will not see.’”

OK now a little from me:

It REALLY annoys me when evolutionists, questioned about evolution, either say “its proven fact, there’s concrete scientific evidence for it, we see evolution at work every day” (often expanding the term ‘evolution’ to its uncontested elements to argue that) but then get mad when your bring up the [HUGE!] gaps in the theory! Many say “what are you, a god of the gaps person? Maybe a Christian Taliban fundamentalist? You obviously know nothing about science [how dare you question a hypothesis! How unscientific!]”

The fact that the majority of scientists believe we descended from ape like creatures means nothing, the majority of “scientists” believed the world was flat quite a few centuries ago (contrary to popular thought, this idea is not supported by religion).

The fact that there are organisations full of former atheists/evolutionary Christians, experts in their respective fields of science, who through scientific investigation found reason to question evolution and now argue for Creation, (scientists who are much more advanced in their fields than I think the majority of people in this post) means that there is sufficient reason to question the validity of evolution as undisputed scientific fact.

So can we all please keep an open mind without resorting to name calling? That helps nobody.

P.S. Alchemist, where are you getting your facts? Dan Brown?

Yungun,
You want to read, Origin of Species before you resort to specious casuistry to disprove the theory in favour of the fairy story expounded in the bible......
Did you know that a common term for third stomach of a ruminants digestive system is referred to as 'The Bible' ?
That's because it is full of S**t.

Maracas: You will have to move quickly on this.
There has been a massive explosion at the local tip and after the explosion there are dozens of refrigerators and TV sets all in perfect working order and would you believe [you probably will] all these electrical devices have name plates on them with full warrantee papers inside them. Some people have found that the device they claimed had the warrantee form already filled in with their name and address.
OH! the wonders of evolution - I'm speechless. numbat
PS. No! no-one knows who caused or where this wonderful explosion originated

Numbat, YngNLuvnIt, heres a couple. Plus have a read of the 3500+ original parchments that the bible was created from, you may actually learn rather than dribble.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, The founder of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam

Historical Documents

Qisa-shazada
Tarikh-i-Kashmir
Rauzat-us-Safa
Ikmal-ud-Din
Bagh-i-Sulaiman
Wajees- ut
Tawarikh
Bhavishya Maha Purana

Coptus Minor

Acta Thomae

Grub-Tha-Thamas-Chad

The Hibbert Lectures - 1831. Indian Buddhism, by T. W. Rhys Davids, 2nd Edition (the Hibbert Lectures, 1831), (Williams & Norgate, London, 1891).

Sir M. M. Williams, Buddhism (John Murray, London 1889) page 135.

H. T. Prinsep. Tibet, Tartary and Mongolia.

Sir. M. Monier Williams, The Mystery of the Ages (1887).

I.Tsing, A Record of The Buddhist Religion practised in India and the Malaya Archipelago, A.D. 671-695. Translated by J. Takakusu, B.A., Ph.D. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1896).

The Nineteenth Century, Vol. 3, July-December (London, October 1894). British Museum wo.

Dr. Hermann Oldenberg. Buddha; His Life, His Doctrine, His Order. Translated from the German by William Hoey, M.A., D. Lit. (Williams & Norgate, 1882).

Francois Bernier Travels in the Moghul Empire. (Constable, London, 1891).

George Forster, Letters on a journey from Bengal to England. (Faulder, London, 1808).

H. W. Bellews, C.S.I., Races of Afghanistan. (Thacker Spink & Co, 1884).

The Romans were astute record keepers, there are hundreds of official Roman documents, that give accounts of what really happened. Josephus's account is one that springs to mind.

See YngNLuvnit here is where you slipped up.

The following three exerts from the bible led religious people to believe that the world was flat. (Many people believed the world was not flat for a long time but were afraid to say anything publically, or write it down because they would of got killed.) This is fact! Go and read the historical documents of the time and about the people that were persecuted because they believed the earth was round. (Note: These exerts where also used to support that the sun revolved around the earth.)

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Ezekiel 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.
Revelations 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth,...

Also a new testament verse….”Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him (Jesus) up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;”
….enforced the idea that the world was flat and could be view from a high vantage point. These bible extracts were used as argument against Columbus, Galileo & Copernicus. For there none flat none orbiting earth.

And lets get to the point, when you talk about “Creationism”, you’re talking about Christian Creation the direct word of God from the bible. I just want to see you write down that you believe that “Genesis” is the direct and accurate word of God account of creation. We are not talking “Hinduism” or the “Dreamtime” here.

Alchemist,
Ive read most of the available records, recorded just prior, contemporary and just post with the New Testament including Josephus and I have no problem with the New Testament documents. The claims you make about Jesus were concocted by later opponents of Christianity to discredit Jesus claims. The claim Jesus was not crucified was a story picked up by Mahomet and included in the Qur'an 600 years after the event.

I suggest you reread the records of Pilate to Caesar and Caesar's reply and the events that led to his demise. Pilate and his wife believed Jesus had been put to death during his orders to quell a Jewish uprising regarding temple tax. His wife also believed that he had been raised to life. Caesar purposed to have Pilate brought to him because he allowed the crucifixion of one who performed miracles "greater than any of the Roman gods" {Pilate's words}. Pilate knew the consequences for him if he fronted Caesar so he took his own life.

You think you have found the key to the destruction of Christianity as a fable. Every Bible scholar has to research these works too to discover the validity of their claims. There is nothing new that has not already been studied. Just that many Christians have not read these documents does not mean they believe a fantacy. Sometimes it is their uninformed understanding that they need some further study.

sydney_sergei,

You are so clever!
How many directions do you use to identify events in the Earth? I assume you use North, South, East, and West? Don't tell me this is ancient fantacy if you still use these descriptors! Is there a North, a South and East and a West? Well perhaps there is such a place as North and South. Don't tell me you actually still believe in an such a place as East and West? Still believing fantacy?

Your claim is spurious as it refers to direction from the point from which they were standing and not a definition of a flat Earth.

Jesus while establishing his ministry accompanied the leader of the Jewish Zealots to a high place overlooking the hordes of Roman soldiers tented in the plains below. At that time the Romans in contemporary thought controlled the whole World. However Jesus rejected this course of action of joining the Zealots as Satan (Satanas means opposed to God), and he calls anyone who later suggests he follow such a course "Satan" [Zealot sympathisers Peter and Judas] as he established his ministry not on the violent nationalism of Judaism that they wanted restablished but on the universality of the power of Love and forgiveness of one's enemy. It was the descendants of religious Zealots that fled to Medina that later influenced Mohamet in his religious quest. It was from this influence and Catholic Egyptians in 600AD that he wrote the Qur'an.

Also a new testament verse, "Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him (Jesus) up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"

Sydney_sergei, none of those Bible passages explicitly say that the world is flat. Underlying any assumption that "four corners [of the earth]" equates with flatness is that flat surfaces must have four corners! Even if at first reading you expect to literally find four corners it is quite feasible to have a curved surface having corners. But the purpose of those passages is not to assert that the earth has corners or even four of them. Rather it is to show that the hope of the Jewish nation, a descendant of the family of Jesse (ie. the father of King David) would one day restore Israel and become a sign for all nations (Is. 11:10). The "four corners" are the primary directions from which any direction can be derived and those "four corners" belonging to the earth are those from which any nation in the world can be found.

YngNLuvnIt, you state about cell division.
"I just had this discussion with a TOP cell biologist who admitted that still nobody knows how this happens."

Do a google search on Mitosis and you will see 1,890,000 articles on how it happens.

I have a unique interest in cell division as I have incurable bone marrow cancer. In my case I have a monoclonal B lymphocyte which has a deletion in chromosome 13 at 1.4. This causes an increase in a protein called Bcl-2 which signals the cell to divide (mitosis). This protein also prevents apoptosis (programmed cell death). This defect is genetic, my mother also has Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.

I can only believe that this is caused by an evolutionary flaw, because if it was caused by an intelligent designer then he,she,it needs to go back to design school.

A year 9 biology student can tell you that if you pour a super saline solution on a cell in vitro it will divide.

I have no problem with you believing whatever you wish, but psuedo-science driven by religious dogma has no place in our schools except maybe in religious instruction lessons. Not in science classrooms.

Just as a matter of interest are you a "young earth" or "old earth" creationist? Didn't Bellerophon kill the chimera with the help of the Greek Gods - Poor monotremes another example of evolution.

"I can only believe that this is caused by an evolutionary flaw, because if it was caused by an intelligent designer then he,she,it needs to go back to design school."

I'm sorry to hear that you have Leukaemia, Steve. But I wish to suggest that you could apply your view of God when considering why there is death or any kind of suffering in the world. What went wrong that we - all of us - at some time will have to face death? Because even if you are able to cure every disease there is still death to confront.
The only hope of certainty in death can be found in Jesus who, if the New Testament is to be trusted, has overcome it by his resurrection! Jesus promises that if you trust in him you will have eternal peace in heaven where there is no more death, disease or suffering at all. (Rev. 21:04). Aside from this, what hope is there?

Yep..Steve,

I recall my mum,had breast cancer.

Crusader and all of us mean the best, and we speak out of a heart conviction. I hope that you will not take anything we say as anything other than well meaning and spoken in love.

When confronted with the reality of death, (and a mate of mine is in the final stages of an aggressive and inoperable brain tumor)... I am truly encouraged by Christs words

"I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live"

Please remember those words in the quietness of your own heart and mind as time goes by. I Pray they will have more meaning than now.

I also had a lot of accumulated 'myth' and intellectual clutter about Genesis when I first gave my life to Christ, but in all honesty, as I came to grips with the text, and of growing in Christ, I found my doubts or questions dissappear. Young Earth, Old earth... yes, its a debate. But.. "Hittites".. no such people (Only Genesis mentioned them) then.. voila.. discovery of Hittites by archeologists.

Sodom and Gomorrah.. 'how could that have happened' ? Then, William Albright and others found the 'cities of the plains' with feet of Ash and many evidences of 'firey destruction' and so it goes on. Gen 10, the table of the nations.. nothing like it in the world.

I cannot deny the one who did heal me, miraculously, in the 'blink' of an eye. I know the feeling and it is indeed a rush. I learned then, the truth of Pauls words "so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."

Even in Pauls day, he was himself allowed to suffer, he did question it, but knew it was from God, and Paul had been used to heal others.

Keep well under the circumstances. Don't close off at an intellectual level mate. When we receive the kingdom with the faith of a child, we enter it. (not in a 'childish' way, but child like)

Crusader and David

Don’t feel sorry for me. I have had a wonderful life albeit a little shorter than I had anticipated. This may be an example of our different belief systems. I appreciate and respect your choice to believe in God but after much soul searching and contemplating my own mortality it is something I cannot do. I do believe in an inherent “goodness” in all people. Yes there are “evil” people but I believe they are sick and need our help and compassion.

I am at peace with myself knowing I have never intentionally hurt anyone and that my close friends and family love me. I suppose I have lead a “Christian” life without a belief in God.

My belief system requires no reward for my actions, and that I will find peace before I die. Nothing went wrong in the fact we all die it is a consequence of birth. When I die in 4-5 years I expect nothing. I will be returned to the elements that made and nourished me for 50+ years and I am glad I was lucky to live for that long.
To return to the point of this thread we all believe different things but none of us has the right to force our opinions on others. We can argue, cajole and intellectualise our opinions, in scientific usage; a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, theories, or laws.
Until creationism and ID have achieved the status of a scientific theory I will continue to deny their right to be taught as science. This may take another 140 years and I will be long gone.
If you would like to continue this discussion email me bimini2@bigpond.net.au I would like to hear your views without the 2 post limit.

Yngun, I am not amazed that scientific types, people who understand evolution theory etc, give you short shrift, when you question them.
At the end of the day, it is up to you to educate yourself and there is a mountain of knowledge out there. Every university that matters in the world, accepts evolution theory as the basis for biology.
Even the Catholic Church accepts it these days, once informed, they realised that the evidence was overwhelming.

Yup its far more complicated then "God did it". I guess eventually
people simply can't be bothered to argue with what they would describe as yet another ignorant fundie. Why waste their time?

If you want to inform yourself, Richard Dawkins has written alot
of books, explaining the many questions that you have in laymans terms, so that even you can understand them. You can borrow them
from the libarary or buy them, its up to you.

Sorry to put it kind of bluntly, but smart types would kind of get
pissed off when yet another dreamer comes along...

I wouldn't mind having children informed about the deliciously absurd attempts to prove the existence of a rather unacceptable god by using statistics (a science based on the reliability of natural laws, which means the lack of divine interference) to prove that living things could only come about by - the very divine interference the lack of which the argument is based on.

At the same time, they should be informed of the view that 'intelligent design' implies an intention. Judging from the first 4 of the commandments the alleged creator gave to his creatures, this intention was glorification of the creator. However, some people suffer, many to the point of killing themselves. Does that glorify their creator? So much for achieving the intention, and so much for the intelligence of the design.

Yes Nogodslessterror
I think it is lost on religious fundamentalists that the present war against humanity is being waged by Christian, Jewish and Islamic religious Zealots struggle for supremacy of their own 'true god'.

Philo, I expect, like me and many others, you have travelled to India, St Petersburg, Moscow, Vienna, Rome and viewed these documents, that were written from 72BC to 320AD and have no relationship to Islam. Like all that live in fear and fantasy, you are so scared of the truth. However Islam does recognise and rightly so, that Jesus didn't die on the cross. As does Roman records

If you actually learnt the truth, you would realise that you would have a much stronger faith. Rather than a despotic violent illusion.

Explain the 18 lost years, and the fate of the two women in his life. It is documented for all to see, his travels as a dyer of cloth throughout Asia minor, his explanation to his disciples when he told them, he wasn't dead, touch me. His time with the lost tribe of Israel, his association with the gypsies. The gypsies lead a life closer to the path of jesus, then any Muslim, Christian or Jew. That's why they've been persecuted throughout history, they understood the word of all the prophets that came and went. You have to be free from suppressive religion to understand the path to enlightened understanding and evolution. It is not your beliefs that provide the veracity of your calling, but the true example of your life's search.

Every time you use your scripture, you lie, simple as that. The truth shall set you free, you all say, but freedom is having nothing left to lose. You lot certainly fear losing your fallacy, thats why christians, jews and the muslims have to destroy any opposition. Like the the illusion you follow, it is unsustainable other than by fear and suppression.

BD, we all know of your fantastic miracle, that is in line with all religious miracles. When your broken arm was miraculously healed whilst in plaster, the intellectual mind boggles at such profound miraculous truth.

Presently the ultra jews are desperately trying to stop archaeological digs with violence and threats of murder, from revealing the truth from the recently discovered first century tombs.

Alch
you would have noticed by now, that I rarely respond to your posts, because what u say is not particularly objective.
"Viewing documents" means squat. Knowing where they all fit, the languages, and the comparative fields of expertise is where it counts and unless you have these, you are in the same boat as us, 'relying' on others scholarship, though in Philo's case he has some scholarly credentials I believe. Me.. pretty basic.

Alch.. can you answer me this ? From where do we know of the existence of the Hittites ? When did we know it, and prior to us knowing this, what was our only source of information about them?

It sounds like you have spent a lot of time in bed with Davinci code especially as you are raising questions of non relevance.

MARACAS and there is no 'war' being waged by the ACLU in America to establish their 'god' of 'secularism' on the rest of society ?
The only thing worse than 'nothing' to believe in, is when the only something worth believing in is taken and used wrongly by the likes of Hitler and, it appears, Christian reconstructionists.

Nevertheless, no matter how many times a platypus is portrayed as a duck by misinterpretation of its reality, its still a platypus, and so is Biblical Faith in Christ still its own unchanging reality.

We (The Church) encountered numerous heresies in the early days, and the reasons they were rejected are well documented. Why not start with an open mind and let the facts speak to a common sense mind.
Your views and you are nothing new, you and your ideas will pass and be forgotten, but the Church, Christ will remain.

"Those who hear my words and do them, are like those who built their house on the rock. The wind and storm came against it, and it stood firm" (Jesus)

The true seeker of truth will find it. We cannot prove God as He says those who seek Me will find Me. At another place in the Bible it states " Those who seek me must believe that I am". This is based on faith. The evidence will be seen later through experience. This kind of evidence is different from the scientific evidence that proves physical reality. Spiritual reality is above the physical but all creation proves His existence . We cannot comprehend this reality by intellectual enquiry alone. This is why we seem to go round in circles as those who know Him speak from a different framework from those who don't. Belief is more powerful then genes or any other physical reality. May God open your eyes to see and believe.

Jeshua

The alchemist: I am a Christian and to be so entails faith. Yet I bow in admiration to your faith in old books written by men who were pagans. The contents of these Books cannot and will never be proved.
There are over 350 prophecies concerning Christ in the O/T - ALL were fulfilled. After they had been all fulfilled then along comes the pagan terrorist handbook - the koran. Sorry pedophilic mohomad you were tooo late with your rubbishy book.
He, Christ, came to die on a cross, even the death on a cross is described in the Psalms yet the Israelites had never heard or imagined such a torturous way of execution - not bad eh?
Christ was resurected and with a glorified HUMAN body ascended to Heaven. Christ is real Christ is the only reality - dunno about you!
and this same Christ will return. numbat

"Belief is more powerful then genes or any other physical reality. May God open your eyes to see and believe."

Well Jesua, I have no problem if people believe whatever they want,
as long as they don't use Govt to try to force me to live by their beliefs. Otherwise its religious tyranny.

There have been many gods and holy books, the followers of each just as certain of their perceived truths. My take on it is that its tied up with brain function. To achieve homeostasis, religion helps to reduce anxiety for some people, so rather then have them go nuts, let them believe, just leave me and my life out of it..

Faith can be a wonderful thing. I mean some have faith in Santa
and faith in the Tooth Fairy and you can't even prove that they
don't exist :)

BD, hebrew scriptures, but they said very little. It wasn't until the German 1906 expedition that they discovered about 10000 tablets. They were a very secular society, even though they adopted some Babylonian laws, they were much more gentle with their populance.

BD “Why not start with an open mind and let the facts speak to a common sense mind.” We the unbelievers,(who jesus was the leader of, he, he,) see the facts and do speak with a commonsense mind. You can't have an open mind and believe in god, because that means you must dismiss any other option, leaving you very single and closed minded.

Jeshua, “We cannot comprehend this reality by intellectual enquiry alone.” Then you have lost your argument, nothing exists accept your intellectual understanding of the unsee able, unfeeling (except in the violent actions in its name), never do anything god.

Numbat, “written by men who were pagans. The contents of these Books cannot and will never be proved.” A pagan is one who is unenlightened. Enlightened is to be free from prejudice and superstition, read those not encumbered by religion

For your unenlightened mind, what I referenced are tablets, parchments and physical evidence. More verifiable than the book that you follow. Which is a very bad interpretation of letters written by Hebrew scribes, late in the first century to late 2nd. It was not until the 7th century that they were brought together in any form. They were given the names of the supposed writers well after that.

Hundreds of years later they named it the bible and many things were taken out and changed. Since then it has been rewritten many times, so that now it doesn't resemble any of the original works. So what you follow, is a false book, giving you a false belief. Common sense, wouldn't you say.

Coach
Do you have any conclusive evidence that the Bible is the word of an omnipresent, benevolent deity and not the invention of white males to justify oppression of women and black people everywhere?

I don't think you do.

Boaz, I'm intrigued with your comment

"MARACAS and there is no 'war' being waged by the ACLU in America to establish their 'god' of 'secularism' on the rest of society."

There is no god of secularism.The following is a definition from the encyclopedia.

"Secularism is commonly defined as the idea that religion should not interfere with or be integrated into the public affairs of a society. It is often associated with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, and plays a major role in Western society. The principles of separation of church and state in the United States and Laïcité in France draw heavily on secularism."

You are obviously taking your cue from George W. Bush who is recorded as saying.....

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," Bush said in explaining his communications strategy last May.

The rub is he wasn't telling the truth......

Of course he would support I.D He believes his own propaganda. He is a product of the religious right who are desperate to maintain their image which is flagging as more people use their own intelligence and reject religious dogma

What makes a society function agreeably is a common morality and set of values that explores the ultimate purpose and fulfilment for every individual. Any system that deprives or opresses an individual from achieving those idealistic goals is suspect. An examination of past societies would help us to see what is ideal. If we are honest societies based in Westminster Christianity has offered most reasonable opportunities for that to happen.

The constant negative comments by knockers of a Christian conscience do not put foward the experience and example of a workable ethical society. From my position I see the right living espoused by true followers of Christ has no equal as a wholesome society. From my position if a principle works as the best known then its closest to what is known truth. The god / God of that society is not a doctrine: but what is actually lived out in real life.

One's true belief is what we live in reality. That becomes the view of the nature of our god / God we believe in. Ancient societies became focused in gods of sexual perversion as the basis of the psyche of that society; very similar to the current focus of the modern secular society outside living as Christ.

Because many atheists use evolution conveiniently to jusatify any form of selfish behaviour without social conscience and personal accountability to a moral and ethical standard allows them to act as they please.

I would suggest if someone has a better model of society they present an example of a functioning modern society that does not have a moral model based in religous values and accountability.

I am not denying evolution here but the use of evolution as a anti God belief doctrine that justifies any behaviour as OK.

Yabby, God could indeed stop all the injustice in the world tomorrow as you say. But God does not have to do anything on our terms just because we demand all suffering to end immediately. The God of Bible has indeed promised a day upon which he will put an end to all suffering and exact his justice. That could be tomorrow, it could be in the next minute, or it could be beyond our lifetimes. Are you prepared? The point is that it will happen and we should not think that God is unjust for not doing it on our terms. Consider this, had God decided to end the world before our lifetimes then we would not even be here to say anything at all, let alone accuse God for sustaining the world long enough for us to be born! Think of when that day finally arrives and the end of history has finally come. How futile will any charge have been that God is unjust when that day finally arrives!

Crusader writes, "The God of Bible has indeed promised a day upon which he will put an end to all suffering and exact his justice. "

Keep telling yourself that, dude. Whatever floats your boat...

Maracas, the point I was making is this:

The American culture and political texture included many aspects which on the surface may have seemed in conflict with the constitution in regards to separation of Church and State, (which I would vigorously argue is NOT the case, based on the document itself and interpretation of the supreme court)

The ACLU has been relentless in seeking to overturn long standing existing practices which harmed no one, but may have not been exactly the flavor of the month for every single citizen. They are targeting anything which relates to Christianity. In this sense, they are seeking to overthrow any connection with the God of the bible and establish their own 'god' of atheism in government. Now, I put it to you that the absence of the Biblical God means the presense of another very real 'god' so to speak, and unrestrained unguided humanity goes after him or is LED after him often without realizing.

PREDICTION.
Due to the above, and the historic example of the gay rights movement, I hereby predict that NAMBLA and the idea of sexual relations between adults and children will be persued with the same methods, the same logic, the same arguments, and the same activism.
Community sentiments will be pressured to change. They will invent a word like 'homophobia' for themselves and accuse all who despise them as being 'that' thing. They will begin to 'out' individuals.

Further, it will gradually gain strength as intellectuals come out with 'Well.. when you think about it, why not' kind of thing. Lack of a moral anchor results in 'make it up as u go' morality.

Mark my words this day.

From http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/1022almanac.htm,
---
" End of the World?
The Great Disappointment (1844)

It was on this date, October 22, 1844, that the world did not end. What may appear obvious at this late date, was believed by about 100,000 followers of Baptist preacher William Miller.
...
...
Pope Innocent III computed the End by adding 666 years onto the date that Islam was founded, arriving at 1284;"
---
A Pope, no less. No further comment

Philo, I think you are pushing your luck if you try to let religion take the credit for the move forward by the West. It was the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, called the dark ages, which held up progress and free thought for eons. The protestants were not as bad, but still in 1930 they were claiming about the evils of contraception etc.

Separating religion from govt was really the breakthrough. Science
blossomed despite religion, not because of it. Darwin for instance, was not exactly celebrated by the church.

The world has changed Philo, get used to it. The internet is changing the world too. People are better informed, have easy access to information like never before. People are not as gullible as they used to be. No wonder the Catholics are turning to Africa for
followers, people are less educated and less informed there.

The future lies in reason and education, not in fear and holy books.
Teach kids about ethics and philosophy at school, not about burning forever if they misbehave.

Crusader, I employed a born again once. She was driven by hope of not really dying and fear of judgment day. I told her that I was born ok the first time :) If I had my time over, I'm 53 now,
I would most likely start a cult or religion. Look at what happened to the Bagwhan and all he claimed to be was a philosopher :)

Which version of the 3600 versions of the bible do some of you lot believe, most of it is a fairy story made up as it was needed,If you want to believe it fine but please dont try and force it on to me,have any of you watched the US evangelicals on TV, look at these people no wonder con men do so well, some one once said "theres one born every minute" and these so called churches are full of em

Yabby,
You like most atheist believe secularism is the absence or even the denial of God from Government. I suggest you read our Australian constitution and see if the concept of God is missing. I know Republicans want to introduce a constitution that removes God as do the Greens from Members saying prayers in halls of Government.

However secular means attending to the physical needs of a people in contrast to the needs of the spirit. It means that those administering Government can no longer administer affairs within the Church, and establish Church law. It does not mean the values held by religious people no longer apply to the State.

If you believe that only the values held by atheists apply in the making of State law then you are mistaken. The seperation of Church and State was initially applied so that a secular government were not administering laws over the conscience of the Church. However the conscience of members in Government applied when they formulated State laws. Read the religious beliefs of the founders of our Federation - hardly atheists.

All good society and Government operates on respect and devotion to a higher power and has no divided allegiance, does not place devotion to materialism as the highest goal of humanity, shows compassion and love to those of genuine need, does not abuse power or wraught the system, takes time off for relaxation and contemplation and allows workers the same, respects the elderly and provides for them in their aged years, does not plan revenge or carry out murder, does not indulge in indiscriminate sex ouside a commited relationships, does not steal give short change or supply defective weights or products. Does not deceive of falsely assuse, or covet others property. Sound familiar - its the basis of a religious text upon which a religious society was founded.

Atheist have tried to have these principles removed from display in halls of law and power in the USA. I have yet to see a society governed by atheists to provide the best for all people. Please give examples!

Billy Graham was once asked 'What if he was wrong in what he believed".
His answer was he would still believe and would not choose another lifestyle as he enjoyed it so much. However what if he is right, then he would be enjoying eternity in heaven and where would that leave you?

You choose what you believe. I have made my choice for now and for eternity.

Jeshua

Yabby,
The 'Dark Age' was a period of incredible innovation and invention. The negative image ascribed to it that you have just repeated is just more propoganda from the materialist 'enlightenment'.
http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=11322

So actually, Philo is not pushing his luck.

Trying to claim that science blossomed in spite of religion is an even worse misrepresentation of reality. I know it is the standard atheist line, but any real scholar of history and science knows it is complete rubbish and you would do well to avoid repeating the claim.

It seems from yours and j506hn's claims that if I meet an irrational, easily duped atheist this is proof that atheism is rubbish. Hopefully a reasonable person like yourself can see the fallaciousness of this sort of claim.

I have only just joined this forum and have been reading members' comments with interest.

Howver, I must respond to Kenny's allegation in his post of December 31st that Jesus advocated the killing of children. (I presume you were not referring to baby goats, Kenny - maybe I'm facetious, sorry!)

The reference given (Mark 7:10) indicates that you have completely misinterpreted the passage. According to my copy of the New Testament (Confraternity translation), Mark was describing one of Jesus's disputes with the Pharisees. Jesus accused the Pharisees of hypocrisy and used as an example the Mosaic law 'Honour thy father and mother' (from the Ten Commandments) together with the further prescription, reputedly also from God (Exodus 21:17), 'Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death'. He made absolutely no comment about the appropriateness or otherwise of such a drastic punishment, but used the law to display the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in permitting adult sons to evade their legal responsibility to support their aged parents (there being no Age pension at that time) by declaring their property 'corban', a gift to God which could be used for no other purpose. The Pharisees therefore abetted the frustration of a law of Moses aimed at preventing the destitution and starvation of the aged.

Please note I am not a 'CR'; I'm just a stickler for facts.

Well said Kephren !

STEEL was your 'end of the world' predictions some kind of poke at my 'prediction' ? :) If yes, it's misguided, my 'prediction' has nothing to do with my faith, it is simple social and historical observation mate.

I'm seeing the signs already in many places and we have even had our apoligists for 'stigmatizing the gays' getting VERY close to justifying it on OLO.

Jesua
I'm not sure I understand you. You said "I've made my choice for here and eternity".... can you give us an insight into what choice that is ? Your nick is close enough to Joshua and in fact is a variant of it. A very Biblical name.

J506N
Which indeed ?.... perhaps the better term would be 'Translation' rather than 'version'. Language by its very nature means that the same idea can be expressed in various meaningful forms. With changing culture the impact and meaning of older words changes. The 'youth' speak of something which is WIKID or SICK is in fact something great/cool is an example of this.

The issue of Biblical sources encompasses thousands of documents and fragments and sources including quotations in the literature of the Church fathers. All are taken into account in order provide the best and most reliable text. There are still some minor textual issues, but none of these takes away from the central point of the gospel that God has visited us in Christ, who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Please look at Pauls letter to the Corinthians chapter 15 for a good indication of how the tradition was passed down.

Verse 3 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance..."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

Do you look at the Televangelists and use that as evidence for/against Christ ? I sure hope not, because while some may use 'religion' for gain and popularity, a quick read of the New Testament (gospels especially) will show where these people stand in relation to Christ.. don't hide behind them mate.

I would recommend the ministry of Chuck Swindoll http://www.insight.org/Broadcast/Archives.asp

Philo, in most of Europe, religion plays a part in name only, in terms of governance. The new European Constitution does not even mention Christianity. Its a bit like the Queen of Australia. She is there in name only. In reality, she has little to do with Australia's laws etc.

Only in America, the most religious country in the West, does religion still play a role. Politicians are not yet free to admit their real religious beliefs, for they would not be elected. But compare say Clinton, with Mullah Bush and the difference is bleeding obvious :)

Here we have had agnostic Prime Ministers, AFAIK both Keating and Hawke are, Australia still had good governance. So your theory that religion needs to be involved in good governance is out the window :)

David, a book written by a Christian, based at a Christian University, trying to sell it to other Christians, is surely open to question even by you! Read your history! Medicine for instance made huge strides under Greek and Roman rule. Once the Christians gained power, things like epilepsy suddenly became people possessed by "demons" . The soul became more important then the flesh. Disease signified the wrath of God etc, sin was assumed to perhaps be a cause of sickness etc. Freethinkers have existed all along. They were just not free to express their views. Right up to the time of Darwin. He waited for years before publishing anything, as he knew how the religious lobby would react.

Jesua
I'm not sure I understand you. You said "I've made my choice for here and eternity".... can you give us an insight into what choice that is ? Your nick is close enough to Joshua and in fact is a variant of it. A very Biblical name.

My choice is to follow Jesus by acknowledging Him as my Lord and Saviour, now and for eternity. Jeshua.

Hey Alan, good to see you used an independent historical source…. “WORLD Mission Statement: To report, interpret, and illustrate the news in a timely, accurate, enjoyable, and arresting fashion from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.”

The article is a joke. Question: “What were some of the "Dark Ages" innovations that show the folly of considering Greek and Roman culture the apex of civilization until recent times?”

Answer: How about the perfection and widespread use of waterwheels, windmills, and pumps, invention of the compass, stirrups, crossbow, canons, effective horse harnesses, eyeglasses, clocks, chimneys, violins, double-entry bookkeeping, and insurance? This list doesn't begin to do justice to this era that historians of science now refer to as an age of remarkable innovation and discovery."

To start, the Dark Ages where from 476-1000AD.

Note: ”remarkable innovation & discovery”. The compass, stirrup and crossbow came from China or Japan and were used prior to the dark ages. No Innovation and discovering that someone else is using it doesn’t really count.

Eyeglasses invented no sooner than 1280AD. Clocks (or measuring time) have been developing for thousands of years. The crucial element the “escapement” which was key to accurate time keeping developed about 1250AD. Violins came to form it is today in the 15th to 16th Century. Windmills while in existence from 7th Century and were developed from the 12th Century. Cannon came from China first documented in the 1100’s AD. Insurance Hah! Check out the Code of Hammurabi 1750 BC.

I should fess up though with a statement I made earlier re: flat earth. I was way out of date on that one. The flat earth concept was believed (or supported by religious types) till about the 12th Century when the works of Ptolemy were translated. So, the quotes from the bible I mentioned earlier were used to prescribe a flat earth in the dark ages. Galileo & Copernicus were persecuted for saying the earth was not fixed in the heavens.

Also check out Petrarch who first coined the phrase of “Dark Ages”. When? In the 1330’s.

Like Kephren I'm not taking a stand. But I'm also a stickler for facts.
1. Most people seem to have the idea that Evolutionism is accepted unwaveringly at tertiary level. It's not. Darwinism - even when it was originally taught to us at school - did not have all the answers. It has lost a lot of credence in the past 20 - 30 years. Remember this is Australia and not America - their "colleges" work on different levels to our Uni's.
2.The "Democracy" that is so often cited as our own system was evolved by a small and elite cadre of wealthy , influential white men. No-one else was able either to vote or to enter into discussions in Forum.
3. The "Westminster" system upon which Australian Government is based came about only after quite a few people - including kings and queens - had lost their heads. It came into being AFTER the seperation of Church and State.
p.s.DB, if the apostrophe is inserted in the correct place you will see from which name Jeshua is a direct translation

TELEVISION NEWS REPORT FROM THE FRONTLINES IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL

News Anchor “Zur”: We go to our reporter at the scene of the massacre of the Midianites. Jusitha are you there.

News Reporter Jusitha: Yes Zur I can hear you. I’m standing here in front of a Midianite village where the triumphant armies of the Israelites has just slaughtered every man they could find. Yes it’s complete genocide on a biblical scale.

Zur: Good to hear that Jusitha. Have you spoken to any of our armed forces?

Jusitha: Yes, I actually have a Captain of the Israelite army here, Captain Isaac. Captain Isaac could you give us an update on how things went here.

Captain Isaac: Well as you know Jusitha, acting on instructions from God to Moses we are here to continue the complete annihilation of the Midianites. This is only a small part of the campaign we have many more forces engaging Midianites throughout the area.

Jusitha: So things are finishing up here?

Captain Isaac: Not quite yet, we killed all the men but it has come down the line that all the women that have done the dirty have to be killed as well.

Jusitha: So these evil women have been fighting alongside the men.

Captain Isaac: No we’re just going to kill them. And all the young boys and babies.

Jusitha: So who’s left than?

Captain Isaac: Oh the female virgins of course. You have to get something out of this apart from just sacking the village.

Jusitha: And what will you be doing with these virgins?

Captain Isaac: We will be raping them of course. We have to shave their heads first though. Yes, from instructions past down from Moses to appease God we need to kill all the men, women and male children and keep the virgin women & girls for ourselves.

Jusitha: You have to keep God happy.

Captain Isaac: You’re right there.

Jusitha: Well thank God he is on our side. Back to you Zur.

END TRANSITION

How different things would be if there was TV.

Sergei, you disgust me.

Everyone knows there are only two types of people: fundamental Christians and atheists. Anyone who resists being dragged back to the Bronze Age in order to spare me from the burden of free thought is clearly the latter.

Secularists like you pretend that the bible is untrue simply because it was written hundreds or thousands of years after the events it documents, in a dead language which was then dragged through centuries of translation, interpretation, political exploitation and editing, before the tattered and apocryphal remains were savaged by King James I to create a tool for manipulating his subjects.

Pathetic.

The "scene" you describe isn't remotely true. The only true parts of the Good Book are the ones that tally with my ingrained prejudice, such as the persecution of homosexuals - regardless of their worth and contribution as human beings - and forcing barely-functional drug addicts to bear children who can look forward to a brutal but mercifully short life of violence and petty crime.

Luckily, your soul might still be saved through Intelligent Prayer (IP): put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes tight, and repeat "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!".

Eventually, someone will come along and tell you how right you are, how wrong everyone else is, and ask you to buy their book or vote for them. You must believe this person absolutely. Questioning them will only put your soul in further peril.

Sergei, I'd like to congratulate you on the best post I have seen this year on OLO! If it were up to me, then Graham would award you with a case of Seppelts fine wines :)

No doubt some will froth at the mouth or fume from the ears, but it should get everyone who believes in so called holy books, really thinking about what they truly believe in. As they say, reality does not got away, when we close our eyes and wish it would.

Once again congratulations....

The above attitudes by atheists show their mocking of considered sourses indicates their bias. It's just that atheists cannot be honest. Because illinformed people in the past misused sourse information, doesn't mean the original material is totally discredited.

Kephren,
Thanks for clarification and support of my earlier post Sunday, 1 January 2006 1:09:31 PM, regarding Jesus and his reading of the Mosaic law to those neglecting parents.

Alchemist,
I must confess I've not read ancients scripts in their original language as you; I can only read and understand English. Though I've seen several original parchments, copper and leather scrolls dated in the years prior to Jesus. Sighting these doesn't make me an informed person, I trust people who translate them. I use translations of original scripts from reputable scholars.

What extinct languages have you studied?

I take advice from my good friend and Professor David Clines among the worlds leading Professors in extinct languages [nine in detail] at University of Sheffield and others of his ilk. I've about 220 translations of original scripts in my library, and accept them as reasonably reliable translations from ancient Chaldean, ancient Hebrew, classical Greek and Latin and compared with several sourse scripts in other languages.

I'm currently reading a two volume work edited by James Charlesworth on OT Pseudepigrapha. I've written a commentary on the book of "Job" from post-Babylonian period written in Paleo Hebrew so am updating; it's interesting to read collated stories of Job from the period of the Jewish testaments in Greek written 100BC-100 AD. Though English translators in the past were biased from their predisposition it doesn't mean they were dishonest with an agenda to deceive. It just meant their information tools were incomplete. Most English translators used the Septuagent because it was in Greek which assumes monotheism. But the original Paleo Hebrew was a monotheistic debate with gnostic counsellors.

I'm more interested in upholding a workable society than undermining those that have a sucessful community. I have found the Churches I'm involved in the best foundations for good community.

Yabby,
Good try!
Are you suggesting the New Europe offers the best opportunity for each person. I'd thought it is merely an economic opportunity for big business.

Are you suggesting that since Australia has almost ousted the Queen for Republicanism we live in a society with better individual fulfilment and opportunity. I'd thought we are governed by economic rationalists allowing big international corporations to organise individuals.

Quote, "Only in America, the most religious country in the West, does religion still play a role. Politicians are not yet free to admit their real religious beliefs, for they would not be elected. But compare say Clinton, with Mullah Bush and the difference is bleeding obvious."

A: Clinton was a Baptist so I'm not sure what you are implying here.

Quote, "Here we have had agnostic Prime Ministers, AFAIK both Keating and Hawke are, Australia still had good governance. So your theory that religion needs to be involved in good governance is out the window."

A: Hawke was the son of a Christian Minister so his social values would have been shaped somewhat by that experience. With Keating I'd not even mention his name as an example of personal virtue. Bill Hayden is a man of good will who learned to respect the role of Westminster Christianity

Serg mate.... you were close...but no cigar... (sorry yabs it was not a 'good' post, it just re-inforced your own prejudices :)

the young virgins were taken under the guidelines laid down under Moses (Deuteronomy) which prevented 'rape' as we understand the term. The ONLY condition whereby an Israelite cold have legal sexual relations with a captive girl was by MARRYING her and that, only after a period of mourning of one month. If she did not please him, (which could be for temperement reasons or whatever) he was under a legal obligation to FREE her to do as she liked !

You may wonder 'How could God instruct the Israelites to execute the Women ..what part did they have in the fighting' ? Well, Mohameds favorite wife Ayesha, was reported to have gone into the battle zone once screaming and yelling to the Muslims to slaughter and kill and chop up the enemy with uparralleled vigour. Judgement was on the whole of the Midianite tribe, the saving of the virgins was a concession.

Now... Yabby (and Serg) one of the problems with making emotive posts about social/political settings of 3000 years ago is that you look rather stupid by applying our own standards of 'The Rule of Law'and international relations to a 'kill or be killed, enslave or be enslaved' socio-political setting of the old days. All you do is demonstrate your lack of understanding or are determined 'not' to understand something totally foreign to your present situation.

I don't mean to insult you in saying this, its just a simple fact.

At the root of it of course is a "I'll find anything I can to justify my rebellion against God" :) right ? yes.. of course it is and you know it.

Well.. GOOD NEWS is that until your last breath.. God has forgiveness waiting for you and now, you have heard that good news.

BOAZ-David

I know we are talking about events a long time ago which should really be irrelevant today but so many people seem to base their whole lives on such things. So exactly what is the difference between raping virgins compared with capturing virgins, forcing marriage then having sexual relations with them? Are they able to refuse marriage or sex and if they are later freed are they then killed as they are no longer virgins? Doesn't sound much like a concession to me. There are probably lots of good Christian things you could use to try to persuade me that the bible is really the word of a kind loving God but this just isn't one of them.

Jeshua
I wish the ID proponents knew as well as you that you can't prove God. The money they put into ID propaganda would have been better spent on medical research and information campaigns, or on earth quake prediction research - areas where their god sure left a lot of work to do.
The Billy Graham story you mention is also known as Pascal's wager. It's not that poeple had nothing to lose. If I were to follow some religion, I'd lose self-respect, especially for submitting to a god that is either weak or cruel or both. I am compassionate, you know.

Philo
The first two sentences of: What makes a society function... sounded exactly like what some islamists are saying of the sharia. No, I don't want religious terror, others telling me that I should comply to their cruel rules because that would be good for me after I'm dead.

Crusader:
I would expect a powerful and loving entity to exert its power and love to help those in need; not because they demand such help, but simply because they suffer, here and now. I can't charge a god for injustice because there is no god, but I can charge preachers for feeding the hungry pie in the sky, and hell in case they doubt.

Dear dreamers, wake up. The world out there isn't very nice, especially since need and compassion are being exploited by religious leaders, but we can try and do our bit.

Philo, Didn't study ancient languages, studied the accepted religious translations, during my religious training. It was after my active service and the example shown by other christians and those purported to represent the faith in the armed services, made me question. Teaming up with the ex Rev, John Cavanagh Phd meritorious, and Fr Ron Cleary Phd (deceased), in their study travels.

Visiting Kashmir, Europe, parts of the middle east in the 70's, seeking out indigenous translators, not those blinded by their faith. In 1992 permission was granted for John to view documents held in Russian, a most enlightening trip. We visited Austria recently to see documents held there.

No doubt about the sincerity of your beliefs, just the history and translations. The man jesus was an enlightened being, during his teens and twenties traveled throughout Asia minor. According to medical, scientific and historical evidence he was nailed to a cross, didn't die but traveled with two women to India. He spent his life in peace attuning himself to understanding the universe, taking the next step in evolutionary progress. An ordinary man enlightened by his realistic experiences, not illusions, hearsay and blind faith.

Anyone reading the true translations without religious indoctrinations, see's they couldn't write religious truth, they didn't understand what was happening, being superstitious and fearful people, like the religious of today. If your god had created this universe in perfection, then there would be no need for technological progress. If your god had lived up to its name as a caring creator, then he would have stopped his followers from destroying his planet If your god was loving he would demand you desist from belittling others that follow him from a different aspect.

You all persist in believing that its all cool to act as you do because you will be forgiven, as a poor bloke died for all your sins. He was strung up, because he didn't realise how much trouble he was causing and suffered at the hands of the law.

It's too easy for us to look at the negative aspects of the Bible. This is what is so true about the Bible as it does not just give us the good but also the bad things that happened due to sin. I think there is a lot of evidence for us to see of the benefits of the gospel that men and women were prepared to venture into untrodden territory because of the good news. This led to the establishment of schools and hospitals and other caring ventures just because people were prepared to trust God and move out in faith to spread the gospel. I think when we look at the positive outcomes, the negatives due to sinful human nature pale into insignificance. I think it is time that we who believe become aggressive and not just defensive in upholding the truths of the gospel otherwise this generation is going to become like Sodom and Gomorrah ( moral degeneration). We can see the signs of it all around us. Lord have mercy on us.

Jeshua

The alchemist: You just do not get it mate it seems that you want to bring Christ down to our level.
Jesus Christ was God! - yep that's it - Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, totally man and totally God.
No this Jesus did not go to India/Tibet/China/Nepal or even to Oz or anywhere else to learn anything, He had no need to as He IS God.
He had no need to learn from man at all. And man had/has nothing to teach the Holy Christ. If you read the Scriptures He taught mankind.
Now that's not hard eh? numbat

The Alchemist (and all other atheists);

Your passion for your own belief is commendable. Your fictitious stories are really amazing. Someone like you could really rewrite history the way it should have been therefore every time you read your parchments you will smile and say to yourself :”now that’s much better…”

I feel sorry (sincerely) for you. You are obviously intelligent and learned. Why not focus this vigour on something useful instead of attacking your creator for not doing a good enough job with you.

God created humans with a free will. You are exercising yours to stay away from the truth. Fine! Why try to convince other believers with your follies? It simply won’t work. Are you freelancing for Lucifer? Oops sorry forgot no such thing either…

One of your mantras is Blind Faith is Blind. Of course it is. Why else call it ‘faith’ if you can see it and touch it.

What I have in me, you (and all your friends in hell) cannot take away. I am sealed in God’s Kingdom for eternity. The relationship that I have with my Father God is beyond your comprehension unless you submit to Jesus’ Lordship. There is no other way.

So get a grip mate and stop spreading your eloquent heresy on the rest of us.

As Paul says in Romans:

16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness

Well well well, theres nothing I find more amusing than religous types accusing non-believers of being irrational, not getting it etc etc. Excuse shouting, but I can't help myself: YOU ARE THE ONES THAT DON'T GET IT!

You are the ones saying theres only one way to live, it's all in the book etc etc, live like that or go to hell etc etc. You believe you have all the answers. Have any atheists been trying to make any of you have abortions? Stop going to church? Oh, sorry, have some of them been stopping you from persecuting homosexuals or burning a few witches? Must be upsetting for you, but here it is again: Not everyone sees the world your way, and millions and millions of us are perfectly capable of deciding whats right and whats wrong by using our brains.

Do what you like, but stop trying to tell me or anyone else how to live! Got it? Of course, according to your belief systems my heinous crime of not believing in what you believe means I should spend eternity in hell! Gee, what a reasonable humane bloke your big pal in the sky must be! I suppose he did dream up cancer AIDS and child molesters..perhaps he just has a funny sense of humour.

Anyway, keep your revealed truth, if God is really like you say he is I'd rather go to hell..and after all, perhaps all those Muslims (or Hindus, or Jews or whatever) who are so convinced of their particular beliefs are correct and I will see all of you there, wouldn't that be hilarious! After all, they all know they're right too..

To start, this is where the inspiration came from Num 31:1-18. Even read further it gets weirder. So David from your interpretation this should be pretty correct or accurate considering your Hittite comments earlier.

The point though seemed to evade you. Let me expand a little, ok so it happened thousands of years ago, if it was to happen today I think that all cultures & races would be horrified regardless of their own suffering. I don’t want to America bash here but for a emotive situation let’s consider… “acting on the deaths of 911 and under orders from the president from instructions from god, US forces killed tens of thousands of men, women & children of a town in Afghanistan saving the virgin women for the troops to have for themselves.

There you go again Sergei, comparing the past with the present how can you do that. Easy! The god of the past is the God of the present! All powerful, all seeing, the one, the word, the constant, the unchanging and the one that does not make mistakes. The one that has a plan for everything.

IT WOULD BE A SICK IMMORAL ACT NOW AND IT WAS A SICK IMMORAL ACT “WHEN” IT HAPPENED THEN.

And you try and justify rape by giving them a one month morning period or it is the law handed down by Moses is completely disgusting. So a twelve year old girl sees her father, mother, older married sister and two baby brothers slaughtered in front of her eyes. Is then taken, her head is shaved allowed to mourn for a month forced to marry, raped repeatedly after which is let go by her rapist bigamist husband with the kicker being that now she is pregnant. That’s very Christian of you.

And for the record there are many more abhorrent acts in the bible, this is why you don’t understand I can’t believe in a god that would not just allow or condone these acts but insist and instruct them. (and then ask for a human sacrifice after)

Ok to get a little back on point regarding ID. The group that is driving this issue are the Pentecostal/Evangelical or whatever Christians groups and want to supplant the designer in ID with their perception of God. And this is where questions will arise about where did we come from.

MANY YEARS AGO, NOT FAR FROM A BIG GARDEN….

SETH: Hey Cain! Why so glum? You haven’t been the same since you killed Able.

CAIN: Yeah tell me about it. Dad just told me what God said to him.

SETH: And what was that.

CAIN: God said… now get this we “have to be fruitful & multiply”.

SETH: Cool!

CAIN: What? Are you nuts or something?

SETH: No not at all. So has God started to make women from dust of is he going to whip out one of our ribs?

CAIN: No dude! We have to have sex with our sisters.

SETH: No way dude.

CAIN: Way Dude.

SETH: That is sick. But it would explain something,

CAIN: What’s that?

SETH: Well I know it’s wrong but little Seth has other ideas, it’s like it has a mind of it’s own.

CAIN: It must be Gods will.

SETH: Yeah. Must?

So it’s this or evolution. Yes ID is on a real winner.

Religeon,Religeon,Religeon,AhVey I can't get away from religeon.You know last week I was on a business trip away from my good wife,and feeling like a bit of self gratification, I looked around the motel room for a Playboy mag or such like.But what did I find in the bed side drawer a copy of the Bible!(Stop it you'lI go blind)I mean sh@t that was enough to ruin my carnal thoughts instantly.But hey thinking back on it the Bible has obviously had a huge influence on the sexual practises,of people for thousands of years.

I mean take priests for instance.They have been expert sexual therapists through out the ages,with a special interest in young boys.Of course a lot of these young boys turned into useful members of the community,and went on to molest other young boys and have dysfunctional sex lives,and other anti social behavior in keeping with the tenets of the church.However religeon and the church may have done some good,contraception or lack their of, saved millions of Irish catholic women getting an education because they were always kept pregnant and supporting a house full (average twelve)of kids.Can you imagine all those working class yobos having a real say on there futures.Perish the thought.

How many times I have heared in my life time after some poor bastard has been killed or mutilated by someone"I can't understand it he was such a nice religous boy"/girl.

And aren't the fundy's good business people?they salt away millions of bucks of there ill gotten gains,whils there followers live in abject poverty.

I could go on,but the religous crazy's have an answer for everything.

Oh by the way as a good atheist I don;t have to prove or disprove anything.I came into this world ignorant of religeon,and hopefuly will leave it the same way.Mankind will pass through this phase of nuttyness,and will move on to a new spirit of co-operation and love for his fellow man,with out referring to the Bible or the Koran to justify the hatred that has spawned from both these works of fiction. Unfortunately not in my life time.

Philo, you should travel a little more! As everywhere, there are plenty of opportunities for those who want them and have the aptitude. Look at Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium etc, all countries where people are doing fine, thanks very much.

Australia too is full of opportunities for those who seek them out.
The queen has nothing to do with it, neither does religion.

We used to be governed by Melbourne industrialists who made a fortune, operating under a semi monopoly, at our expense. Now they have competition and consumers benefit. Economic rationalism is better then irrational economics!

Clinton is religious in name only, which he had to be to gain votes in America. Both Clinton and Kennedy were womanisers, but both were still great leaders. That is far more important if you look at the big picture, then if they slept with their secretary or not.
Now we have Mullah Bush. He might not sleep with his secretary but the man is a danger to world peace and has the people skills of a rhino... So much for religious types in Govt...

Hawke is a humanist. History is full of them. Religion is not required for people to care about other people.

David, Sergei has just made my point. Religion claims objective morality. Yet what we clearly have is what used to be a barbaric god, who is now a jesus loves your god. I thought that god should have known some time ago that barbarism was not part of morality.

Hello there, hellothere,

First, no need to shout: God is not deaf.

Sorry about your homosexual friends and witches. I do not condone any harassment - but like you wasn’t their choice that got them there?

Yes you will spend eternity in hell if you don’t grow up and face your creator soon.

Yes God has a great sense of humour, He is a great artist as well, just look outside your window sometimes or even better still go out and visit His masterpiece or simply look in the mirror.

God never promised a perfect world; after the fall of Adam and Eve sin entered the world...

>> …millions and millions of us are perfectly capable of deciding whats right and whats wrong by using our brains.<<

First of all it is not ‘your’ brain. Did you manufacture it yourself or bought it from some chain store? You had no choice in the matter of the body you now live in. You did not choose to be conceived or to be born, just thank your lucky start your mother didn’t flush you down the toilet when you were still ‘a blob’.

As for what’s right and what’s wrong – if you mean discovering God; obviously this is beyond intellect alone – but if you mean moral values they are built in you (unless you are a psychopath.)

Your distorted perception of Christianity is what is keeping you from knowing God intimately and following Jesus; instead you are taking your cues from what the world is throwing at you.

It’s alright to feel inadequate and rebellious – but you don’t have to stay that way. God will prove real to you to if you genuinely seek the truth. Your choice.

Nogodslessterror, imagine there is a day when suffering ceases forever. Whether that day comes now or in 50 years does that make the suffering itself any different? 50 years might be a harsh sentence but it still has an end. What if that day never arrives? How much worse is suffering with no end in sight? Eternal suffering is what hell would be like! You, I or anyone else would not want to go there. So why is it then that we experience suffering? Why do we have a glimpse of what hell is like? The Bible teaches that suffering is a mark of our separation from God (Genesis 3) brought on by our ancestors, Adam and Eve, who rebelled against God's wise commands. But there is a way out. God has promised that if you put your trust in his son, Jesus Christ, who suffered a criminal's death by crucifixion in our place in order to bridge the separation we have with God then there will one day come an end to all suffering. But before there can ever be an end to suffering there must be suffering. That is the present situation we find ourselves in. Follow Jesus and make suffering history!

It's interesting that creationists refer to Darwinian evolution as though it's a religion of its own. It cannot be, for a simple reason: evolution is useless without understanding, whereas religion cannot function without ignorance.

Medical technology which relies on the application of genetics and artificial selection wouldn't exist if evolution weren't comprehensible and consistent enough to be applied under any circumstance.

Religion, on the other hand, is dependant on its practitioners not really looking for answers to the questions they ask.

Take irreducible complexity. The argument that the eye is too perfect to have arisen through chance has been shot to pieces a thousand times over. Not only are eyes clunky and inefficient organs, but the intermediate forms are well documented. Most of them are attached to creatures crawling around in your back yard.

But the faithful aren't looking for explanation. They want their comfort zone reinforced, even if it means callous regard for facts and a breathtaking contempt for anyone who won't indulge their insecurity about the complex world we live in. So, "the eye!" they cry, "the eye is perfect!", while those who actually care about the answers weep quietly and explain again, but slower.

Creation scientists are out of their depth when they start messing with scientific evidence. They can't even prove their theology, let alone disprove Darwin's tidy theory.

Why is the Christian bible the true word of God, and not the Q'uran or Dianetics? Why believe Jesus was the son of God, and not Mohammed or L. Ron Hubbard? They've all staked a claim and have plenty of supporters.

The answer, of course, is that the believer believes in Jesus, not Mohammed. Because the believer reads the bible, not Hubbard's recycled science fiction. There's no rationality, no reason. You might as well say capsicum is God's chosen food and watermelon is the devil's work because you like capsicum but not watermelon.

The ID movement itself assumes that every biologist, anthropologist, astrophysicist, and geologist on the planet is involved in a grand plot to falsify and grossly misrepresent data in order to support an explicitly anti-god agenda.

No other conspiracy theory even comes close. If I claimed that the millions of butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers on Earth were, in fact, alien freemasons hell-bent on eating our brains, I'd get to spend the rest of my life in an asylum. Yet the paranoia which drives ID is swallowed whole by millions of Christians and receives government funding in the US.

If you wonder why rationalists oppose ID with an almost religious fervour, pause for a moment to think about how destructive and dangerous it looks from the outside.

Dear Serg

I appreciate your colorful and creative efforts to make your point :)
yes.. clearly you put some effort into those. What you are doing though, is actually showing just how '2000s/western' is your outlook.
I don't mean that in any way other than constructive, and here's why.

In my own life, I have worked in Borneo with tribes who shared a similar background and history in so many ways as we read of in the Old testament. It was as follows:

-Kill or be killed (=Rule or be ruled)
-Take slaves, (usually kill the father and take the children)
-My own wifes Grandma had slaves as a result of this. (but slaves were freed when the tribe embraced Christ, yet still they regard my wifes family as 'their' family. I have a nice photo of former slaves with granny I can send u :) jdrmot@tpg.com.au <= my email.

In the case of my wifes people, they didn't commit genocides, they just sliced and diced a few heads and grabbed the kids, (who in some cases were relatives )

Other tribes had this approach:

-We want your territory
-If you stay on it, we will kill all of you except the kids who we will make our slaves.

This was in the days before such luxuries as central governments, which is exactly how it was in Israels day.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html <= for a discussion of the issue.

Apart from the Canaanites, The Israelites were commanded by God to destroy certain tribes for specific reasons which I hope you will read yourself. There was no generalized "You can wipe out any other race which u choose to" type of command. It should be remembered, that the judgement on some groups came from God...not the Israelites.

Coach:
It's good to know there's not only me that is compassionate enough to be unhappy with this 'creation'. If being compassionate and rational gets me into hell, so be it, tough luck. If death were not real AND if there were a god that liked my attitude s/he will treat me accordingly. If I was created to burn, I can't help it by lying to myself. People like the 'coach' who try to scare the hell into people so they patiently pray & pay and wage war on those who do not pray & pay to the 'right' address make things worse, a lot worse.

Ozone,

Your arguments against non-evolution are riddled with holes larger than Swiss Gruyere.

Your ‘religious’ questions will always remain unanswered - if you are not really looking for answers to the questions you ask. (using your logic)

You are also dangerously mixing two distinct scientific disciplines: 1/ ‘operational’ (or ‘normal’) science and 2/ ‘origins’ science.

Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation; i.e. experimentation of repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past; unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events and so is not open to experimental verification.

Observing an animal’s eye and comparing it to the human eye is fine and scientific. But to say that a man is a dog because he too defecates and have sex is dangerous to say the least.

More to the point – how do you expect children to grow up and behave like humans if you tell them that they came from monkeys?

Science has its origins in ‘religion’ but not vice versa. Science cannot disprove creation but science has and is continually demonstrating creation. They can confuse, diffuse, challenge, but never refute categorically un-natural or ‘divine’ intervention. They must assume ID (or concoct it) to staple and glue their theories and make sense out of them.

Life as we know it can be linked back to creation. The question always remaining (to evolutionists) is what's the source of life?

Scientists can manipulate cells; but what created the cell? Why is it in the perfect form it is? and what made it behave and respond in that fashion? You can argue organic/biochemistry etc… But where do you really begin?

Do you truly believe that it is all just a cosmic accident?

What are the chances of human ashes (our net mass after desiccation) or a lump of dirt becoming human in the lab or in nature

Coach, its not me that needs to grow up. Lets get this absolutely clear. You believe that if someone does not believe in your version of God, even if they never heard of that God and died when they were 2 days old, even if they lived the best life they could by using their brain (yes, theirs, who elses would it be) by considering the consequences of their actions and their effect on others, it is just and fair that they should suffer for eternity? It boils down to this:

Dissident belief = worst punishment imaginable. Not believing is worse than rape, murder, everything.

Can't you see how sick and disgusting that is? Please tell me if my interpretation of Christianity is wrong, but I don't think it is. And as for all the bad things in the world, so that's Adam and Eve's fault..so I should be punished for what they did? Hmmm, makes sense..anyway, I suppose it makes sense to you. How depressing.

We must always recognise the universe as it currently is and adjust our present reality to that position. We are living as an organic chemical being in a changing ionic universe. The nature of its chemistry indicates that life, decay and death are intrinsic to the nature of our universe. The spirit that gives character to our reality and operates the direction of our reality operates on an eternal principle that preceeds it and concludes all reality.

In the eternal scheme of things the being we identify as "me" is not essentially the sum of our chemical being, but we borrow from the substance of the universe so our lives have being and character. So "me" whoever I am is the life I have lived and the changes I have made to our society and our planet. These changes are either good or bad according to how we live our lives in society. These ideals or destructive attitudes are the real "me" that must be judged according on how I lived my life in society. Either the real "me" brought encouragement and blessing or cursing and dispair.

There is an idealism registered in human society and it is found in the human conscience that is sensitive to the nature of the Universe and to the needs of society. The problem of pain and suffering is intrinsic to the nature of reality as the real "me" struggles with my mortality. The spirit that pervades ionic reality also has equipt us to reason on our role in the universe. May each of us fulfil a role of blessing others lives and in that way the real "me" will fulfil a more perfect place in the scheme of spiritual things.

Hi,

Interesting forum! There's no way I could answer everything that stuck me as noteworthy in the last few days, so I have put my responses on this website:

http://www.livejournal.com/~standstoreason/

(This website doesn't sell anything, and its all my own work, so it doesn't contravene any rules.)

1) Yes I am a Christian, but I'm also a thinking, feeling rational person.

2) I personally have chosen to be a Creationist (I see no scientific reason not to, and it goes along with my chosen faith). I do however think that Creationism and Evolution are both viable from a scientific view depending on the pre-exisiting axioms set (at no time was there ever a Creator to start things off vs. there was a Creator to start things off, and they've been running "naturally", not supernaturally, every since).

If you scroll down you should see your nickname in red and a personal response to your posts. If you're interested in what others have said, feel free to read my post to them too.

I don't want to coerce anyone; I just want to stand up for my and others' beliefs. I look forward to your responses.

(E.g. what is Christian fundamentalism and how should it function in our society, does theism turn people away from a thirst for knowledge, why is there death and suffering in the world, where did Cain get his wife, reliability of the Gospel texts, how can a God of love send people to hell, etc.)

Interesting link. Enjoy.

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

Jeshua

As a scientist I am willing to accept that life may have originated by intelligent design or not as the case may be. Both are merely hypotheses and neither can be considered a scientific theory. However there is a big difference between origin of life and evolution of life according to Darwin. There is a great deal of evidence for the latter. It is the attempt to discredit evolution and the belief that life originated in its present form only a few thousand years ago that I find unacceptable.

YngNLuvnit you were right after reading that piece about Cain’s wife and biological deformities it has changed my mind around. How could I of been so foolish. And the explanation for God wrath on people was truly Christian. It all makes so much sense now. RAOTFLMAO!

SCENE: TWO MEN IN THE DESERT. ONE STANDS & DICTATES AS THE OTHER TAPS ON A COPPER SHEET.

MOSES: So read back to me what you have so far.

SCRIBE: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
And darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good:
And God divided the light from the darkness.

MOSES: Great, now let me see. Moses scratches his head in deep thought.

SCRIBE: Ah Moses.

MOSES: Yes.

SCRIBE: I was just wondering. Where did the light come from?

MOSES: What do you mean?

SCRIBE: Well, God’s made light right? But ..errr…where’s it coming from? The Scribe pauses for a moment then continues.. You see light has to come from somewhere like the sun or moon or when you light the lamp in you tent.

MOSES: Yes well, the fact is... you see it's like this...

SCRIBE: You see, shouldn’t God have made the sun first then made it make light? Or all the light producing thing at the same time as making light? That would seem a little more plausible..

MOSES: Look buddy this is the way he told me he did it so this is the way your going to write it down.

SCRIBE: Sorry Moses I’m just saying..

Moses standing over the scribe interrupts.

MOSES: You know you look like a Midinite to me.

Scribe stares blankly for a moment and then nervously says..

SCRIBE: No it’s great, I love it.

Crusader, thank you for your efforts.
Think big: Real power and love would have forgiven the curious and disobedient creatures he created right away. If knowing good from evil was not good for them, he could have eliminated the knowledge and hidden the source. If there had been real power and love, that's when suffering should have ended, before it even started. Real power and love would not have to operate with threats of eternal pain, and would definitely not have to apply that or any taste of that. The insistence on submission has been used by exploiters of the gullible since gods were invented. Bin Laden is one such exploiter, Hitler was, history and present is full of them. (The leaders of crusades were, dear crusader.) It's them that I am afraid of, not what happens to whatever remains of me after I am dead.

Alan Matheson's article is part of the culture wars raging between the left and right wing factions within Christianity. The left/liberal WCC has historically taken an anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian line. Hence the gratuitous swipe against the evangelical Christian supporters of Israel. This of course has absolutely has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the ID debate. It's interesting that the atheists have taken the bait and turned it into a general slugfest!

Poor Christians, what a pathetic miserable paranoid bunch of mental blanks you are. There is not one of you that has a bit of love within you. First you start with niceties, I love you and god loves you. Then you resort to trying to brainwash with pathetic repetitive rhetoric. When that doesn't work, you resort to threats of damnation. If you weren't so dangerous you would be classed as the largest comedy group in existence. Put facts in front of you and you try to change history to suit your delusions

You say, show me a society thats better than a christian one, so when we do, you change the subject. The fact is that there has never been a god controlled society that hasn't been involved in demonising its people, starting wars and being just down right destructive to everything religion comes in touch with.

The religious have virtually wiped out the indigenous races of the world, no one else. Cultures that survived for many thousands of years in harmony with nature, have been destroyed by your moronic beliefs. Name one country or race that hasn't suffered at the hands of god religions.

You claim to have started everything good in the world, but your practices are the opposite, so you blame others. It must be so terribly frustrating to be so ignorant and lacking in understanding the reality of our universe. To think that our multidimensional universe was created by a being so barbaric and limited in understanding that it allows trhe destruction of its own creation, just shows you where your god is at. God is just in your unevolved empty heads. It is your beliefs that are pagan and totally unrealistic, not the animists and non believers.

Alchemist,
I am beginning to believe you actually believe in a violent and sadistic god, as the only explanation of what happens in this transient and violent world. Because you cannot refrain from shaking your fist at the disturbed situation of the world. Where are your evangelistist of peace and harmony and reconciliation. You are fighting this battle in your own mind. Your world view is constantly negative much like the god in which you believe.

If you have a better world start praising its virtues and people will believe you. However be honest do not promise things you cannot deliver. Is sickness, disease, poverty, pain all a part of the community to which you belong? We want to hear where you have espoused a positive community with your beliefs, not a negative carping one where anything of religion is constantly criticised. Or do you only exist to destroy religion? We all want to hear the positive aspects of your perfect society!

Yngun, I read your blog and have a few comments. You fundies still don't get it. You can take any section of the bible or koran, interpret it this way or that, then change your opinion of the day.
For most of Xtianity, contraception was seen as evil, as God killed some guy for spilling a bit of sperm. The catholics still swear by that stuff. So should you die if you spill some sperm?

You can't even answer basic questions like Noah and the fish. If the world was flooded, either freshwater or seawater fish would have died. Did Noah have aquariums? I mean these holy books are so full of ridiculous faults its amusing, yet you just rationalise it all away by interpretation. God kills a guy for wasting sperm, then you tell me he loves you.. sheesh, I hope he can't see into your bed :)

Yes people turn to religion for percieved certainty, it helps their
brain chemistry, reduces anxiety. If you were walking through the woods x thousand years ago and lightning struck 6ft ahead of you,killing your best friend, you would sh*t yourself and want an answer. Any answer to make you believe that it would not happen to you next, would make you feel better, even if it was rubbish.
Religion can take away your obvious fear of death, give you hope,
scare you with judgement day, ie. push all your emotional buttons, that doesent mean its true.

See the bright side Yngun, the worms will eat you one day, the same as the rest of us :) So you might as well accept that you won your first lottery in life. The other sperms and ova were flushed down lifes toilet, you got lucky. Heaven is here and now so enjoy it for what it is and try to make the world a better place, so that future generations can enjoy it too, not wreck the place in the name of religious anxiety.

YngNLuvnIt, Your site has no substance and all the evidence comes from christian Americans. The quotes are fallacies, you have dated the wrong parchments and documents. Want proof, go to Kashmir and the whole story is there and documented. Then refute engraved tablets, signs and tomb identification's that date to the 2nd century.

Philo, I don't; believe in any god, just see the reality of violent and sadistic god religions, the proofs there for everyone to see. The current world situation you speak of, all revolves around your god. My view of the world is positive, because I believe the time is coming when your god religion will be relegated to where it belongs, along side all despotic Ism's, down the dunny.

Perfection is the art of change, thats why the universe is perfect, because it constantly changes, unlike religion. A better world will come, people are evolving and see the reality of your evil superstitions and violent practices.

No I don't exist to destroy religion, it needs no help from me, its reality is doing that job very well.

Philo, “However be honest do not promise things you cannot deliver “, now thats some statement. You and your ilk on behalf of your god, promise peace, love and a better world. From the examples you provide the world with, how honest are you.

Philo, I would explain my philosophy and how I came to it, but you would never understand, your fear of reality won't allow you to see beyond your delusion. So I just use it to help people that have health problems, both mental and physical. It has more success than your faith in god, no miraculous cures, just plain old common sense and empowering people to take control of their lives, rather than be controlled by superstition, fear and doubt.

Unlike you, I don't need a book to think for me, I think and act for myself, responsibly.

Yngun, one last point that I forgot. You claim that the fundies are doing ok in Africa, due to the many miracles.

But it cannot be denied that Islam is the fastest growing religion around. Of course it would be, their deal is far better then the Christian deal. Its not just about living forever and angels etc, muslims get up to 4 wives if they can handle it. In heaven they get a river with flowing fruits everwyhere and up to 72 houris, or virgins, you guys offer flapping angel wings... no wonder you are losing the race...

Bless you Yabby... I'm hereby promoting you to 'Christian Apologist' par excellence :)

You are stealing my lines mate, and doing my work.. I'm feeling redundant.

You are RIGHT... 'Christianity' does NOT appeal..in some senses. And what would be a greater testimony to the fact that it came from God rather than 'man' than this ? How many times have you said, or heard "Its produced by men for their benefit" welllll.. I suggest that Islam, is exactly that. 4 wives.. sex slaves...child marraige, booty and plunder as theologically current concepts under Sharia etc...I mean..for a MAN's carnal desires.. does it get any better ?

LUKE 14
25] Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: [26] "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life -- he cannot be my disciple. [27] And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Yes, it is couched in Hebrew Idiom 'hate' to mean 'put 2nd' but note that Jesus spoke thus to LARGE CROWDS who were following Him.

Interestingly, after this, 'sinners and tax collectors' gathered around Him. The religious leaders scorned him, and he told the parable about the lost sheep.

He said 'For him who has ears to hear....let him hear'.

Have you had a hearing test lately ? :)

Atheists and God-haters:You neither know the Bible nor the power of God.
You make us believers out to be unthinking morons.
Perhaps 'nudged' by God but I saw design so a creation all around me. So I studied and became a believer.
Now there are many things I do not know, many things that I do not understand, many things that have me wondering - mainly to do with tragedies that occur to 'nice' people even to Christians. Many things that I do not have an answer for.
But over-riding that I see a God that's all powerful, all knowing and all wise. A being that lives outside of time - this itself is incomprehensible for a mortal human. an Awesome being and One that has a plan for all mankind - yes a good, a fantastic plan.
I, as said, did not imagin a God then believe. I saw creation, I saw magnificent design in everthing around me and that started me off. So I suppose in spite of myself I knew there must be a Creator/ an Almighty God.
I apologise that I do not have the vocabulary to correctly describe the above in a better form but! numbat

>>I apologise that I do not have the vocabulary to correctly describe the above in a better form but! numbat <<

Perhaps this might help mate:

Romans 1:19-21

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

coach: thanks? for your encouragement? I purposely did not want to use Biblical texts as I was addressing non-believers.
I am so pleased that you are so erudite. numbat

The Alchemist (and other Revisionists),

1. You and your ilk on behalf of your god, promise peace, love and a better world

No sincere Christian could make such a promise.

2. A better world will come, people are evolving and see the reality of your evil superstitions and violent practices.

Keep on dreaming.

3. It must be so terribly frustrating to be so ignorant and lacking in understanding the reality of our universe.

your fear of reality won't allow you to see beyond your delusion. Put facts in front of you and you try to change history to suit your delusions

Isn’t this exactly your tactic too?

And same again:
4. …show me a society thats better than a christian one, so when we do, you change the subject.

Philo, I would explain my philosophy and how I came to it, but you would never understand,...

5. So I just use it to help people that have health problems, both mental and physical

Common mate just relax and make it easier on yourself. The people in white are taking you for a small trip – don’t be afraid; it’s for your own good. All your friends will be there too and we will come and visit.

Ari, be careful with what you say. Those devils out there might get the impression you had reasons to fear factual information and atheism.
Coach, what are you so scared of?

Sergei,
Sorry for the late response. I have been away and when I tried to respond last week things were broken on online opinion.

Firstly, the vision statement of the paper has nothing to do with the views of the author they were interviewed, so your attempted poisoning the well is really just a red herring.

The Author, Rodney Stark is a PhD in sociology and has written over 20 books. As such, I will trust his comments more than yours.

Even in reviewing your claims about the inventions, it seems that you cherry pick your results and ignore invention that did happen (e.g. accurate watch like devices in the dark ages). Heck, even wikipedia admits that the 'dark ages' was a propaganda campaign and mentions the inventions that Stark claims were made in the period. A little research is all that is needed to find that you are wrong, even without going into the depth that Stark goes into in his book.

Wow! I got a response! Dear "nogodetc", I fear nothing of the sort. I was merely pointing out that Matheson is engaging in internal Christian faction fighting. It is a waste of time to be sucked into a general debate on evolution vs creationism etc. In reality, ID is a non-issue in Australia. The prospects of ID being taught as science in any other than a minimal number of private schools in Australia is zero. It is a hot issue in parts of the US where the evangelical right wing has political muscle. To put your mind at ease may I say that in my view, ID is not science, it is faith-based religion/philosophy and as such is a perfectly legitimate study within the area of religion.

Societies better than Christian ones, Coach? Australia, most of Europe, New Zealand... And where are the most religious places? Africa, the Middle East...Hmmm, isn't religion great.

By the way, would like to point out that it's not a lot of christian/religious ideas that I have a problem with ie caring for your fellow man, do unto others etc..pretty sensible stuff, which is probably why these ideas are included in so many major religions. Its some of the stupid, irrational baggage that has come along for the ride (gay people are evil, contraception is evil, women belong in the home)that really ges my goat.. so all you believers, don't get the idea that I think you are evil people. You probably live good lives, but until you can accept and understand that others can also live good lives without your particular (faith based, not reasoned) belief set, I don't want people like you running the country I live in, and will do whatever I can to minimise the risk of that happening. Why are you so threatened by people who think differently?

Lets keep Australia free and secular! Put religous politicians last when you vote.

Alan wrote….” Heck, even wikipedia admits that the 'dark ages' was a propaganda campaign and mentions the inventions that Stark claims were made in the period. A little research is all that is needed to find that you are wrong, even without going into the depth that Stark goes into in his book.”

Firstly if you read the “Discussion” section of the Dark Ages Wiki entry you will see that there are some questions about the validity of the opening paragraphs of that entry ie: Christian Apologetics/anti-humanists.

You dick I used the Wiki to get and check the dates already you check it for yourself. Just to be sure you got it. Dark Ages = 476-1000CE those inventions etc fall outside the time or are not related as they came from Asia. PERIOD!!

And I was not being selective I ran out of room. (350word limit) I would have thought someone with common sense would realized the errors of his (Stark) statement.

About clock your comment ok I missed out on what

- Double-entry book keeping try- 1200-1300’s

http://www.franzarlinghaus.de/Bookkeeping.html

http://www.canhamrogers.com/HDEB.htm

http://www.ivcc.edu/steljes/GeneralPages/Links/accounting_history_in_a_nutshell.htm

- The chimney… How vague is that? 1300’s Northern Europe

Check out Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimney

Google and you can find more outside Dark Ages date.

The pump. Well he has to be more specific there. But did you ever hear a about a guy called Archimedes?

Whats left? The waterwheel. From now on let the Dark Ages be know as the Age of Waterwheels!

Also you have a pro-Christian group interviewing an author with pro-Christian views without a balance to the interview. Hmmm sounds pro-Christian propaganda to me?

Stark is wrong and using propaganda.

Now are we clear? Have a nice day.

PS.

In relation to Stark’s statement in the article..” Allah was not conceived of as creator of a universe governed by "natural" rules, in contrast with the prevailing Christian conception of Jehovah as the Great Clockmaker.” Referring to different between scientific development in societies embracing Islam or Christianity during the dark ages. He is wrong the concept of God the great clockmaker deals with Galileo, Kepler & Newton.

I think it is a pity that the debate over Intelligent Design has become a debate about the God reflected in the Christian Scriptures. The other pity is that Evolution is presented often in public discourse as a fact rather than a theory. As science it reflects a faith e.g anything other than a naturalistic explanation of the origins and existence of life is unthinkable (I think I'm paraphrasing Richard Dawkins here.)It reflects a worldview whose epistemology is rooted in 'natural' experience rather than 'supernatural'. There should be greater debate, I believe, about the scientific aspects of evolution rather than the normal to-do between the fundamentalist evolutionists and the fundamentalist Christians as the foundations of belief are quite different. It is customary for the evolutionists to take the high ground (fundamentalist posture) when they are no more entitled to do so than anyone else. Also, intelligent design has been hypothesised due to the scientific evidence that life has design inbuilt. This does not mean ah! it must be God, and it must be 'our' God.
There are also many people in academic circles who have built careers and reputations around evolution, not to mention positions of influence, and these will be defended vigorously.
It seems to me, to state my position, that evolution as an explanation of the diversity, complexity, order and mystery of life oversteps itself by far. But the faith must be defended as the (apparent or posited) alternative is unthinkable.

Alchemist,
I am convinced now that you actually believe in the violent superstition spirit world that primitive culturtes have survived in for thousands of years.
You Posted Sunday 8th "The religious have virtually wiped out the indigenous races of the world, no one else. Cultures that survived for many thousands of years in harmony with nature, have been destroyed by your moronic beliefs. Name one country or race that hasn't suffered at the hands of god religions."

So these primitive superstitious cultures that are held in fear of demons are acceptable in your eyes while New World monotheistic religions are evil. Now we are beginning to see multiple spirits, the superstitions and beliefs you hold as essential to living in this Earth. So you are really polytheistic at heart and deny the monotheistic and unified view of the Universe. That's Ok, that is your choice. Please don't read Aristotle to them as it will destroy their world view, and you will be doing the same to them as you try to do to the New World religions. Western education is a terrible scourge for these people, please do not try to educate them, otherwise they will become like the rest of us.

Link worth reading.

http://www.summit.org/resource/tc/archive/0106/

Jeshua

"Scientific evidence can be compiled to support one model of earth history as compared to another, but such work amounts to a feasibility study, not proof."

Jeremy L Walter (Ph.D)

Serg,

Question:

So Galileo, Kepler & Newton were all atheists not young-Earth Creationists?

Harvard Paleantologist Dr Richard Lewontin said: (Thanx Jeshua, good link)

[“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to Materialism [naturalism]. Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”]

and so, we have a glimpse of honesty, a ray of intellectual confession... but sadly, this admission seems not to impact on the many ‘followers’ of the naturalistic view, they continue, headlong on, with glazed eyes of denial, blindly thinking they are simply being ‘objective’.

How easy, how convenient it would be to turn our minds around to this manner of thinking. How many doors to unspeakable hedonistic licence and pleasure it would open up, how free we would be, to follow our carnal impulses, to explore all the sensuality that the human form can experience........only to find that it was only the ‘screensaver’ and the reality behind this glamorous and tantalizing portrayal, is a virus, a way that is wide, a path that is easy...and leads to eternal destruction. The hard-drive of our soul is totally re-formatted.

Yet that path is attractive, and remains the single biggest barrier to humble acceptance of the Lordship of Christ. “I stand at the door knocking, if any man will open.... I will come in, and dine with him” Said the glorified Jesus.

I hope none of us who choose the wide path will not complain that He did not break the door down when we face Him.

Serg... I think its a waste of time to try to show either for or against a religious tradition by counting the ‘score’ of various cultural contributions. Stick to your sketch writing skills.
There is a knock on your door I believe......

Sergei,
I understand where you got the date for the 'dark ages' from, but historically, the term was used to the period up to the renaissance.
Wikipedia also notes this.

Perhaps Stark was using the greater period?

Either way, you seem to be mistaken in many of your claims, and even when you could argue you were accurate, you left out information. This is why I would trust Stark's comments more than yours. The venom in your comments also reduce your credibility.

For instance, when you spoke of clocks you made the comment that the enscapement mechanism was necessary for accurate timekeeping, yet history also records that there was an accurate timing device in the 7th century. Mentioning this would have made your point weak.

You also try to claim that there was no inovation or discovery in the dark ages for the crossbow, stirrup or compass. This is also false. You only need to compare the early versions of these items with the versions used in the 10th century to see how innaccurate your statement is. The crossbow is probably the clearest example of this.

Early eyeglasses were around in the 10th century, and early violins (called rebecs) were also from the correct period. Funnily enough, ignore these things.

Health and Life insurance were indeed invented in the dark ages.

So lets summarise. You firstly restrict the term 'dark ages' to a shorter period than it has historically been used for. You ignore inventions that still applied in that shorter period and the many innovations made and for some reason, even though it has been shown to be false, you still think that people believed in a flat earth up to the 12th century.

It is no wonder I don't put much stock in your pronouncements.

Anyone got a bucket of cold water, BD has overheated.

Philo, I recognise animist theory for it's environmental sustainability, there for all to see, except the demons. It's a materialist view, but relevant, to sustainable life. If the sun goes out, or the moon leaves its orbit, we are up the proverbial creek.

If the religious worshiped all your supposed gods creations, as they do their mental fantasies and cared for the works of their god, as animists do. Then your god would be easier to accept as loving and caring. We both know that won't happen, as god is an illusion within the fearful gullible mind. The practise is selfcentred and destructive.

It must be painful not being able to see anything beyond the delusion that nothing could happen without god religion. The only reason god religions defeated animists, was because of their superior weaponry, without that they would've been wiped out. A glaring example of a caring god, can't convert, then kill.

I understand most beleifs and accept them as important to those relying on them. Thats not saying I see them as right, I have my own views on the origins and future of existence. Unlike yours, my philosophy doesn't have boundaries, just an ethical responsibility.

(fantasy scenario) How will you recognise the second coming of your messenger. The last time he came the religious killed him, because he denounced their belief applications. What will he say about your rich churches and mumbo jumbo rituals, he denounced them last time, now things are worse, whats changed.

Because I speak differently and challenge your faith, a lot of you would destroy me. He came as man, what makes you think it will be different, oops sorry forgot descending from the heavens with chariots, fire and brimstone, leading the army of angels intent on revenge. Wouldn't he choose a big space shuttle to fit everyone in, but then the US would blast him as an invader. Poor bugger couldn't win whatever he chooses

Serg. Keep it up cobber, enjoyable parables.

Alan said “I understand where you got the date for the 'dark ages' from, but historically, the term was used to the period up to the renaissance. Wikipedia also notes this.

Wikipedia said “The phrase the Dark Ages (or Dark Age) is most commonly known in relation to the European Early Middle Ages (from about A.D. 476 to about 1000).”

I’m sorry Alan if that does not seem clear enough for you.

Alan said “You firstly restrict the term Dark Ages to a shorter period than it has historically been used for..”

Again the Dark Ages refers to early medieval times, from after the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the first millennium. Refer following links-

http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa072502f.htm?terms=dark+ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages
http://www.finds.org.uk/pastexplorers/fun/periods/early_med.php

One thing I like is this from my trusty World Book Encyclopedia from 1974 Volume 5 “D” page 30.

“Dark Ages is a term once used to describe the Middle Ages. The word “Dark” referred to a supposed lack of learning during the period. We know now that the Middle Ages cannot be described as completely “Dark”. The period only seemed dark to scholars of the more advanced Renaissance and to historians who were later influenced by them.”

This is typical of introductions for a Dark Ages definition. You can find anywhere in any encyclopedia, dictionary or web page. Variances, such as reference to the Middle Ages as Medieval Time with a “Early” & “Late” period, but it is pretty standard. After this introductory statement comes the following. (Obviously to describe how the Dark Ages weren’t that bad or “lacking in learning”.)

“The early centuries of the middle ages, from the A.D. 400’s to the late 900’s came closest to being dark. Civilization sank low in Western Europe. Knowledge from the ancient Romans survived only in a few monastery, cathedral and palace schools. Knowledge acquired from ancient Greece almost disappeared. Few persons received schooling. Many of the art and craftsmanship of the ancient world were lost. Writers had little sense of style. In their ignorance, they accepted popular stories and rumors as true.”

Cont'

Cont’
WHAT? Well it looks like it’s lacking in learning to me and the first sentence even refers it as ..“closest to being dark.” People might not think it polite to call it dark but seems dark to me.

If you can supply a reference which indicates a different time period please go ahead.

As Stark said …”the invention of the compass, stirrups, the crossbow, canons, effective horse harnesses, eyeglasses, clocks, chimneys, violins, double-entry bookkeeping, and insurance? The point that Stark is trying to make is that the Dark Ages which involved a Christian Europe (Not China or the Middle East) weren’t that bad; but uses examples that do not refer to the time period or inventions that came from outside the area.

A rebec is a rebec is a rebec. So therefore it’s not a violin. As I said the violin came outside the time period. Even the adoption of the rebec as an instrument from the Middle East appears to be outside the Dark Ages time period. So is the rebec a ancestor of the violin yes. Somewhat like the ape is a ancestor of man. But the violin like man both developed outside the Dark Ages.

Try these rebec links-
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~pbutler/rebec.html
http://www.earlymusic.i12.com/general/prod_12.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r1/rebec.asp

Try these violin links-
http://www.gussetviolins.com/earlyhistory.htm
http://musiced.about.com/od/beginnersguide/a/halloween.htm

I especially like the quote-
“Like all good medieval things, the rebec's origins can be traced to the middle east.”

Alan Said”You also try to claim that there was no innovation or discovery in the dark ages for the crossbow, stirrup or compass. You ignore inventions that still….blah blah”

I said quote ”Note: ”remarkable innovation & discovery”. The compass, stirrup and crossbow came from China or Japan and were used prior to the dark ages. No Innovation and discovering that someone else is using it doesn’t really count. Lets expand a little…”

The Compass try-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcompass.htm
http://nvnv.essortment.com/compasshistory_rumo.htm
http://www.solarnavigator.net/marine_compass_history.htm

Clearly invented in China, Clearly came to Europe after the dark ages.

More Shortly all will be addressed.

Cont'

Crossbows try-
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/crossbow-history.html
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/chronology.html
http://worldcrossbow.com/history.html#HISTORY

Clearly invented in China and then came to Europe. Please note the significance of “228 BC Earliest crossbow artifact, a bronze lock mechanism from the tomb of Yu Wang.” This like the clock escapement which I will get to is the key. The brilliance of the crossbow is a person can draw back on the bow and lock the stored energy. Then proceed to aim and shoot. Therefore the innovation of the crossbow itself relies in the locking mechanism. Was there other innovation? Yes. A timber bow was replaced with a steel one, thanks to the Moors. But let’s be clear, a crossbow is a Bow, a String, a Stock and a Lock. This remained unchanged.

The Stirrup try-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

Yes just one link. It gives a pretty concise history with references that can be checked. The stirrup was invented before the period of the Dark Ages. Did it change during that period? Yes! Why? As armour became heavier the stirrup became sturdier. The foot wear also became larger for armed horsemen so the hole got bigger. Was this innovation or discovery? No! The innovative concept of using a stirrup is to help support a rider.

Alan said” Early eyeglasses were around in the 10th century…” no you are wrong again.

Eyeglasses? try these links-
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/eyeglasses.html
http://www.sideroad.com/Beauty/history-of-eyeglasses.html
http://www.teagleoptometry.com/history.htm
http://www.antiquespectacles.com/history/through_the_ages.htm
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bleyeglass.htm

This is a typical quote from every source available… “Around 1000AD, the first vision aid was invented (inventor unknown) called a reading stone, which was a glass sphere that was laid on top of the material to be read that to magnified the letters. Around 1284 in Italy, Salvino D'Armate is credited with inventing the first wearable eye glasses.” You see… a reading stone, is a reading stone, is a reading stone. So therefore is not a pair of eyeglasses.

Get ready the clock is coming…

Alchemist,
You are beginning to sound more in tune with the God of Creation than many of the ritualistic practising anamists or monotheistic religions. Understanding Creation is essential to understanding the Edenic commission. This commission is the eternal responsibility of man while he lives here. Though you deny god/s; creation is essentially God's work and a proper understanding of it brings us closer to its origins and purpose.

In fact you may be espousing the Edenic commission given to man, better than most city dwellers who only read religious books. If you hold that everything in the universe operates as a single closed unit even though diverse you are moving in the direction of monotheism. One divine Spirit moves in all creation and creastures to reveal his purpose. Man is held as the only defiant part that seems to act outside a closed system; however the system gets him in the end in death.

The person who treats God with respect, and assists others with respect is closer to the God of Creation and is held as valued in the eternal kingdom of truth and right living

Sydney, what's up? Why do you get so many posts? Does Graham know about this?
Secondly, you haven't answered my question about Kepler and co.

And now to the clock. Sorry for not getting to this before I just kept on running out of room.

How about some links-
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/revol.html
http://www.beaglesoft.com/maintimehistory.htm#Mechanical%20Clocks
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/site/request/setTemplate:singlecontent/contentTypeA/conWebDoc/contentId/333/viewPage/1
http://www.atimetoremember.net/clockhistory.html

This is a good one-
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa072801a.htm

Alan said” For instance, when you spoke of clocks you made the comment that the escapement mechanism was necessary for accurate timekeeping, yet history also records that there was an accurate timing device in the 7th century. Mentioning this would have made your point weak.”

Yes you are right typical mention is about this is “Su Sung' and his colleagues designed and constructed a highly complex mechanism that incorporated a water-driven escapement, invented about 725 AD.”

Bravo! But wait. Who was this Su Sung? He was Chinese and he made the clock in China. Therefore outside of Christian Europe so your point is irrelevant. Also if you could refer me to who said it was accurate? I can give many examples of why the expansion of water due to heat would make it inaccurate.

And so then what happened? Did everyone get a seven meter high water driven time piece in their home or town square during the Dark Ages?

No they used sundials. This is the typical statement of timekeeping during that period. “During the period of 500-1500 AD, the development of time measuring devices in Europe is known not to have improved in any great way technologically, relying on the use of the sundial and principles of measurement used in ancient Egypt.”

So no clocks there. YngNLuvnit I will get to Kepler and my statement next.

Alan said ”You ignore inventions that still applied in that shorter period and the many innovations made and for some reason, even though it has been shown to be false,…”

Alan where have you shown me that what I have said was false? Please give me a reference other than Stark or your belief in him to analyze. See when you make a statement you need to back it up with some evidence otherwise it’s just blind faith and not historically accurate.

PS Will cover Mechanical Escapements later.

"How easy, how convenient it would be to turn our minds around to this manner of thinking. How many doors to unspeakable hedonistic licence and pleasure it would open up, how free we would be, to follow our carnal impulses, to explore all the sensuality that the human form can experience The hard-drive of our soul is totally re-formatted."

David let me tell you something. The day a person realises, when it finally hits them, that for all those years of religious brainwashing from childhood on, that its a heap of gobbledygook, that people who they trusted have deceived them for so long, that their brain was indeed wrongly formatted, is the most liberating day in their lives.

The guilt goes, the fear goes, reason sets in and finally they can experience being human at its fullest potential.

You behave a certain way as you fear judgement day. You feel guilt about sex because of fear and religion. My morality and ethics are based on far sounder footings, my ability to reason. My ability to have my own philosophies and values, based on my ability to reason.

Your life revolves around addiction to religion. You quote your holy book. Quite frankly, that is as impressive to me as if you quote what the lady down the road at Coles said :)

Perhaps one day it will hit you, perhaps not. If it ever does, before the worms get you, rest assured it will lift an enormous burden off your shoulders, only sadness that you have been hoodwinked for so long and on such a grand scale.

Morality without standards leads to anarchy. The Bible provides standards to live by and when these are rejected for man's relative standards we go down the rapid road to self destruction. Freedom wihtout responsibility is the name of the game and we see the evidence of it in school bullying to riots and terrorism. One can operate under law or under grace. Those who see the Bible as a rule book operate under law and this is the basis of guilt. Those who see the Bible as a book of the grace of God experience true freedom with responsibility and this produces life and that abundant. The rebellious spirit of this age will rebel against anything Godly and thus result in its own destruction.

Jeshua

I'm exhausted. Just ploughed through those many dozens of posts, which contain the outpourings of no more than two or three score people. It all started with a quite unexceptionable article about a plainly most temporal organsiation and its funny money, political influence and backing for creationist propaganda in its new clothing.

About half of the responses are just full of incomprehensible mumbo jumbo, with many seeking to argue or refute simply by reference to the bible. This self-referentialism makes dogmatic Christians seem to end up chasing their tails up their own fundaments trying to sound rational.

The truly striking and ironic thing about 'Intelligent Design', that seems not to have been much remarked upon, is that this 'theory' (which it certainly is NOT, with its a priori premises) has been designed with so little intelligence - or did it just 'evolve', mindlessly but without the benefits of natural selection? As a concept it makes about the same amount of sense as that oxymoronic term, 'reality TV'.

Philo, understanding a persons belief, means putting yourself in their shoes and learning that belief. It's no good discussing flying a plane with a pilot, if all you have done is sit in the back of the plane.

Its the same with religion, 99% have no idea what they are talking about, just cling desperately to an idea they have. Jeshua, coach and others have no understanding what Christianity means, or its history. Their fear has brainwashed them into paranoia, leaving no room for ethical understanding.

I don't discuss the workings of Islam, because I have not studied it enough. However the application of it doesn't require learning, as with other religions, its example is sufficient. When religion applies itself in a way that represents what its follows espouse it to be, things may change. I have the greatest respect for those that truly apply their religion fully to their life in an ethical manner, they are few.

My understanding of what religion really represents, is not for the superstitious or faint of heart. It explains our world situation adequately.

Jeshua, morality is a religious cultural, illusional concept, designed to control its followers. Ethics, are displayed by all living beings, keeping order in the natural world. The religious lack ethical understanding and application, if they did, they would approach life in a vastly different way. Then those that don't believe would have more respect for the religious. True freedom is when you have nothing holding you in check, not something forcing you into narrow fearful repetitive dogma.

Religion is full of guilt, thats why its followers blame everyone else for it's despotic history. The most glaring fault in ID, is if the universe were created in perfection, there would be no progress, as nothing would need to change.

The bible, has less ethical and moral lessons, than Lord of the Rings. Its a pity it's not read in its truth, as there are ethical lessons within it. But that can't happen, it would free everyone from religious bonds, that would mean a loss of control.

Sergei,

Lets put this in context.

Yabby said "It was the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, called the dark ages, which held up progress and free thought for eons."
Which was the point I responding to in my original post. Yabby's comment is typical of the 'dark ages' propaganda that was considered historically accurate until recent times (I think the 1950's). Yabby's attitude continues to be common today (see 'A World Lit Only by Fire' for a painful, but well written example), even though, as even your encyclopedia mentions, the end date of the dark ages has been pushed back from around 1500 to 1000 due to findings showing the large amount of innovation, invention and records from 1000 to 1500. Talk about an ad hoc argument from silence.

You can continue to argue all you want, but unless you are adressing Stark's argument, which includes the time period he refers to in his book, you are merely attacking a straw man. For more evidence that the period Stark refers to is 476 to 1500, you can view this other article of his http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0109.html where he says "For the past several centuries, far too many of us have been misled by the incredible fiction that, from the fall of Rome until about the 15th century, Europe was submerged in the Dark Ages"

Other links that talk about the different dates given for the dark ages include
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr41.htm (Talk about a hostile witness)
http://www.archaeology.org/9809/abstracts/darkages.html (Abstract only)
http://www.cob-net.org/text/history_darkages.htm
Many more are available. Clearly the period is more arbitrarily defined.

Sergei (cont)
What I really love is your own link http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa072502f.htm?terms=dark+ages has the great quote
"The Early Medieval Era is sometimes still called the Dark Ages. This epithet oiginated with those who wanted to compare the earlier period unfavorably with their own so-called "enlightened" age. Modern scholars who have actually studied the time period would not so readily use the label, since passing judgment on the past interferes with a true understanding of the time and its people. Yet the term is still somewhat apt for the simple reason that we know relatively little about events and material culture in those times."

Which was my original point exactly. Does your quoting this source as authoritative mean that you now agree with the point that it was just enlightenment propaganda?

Regarding Su Sung and clocks, actually, I am wrong. I was writing from memory, and the date of the device I was referring to was the 9th century. Su Sung's clock was in the 11th century (so we were both wrong there).

Your quoted about the use of clocks in europe between 500 and 1500 is obviously wrong by italy and frances creation of clock towers in the 13th century.

I especially love how you define what was the 'key' innovation was and conveniently this always supports you point. Wouldn't the key innovation in eyeglasses be using a shaped peice of glass to help you see better (e.g for reading)? You also have moved from 'No innovation' to 'key' innovation as your criteria (e.g. in crossbow innovations). Nice moving goal posts you have.

YABBBBBBY.....
just a quick correction to your misconception.. (a stubborn one by the look of it)... I came to Christ FROM the darkness I mentioned in that post. I'ts not that I haven't been there.. that is exactly where I ran from mate.. in my early 20s.

I had to 'de-brainwash' myself from secular emptiness.
Please lose this 'fear fear fearrrrr' thing you continually attribute to Christians.

You suggested that once we set ourselves freeee from all this 'guilt' we will suddenly be unleashed into a great adventure kind of thing... rubbish :) Your post was more a commentary on your own limited and cloistered view of what it means to be truly free..and free indeed.

Anyway.. given enough time, we can sort you out :)

Alchemist, you wrote

'The most glaring fault in ID, is if the universe were created in perfection, there would be no progress, as nothing would need to change.'

The IDers would get around that one in not time. And YOU are using your own definition of ID, falling into a trap by using the IDers' frame of reference.

As I see it, the main fault with ID is that it starts from a presupposition, the very one it is meant to be 'proving'. Like nearly all 'proofs' of god's existence (and let's not pretend that isn't its only purpose), it presupposes god's existence. It does not explain the observable phenomena by reference to acquired knowledge. ID, when all is said and done, merely addresses the fact that 'things exist' and makes an a priori explanation. There are of course, the anomalies and inconsistencies which you have drawn attention to

David! As I've said before, I understand that there are those who are philosphically challenged. The world is too complex to try to understand, they don't understand themselves, so they need an easy and simple answer. So God did it, Allah did it, whatever is a simple
way to balance their brain chemistry and make them feel better.

They need to be born again, but as I said before, I was born ok the first time :) I was also fortunate as a teenager to live for a couple of years in Paris, a place which openend my mind to the potential of philosophy to replace the rubbish that various religions preach. So if your mind was empty, its just lack of good software that did it..

Yup fear plays a huge role in religion, even for you, or you would not wave your finger about judgement day etc. Its at the heart of
many true believers motivations, fear, then of course hope that they won't really die after all...

My problem with the religious is when they interfere in the rest of our lives. I read the catholic dogma of the holy sperms etc and thought about the hundreds of millions of women worldwide who have suffered by this dogma, that the Vatican has tried to enforce in every country it can. Its a crying shame, it really is, yet this
is a major Christian religion, in fact the mother religion of Christianity. You should read a book called "The Sex Lives of the
Popes", to find out what those guys were really up to for all that time!

David, it seems like your addiction to religion keeps you busy and off the streets :), but perhaps one day the reality of the illusion you believe in, will hit you after all. So there is hope for you yet:)

As I would accept ID it does not claim things were created instantly and perfect with no need to change. That might be some Creationists view, but it is not the nature of ionic chemistry where change is the nature of reality.

ID identifies the design in the change as more than accidental and random. It sees intelligent advantage in change that is not at the will, gene or capacity of the preceeding assumed evolved species.

Monotheistic evolution believes God put systems in motion at the beginning that he completed before he rested (withdraw), but are not at any stage a completed in any final form. There is a creation principle within the gene placed there by design. A leaf eating grub does not just become a butterfly there is purposeful design in the proceedure. Theology calls it predestination, though Paul the apostle has a specific definition and application. There is an unfolding time frame in His-story.

Alan wrote “even though, as even your encyclopedia mentions, the end date of the dark ages has been pushed back from around 1500 to 1000..blah blah”

Err actually no the World Book Encyc. Talks of the Middle Ages with a early part which I have mentioned and referred to as, the “Early Middle Ages”, as being the time of the Dark Ages which it is commonly and historically know as. To push the time for the Dark Ages outside CE1000 or at most mid to late 11th century is wrong as Stark does by saying it finished in the 15th Century. The best initial argument against Stark, that you pointed out and many other references agree, that the period was a judgment of contemporary scholars on a previous time period. So if we take into account the historical timing regarding who first used the Dark Ages terminology.” It is generally accepted that the term was invented by Petrarch in the 1330s.” then it obviously can’t describe a period after 1330AD can it? So Stark is wrong! Refer to links below re: Petrarch.
http://www.themiddleages.net/people/petrarch.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages

But I will return to this argument in a moment some other house cleaning. Firstly your comment regarding eyeglasses, ok I shall return the goal posts as you are correct because I’ve tried to form a balanced logical argument based on referenced articles under a well defined set of terms.
So, Eyeglasses are to Reading Stones are to Burning Glass from between 100BC & 100AD and before the Dark Ages. Refer following links-
http://www.microscopeworld.com/misc/history-of-the-microscope.htm
http://www.microscope-microscope.org/basic/microscope-history.htm

YngNLuvnit wrote ” Serg, Question; So Galileo, Kepler & Newton were all atheists not young-Earth Creationists?”

Yes they were creationists as far as I know, but young or old earth I don’t know.

David wrote” Serg... I think its a waste of time to try to show either for or against a religious tradition by counting the ‘score’ of various cultural contributions.” When or whether the Dark Ages occurred or at what time invention developed has nothing to do with “religious tradition” that’s pathetic. And what score is being kept?

Where Was I? Yes what point are you making by quoting another article by Stark that shows the same time period? He’s still wrong, consistent though! With your three references I’ll get to the first one last. The other two links are transposing the whole period of the middle ages (early & late) to the Dark Ages which is incorrect.*

Now that first link, “Stormfront” I don’t know what you are trying to say about that. “Talk about a hostile witness” what do you mean by that? These guys are white pride, white supremacists and racists (but not neo-Nazis lets not get over board). If you are using them as a history reference you must be joking? Talk about a group distorting history for their own reasoning. Oh wait, no, I think you cracked it. That’s where Stark is getting his references from, yeah, it all makes sense now. Lets try another white pride group?
http://www.white-history.com/
Dark Ages article-
http://www.white-history.com/hwr41.htm

The same thing as well, like Stark these guys too are consistent.

*Let’s try some people with less of a drum to beat, and see when they consider the Dark Ages.
How about the Encyclopaedia Britannica?
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9028782?query=dark%20ages&ct=
Time for Dark Ages-“to the period between about 500 and 1000 (AD)”

Or other Encyclopaedia-
http://www.bartleby.com/65/mi/MiddleAg.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/MiddleAg_BeginningsandCulturalDevelopments.asp
This quote- “The Dark Ages, formerly a designation for the entire period of the Middle Ages, now refers usually to the period c.450-750, also known as the Early Middle Ages.”
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Middle_Ages
Notes that the high middle ages starts at 1000AD with the Dark Ages prior to that.

How about Dictionaries (Most no more that CE1000)?-
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861602608
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/darkages?view=uk
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=Dark+Ages&matchtype=exact
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/books/concise/WORDS-D.html
http://www.bartleby.com/59/9/darkages.html
http://www.factmonster.com/ipd/A0398993.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dark%20age
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/Dark+Ages

The BBC?-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/architecture/architecture_01.shtml

Here’s a nice one-
http://www.roma.unisa.edu.au/07305/medmm.htm

But this is getting boring let’s try a drum beater- The Vatican?-
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1982/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19820601_glasgow_en.html

Containing the quote- “After the Dark Ages had passed, during which the Viking invasions failed to quench the light of the Faith, the coming of Queen Margaret inaugurated a new chapter in the history of the Church in Scotland,” QM was born in CE 1046 so therefore DA was before that.

Next?

Alchemist,
Quote-Jeshua, morality is a religious cultural, illusional concept, designed to control its followers. Ethics, are displayed by all living beings, keeping order in the natural world. The religious lack ethical understanding and application, if they did, they would approach life in a vastly different way. Then those that don't believe would have more respect for the religious. True freedom is when you have nothing holding you in check, not something forcing you into narrow fearful repetitive dogma.

You are bound by the law and therefore you see religous as fearful and bound. This is exactly what Jesus came to do and that is deliver us from the law of sin and redeem us through the law of love. I agree that religion can be a blind following and repetition of dogmas and rituals. However within this there is a moral code that provides a standard for good living. The Bible can be seen as a rule book or a book that gives life to those who find it. Those who find it know the truth and live. Others use it as a book of rules and are bound by it. Jesus referred to it but He brought life by fulfilling the written word.
I disagree that true freedom is nothing holding you in check. True freedom is being able to be and accountable. This is freedom with responsibility. The other is freedom without responsibility. This is the freedom that breeds chaos as everyone feels free to do what they think is best and mostly it just breeds selfishness.

Sergei,
So I claim that the idea of the dark ages being the entire middle ages up to the renaissance was commonly put foward in texts up until a few decades ago when more discoveries showed how wrong it was. And so you respond by showing how texts are no longer claiming the entire period?? How does that address what I have been saying? I even provided links and references of people and organisations that still claim it is the entire period.

Truly the mind boggles.

On eyeglasses. It is interesting that the earlier links you quoted said that the reading stone was the first visual aid, and yet know you are claiming these links aren't accurate by saying that romans first used glass as a visual aid. Which is it sergei? Should I trust the links you put foward only to later realise that you think they are innaccurate?

Sorry meant 2 put this up ages ago...

http://standstoreason.livejournal.com/

(There's newer stuff on there than last time you clicked).

YngNLuvnIt why are you using a blog to post your comments? Do you have a problem with the way this forum works? Post your comments properly within the forum and not off site please so we can all be on the same page so to speak. Or are you promoteing your blog? Does Graham know about this?

Point taken mate, will endeavour 2 speak w/i 700 words next time.

See u in the next evolution/ID/Creation debate.

Cheers.

The wacky Islamists want to blow our brains out with bombs, and the happy-clappies want to do it by schooling us that science is just a bunch of fairy tales. And they both think they're fit to control a government. Like you should let mice run a bakery.

Have you noticed - most of the posts here use quotations from the old testament? Interestingly, far right Christians almost always quote the old testament too to seek justificatoin for their views and policies.

Speaking as Christians, you would think that the new testament would be their main source of guidance and example. Of course if they took a real long hard look at the story of Christ, they would find nothing in his life, way or truth that they could use to defend their often predjudicial, hate-filled opinions about life nad human relationships. If Christ walked amongst us today and said the things he said 2000 years ago, I guarantee, it would be rightwing christians who would be the first to stand up and denounce him as a heretic and blasphemer who should be wiped off the face of the earth. Just as the authority figures of old were afraid of the most gentle of men - those who have wealth and power today remain afraid of the most gentle of messages. May the peace, love and compassion of the real Christ shine through. Always.