River Valley Blogs

Extraordinary claimsExtraordinary Evidence wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:09 PM:

" Several quotes from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum
and editor of a prestigious scientific journal

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them"

Later in the same interview:

"You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "

Extraordinary claimsExtra ordinary evidence wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:00 PM:

" This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:

The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. "

Extraordinary claimsExtraordinary Evidence wrote on Feb 10, 2009 5:59 PM:

" "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This would also then pertain to macro evolution.

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them "

More Biblical Interpretation Facts wrote on Feb 10, 2009 5:39 PM:

" BATS ARE NOT BIRDS:

(KJV) Contradiction: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...and the stork,
the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. Leviticus 11:13,19

The error in this translation is the use of the word fowls from the Hebrew word owph which literally refers to any flying creature. The original Hebrew text is explaining what flying creatures were acceptable for consumption and
which ones were not. Because the bat is technically a flying creature, it was accurately included in this list. "

Biblical Intrepretation Facts wrote on Feb 10, 2009 5:37 PM:

" RABBITS DO NOT CHEW CUD:

(KJV) Contradiction: And the hare, because he cheweth the cud... Leviticus 11:6

The error in this translation is the use of the word cud from the Hebrew word gerah which basically means partially digested material. Rabbits do alah (move) their gerah (undigested food) with the fact they eat their own
feces in order to reabsorb the nutrients of the undigested material. This process, known as refection, differs from our modern definition of the process of rumination. In this case, the translators of
the KJV used the word they felt best suited this process although it technically is not what we know today as chewing cud. "

Everyone wrote on Feb 10, 2009 5:31 PM:

" God has given us free will. We all have the choice to accept or reject him. Some on this blog have chosen to reject Him. Because of His gift of free will He honors that decision. You can tell by the language of some atheists on here that their hearts have been harden toward Him. Is it done by God or or them? They will say its their choice. After all, you cannot make someone see the truth if they don't want to. Just look at those who reject the occurence of the holocaust. They have available the same evidence as everyone else. "

To MidwestAtheist wrote on Feb 10, 2009 5:20 PM:

" I believe you need to do your homework better when talking about the Bible. Its certainly not consistent with the available evidence. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:22 AM:

" Thanks again-I am very familiar with both people. Should be interesting. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:20 PM:

" The parties representing each point are Dan Barker and Dr. Mark Chavalas. That information is on the website, and if you click "More infomation" (the link under the post on www.lcafs.org), you will see a brief background on each presenter "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:43 PM:

" Thank you. I am very interested. The other debate I attended at UWL on evolution/creation featuring Dr David Menton and some UWL professors was very informative. Hopefully this will be also. Maybe I missed it on the website, but who is representing each point of view? Thanks again. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:08 PM:

" For those who post here, you may be interested in attending an upcoming debate on October 26 at UWL titled, "The Bible: Fact or Fiction? Is the Bible Reliable?"
For more information, go to www.lcafs.org "

Michael James Bartholomew THADDEUS Welch... wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:16 PM:

" Well if you, KWK, stopped believing in McDowell, Strobel et. al., the world as you've constructed it would collapse so of course MY 'evidence' CANNOT be more 'compelling.' This is why the comment that noted we would all just repeat ourselves (for the hundred thousandth time) and then take a break and do it over again was on the mark. You believe in the actual apostles and that say St Bartholomew (my confirmation name!) was flayed alive etc.? Okay -- except that Bart is 'Thaddeus' sometimes and has that odd story about Jesus seeing him under a tree which causes him to 'believe'! At the time by the way Jesus is repairing what, a saddle pack I think, i. e. really doing carpentry repair -- this the ONLY time in scripture he works at it... "

To organized religion wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:39 AM:

" I will take the minds of Habermas, Menton, McDowell, CS Lewis, Strobel(heck, even Krause!) over your mind anyday. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:50 AM:

" MA, I agree with you. I believe the evidence for Christianity IS extraordinary. This is why I don't just refer people to the Bible, but also to books like "Evidence that Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell,etc. I believe the evidence itself is reason to trust the Bible over Mormonism, Scientology, etc. Obviously, you need to make up your own mind. But I find the evidence compelling enough to put my faith in Christ. "

Organized religion... wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:00 PM:

" ...is for the weak minded. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:53 PM:

" A wise man once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

In order to believe that a god-man was born of a virgin so that he could serve as a sacrifice to himself, who is his own son, so that whoever telepathically tells him he is their master and symbolically (or literally- Catholics) eats his flesh and drinks his blood, will have a magic spirt form spirited away to "live" forever.

Reasonable people need a lot more than some ancient martyrologies and contradictary stories written 3rd hand, many decades after the events occured. Why believe in the Bible and not Islam... or Mormonism... or Scientology? More religions written by more "prophets", with many dying for their beliefs. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:20 PM:

" But, the records that DO exist of these martyrologies are, though sparse, certainly trustworthy. That is, there is no good reason to doubt them. So, I do not doubt them. The standard of "proof" I employ is "preponderance(sp?)of the evidence". Which is why I always reference Strobel and McDowell. Each little piece may be explained away, but when put all together(along with fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy), I find it compelling. "

Michael Welch Martyrologies... wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:24 PM:

" ALL the 'martyrdoms' of the alleged 'apostles' are legendary -- ONLY the death of one, James, assumed the brother of John the Galilean fisherman (but this is unclear), is even in the NT; the deaths of Peter, Paul and the rest are ALL part of the church of Rome's 'tradition' and there are NO independent records of ANY of these 'occurences.' This OF COURSE doesn't mean that Christians were NOT 'martyred' but again the martyrologies are largely legendary and usually persecutions were intermittant and relatively 'light' -- until the second half of the third century CE when the bloodiest and most extensive happened and which, ironically, ended only a couple decades before the rise of Constantine... "

Michael Welch A BRIEF History Of Gospel Time... wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:15 PM:

" OH HUM! You've heard it before but it ought not hurt to review for the record -- Mark was written about 66-70 CE because it is so bleak and spare and has no references to the destruction of the temple; it was probably a 'war time' gospel. Matt came along a decade later (80 or so) when the intra-rivalry between Jewish Christians and 'traditional' Jews still existed to a degree. Luke, circa 90 is the 'goy gospel,' i. e. the one written by a Greek convert especially for the gentile Greek communities in Asia minor (now Turkey). And John, circa 100, is the bitterest gospel of all, implacably severed from Judaism and unrelentingly hostile to Jews... "

Michael Welch Its Fun So Ill Repeat --... wrote on Oct 7, 2008 12:05 PM:

" Well no one's getting 'convinced' here; everyone is as per a comment yesterday just defending the usual old turf. Literalism asserts that the gospel authors were INDEED 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John' but scholars KNOW that these assertions are unlikely; besides we don't really know (but from the tradition from THE CHURCH OF ROME eh) exactly 'who' these people were anyway; the gospels even contain conflicting names and while say 'Judas' was a common Israelite nomme, 'Iscariot' is a truly odd construction -- probably more accurately 'sicarii,' i. e. of an insurgent group of assassins, 'al Qaeda in Judea' you might say... "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:32 AM:

" It doesnt matter whether you think I sound convincing. It is not my job to convince you of anything. All I can do is state what I believe and what I base those beliefs on. You can draw your own conclusions and make your own decision. "

Bowers to MBS wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:31 AM:

" But what about the Gnostic gospels found in Egypt, or the recent Gospel of Judas. I would not describe these archeological discoveries as hearsay. In fact, I give them more credibility than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which were, in the final analysis, a product of the Church. Again, I am not claiming Jesus was the son of God or that he was resurrected-just that he existed. "

To Kenneth Krause wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:18 AM:

" Your argument reminds me of when coach Dennis Green lost a game in the NFL once. He said- "They are who we thought they were. If you want to crown them, crown their ass." You as well as Greene don't sound to convincing. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:06 PM:

" MBS, you are holding the Gospels to a higher standard than other historical writings. The Gospel writers were known, and the writings were very close in time to the actual events, when compared to other ancient historical writings regarding other events. There is no good reason to doubt the writers. Of course it is relevant that people IN A POSITION TO KNOW THE TRUTH would willingly die for Christianity. If Christianity was a hoax, they wouldn't willingly die for what they knew to be a hoax. They died because they knew Christ was who He claimed. That is very relevant, and very compelling. "

Move Beyond Superstitions wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:34 PM:

" There are absolutely no first-hand writings from the the man known as Jesus. No pictures, no body to examine....no DNA, no physical artifacts at all. Ancient hearsay accounts of the man called Jesus are not evidence. The authors of the gospels are unknown, the gospels were written many years after the man known as Jesus reportedly died, and ancient people believing in those stories (and dying for their beliefs) are completely irrelevant. Jewish/Roman historians writing about Jesus centuries later - they never personally witnessed anything. It's just more hearsay. Beliefs and emotions are not evidence. No matter how many times you want to spin them, they are still just ancient stories with no factual basis. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 6, 2008 2:01 PM:

" Michael, I commend you for being willing to discuss the evidence, and share your reasons for not finding it compelling. Posters such as Big Spender love to enflame, but refuse to discuss. I find the Gospel writers credible, that is, I see no reason to find they are being untruthful. And, yes, their account of the aftermath of the Resurrection is evidence that the Resurrection did occur, at least according to my analysis and that of other Christians. Other possible explanations, when you take everything else as a whole, simply dont hold water, imo. "

Michael Welch Read Thy Gospels... wrote on Oct 6, 2008 12:02 PM:

" As for belief in the resurrection of Jesus, it comes from religious accounts ONLY, NOT from any 'independent' source. Also NONE of the canonized ('official') gospels* depict the event but only the aftermath, the supposed 'sightings' of Jesus who is, initially at least, described as virtually unrecognizable -- on the road to Emmaus or even in the garden to Mary of Magdala, a close disciple. These are 'heads up!' moments for scholars; in fact in the OLDEST gospel 'Mark' the original ending has 'the women' fleeing in panic when a mysterious figure (an 'angel' the author assumes) tells them 'He is not here; he is risen!' EVEN the gospels are nuanced; they NEED CAREFUL READERS...
*See however the fascinating symbolism of the gnostic 'Gospel of Peter' account of the 'resurrected moment' itself!... "

Michael Welch The Nature Of Criticism... wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:53 AM:

" Sir MICHAEL please! No lese majeste! REALLY! QUITE! Yes I understand I evince a 'Brit' sort of style; I LIKE the Brits I admit even if I abhor aspects of their 'greatest empire ever.' I have made it clear that ALL Christians are NOT 'horrid' even if they behave that way on Jimmy's blog. Black African tribes assisting in the Arab-European slave trade is censorable and requires pondering as well as does the anything goes! aspect of the former homosexual culture. CRITICISM MUST happen but it can't be all praise or entirely negative -- and in critiquing Islam, Hinduism, Gandhi, Darwin, Catholicism etc., the 'literalist' Christian side is unrelentingly negative. I HAVE said before POSITIVE things about Jesus and Christianity but literalists are barely interested. (Only Krause took ANY real notice...) "

To This is getting good wrote on Oct 6, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Not really. It isn't anything that hasnt been discussed before. One side will cite the evidence for the resurrection, possibly reference some books, and the other side will automatically reject anything supernatural. We will be at square one. Been there, done that. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:45 AM:

" In answer to the 904pm post, the evidence has been discussed and debated on these blogs, and I would be happy to do so again. Examples of some of the evidence for Jesus' resurrection are eyewitness accounts of people who saw him after he was crucified an buried, the empty tomb(keeping in mind that guards were posted at the tomb in order to specifically avoid any shenanigans such as stealing the body, etc). The reason I referenced the books is because it looks at all this and more evidence in detail, examines alternative theories, etc. Other evidence would be that if Christianity was false, Christs closest followers would have KNOWN it was false. Yet, they were still martyred. Yes, people have been martyred for false causes in the past-but as far as I know, never for a belief they themselves KNEW to be false. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 6, 2008 7:42 AM:

" There is evidence that Jesus lived. Josephsus refers to him in his history of the Jews, and, at least to me, the Gnostic gospels found in Egypt, are hard evidence of his existence. Whether or not he was the son of god or rose from the dead is an article of faith. "

Why is it wrote on Oct 6, 2008 5:29 AM:

" that Mikey's generalization of Christians is acceptable whereas generalizations of Blacks or Homosexual's is not? I'm sure there are and have been a lot of believers that don't possess his(Sir Mikey's)superior intellegence just as there are some Socialists that aren't very smart. That doesn't mean ALL believers in God are for "slaughtering their rivals". "

This is getting good wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:30 PM:

" Now, I can't wait for that explanation on how Jesus rose from the dead. "

Anonymous to harsch wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:10 PM:

" Oh, I see. You only care about babies being killed if you can use it politically against someone. "

Michael Welch NO MAN IS AN ISLAND -- Or Is He... wrote on Oct 5, 2008 2:47 PM:

" My basic point is that when one 'identifies' oneself with a particular religion, ideology or politics one also accepts 'the baggage' of such. I am NOT saying that everyone who believes in something is AS RESPONSIBLE as anyone -- in the past or present -- who used that religious etc., motivation to do questionable and violent things. BUT a socialist OUGHT to reflect on Lenin, Stalin and Mao even though the VAST number of socialists NEVER slaughtered anyone or wanted to. VERY VERY FEW Muslims throughout the world are actively involved in militant action against the US or 'the west' either but they should 'reflect' upon how their religion is employed by SOME eh... "

Michael Welch A Couple Of Examples... wrote on Oct 5, 2008 2:39 PM:

" America's wars have indeed been suffused with Christian motivations, in particular the civil war which many (Lincoln included) saw as a quasi-religious crusade FOR 'the union' and of course AGAINST slavery. Some abolitionist Christians (and Lincoln too by the way) even regarded the war as 'God's retribution' for the slavery of blacks. We know that the very same religious denominations but in the south DEFENDED slavery (as did St Paul eh) also as 'God's will.' President William McKinley in 1898, anxious about the propriety of 'annexing' the Philippines against popular Filipino will, prayed and later said he had received 'word' from God to annex the former Spanish colony... "

Michael Welch Is The US A CHRISTIAN Nation... wrote on Oct 5, 2008 2:31 PM:

" The United States experienced several great Christian 'revivals' -- in the early 18th century, in the first three decades of the 19th, during the 20th at the time of WWI and just after and then after WWII. That last 'revival' period lingered on into the '70s and the 'Reagan age' with the rise of the Republican religious right. (Of course the results are evident today, especially on Jimmy's blog eh.) While Christianity was held in 'mixed' ways by leading presidents, in times of terrible crisis even someone like Lincoln, who had had agnostic doubts, evoked and invoked Christian imagery and sentiments. CULTURALLY the US IS 'dominated' by Christianity; however that Christianity is very individualized... "

Michael Welch Faith Of Our Founding Fathers... wrote on Oct 5, 2008 2:21 PM:

" As per the 'Kevin' remarks which I haven't yet directly addressed -- sure in the highest leadership, intellectual and political, of the early United States were largely 'sophisticated' men, many of whom were NOT 'literalist' Christians -- some were deists or possibly 'closeted' nonbelievers. However they DID believe in NO OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION and in NO INTERFERENCE with private religious practices and presumed a rather 'religion-friendly' but NOT religion-dominated government. The 'wall' between church AND state was certainly their desire but no they were NOT 'anti-religious'... "

to move beyond superstitions wrote on Oct 5, 2008 2:13 PM:

" There are a few things that are known. Jesus was a real person who lived. In the years immediately following his death, groups of people became his followers and preached his death, ressurection, and salvation. Opression of all kinds could not crush this following, and people today read and follow the same things as 1st century Christians. While it's true that you can't prove all of the claims of the Bible, you must recognize that something unique, beyond anything ever experienced before in mankind, happened around Jesus. If you don't recognize that, then you ignore thousands of non-biblical history scholars. "

Move Beyond Superstitions wrote on Oct 5, 2008 5:47 AM:

" 9:04pm, you will never see Kenneth Krause or any fan of Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel provide any evidence to back up their claims. All they have is the same old baseless rhetoric that other "scholars" have spewed for centuries. There is no verifiable evidence of Jesus, his life, or his "ressurection". All they have is their wanting their biblical stories to be true. "

harsch to anonymous wrote on Oct 5, 2008 3:48 AM:

" At least now I know why you want to be anonymous--you're not a very bright feller. I am rather upset by children (and adults) being killed becasue of wars. And you want to know what I think about abortion? How about this: I am in favor of aborting all children who have a few or less years to live before being blown to pieces. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:25 PM:

" Kevin...Think about this. If we're a "christian" nation how come our Founders didn't design a flag full of crosses? Numerous "christian" Nations have crosses on their flags.....we don't. RE: War....Most every war conducted in History has evoked the biblical God. Folks used the Bible to rationalize the extermination of Native American tribes......I'm not sure what level of History you studied. "

Anonymous to harsch wrote on Oct 4, 2008 4:04 PM:

" My opinion has nothing to do with it. You were so concerned about the number of babies killed in war. I simply wondered if you are pro choice or pro life. So which is it? "

harsch to kevin wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:18 PM:

" My post was a response to another post. "

harsch to anonymous wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:17 PM:

" What is your view on the nature of being? "

Michael Welch SO -- Your Religion Is A Totally PRIVATE Affair... wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:37 AM:

" There's SO MUCH hot and bother about Maher's movie (even KWK has lost his usual 'cool') that as the dentist might say -- It appears I have struck a nerve. The movie is no doubt entertaining and perceptive about some things but sure it seems to caricature ALL Christians -- though maybe not the ones commenting here. During the rise of Reaganish 'conservatism' (which has led 'US' to Bushite uh 'socialism' apparently -- parse THAT!) it used to be said that 'Ideas have consequences'; NOW we have Christians writing here that what THEY believe in their minds doesn't mean a damn thing beyond that, and even affects no one and nothing, much less public policy! Like W's -- excuse me -- 'evolution' to quasi-Marxism, I find this an 'odd' place for Christians to put themselves... "

Michael Welch Further --... wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:29 AM:

" As this pertains to Christianity I certainly know of 'pacifist' Christians such as the 'Quakers,' or Society of Friends, who are consistent. But MANY Christians -- such as Palin -- indicate that the US attack on Iraq is somehow 'God's will.' If it is then there is MOST surely a 'religious' dimension to this war. Muslims perceive one obviously but to say that some Christians, especially the literalists who comment here, DON'T is belied by many of those who have posited a 'war' of sorts -- indeed ADVOCATED one -- against Islam itself. I've had exchanges with those folks on the Trib blog. If you DON'T believe the current warS have ANYTHING to do with religions I think you are just not paying attention... "

Michael Welch AZ I C It -- From AZ wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:21 AM:

" I HAVE already addressed the 'guilt' aspect for Christian inspired slaughter but I can do it again. For example when the United States fights a war the actual NUMBER of direct participants -- even COMBAT soldiers -- is VERY VERY small in comparison to the overall society which provides political and monetary support, manufactures weaponry, ammunition, transport and so on and so on. The sophistic argument presented to me is that ONLY the soldier who shoots and kills is 'responsible' for the killing. No one ELSE, by that reasoning, not even the soldier's direct superior, can be held responsible. Is THAT what YOU are arguing? If not WHAT are you arguing?... "

youbetcha wrote on Oct 4, 2008 11:19 AM:

" go to deadlinehollywooddaily dot com and scroll down and watch leno's debate video. That's funny. Maher is just hateful. "

davidinlse wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:30 AM:

" RE: I cant believe wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:02 PM: Actually it only highlighted you in an ugly light. All the right wing hate mongers are out spouting about a movie they have not seen. Typical. "

To Harsch wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:46 AM:

" So Harsch, what is your view on abortion? "

All you atheists wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:42 AM:

" can just go to he--. Oh wait...... "

Kevin wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:14 AM:

" I am thinking you need to go all the way back to the crusades to find any wars/conflicts even hypothetically generated by Christian idealism. As for people being killed in wars by Christians, Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars. The bitchy part about 'free-will' is that leaves people 'free' to do what they think is correct and quite often it is flawed. I didn't see any mention of Stalin in that post either. There is a good atheist who did a bit of slaughtering. Always examine the premise too...if a person claims they are a Christian and yet are performing Non-Christian acts, are they truly Christians? Would you know Welch, Smith, Harsch. "

Kevin wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:08 AM:

" Harsch you come up with some short one liner that is supposed to be profound? Are you suggesting that these were Christian based killings? What are you saying. Welch comes in and provides what, a read between the lines commentary on your post? There has been no religious overtones to this IRAQ fiasco other than, it appears to be mostly foreigh born militants who have killed most of the civilians,. We can parse words all day about what/who caused it, but in the end, the people with the bombs strapped around themselves, killed all those folks. "

Kevin wrote on Oct 4, 2008 8:05 AM:

" Welch, Smith & Harsch you guys are still a hoot. Welch, you are claiming that the US is principally a christian nation and yet, I have seen plenty of posts here that our founding fathers were mostly deists at best. I don't recall reading in any of the history books that any of the last 20 wars or so were ever close to being started by mandates from God. "

DJ wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:13 PM:

" The true "leap of faith" is using the name "Bill Mahr" and "comedian" in the same sentence, paragraph, article, book......... "

To Kenneth Krause and the anonymous poster that always brings up Josh McDowell wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:04 PM:

" I don't believe that a human can rise from the dead. What evidence is there that Jesus rose from the dead. Can you give us that without the word miracle? Can you cite specific evidence without directing us to read his book which isn't in paperback yet? Can you please do that? "

To I cant believe wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:57 PM:

" I'll bet you think Rush Limbaugh is funny though, don't you? "

BrianGSmith wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:11 PM:

" The Bible stories themselves could be the sources of "religulous part 2 - 3 - 4 etc." I'd ask why did OT "God" always tempt and harden hearts when, if He had such influence, He could have swayed hearts and minds positively. God kept "hardening" the Pharoah's heart.....why didn't God soften the Pharoah's heart instead? Does God have to set up "fall guys" for His Biblical heroes? "

Michael Moore wrote on Oct 3, 2008 4:54 PM:

" AN AMERICAN CAROL baby. Gonna blow Maher out of the water. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Oct 3, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Of course YOU would want to see it. You already said so on the blogs very first post. See 852am post. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Oct 3, 2008 3:41 PM:

" I can't wait to see the movie. Bill Maher is always spot on with his criticisms of religion. I've seen the clips on You Tube, and it looks great. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:16 PM:

" Jimmy, ditch this if you want, but Bowers is going off topic. Ignominy! The House has disgraced itself. The taxpayers got it but good today. I guess I'd characerize it as the nadir of our "representative' democracy. Shame! "

To Michael wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Perhaps you addressed it on another blog, but do you have an estimate of what percentage of people who believe Christ rising from the dead is literal historic truth have went out and slaughtered people?(0.00001?) Could it be the people who have done so would have found ANY way to justify their killing? "

I cant believe wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:02 PM:

" that anyone thinks that bill maher is funny unless you are full of left wing hate. comedians who are funny are the one's who can break down both sides of the aisle with wit and accuracy. the daily show can do this as well as jay leno. here is a funny maher joke: can you believe that 5 years after chasing Osama and killing a dictator named S. HUssien we are going to elect a president named b. HUssien Obama? Ha ha ha ha

let me guess, you libs didn't laugh cause it highlighted your candidate in an ugly light. "

Michael Welch Some Observations... wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:50 PM:

" I'd say Harsch is 'on topic' when one refers to the violence perpetrated by historically Christian cultures upon non Christian ones. I am not a 'mocker' of religious sensibilities when I perceive real generosity of spirit and yes some uh actual 'Christian love' -- THAT is SO RARELY evinced here in their comments! Of course the warS appear to hold little interest for them either; they stamp the warS 'passed!' but they simply don't discuss even McCain very much -- and they focus ONLY on Palin's 'personality.' Other than that they 'damn' (excuse me!) the bailout (NOW passed) but are FAR MORE absorbed in parsing 'Big Spender' and evolutionary theory. 'Nestor' 'focuses' (hmmm???) on crime on the north side but WHOSE fault is that? Shhhh! He only IMPLIES!!!!... "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Well,(borrowing a line from Sarah), doggone it, if it isn't my ex-wife, Thelma Lou, chirping up on Jimmy's blog. Sweetie, though we've been divorced these 20 years or so, I still think of you whenever I clean the toilet. "

Just say no to ZOG wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:48 AM:

" One of the highlights of the movie, IMHO, is when Maher meets/interviews some vatical priests who shun a literal othrodoxy bu rather relate the textural understanding of faith. One drawback of the movie is that Buddhism and Hinduism, both seeing elements of fundamentalism emerge, are not properly skewered. Even the most stone-faced, no-fun liberal will laugh when Maher quips, "Hopefully Branson." "

Michael Welch Do Pluses Equal Minuses... wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:35 AM:

" And as everyone knows I reject 'literalism' in religious belief as the most dangerous because from it comes such absolute certainty that 'MY God' is the One and Only and 'HIS way' ditto, that slaughter is excused, even commanded, as in the awful case of the so called crusades. The Jewish scriptures are of course FULL of the supposed wiping out of the various rival Canaanite tribes -- 'men, women, children, cattle, sheep, goats' etc. etc. -- on command; and Christian history (about which VERY few Christians commenting here seem to know much about) is equally packed with physical violence against 'non-believers' as well as ongoing cultural violence. There IS a 'plus side' for religion but the negative is disturbingly prominent... "

Michael Welch All The Old Familiar Places... wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:23 AM:

" I make my same old points as all here make their same olds re: religions -- I respect religions as repositories of our collective psychic battles and insights, of attempts to discern 'purpose' to existence and to define what those purposes OUGHT to be. Hinduism I think has the most sophisticated as well as 'panoramic' comprehension of the religious 'epic,' Buddhism perhaps the most cynical, Christianity maybe, on paper at least, the most compassionate; however in PRACTICE ALL the three monotheisms lend themselves to slaughtering their rivals in the name of THEIR respective 'God's. (Judaism though, via an unfortunate chance of history, got to see things from 'the other side' and consequently has become much more reflective and I'd say even 'better' for its endurance of its 'other brothers'...) "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:40 AM:

" Yes, Big Spender, I have no doubt that this movie will be just your cup of tea. I am sure the movie wont look at the evidence for and against Christianity(and other religions for that matter). I am sure people such as Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, or one of my favorites-Dr David Menton- will not be interviewed and asked what evidence they base their belief on. This movie sounds like a National Lampoon type movie-simply poking fun with no substance. Truly a movie for the brain-dead. Hope Big Spender and others enjoy. "

To Harsch wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:34 AM:

" Re 926 am post-try staying on topic. "

Mrs. Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Au contraire Lee! It's the thought of spending eternity with the likes of you that keeps us in line! The great hypocrite, Billy Maher will be on his knees at some point in his life asking for help and or forgiveness. In the meantime, we can all have a laugh at his all-knowing, all-powerful attempt at making a difference in the world. God bless!!!!! "

To Big Spender wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:05 AM:

" No, it doesn't matter to you what is physically and literally true. It is possible for something to be true, but not be able to meet the standard of proof you require. You have indicated before you are not interested in looking at the evidence, historical and otherwise, in support of Christianity and Christs claims regarding God. The fact you wont even consider evidence in support of a supernatural event ot events tells me you have an anti-supernatural bias. This bias will not aid you in an honest search for what is physically and literally true. "

harsch to to big spender wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:26 AM:

" Go look up the number of babies killed by wars initiated by the United States. Read about the babies killed when three predator drones attacked a Pakistani villge two and a half years ago, supposedly hunting Zawahiri, killing 18 people. Read about the babies who died in Iraq during the interwar sanction period. "

To To Big Spender wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:23 AM:

" That is probably the dumbest post I have ever read. I get that it is your shot at evolution but it is so weak and lacking understanding as to be a self-parody. I am always amazed that religious people fear evolution. Why is it such a leap of faith to think that evolution might be God's plan. It also amazes me that atheists lack the imagination to think that a supreme being may have started this entire ball rolling. If you believe the Bible is literally true, well we can't go any further. If you can't imagine an supernatural force time to stop talking. "

to Big Spender wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:52 AM:

" You have no children, do you? If you do, go look at your children in the eye and tell yourself that they are the result of unbelieveable coincidences. Tell yourself that nothing they or you do really matters in the long run, because in the end there is no god, no final judgement, and no purpose in life other than to get whatever you can enjoy while you can feel. Then go into your basement, take a mouse trap apart, put it into a box and start shaking. According to your belief in evolution, eventually all those mouse trap parts will not only be back in the right position but the trap will be set. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:45 AM:

" I hope this documentary touches on the fear-based aspect of Islam and Christianity. Both of these organized religions depend on the threat of eternal torture to keep the troops in line. "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 3, 2008 1:37 AM:

" Readers familiar with my posts will have probably guessed that I'll buy ten copies of this movie when the DVD comes out, and that I love a good scrap with Superstitionists of all stripes now and then. But none of that gets at what matters to me most: what's literally and physically true. Sweep away all your feelgood emotions, sweep away the need to soothe your fear of death, then look at the thing in an icily objective way. What once seemed to require a god or an omnipotent space alien now only requires quarks and leptons, quantum spacetime, and the fundamental forces of nature. Nature is its own god. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »