Search This Blog

Friday, August 26, 2011

Does Evolution explain how life was created?

Evolution does not care about how the universe started or how life was formed on Earth. When people make this claim, they are creating a straw man argument. The Theory of Evolution discusses how existing life changes over time. That life could have been created by the biblical god, the Greek gods or Quetzalcoatl, The Aztec Plumed Serpent god. It makes no difference to the theory whatsoever. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

They are actually arguing over Abiogenesis, which is the theory of how life was started and the Big Bang Theory, which is the current idea of how the universe was created. However, even if those ideas are completely wrong, that would not change one thing about the Theory of Evolution. They are not interdependent and do not require each other to be accurate. However, Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

This is an article of one creationist site trying to discount evolution. I am showing it since it is common of the arguments against evolution. 

Schroeder cites a Wistar institute conference as showing evidence of the improbability of evolution. The symposium was transcribed from audio and published in 1967 as Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, a Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology April 25 and 26, 1966, Paul Moorhead and Martin Kaplan, eds. Needless to say, this is quite out of date. Worse, it does not support Schroeder at all. Only one paper comes anywhere near proposing that the origin of life and subsequent evolution is improbable: Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" (pp. 5-20). He does not really argue that evolution is improbable, but rather that no present theory accounts for certain peculiarities of life on earth, especially the fact that all living organisms are composed of a very tiny fraction of all the possible proteins.
In particular, Eden argues that given all "polypeptide chains of length 250 [amino acids] or less...There are about 20^250 such words or about 10^325" (p. 7). This number is ripe for quoting, but it does not stand as the odds against life, and even Eden did not even imply such a meaning--to the contrary, he admits that perhaps "functionally useful proteins are very common in this space [of 10^325 arrangements]," and facing tough criticism in a discussion period (where his paper was torn apart, pp. 12-9) he was forced to admit again that perhaps "there are other domains in this tremendous space which are equally likely to be carriers of life" (p. 15). But his main argument is that life is concentrated around a tiny fraction of this possible protein development "space" and we have yet to explain why--although his critics point out why in discussion: once one system involving a score of proteins was selected, none others could compete even if they were to arise, thus explaining why all life has been built on one tiny set of proteins. One thing that even his critics in discussion missed is the fact that his number is wrong: he only calculates the number of those chains that are 250 acids long, but he refers to all those and all smaller chains, and to include all of those he must sum the total combinations for every chain from length 1 to 250. Of course, the number "250" is entirely arbitrary to begin with. He could have picked 100, 400, or 20. He gives no arguments for his choice, and as we have seen, this can have nothing to do with the first life, whose chain-length cannot be known or even guessed at [5].
Among the huge flaws in Eden's paper, pointed out by his critics, is that he somehow calculates, without explanation, that 120 point mutations would require 2,700,000 generations (among other things, he assumes a ridiculously low mutation rate of 1 in 1 million offspring). But in reality, even if only 1 mutation dominates a population every 20 generations, it will only take 2400 generations to complete a 120-point change--and that even assumes only 1 point mutation per generation, yet chromosome mixing and gene-pool variation will naturally produce many at a time, and mix and match as mating proceeds. Moreover, a beneficial gene can dominate a population faster than 20 generations, and will also be subject to further genetic improvements even before it has reached dominance. I discuss all of these problems in my analysis of Schroeder above. But in the same Wistar symposium publication, C. H. Waddington (in his "Summary Discussion") hits the nail so square on the head that I will quote his remarks at great length:
The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)

There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis.

There is still the same, single, fundamental problem with all these statistical calculations, one that I mention in my review of Foster: no one knows what the first life was. People like Morowitz can try to calculate what is, at a minimum, possible, and laboratory experiments, like that which discovered the powers of tetrahymena (see Addenda C), can approach a guess, but these guesses still do not count as knowledge, and it is not sound to claim that simply because we don't know what it was, therefore we can't assume there was such a simple life form. And even if we accept such an argument, to go from there to "god" is essentially a god-of-the-gaps argument. When we did not know how the bumble-bee flew, was that an adequate ground for positing god as the answer, or was it instead cause for further scientific investigation aimed at finding out the natural explanation? All of science is the result of choosing the latter approach. Once there was a time when nothing was explained. Since then, everything which has been explained has been found to have a natural, not a divine, explanation. Although this does not prove that all future explanations will be of like kind, it shows that it is not at all unreasonable to expect this--and it is not a very reliable bet to expect the opposite.

Theories which make the origin of life plausible are hypotheses like any others, awaiting future research--in fact, generating that research. On the other hand, in the words of Frank Salisbury, "Special creation or a directed evolution would solve the problem of the complexity of the gene, but such an idea has little scientific value in the sense of suggesting experiments." And the experiments suggested by Salisbury and his colleagues led, in fact, to a simplification of the very problem that vexed Salisbury in 1969. Science, once again, gets somewhere. Creationism gets us nowhere. Coppedge suspected in his day "many evolutionists have avoided such investigations [into the odds against life forming] because they intuitively recognize that it will threaten evolutionary doctrine" (p. 234). Yet scientists hardly avoided the matter at all. Quite to the contrary, while creationists engaged in no actual research for twenty-five years and contributed nothing to our understanding of biology, scientists chewed away at the very problems Salisbury and Coppedge discussed, and solved a great many of them (see Stuart Kauffman, The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, 1993). That none of them thought to make arbitrary and groundless guesses for the purpose of calculating a useless statistic is a testament to their wisdom, just as it is a testament to the ignorance of those, like Coppedge, who actually do this. We only need consider which has added to our knowledge to see who is making better use of their time.

If someone wants to argue against an idea, they should learn what the idea is in the first place.

Interesting Quotes

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
-George Orwell

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests.
In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."
— Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:73

"Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know"
- Michel de Montaigne

"It's important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous."
-Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, The Case for Christ (26)

"The man who invented the telescope found out more about heaven than the closed eyes of prayer ever discovered." - Robert G. Ingersoll

     I Like this quote I dislike this quoteReligion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
 Seneca quotes (Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD)

"I had no need of that hypothesis."
-Pierre-Simon Laplace responding to Napoleon's inquiry: 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.'

"I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government."
-Woody Allen

Prayer: How to do nothing and still think you’re helping.

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
~Author Unknown 

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. "
-Thomas Jefferson

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression ."
-Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-James Madison

"A God that can be understood is no God. Who can explain the Infinite in words?"
- W. Somerset Maugham

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
- David Brooks

"---if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."
- Ayn Rand

"--- the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind.
- Ayn Rand

"I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion, I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case."
- Christopher Hitchens

"I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows."
-Susan B. Anthony

The legitimate powers of government extend to only such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no God."

People who want to share their religious views with you, almost never want you to share yours with them."
-Dave Barry

"When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust."

"Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but live for it."
-C.C. Colton

"The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men are quite capable of every wickedness."
-Joseph Conrad

"All religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties."

"When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, 'Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?"
-Quentin Crisp

"The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."
-G.K. Chesterton

An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No," said the priest, "not if you did not know." "Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?"
-Annie Dillard

"It is not hardness of heart or evil passions that drive certain individuals to atheism, but rather a scrupulous intellectual honesty."

"How can the Church be received as a trustworthy guide in the invisible, which falls into so many errors in the visible?"
-John W. Draper

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. "
– Frietrich Nietzsche

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t love heterosexuals, it’s just that they need more supervision."
-Lynn Lavner

"Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties."
-Erich Fromm

"If you are right to believe that religious faith offers the only real basis for morality, then atheists should be less moral than believers. In fact, they should be utterly immoral. Are they? Do members of atheist organizations in the United States commit more than their fair share of violent crimes? Do the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 93 percent of whom do not accept the idea of God, lie and cheat and steal with abandon? We can be reasonably confident that these groups are at least as well behaved as the general population. And yet, athiests are the most reviled minority in the United States."

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
— Isaac Asimov

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."
 - George Bernard Shaw‏

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts

"An athiest is a man with no invisible means of support."
-John Buchan

"An atheist is a guy who watches a Notre Dame-SMU football game and doesn't care who wins."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Atheism is a non-prophet organization."
-George Carlin

"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."
-Woody Allen

"Faith is what you have in things that don't exist"
-Homer Simpson

"If there really was one true god, it should be the ultimate entity of the entire cosmos. If a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God. It would be dominant everywhere in the world with no predecessors or parallels or alternatives in any language, because mere human authors couldn’t possibly compete with it. And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence and demonstrably true, revealing profound morality and wisdom far beyond contemporary human capacity. It would invariably inspire a unity of common belief for every reader. If God wrote it, we could expect no less. But what we see instead is the very opposite of that."

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell

"If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole country you came from, or go to another hellhole country that lives under sharia law."
-Mahfooz Kanwar

 "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
-Andre Gide

 "Any religion which prohibits doubts abandons any hope of growth or development. A religion without doubt is fixed and unchanging. Such a religion is useless to dynamic thinking individuals who are curious about the truth of reality."
-Donavan Hall

"To deny, to believe, and to doubt absolutely -- this is for man what running is for a horse."
-Blaise Pascal

"If your god won't answer a molested child's prayer what makes you think he'll answer yours?"
-Chris O'Rourke

"Faith consists in believing not what seems true, but what seems false to our understanding."

"Everything that is beautiful and noble is the product of reason and calculation."
- Charles Baudelaire

"Some excel in rhyme who reason foolishly."
- Nicholas Boileau

"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities."
- Henry Bolingbroke

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
- author unknown

"Reason sits firm and holds the reins, and she will not let the feelings burst away and hurry her to wild chasms. The passions may rage furiously, like true heathens, as they are; and the desires may imagine all sorts of vain things: but judgment shall still have the last word in every argument, and the casting vote in every decision."
- Charlotte Bronte

"As reason is a rebel to faith, so passion is a rebel to reason."
- Sir Thomas Browne

"A person usually has two reasons for doing something: a good reason and the real reason."
- Thomas Carlyle

"Reason is the wise man's guide, example the fool's."
- Welsh Proverb

"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out." - Sydney Smith

"Reason has never failed men. Only force and repression have made the wrecks in the world."
- William Allen White

"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect."
- Oscar Wilde

"People are governed with the head; kindness of heart is little use in chess."
- Sebastien-Roch Nicolas De Chamfort

"Reason transformed into prejudice is the worst form of prejudice, because reason is the only instrument for liberation from prejudice."
- Allan Bloom

"If you can once engage people's pride, love, pity, ambition (or whatever is their prevailing passion) on your side, you need not fear what their reason can do against you."
- Lord Chesterfield

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave."
- William Drummond

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up."
- Robert Frost

"A person possessed with an idea cannot be reasoned with."
- James A. Froude

"What is rational is actual, and what is actual is rational."
- Georg Hegel

 "To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect. The relation is mutual."
- Georg Hegel

"Reason gains all people by compelling none."
- Aaron Hill

"Nothing is divine but what is agreeable to reason."
- Immanuel Kant

"Reason can in general do more than blind force."
- Gaius C. Gallus

"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason."
- Gilbert K. Chesterton

"Reason should direct and appetite obey."
- Marcus T. Cicero

"Let reason govern desire."
- Marcus T. Cicero

"The common dogma [of fundamentalists] is fear of modern knowledge, inability to cope with the fast change in a scientific-technological society, and the real breakdown in apparent moral order in recent years.... That is why hate is the major fuel, fear is the cement of the movement, and superstitious ignorance is the best defense against the dangerous new knowledge. ... When you bring up arguments that cast serious doubts on their cherished beliefs you are not simply making a rhetorical point, you are threatening their whole Universe and their immortality. That provokes anger and quite frequently violence. ... Unfortunately you cannot reason with them and you even risk violence in confronting them. Their numbers will decline only when society stabilizes, and adapts to modernity."
-G Gaia

It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.
-Upton Sinclair‏

"A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows public opinion." 
-Chinese Proverb

Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. An ailing world would do well to reach for the right bottle in the medicine cabinet.
- Adam Smith

Tench Coxe, James Madison’s friend, on the 2nd Amendment
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18,1789, A friend of James Madison, writing in support of the Madison’s first draft of the Bill of Rights. 

"When the end comes, Armageddon outta here ----------!"
- J.F. Bierlein

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Did Jesus do away with the Old Testament laws?

I love how Christians claim that the OT and the NT are in complete agreement with each other and then run for the hills when the atrocities of the OT are pointed out. But Jesus did away with the OT, they will mutter.

Since Jesus is god and created the universe, that means he is the god of the OT who created the OT laws. Especially since he specifically stated he did not come to do away with the OT laws.

In Matthew 5:17 He begins answering their unspoken questions: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets." In effect He was telling them: "If you think I came to destroy the law or prophets, you are not thinking clearly." He makes it plain that anyone who thought He was abolishing the law or prophets was mistaken. He assures them of His respect for God's law: "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

In Matthew 5:18 Jesus validates this perspective when He adds, "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." As long as heaven and earth exist, Jesus said, we can be sure God's law will exist.

Who invented the scientific method?

The question of who invented the scientific method is extremely difficult to answer, simply because it is difficult to pin down exactly where it started.

by Martyn Shuttleworth (2009)

The scientific method evolved over time, with some of history’s greatest and most influential minds adding to and refining the process.
Whilst many point to Aristotle and the Greek philosophers as the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method, this is too much of a leap.

Whilst the Greeks were the first Western civilization to adopt observation and measurement as part of learning about the world, there was not enough structure to call it the scientific method.

It is fair to say that Aristotle was the founder of empirical science, but the development of a scientific process resembling the modern method was developed by Muslim scholars, during the Golden age of Islam, and refined by the enlightenment scientist-philosophers.

Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method.

They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period.

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:

1.Observation of the natural world

2.Stating a definite problem

3.Formulating a robust hypothesis

4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation

5.Assess and analyze the results

6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions

7.Publish the findings

These steps are very similar to the modern scientific method and they became the basis of Western science during the Renaissance.

Al-Haytham even insisted upon repeatability and the replication of results, and other scholars added ideas such as peer review and made great leaps in understanding the natural world.

The question of who invented the scientific method shifts to Europe as the Renaissance began and the wisdom of the Greeks and Arabs helped Europe out of the Dark Ages.

It is certainly true that the scientific method finally came to Europe and many Christian scientists added to the process. But to claim that Christians developed it is simply not accurate.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Where do serial killers come from?

The FBI gave the standard profile of a serial killer, He is a person with few friends. He became much more religious just before he started murdering people. After reading all the available studies I could find and studying all the articles in the newspapers, what I find what most outstanding is that serial killers were sexually inhibited by their strong religious upbringing.

Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists."

Study after study show serial killers are a product of this environment, not genetics.

You can find much information on serial killers being sexually inhibited and their views on sex and religion at

Sunday, August 21, 2011

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 texts from the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 at Khirbet Qumran.

Interesting facts about the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Prophecies by Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel not found in the Bible are written in the Scrolls.

In the Scrolls are found never before seen psalms attributed to King David and Joshua.

The scrolls contain previously unknown stories about biblical figures such as Enoch, Abraham, and Noah. The story of Abraham includes an explanation why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac.

The Scrolls appear to be the library of a Jewish sect. The library was hidden away in caves around the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70) as the Roman army advanced against the rebel Jews.
 Near the caves are the ancient ruins of Qumran. They were excavated in the early 1950's and appear to be connected with the scrolls.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus and in a few other sources, but not in the New Testament. The Essenes were a strict Torah observant, Messianic, apocalyptic, baptist, wilderness, new covenant Jewish sect. They were led by a priest they called the "Teacher of Righteousness," who was opposed and possibly killed by the establishment priesthood in Jerusalem.
Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament.

How very odd.

The men of Qumran fervently believed in a doctrine of “last things.” They had fled to the desert and were readying themselves for the imminent judgment, when their enemies would be vanquished and they, God's elect, would be given final victory in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. It was in connection with these end-time events that one of the most fascinating teachings of the sect emerges. The messianic hope loomed large in the thought of the brotherhood. As a matter of fact, evidence shows that they actually believed in three messiahs—one a prophet, another a priest and the third a king or prince.

It is amazing how every generation believes it is living in the final days. They have always been wrong. They will continue to be wrong.


"They speak of a Teacher of Righteousness and a pierced messiah, of cleansing through water and a battle of light against darkness.
"But anyone looking to the Dead Sea Scrolls in search of proof, say, that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah presaged by the prophets, or that John the Baptist lived among the scroll's authors, will be disappointed."
News items are circulating about how "hints" and "insights" contained in the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in caves near the ancient site of Qumran can be found in the Bible. In other words, certain ideas in the scrolls also appear in the New Testament, meaning, of course, that the impression of Christianity as a "divine revelation" appearing whole cloth miraculously from the very finger of God is clearly erroneous.
Few scholars today claim that any of the Dead Sea Scrolls ("DSS") date to the time after Christianity was allegedly founded by a "historical" Jesus in the first century of the common era. Indeed, it is agreed that most of the scrolls pre-date the turn of the era and that none of them show any knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity.
In my book The Christ Conspiracy, I demonstrate that Christianity is an amalgam of the many religions, sects, cults and brotherhood traditions of the Mediterranean and beyond. One of the major influences on Christianity is that of Jews, obviously, including those mentioned in the New Testament, i.e., the Pharisees and Sadducees. Ancient Jewish historian Josephus also mentions the sect of the Essenes, who are traditionally associated with Qumran, in a "by default" argument. However, scholar Solomon Schecter - who discovered a scroll at Cairo that was later found at Qumran - points to a heretical sect of Sadducees or Zadokites, as they are called in both the Bible and DSS. In The Christ Conspiracy, I discuss thisZadokite origin of the DSS and this group's obvious influence on the New Testament.
What this rumination all means, of course, is that Christianity is, as I contend in my books, largely unoriginal, representing not fresh and new "divine revelation" but, again, the amalgamation of not only the ideas of the Zadokite authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls but also influences from the Essenes, Jews, Samaritans and many others.
To understand how the Dead Sea Scrolls influenced early Christianity, just turn to the New Testament.

Take, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, a facsimile of which is on display as part of the Milwaukee Public Museum's Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. Written around 125 B.C. and the only scroll to emerge virtually intact from the caves at Qumran, its messianic message is quoted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke, the earliest of which wasn't written until around A.D. 65.
The scrolls' so-called "Son of God" text reads much like the story of the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke. And the Scrolls' "Blessing of the Wise" echoes the beatitudes of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount....
This early dating of the gospels, it should be noted, is based only on the a priori assumption that the story they relate is at least partially true in recounting a "historical" Jesus who truly walked the earth at the time he is claimed in the gospels themselves. There is no external evidence whatsoever for the existence of any canonical gospel at this early a date. In fact, the canonical gospels as we have them do not show up clearly in the historical record until the end of the second century.
Moreover, the Sermon on the Mount - supposedly the original monologue straight out of the mouth of the Son of God Himself - can be shown to be a series of Old Testament scriptures strung together, along with, apparently, such texts from Qumran. No "historical" founder was necessary at all to speak these words, as they are a rehash of extant sayings. (Even in this patent literary device the gospels cannot agree, as Luke 6:17-49 depicts the Sermon as having taken place on a plain.)
It is easy to see why the Catholic Church would blanche upon the discovery of these scrolls, as it could be - and has been - argued that these texts erode the very foundation of Christianity. It appears that this news, however, when released slowly has little affect on the mind-numbing programming that accompanies Christian faith.
The bottom line is that the existence of the Old Testament and the intertestamental literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls shows how Christianity is a cut-and-paste job - a fact I also reveal in The Christ Conspiracy, in a chapter called "The Making of a Myth," which contains a discussion of some of the texts obviously used in the creation of the new faith. These influential texts evidently included some of the original Dead Sea Scrolls, serving not as "prophecy," "prefiguring" or "presaging" but asblueprints of pre-existing, older concepts cobbled together in the New Testament.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Women and menstruation

What is it about Middle Eastern religions and women's periods? They all throw a fit over a normal biological function.

The Muslims:
They ask you about menstruation. Say: 'It is an indisposition. Keep aloof from women during their menstrual periods and do not approach them until they are clean again; when they are clean, have intercourse with them whence God enjoined you....'

Quran 2:222, "The Cow," Dawood, p. 34

The Jews:
In the Old Testament of the Bible there were Jewish restrictions around menstruating women (in Leviticus 12). Menstruating women were unclean for 7 days and couldn’t have sex with their husbands (men who had a seminal discharge were also considered unclean, until nightfall). A woman had to purify herself after she finished menstruating, until then anything that she touched would be unclean (as would anyone who had touched her, or had been touched by a person who had been in contact with her).

The Christians:

During the first 500 years of Christianity menstruation was not considered a curse & there were no restrictions placed on it, however after that some Christian leaders started to see anything to do with sex as bad, including mensturation and pregnancy (read more here). In many churches, menstruating women no longer permitted to enter the church or to take communion. This menstrual taboo was continued by theologians into the Middle Ages.
Menstruating women were not allowed to have sex with their husbands – it was believed that menstrual blood was noxious & would corrupt semen, resulting in the conception of disabled children. Phyisicians in the 16th century (such as Thomas Sanchez and Cardinal Cajetan) began to reject this fear of menstrual blood, and started to view it as harmless. Until quite recently, however, most Christians theologians continued to view sex during menstruation as a sin.
In Christianity, the ’ritual uncleanness’ of menstruating women soon gave way to the idea that all women (whether menstruating or not) were ‘ritually unclean’, and this idea became part of Catholic Church Law:
In 1140 AD The Law Book of Gratian forbade all women from distributing communion, touching sacred objects, touching or wearing sacred vestments, teaching in church, baptizing people, and from becoming priests or deacons. It also asserted that women were ‘weak of mind’ and not made in the image of God. The Corpus Iuris Canonici (1234 – 1916 AD) prohibited menstruating women from receiving communion. In 1917 the Codex Iuris Canonici still placed heavy restrictions on women (however a specific menstrual restriction was not mentioned): women could not serve Mass or distribute communion, women could not preach or read sacred scripture aloud in church, and women had to be the last choice of minister for baptism. In 1983 many of these prohibitions against women were lifted by the Catholic church (the new Code of Canon Law states that women may preach, lead Mass, and distribute communion).

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Do Angels sin?

My question is not could an angel sin, but are they actually sinning? Since Satan is supposed to be a fallen angel, his rebellion against god would be placed in the category of sin, therefore, we know that angels can sin. But I am curious if angels actually do sin in the eyes of god. Angels are protrayed as good beings, doing the bidding of god. They seem to all act in accordance with gods will. Now the bible says that Lucifier was created perfect. Since Lucifer was created perfect, it would seem logical that all angels were created perfect.

"...thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so... thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that THOU WAST CREATED, till iniquity was found in thee..." (Ezek.28:14-15).

What is perfection? Something is deemed "perfect" when it conforms completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Thus a perfect thing will have no flaws, blemishes, or defects—that is, it will not possess any negative feature or lack any positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal. Therefore, if angels were created perfect and are without flaw, then it stands to reason that they are not sinning in the eyes of god. In fact, given the example of Satan, it would seem that if an angel did sin, then god would strip him of being an angel and cast him down as well.

However, there is supposedly only one being without sin. This is, of course, Jesus. Jesus not only could, but did live his whole life without sin. 1 Peter 2:22 says, "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 1 John 3:5 says, ". . . And in him is no sin." Then in John chapter 8 Jesus said of himself, "Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. . ."  Supposedly, Jesus also showed us by his example. Hebrew 4:15 says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin." Therefore, it is possible that Jesus could sin, but never did.

Now, here is the paradox. If Jesus is the only one who never sinned, that would mean that all angels must also have sinned. However, we know that if an angel sins, he will be cast down and will no longer be an angel. Therefore, although angels are capable of sin, they cannot be sinning. Otherwise, they would not still be angels. By this train of thought, we can see that Jesus is not the only one without sin.

Once again, the bible provides a fable that completely falls apart under scrutiny.

Monday, August 15, 2011

The age of consent

I am posting this because some Christians I debate say that allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying children and animals. Of course, the idea that people will want to marry animals is absurd. There many be the unusual situation, but for the most part, people are not attracted to animals in a sexual way. Besides, animals cannot give consent, therefore, it is a moot point.

However, children have been allowed to get married for centuries in Christian societies. I am not saying that I believe it is ok for children to get married. On the contrary, I believe waiting until someone is in their late 20's or early 30's is a better time for that. However, I want to point out that people, including Christians,  have been marrying young girls for centuries.

In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.

The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was twelve years of age.[4]

In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between twelve and fourteen but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than seven. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than seven, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of two and three year olds.[3]

The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only nine when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old."[3]

Reliable data for when people used to marry is very difficult to find. In England for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period comes from records which involved only those who left property after their death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seemed that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages. Additionally, 20th and 21st centuries' historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept data regarding young ages of marriage, and would instead explain the data away as a misreading by a later copier of the records.[3]

A small group of Italian and German states which introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also set it at twelve years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European nations also began to enact age of consent laws. The French Napoleonic Code established an age of consent of eleven years in 1791, which was raised to thirteen years in 1863. Nations such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at ten–twelve years and then raised it to between thirteen and sixteen years in the second half of the 19th century.[4]

In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. A New York Times article states that it was still aged seven in Delaware in 1895. [5] Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, with ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen; the campaign was successful: by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen.[6][7]

Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from ten to thirteen were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality, childhood and adolescence, resulting in raising the ages of consent.[4]

Sunday, August 14, 2011

The Law of Non-Contradiction has nothing to do with proving a negative

The law of Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) is defined as follows:
"It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections ." It will be noted that this statement of the LNC is an explicitly modal claim about the incompatibility of opposed properties applying to the same object. It does not apply to proving that something cannot exist. The problem with proving a negative is that it is impossible to know that something does not exist somewhere.

As Aristotle himself stated, “a demonstration of everything is impossible”, resulting in infinite regress.

So, what it gets down to is that to prove a negative, you have know everything there is to know in the universe.
This is really the idea behind the claim that "you can't prove a negative"--that we don't have the resources or ability to exhaustively enumerate all examples over the entire universe. For example, Betrand Russell postulated a teapot orbiting the sun - how would you prove it wasn't there?

Study Builds On Plausible Scenario for Origin of Life On Earth

ScienceDaily (Aug. 10, 2011) — A relatively simple combination of naturally occurring sugars and amino acids offers a plausible route to the building blocks of life, according to a paper published in Nature Chemistry.

The study shows how the precursors to RNA could have formed on Earth before any life existed. It was authored by Jason E. Hein, Eric Tse and Donna G. Blackmond, a team of researchers with the Scripps Research Institute. Hein is now a chemistry professor with University of California, Merced.
Biological molecules, such as RNA and proteins, can exist in either a natural or unnatural form, called enantiomers. By studying the chemical reactions carefully, the research team found that it was possible to generate only the natural form of the necessary RNA precursors by including simple amino acids.
"These amino acids changed how the reactions work and allowed only the naturally occurring RNA precursors to be generated in a stable form," said Hein. "In the end, we showed that an amazingly simple result emerged from some very complex and interconnected chemistry."
The natural enantiomer of the RNA precursor molecules formed a crystal structure visible to the naked eye. The crystals are stable and avoid normal chemical breakdown. They can exist until the conditions are right for them to change into RNA.
The study was led by Blackmond and builds on the work of John D. Sutherland and Matthew W. Powner published in 2009 and covered by outlets such as The New York Times and Wired. Sutherland is a chemist with Cambridge's Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology. Powner is a post-doctoral scholar with Harvard University.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Bert and Ernie are gay???

There is a current story being discussed over whether the Muppets, Bert and Ernie, on Sesame Street are gay. They are Muppets. Muppets have no sexual identity. The entire story is absurd. Is it really necessary to insert this topic into a kids TV show?

I say this as someone who feels gays are unfairly maligned in our society, however, this is not the proper place for this issue to be discussed. Can we let our kids enjoy being kids without trying to make them confront issues they are not prepared to grasp?

It is true that the characters Kermit and Miss Piggy have expressed feelings for each other, but there is nothing overtly sexual about that. Many children tell each other that they are boyfriend and girlfriend. Bert and Ernie are living together. If they get "married", it opens up questions about what that means.

Perhaps I am not as enlightened as I need to be, but Sesame Street is the wrong forum for this debate.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Does god have a weakness?

Judges 1:19

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

It would seem that an all powerful god could handle chariots of iron without much difficulty. However, to be fair, the chariots are made of iron and iron is very strong.

How can there be any rich Christians?

Matthew 19:21-24

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Which Christian reading this is obeying this?
Acts 2:44-45

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

The message is clear. If you want to follow Jesus, you need to "sell your possessions and give to the poor." It is a very simple message, and easy to do. Have you done it?
Matthew 6:19

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Luke 14:33

Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.

Why don't you sell everything and follow Jesus, as he requests in the Bible? Do you know better than Jesus how to live your lives?

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Christian violence and terrorism

In Letter to a Christian Nation, the critic of religion writes that "--- faith inspires in at least two ways. First, people often kill other humans because they believe that their creator of the universe wants them to to do it. --- Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation.

The Inquisition, Crusades, Wars of Religion, witch burning, the invasion of the Americas, attacks on gays and atheists and antisemitism are among the most notorious examples of Christian violence.

However, the word "violence" can be defined to extend far beyond pain and shedding blood. It carries the meaning of physical force, violent language, fury and, more importantly, forcible interference.

Terence Fretheim writes:

"For many people, ... only physical violence truly qualifies as violence. But, certainly, violence is more than killing people, unless one includes all those words and actions that kill people slowly. The effect of limitation to a “killing fields” perspective is the widespread neglect of many other forms of violence. We must insist that violence also refers to that which is psychologically destructive, that which demeans, damages, or depersonalizes others. In view of these considerations, violence may be defined as follows: any action, verbal or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive, public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or divine, in whatever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures, or kills. Some of the most pervasive and most dangerous forms of violence are those that are often hidden from view (against women and children, especially); just beneath the surface in many of our homes, churches, and communities is abuse enough to freeze the blood. Moreover, many forms of systemic violence often slip past our attention because they are so much a part of the infrastructure of life (e.g., racism, sexism, ageism. "

A religious war is a war caused by, or justified by, religious differences. It can involve one state with an established religion against another state with a different religion or a different sect within the same religion, or a religiously motivated group attempting to spread its faith by violence, or to suppress another group because of its religious beliefs or practices. The Muslim conquests, the French Wars of Religion, the Crusades, and the Reconquista are frequently cited historical examples, especially in History Books.

French Wars of Religion

In 16th Century France there was a succession of wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants (Hugenots primarily). These series of wars were known as the Wars of Religion.

Thirty Years War

In the first half of the 17th century, the German states, Scandinavia (Sweden, primarily) and Poland were beset by religious warfare. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism figured in the opposing sides of this conflict, though Catholic France did take the side of the Protestants but purely for political reasons.

In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II declared that some wars could be deemed as not only a bellum iustum ("just war"), but could, in certain cases, rise to the level of a bellum sacrum(holy war).[73] Jill Claster characterizes this as a "remarkable transformation in the ideology of war", shifting the justification of war from being not only "just" but "spiritually beneficial.[74] Thomas Murphy examined the Christian concept of Holy War, asking "how a culture formally dedicated to fulfilling the injunction to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' could move to a point where it sanctioned the use of violence against the alien both outside and inside society". The religious sanctioning of the concept of "holy war" was a turning point in Christian attitudes towards violence; "Pope Gregory VII made the Holy War possible by drastically altering the attitude of the church towards war... Hitherto a knight could obtain remission of sins only by giving up arms, but Urban invited him to gain forgiveness 'in and through the exercise of his martial skills'". A Holy War was defined by the Roman Catholic Church as "war that is not only just, but justifying; that is, a war that confers positive spiritual merit on those who fight in it".[75][76]

In the 12th century, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote: "'The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain."[77]

According to Daniel Chirot, the Biblical account of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho was used to justify the genocide of Catholics during the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.[78]:3 Chirot also interprets 1 Samuel 15:1-3 as "the sentiment, so clearly expressed, that because a historical wrong was committed, justice demands genocidal retribution."This was also the basis for much of Hitler's attacks on the Jewish population. He felt he was carrying out gods will to exterminate the Jewish people.


The early modern period in Britain saw religious conflict resulting from the Reformation and the introduction of Protestant state churches.[4] The Gunpowder Plot was a failed attempt to blow up the Palace of Westminster, the English seat of government. Peter Steinfels characterizes this plot as a notable case of religious terrorism.[5]

The Irish Republican Army regarded bombing English targets as militarily and symbolic. They were responsible for attacks in England over decades, starting in 1939, and then a new campaign commenced after Bloody Sunday in 1972.[6]


In Assam, the Manmasi National Christian Army (MNCA), an extremist group from the Hmar tribe, were charged with forcing Hindus to convert at gunpoint.[26] Seven or more Hmar youths were charged with visiting Bhuvan Pahar, a Hindu village, armed with guns, and pressuring residents to convert to Christianity.[27] They also desecrated temples by painting crosses on the walls with their blood.[27] The Sonai police, along with the 5th Assam Rifles, arrested 13 members of the MNCA, including their commander-in-chief. Guns and ammunition were seized.[27][28]


See also: Religious violence in Orissa.

In 2007 a tribal spiritual Hindu monk, Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati, accused Radhakant Nayak, chief of a local chapter of World Vision, and a former Rajya Sabha member from Orissa in the Indian National Congress party, of plotting to assassinate him.[29] The Swami also said that World Vision was covertly pumping money into India for religious conversion during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, and criticized the activities of Christian missionaries as going against tribal beliefs.[30] In 2008, he was gunned down along with four disciples on the Hindu festive day of Krishna Janmashtami by a group of 30–40 armed men.[31] Later, Maoist terrorist leader Sabyasachi Panda admitted responsibility for the assassination, saying that the Maoists had intervened in the religious dispute on behalf of Christians and Dalits.[32][33] The non-governmental organization Justice on Trial disputed that there had been Maoist involvement, and quoted the Swami as claiming that Christian missionaries had earlier attacked him eight times.[34][35]


Orthodox Christian movements in Romania, such as the Iron Guard and Lăncieri, which have been characterized by Yad Vashem and Stanley G. Payne as anti-semitic and fascist, respectively, were responsible for involvement in the Bucharest pogrom, and political murders during the 1930s.[36][37][38][39](p37)[40]


The Lord's Resistance Army, a cult guerrilla army engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government, has been accused of using child soldiers and committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, porters, and sex slaves.[41] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian and Islamic beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[42] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the "Holy Spirit" which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[page needed][43][43][44][45] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[46][47][48][dead link][49][50][51]

United States

Beginning after the Civil War, members of the Protestant-led,[52] Ku Klux Klan organization began engaging in arson, beatings, cross burning, destruction of property, lynching, murder, rape, tar-and-feathering, and whipping against African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities.

They were explicitly Christian terrorist in ideology, basing their beliefs on a "religious foundation" in Christianity. [53] The goals of the KKK included, from an early time on, an intent to, "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible," and believe that "Jesus was the first Klansman."[54] Their cross-burnings were conducted not only to intimidate targets, but to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and the lighting ritual was steeped in Christian symbolism, including the saying of prayers and singing of Christian hymns. [55] Many modern Klan organizations, such as the Knights Party, USA, continue to focus on the Christian supremacist message, asserting that there is a "war" on to destroy "western Christian civilization." [56]

During the twentieth century, members of extremist groups such as the Army of God began executing attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[57][58][59] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[60] A group called Concerned Christians were deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999, believing that their deaths would "lead them to heaven."[61][62] The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on May 31, 2009 was a belief that abortion is criminal and immoral, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.[63][64]

Hutaree was a Christian militia group based in Adrian, Michigan. In 2010, after an FBI agent infiltrated the group, nine of its members were indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit on charges of seditious conspiracy to use of improvised explosive devices, teaching the use of explosive materials, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.[65] Terrorism scholar Aref M. Al-Khattar has listed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, Defensive Action, The Freemen Community, and what Al-Khattar called "the Christian militia that supported Timothy McVeigh", as groups that "can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism" that "has a religious (Christian) component".[

Friday, August 5, 2011

Stepping up for god

I have noticed that several people are willing to check that my posts are wrong, but are not willing to say say why or say who they are. It is always funny when Christians are unwilling to speak out for their lord and savior.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Why wait?

Since it took the blood of Jesus to correct Adam's mistake, why not send Jesus down and have Adam kill him, right after the fall took place? Could have saved a lot of souls if he had handled the problem as soon as it occurred.