Chapter 1b: What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an

Post image for Chapter 1b: What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an

I recently invited everyone to a read along in Let’s Read About the Qur’an Together! The plan is to read What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an by James R. White together.

Feel free to grab a copy of the book and join in at anytime!

So far, we’ve covered the following:

Today, guest blogger Ken Temple leads the discussion through chapter 1b covering pages 36-49. Ken is very knowledgeable about Islam – much more than I (Mark) am. He is a husband and father of 3; been a Christian since 1977 (16 at the time), an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and Evangelical missionary. Please see the footnote for more details about Ken’s background.1

A big thanks to Ken for this week’s article.


It should not have to be said, but I need to just remind any Muslim who reads this that I have no intention of being rude or insulting; and that any criticism is based on my sincere Christian beliefs that the Bible is true, and the Qur’an is therefore, not an inspired book of revelation.  Some of the other articles I link to at Answering Islam will probably be viewed as very negative, but they are some of the ones that I am familiar with that gives greater documentation from the actual Islamic sources.  I welcome reasonable criticism and not any ad hominem dismissal of “oh, that was written by so and so, and so we dismiss it”, etc.  That is the wrong approach and not good Da’wa  (Islamic propagation, which means “invitation”) method, according to Surah 29:46.

Basically, there are five headings or subjects in this section:

  1. Muhammad’s wives
  2. Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr
  3. The story of Zaynab bint Jash  (usually it is transliterated as “Jahsh”)
  4. The Conquest of Mecca (and the Treaty of Hudaybiyyeh)
  5. Muhammad ‘ Death

Muhammad’s wives

To even comment on most of these events is to enter into areas where most western journalists fear to tread.  Dr. White did a good job of stating the beliefs about these issues from a Muslim perspective, but understandably notes that some of these examples from Muhammad’s life are troubling, especially his marriage to Zaynab Bint Jahsh, which happened after Zayd, Muhammad’s adopted son, felt the pressure to divorce her in order to free her to be able to marry the prophet of Islam.

Dr. White notes, “Though the Qur’an had limited legal wives to four (Surah 4:3), it was not long before a new revelation, allowed him, as the prophet, to exceed this number.” (p. 36)  Indeed, in the Qu’ran, Surah 33:50, Muhammad gets special revelation for himself to marry more than four women – “a privilege for you only, not the (rest of )the believers.”

Here is more of the verse of Surah 33:50 -

“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom God has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khâl (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khâlah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers.” . . .

Dr. White does not mention this, but another troubling issue is the part about “those captives or slaves whom your right hand possesses”.  This also does not seem to be a good model for morality for anyone today.

Muhammad’s first wife was Khadija, and he stayed monogamous until her death.  After her death, Muhammad had, according to different Islamic sources, 9 or 11 wives at one time.  Some others say he had up to 14 wives.  For detailed information, see wives at Answering Islam.

Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha

As far as Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, who, according to Islamic sources, the Hadith (both Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mention this) and the History of Al Tabari, she was 9 years old when they consummated their marriage.  Dr. White does a good job of showing that although this is really shocking for modern westerners, it is not communicated as anything embarrassing in the Hadith narratives or in Al Tabari’s History (Tarikh).   All women in previous centuries married younger than they do today, even in the west.  But most people today would say, “Ok, ages 13-16 in the old days, but not 9!!”    The problem is that in some Islamic countries, even today, it is permissible for men to marry girls at 9 years old because of this Sunna (custom), the example of the prophet Muhammad.  The Qur’an calls Muhammad the best example for mankind (Surah 33:21), and so Muslims look to the Qur’an and Sunna and Hadith to follow his example.

Although some Christian apologists like to emphasis this issue of Aisha and her age, calling into question Muhammad’s example, I think Dr. White is wise to not make this issue a focus of his apologetic approach.  Emphasizing it and dwelling on it just makes Muslims angry and emotional, and hinders them from listening to us; and so, we should rather want to emphasize the doctrinal areas that we need to discuss with Muslims in order to witness the gospel of Jesus Christ to them; issues like the Deity of Christ, sin, how a person can be saved, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the reliability of the Scriptures.

Zaynab Bint Jahsh

More troubling than Aisha’s age is what happened with Zaynab Bint Jahsh.2 Dr. White provides the relevant passages from the Qur’an, Surah 33, and Al Tabari’s History (Tarikh) and the Hadith about this.

White asserts, “There is no other account in the Qur’an that, to me as a Christian reader of the Qur’an, the hadith, and the tafsir literature, is more indicative of the fundamental problem with Muhammad’s claimed prophet hood than that of his relationship with Zaynab bint Jash.” (p. 40)

Muhammad eventually married Zaynab, but she was already the wife of his adopted son, Zayd!

“Up to that time, the Arab tribes, like the Jews, Romans, and so many others, had practiced – and honored – the concept of adoption.  For a man to marry the divorced wife of his adopted son was a fundamental violation of morality and custom, tantamount to incest.” (White, ibid, p. 40)

It seems obvious that Zaynab’s beauty struck Muhammad when he saw her; but she was already the wife of his adopted son, Zayd.  Eventually, Zayd felt the pressure to divorce his wife, thus freeing Muhammad to marry her, except for one thing, as White cites Martin Lings : “This did not, however, make Zaynab eligible as a wife for the Prophet, for although the Koran had only specified that men were forbidden to marry the wives of sons sprung from their loins, it was  a strong social principle not to make a distinction between sons by birth and son by adoption.” (Page 43)  With a new revelation giving Muhammad permission to marry Zaynab and getting more than 4 wives, it seems like to reasonable readers a very subjective and selfish thing for him to do and claim a sudden revelation from God Himself.   Lings reports the prophet of Islam saying, “Of all things licit the most hateful unto God is divorce.”  (page 43)

 “Is this not a clear example of the problem with the orthodox view of the Qur’an’s nature?”, James White understandably asks.  (page 45)  White continues, “Muhammad suddenly goes into some kind of faint and when he recovers, announces that adoption is undone and Zaynab is his wife – this was inscribed in eternity past upon a tablet in Arabic?”  (page 45)

But Muhammad conveniently gets a new revelation letting him know that it ok to marry her; because Zayd is no longer his adopted son.   Aisha, showing her feisty personality, and probably jealousy, is reported in a Hadith to say, “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”  (page 45, see footnote 18 – Sahih Al Bukhari 6:311)

White writes, “In distancing himself from his adopted son, . . . the culture-enriching, humanity-raising, love-engendering institution of adoption was mortally wounded in Islamic society.” (p. 44) This is negative enough, but then he points out that the basis of the damage done to such a positive thing as adopting children being the Qur’an itself; causes us to question if this book is really from God.  – “And upon what authority?  That of the Qur’an.”  (ibid, p. 44)

I will never forget, back around 1997, listening to an Iranian man tell of when he first read this story in the Qur’an and the sources when he was 14 years old, and how disappointed he was in Muhammad and that he started to cry, because he recognized that this was unjust and wrong and showed bad character on Muhammad’s part.  This was the first step in causing that Iranian man to question Islam, and then eventually become a Christian.

The Conquest of Mecca

One of the important events before the conquest of Mecca was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyeh in 628 AD.  It was to be a ten year treaty with the pagan Meccans, to allow the Muslims to go on Hajj (pilgrimage) at the Ka’aba, but it was broken only after 2 years.  Muslims claim that the pagan Quraish  tribe broke the treaty first, but there seems to be credible evidence that Muhammad broke it first.   See Muhammad and the Treaty of Hudaybiyyeh for more information.

Dr. White does not spend much time on the Treaty of Hudaybiyyeh, but it seems to me a good idea to point out a few things about this that actually do relate to modern times.  Because the treaty was broken (no matter who really broke it first), and because this is part of the Sunna, the actions of the prophet Muhammad, the late Yasser Arafat, the infamous leader of the PLO in the 1960s to 2004; used this incident several times to tell other Muslims why it was ok for him to accept the peace treaty Oslo accords with Israel.  When Arafat would say, to the effect, according to news reports, “don’t worry, this is like our prophet did with the treaty of Hudaybiyyeh”, it was a signal to Muslims who know the story that this is a temporary treaty and will ultimately be a victory for the Muslims.  In fact the historical event is in Surah 48, which is entitled, “Victory”, (Arabic: Fatah – فتح ), which is also the name of Yasser Arafat’s group that he lead for years in fighting against Israel.  You can google the issues of the treaty of Hudaybiyyeh and Yasser Arafat and see the various reports on those issues.   After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyeh was broken, Muhammad and the Muslims easily conquered Mecca in 630 AD.

The Death of Muhammad

Muhammad died in 632 AD, and White mentions that some Muslim traditions seem to indicate that his death was at least partially from the poisoned meat that a Jewish lady gave to Muhammad earlier.  See The Death of Muhammad where the author cites Hadith, Sira literature, and other Islamic sources that do seem to indicate that it was this poisoned meat that eventually caused him to die.  In these sources, Muhammad complains of the pains from the effects of the poison.

But tradition says he was 63 when he died, and that is a good old age for someone in those days, considering the conditions of life back then and all the battles and military context of Muhammad’s life.   Muhammad was buried in Medina, the second holiest city in Islam.  There is also an empty space there, according to other Islamic traditions, for Jesus after he returns and supposedly kills all the pigs and breaks all the crosses in the world, and Muslim say he will get married, and have children, and eventually dies a normal death, since, according to Islam, he was rescued from the crucifixion and death by Allah taking Him to heaven, similar, as is claimed by Muslims, to Enoch or Elijah in the Bible.  (see page 109 -110 of James White’s book, in the chapter on “Jesus in the Qur’an” (chapter 5) and footnote 4 for the Hadith reference.)

This concludes our review of chapter 1, which gives the basic events and context of Muhammad’s life in which the Qur’an was revealed.  These are important things to know in order to understand Islam and the Qur’an.

  1. My theology is conservative and “Reformed” or “Calvinistic”, like Mark and Dr. White. Ken started reaching out to Muslims in 1983, in the USA, in friendship, discussion, informal debate, and evangelism.  I was amazed at first that most Muslims would invite us into their homes for hot tea, or coffee, fruit, roasted pumpkin seeds and pistachios, when we would knock on doors in evangelism.  That was probably 90 % of the encounters with Muslims was with some kind of hospitality.  We Christians need to sincerely appreciate that, and other good things from Islamic cultures, like their contributions to architecture, medicine, science, and preserving Greek texts of philosophy in the past.  Then, 50 % of more of those encounters turned into 1 or 2 hours of discussion and the Muslims would usually invited us to stay for dinner and continue our discussions over the Bible and the gospel!  It was great fun!    Here is a statement we heard over and over, from many kinds of Muslims:  “I have lived in your country for 10 or 15 years, etc. and you are the first American who has come to our door and wish us peace!”  I can honestly say that I love Muslims and strive to be respectful and I appreciate many things about them.

    Though I read the Qur’an through one time in 1986, I did not know much about the Hadith (the written traditions of Muhammad), as the book sets of the 9 volume Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim were expensive to me, and seemingly hard to even know who to contact for purchasing them back then.  This was before the internet, and we were taught to get straight into Jesus and the gospel and the New Testament text, and not focus on Jihad and the Islamic wars of conquests or Muhammad’s wives and other troubling aspects of Islam.

    We learned by being with Muslims and spending a lot of time with them and having them into our home and visiting them in their homes.  Muslims are hospitable people, family oriented, have really tasty food, passionate, and love to discuss religion and politics!  Muslims are fun to witness to and Evangelical Christians should show love to Muslims by reaching out and should not be afraid of them.  Muslims are real people, fellow human beings, created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28); and we should want to reach out to them and share Christ and the gospel with them.

    It was not really until after 9-11-2001 that I felt the need to learn more deeply about the issues surrounding Jihad (struggle, striving, utmost effort), or  Qatal = “fighting” (the word used in Surah 9:5; 9:29 and 8:39) and Harb = war); and the Hadith and Islamic history, and the other Islamic sources like the Sira (biography of Muhammad), the Sunna, the Tarikh (history), the Tafsirs (commentaries), and Fiq (Islamic jurisprudence).  I am still learning.   Dr. White has way long surpassed me in his reading and studying these Islamic sources, since the time he started studying Islam.

    When I have time, I sometimes blog with James Swan at Beggars All and at my own blog at Apologetics and Agape. The name of my own blog is “Apologetics” and “Agape” (Love) and communicates what I feel is our Christian duty to stand for the truth of the Bible and the gospel, but to love people as people and reach out to them, especially Muslims.  Along with 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 in defending the faith in apologetics, Ephesians 4:16 also teaches us, that we are to “speak the truth the truth in love”.

  2. I am writing her last name in the way I learned it – Jahsh, rather than Jash, as in Dr. White’s book.
Tags: , , , , , , ; Categories: apologetics,books,Christianity,Evangelism,Gospel,theology
The above article was posted on June 28, 2013 by Mark Lamprecht.
© 2004-2014. All rights reserved.


{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Ken Temple June 28, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Thanks for asking me to write this, as is it forces me to think about details and articulate issues.  I also wrote a blog article on this at Beggars All.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/06/discussion-of-dr-whites-book-and-quran.html

2 Mark Lamprecht July 2, 2013 at 10:18 am

Ken Temple This comment was caught in spam. :)

3 Ken Temple July 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm

Mark Lamprecht Ken Temple  – ahh; that explains it. Thanks.

4 slimjim July 4, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Thank you for this

5 The_Thinker July 11, 2013 at 10:36 pm

I share the same concerns over the Qur’an but I reject the Bible on similar grounds. For example, god’s hatred in verses (Psalm 5:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hos. 9:15) and the repeated divine sanctioning of human slavery like in Leviticus 25:44-46. I cannot reconcile a “perfect” god who greenlights slavery and expresses hatred towards some people. The Bible fails the same standard as the Qur’an.

6 Mark Lamprecht July 11, 2013 at 11:21 pm

The_Thinker Upon what do you base your beliefs of how God should be? 
And what specific standard are you pointing to because I’m not exactly sure I follow. Thanks for dropping by.

7 Ken Temple July 11, 2013 at 11:47 pm

This is an excellent answer to the issue of slavery in the Bible, and “sexism”.  (By Jim Hamilton, a professor at Southern Seminary)
http://jimhamilton.info/2013/07/09/does-the-bible-condone-slavery-and-sexism/
God has a just and righteous and holy hatred against sin, and eventually, that holy wrath will bring about justice against all evil.  There will be a judgment day when all the injustices of the past will be made right.  God’s hatred is a pure and holy hatred against evil.  Shouldn’t you also have a real emotional hatred against injustice and evil?  
But the great difference is, the God of the Bible actually voluntarily chose to enter into our world of trouble and evil and allow Himself to be spat at and done injustice to and be killed on a cross.  God’s love was demonstrated at the cross – “God demonstrates His own love toward love us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”  Romans 5:8  And Christ rose from the dead, proving all of what the OT and He Himself said about Himself was truth.  He calls everyone to repent now.  (see Acts 17:30-31)
I”n the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:30-31
That is a big difference than the Qur’an, which does not have a statement like, “God is love” (1 John 4:8-19)

8 The_Thinker July 11, 2013 at 11:58 pm

Mark Lamprecht The_Thinker The same basic standard that all informed, rationally thinking human beings would abide by. Slavery being OK certainly does not fit into that standard. But if you’re going to judge Islam by Christian standards, then Muslims will judge Christians by Muslim standards. Who’s right? You have to take the moral teachings of both religions and critically examine them. Everything that is believed to be right or wrong must be so for a justifiable reason, because otherwise, your only justification will be in saying something is right or wrong, “Because God says so.” But if that’s your justification, then the Muslim can justify all the Qur’an’s cringe-worthy morals the same exact way and you’d have no counter-argument other than you disbelieve that it’s from god, all they’ll do the same thing to you.

9 The_Thinker July 12, 2013 at 12:45 am

Ken Temple Well I don’t want to get into a winded chat on theology, but I’m not naive, I’ve been in too many conversations with theists over this issue and I’ve done my research. The Bible clearly makes it OK to keep and even abuse (if you consider beating someone as long as they don’t die within a few days as abuse) slaves, sometimes for life and sometimes temporarily. The whole voluntary “indentured servant” argument fails. 
Now the passage in John says god is love, but how could something that is tantamount to love, also hate? Love cannot hate. So you’d have to admit god is capable of hatred, and maybe even enjoying the torments of some people (Ezekiel 21:30-32; Zephaniah 1).

10 Ken Temple July 12, 2013 at 11:55 am

The_Thinker Ken Temple – those commands and allowances regarding slavery were only for theocratic Israel, and Hebrew slavery was mostly indentured servitude from poverty, debts, war, drought, refugee status, etc.  Capturing people by force, as the Portuguese, Spanish, and English did in Africa during the slave trade era was inherently evil from the start as that is kidnapping or “man-stealing”, clearly called sin in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and Revelation chapters 17-18.  Hebrews slavery was not racial.  So, I see no justification at all for the slavery that existed in the USA and the Civil War was God’s judgment on the south for having it and perpetuating it.  ( I am a Southerner by birth, Ga. but ashamed of that past history.  Otherwise, the South and states rights issues were good, except for that evil institution, no matter how nice many slave owners were.   thank God for William Wilberforce and Granville-Sharp and others who argued against slavery using the Bible and Biblical principles!   The African slavery in the USA was wrong, and one in the new covenant era (Matthew 21:43-45 onward – Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel and some of the law was fulfilled and abrogated – Hebrews chapters 7-10; Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11, Colossians 2, book of Galatians) cannot justify it based on verses in Leviticus that were only for theocratic Israel.  
I do think that God’s perfect hatred against evil and perfect for love for sinners is beautiful, awe-inspiring, induces worship and the giving of praise and glory to the Triune God of the Bible.  
I recently watched a movie called “Taken” with Liam Neeson, where his daughter was kidnapped by a sex-trafficing group of Albanians who worked in France and sold the girls into sex slavery to workers and also to rich Saudi type oil sheikhs.  That was pure evil and I found myself feeling like good justice was dramatically demonstrated and served to those evil men when Liam Neeson came in and did what he had to do to get his daughter back.  That was a good and right feeling of justice, even though I know “vengeance is Mine, says the Lord” and that was just a movie, etc.  Justice done to evil people like  Adolph Hitler, Jeffery Dahmer, Saddam Hussein, etc. is a good and righteous kind of hatred of evil.

11 The_Thinker July 12, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker Ken, Jews were allowed to keep non-Jews as slaves for life, it clearly says that in Lev 25:44-46. It doesn’t matter whether slavery was based on race or not in the Old Testament, any slavery, any owning of people against their will is slavery and wrong. People who lost wars were turning into slaves. Read Judges 1:28, the Jews force the Canaanites into slavery using their power. Are you saying that god is Ok with slavery, as long as it isn’t exactly like the slavery in the American South? That would be some awkward god.
You can love god all you want, but I’m saying that a being that is jealous and capable of hatred and wrath cannot be called perfect and loving.
And let’s not forget that the Bible allows men to sell their daughters into slavery. And Jeffrey Dahmer became a born again Christian in prison before he died. So according to Christianity, he repented and went to heaven. So he got to kill and torture dozens of men <b>and</b> go to heaven. Some justice that is!

12 Ken Temple July 12, 2013 at 10:27 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple Whatever Leviticus 25:44-46 means, it was only for Israel, only for that time, and the theocracy of Israel is no more (Matthew 21:44-47); furthermore, it is to be balanced by Exodus 21:16 (clearly there it is wrong) and 1 Timothy 1:10 (clearly wrong there) and Revelation chapter 17(negative aspect of the pride and opulence of Babylon), where kidnapping/slave trading was clearly an evil and sinful thing and condemned by God.  Again, that was temporary for Israel, and there is a larger context of everything after Genesis 3 and sin, people mistreated each other and things like polygamy and divorce happened and were regulated and allowed, but not ideal or good. 
Judges 1:28 is just saying what happened, without approving of it necessarily.   The bible records the sinful actions of people and sometimes just reports what happened without making a specific judgment on it.   
If you don’t hate evil and injustice, there is something wrong with you.  One cannot help but feel a sense of hatred of evil deeds and people who do them, wanting justice to be meted out to someone like the Nazi war criminal Amon Goeth in the movie Shindler’s List, played by Ralph Fiennes. 
I don’t know for sure that Jeffrey Dahmer truly repented in jail and became a true Christian, although I have heard that and read that a while back.  You look at it backwards, it is not “he got to kill and torture, etc. and then go to heaven” as if it is ok to think someone can think that way before they go about doing the sin and thinking, “I will repent later”.  there is no justification for that kind of thinking in the Bible.   But, God is more powerful than man and God can forgive even a Jeffrey Dahmer.  But God allowed him to be beaten to death by fellow in-mates; even then knew he was really bad.  That is why the death penalty would have been better for him; for the state to make a statement that if someone does that kind of sin and gross evil; they should be executed.  (see Genesis 9:6; Ecclesiastes 8:11; Romans 13:1-8) 
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man he shall be but to death (executed).”  (Genesis 9:6) 
“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.”  Ecclesiastes 8:11
You wrote: “And let’s not forget that the Bible allows men to sell their daughters into slavery. ”  Where is that ?

13 The_Thinker July 13, 2013 at 3:22 am

Ken Temple The_Thinker “Leviticus 25:44-46 means, it was only for Israel, only for that time,”
So you’re a moral relativist who thinks morality is relative to people, places and times? If so, you have to admit morality changes with time and place.
“furthermore, it is to be balanced by Exodus 21:16″
If you read right above that, unruly kids are to be put to death (21:17) fathers are allowed to sell their daughters (21:7) and these rules are supposed to apply to Jews. So Lev 25:44-46 is not negated by Exodus 21:16 because the Exodus verse only applies to other Jews. And furthermore, what if someone else kidnaps someone? According to the Bible, it is perfectly OK to buy them as slaves for life as long as they’re not Jewish. Some morals.
When it comes to Judges 1:28 you’re just plain wrong. Judges 1:4 says “When Judah attacked, the Lord gave the Canaanites and Perizzites into their hands, and they struck down ten thousand men at Bezek.” And 1:22 says “Now the tribes of Joseph attacked Bethel, and the Lord was with them.” If god was the mastermind of all this it hardly seems surprising that he wouldn’t know all those defeated people were going to be “pressed into forced labor.” There is simply not one single line in the Bible forbidding the institution of human slavery. 
I hate evil and injustice, and I agree with the author of this post that the Qur’an contains some pretty evil and unjust things, but so does the Bible. That’s one thing you fail to acknowledge. The thing is, if god is perfect and intrinsically good, he cannot hate. It’s a contradiction.
So you basically agree with me that Christianity allows a serial killer like Dahmer to torture people and kill them, AND go to heaven. After all, if Jesus died for everybody’s sins, that means even Hitler and Stalin could go to heaven.

14 Ken Temple July 13, 2013 at 10:40 am

The_Thinker Ken Temple I am the author of this post.  You basically are using a New Testament ethic and the application of it and development of it in its application to western history to judge some difficult verses in the OT.  You are borrowing from God’s standard in the NT to judge God in some laws in the OT.  You are ignoring the way the NT sees the fulfillment and the abrogation of those laws that were for Israel only.   Why are you ignoring that?  No normal Christian takes those laws as applicable for today. 
 Hitler and Stalin did not repent as far as we know; and it is 99.999 % sure that they did not and they are in hell under God’s justice.  God’s wrath is God’s justice in the afterlife.  Instead of nick-picking over things not applicable to today, consider the New Covenant, the new Testament, the gospel, and God’s command to you to repent and believe in Christ.  You are suppressing the knowledge of God on the inside with your focus on those verses, in order to “get away” from your conscience that condemns you – the pride, selfishness, anger, lust, deception – whatever it may be, that Jesus says is in every human heart.  
Mark 7:20-23 – 
And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,22 deeds of coveting andwickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

You wrote: “There is simply not one single line in the Bible forbidding the institution of human slavery. ”
Yes there is, and I have them to you (1 Timothy 1:10, as one example), but you ignored it.  The condemnation of kidnapping / slave -trade means inherently that all the others who justified later as “we inherited that system” means that that was wrong also, and they should have worked harder to get rid of it.  

You wrote:
“I hate evil and injustice, and I agree with the author of this post that the Qur’an contains some pretty evil and unjust things, but so does the Bible. That’s one thing you fail to acknowledge. The thing is, if god is perfect and intrinsically good, he cannot hate. It’s a contradiction.”
If you also evil and injustice, and you can love goodness also; why is it a contradiction for God to both love truth and goodness and hate evil also?

15 Ken Temple July 13, 2013 at 11:42 am

The_Thinker Also, and this gets back to Mark’s original questions to you, which you have not answered yet  (see below – where do you get your standard, and what do you base your beliefs on how God should be?),
 “Where do you get your standard of what good is, what love is, and what evil and injustice is and what hatred is?”
I saw your web-site and looked around a bid, and I see that you are an atheist – if atheism and random chemical processes are all we are, and there is no soul or God or judgment day, why should you care about those injustices?  Just being upset at injustice proves the existence of a standard, a spiritual truth that is outside of you, – it comes from God Himself in your conscience, which you are working hard to push down and suppress.  (Romans 1:18-21)

16 The_Thinker July 13, 2013 at 10:32 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker The New Testament didn’t invent morality, basic morality is innately embedded into our very nature, and the NT simply capitalizes on it. If I was borrowing from god’s standard, I’d be a misogynistic hypocrite, who’s forced to suppress normal human desires that do not unnecessarily harm anyone and turn myself into a self-loathing masochist.
I never said Hitler and Stalin became Christians. I said if they DID, they’d go to heaven while millions of their victims that were systematically tortured and killed would go to hell to be tortured even worse. Again, some pathetic justice that would be.
I sincerely do not believe god exists. I am not suppressing anything. What you are doing is projecting your religious personality onto me. It is very common to project ourselves onto others and think they’re like us. I’m a “natural born skeptic” and I’ve been an atheist all my life. Read that link on my website if you want more info.
When you quoted Mark you made one mistake: the Bible holds no authority over me. I don’t accept that it is anything other than a man made book, just like the Qur’an. If I quoted from the Qur’an against you, would you care? No, because you’re a Christian. So the Bible is as fabricated to me as the Qur’an is to you.
1 Timothy 1:10 does not forbid the institution of slavery, as I said, if one sells someone else into slavery, a Christian can morally purchase that person as a slave for life. And if I take 1 Timothy 1:10, then I have to take 1 Timothy 2:12, and 1 Peter 2:18, and Ephesians 5:22, and Psalm 137:9 also.
You ask: why is it a contradiction for God to both love truth and goodness and hate evil also?
Christians say god is love. They are the same thing, right? So how can love hate? Hate is the opposite of goodness and love, the two are incompatible. If you want to say that god can be hateful, wrathful, angry and jealous, fine, go ahead, but then don’t tell me god is love.
And Finally you ask: if atheism and random chemical processes are all we are, and there is no soul or God or judgment day, why should you care about those injustices?
You are forgetting one major thing: we are alive! We are conscious, we can feel pain and happiness and can react to our environment both physically and emotionally. That’s why I care about injustice. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard that fallacious accusation. Fundamentally yes we are all atoms, but it creates emergent properties so we’re consciously aware of ourselves and our environment and nothing spiritual is needed.
“Just being upset at injustice proves the existence of a standard, a spiritual truth that is outside of you, – it comes from God Himself in your conscience, which you are working hard to push down and suppress.”
Nope. You assert it comes from god, your god, with no evidence, except the Bible, which I already said is about as truthful as the Qur’an. Sorry, you’re going to need better proof than the Bible, as it is circular reasoning run amok.

17 Ken Temple July 14, 2013 at 7:01 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple
The New Testament didn’t invent morality,
<i> God did; in creation, conscience, and He also inspired both the Old and New Testament; so you are wrong.</i>
basic morality is innately embedded into our very nature,
<i> The creator of our souls (God) put it into our conscience.  (Romans 2:14-16)  Your naturalistic materialistic worldview (matter and chemicals and randomness) has no explanation for logic, morality, knowledge, reason, the soul, the spirit, order, the design of creation, irreducible complexity, or the supernatural. </i>
and the NT simply capitalizes on it.
<i> Wrong.  The NT is the inspired word of God and it judges you and condemns you and no matter how much you rebel, or deny it; it is true and it doesn’t matter if you say, “it has no authority over me.” </i>
If I was borrowing from god’s standard, I’d be a misogynistic hypocrite, who’s forced to suppress normal human desires that do not unnecessarily harm anyone and turn myself into a self-loathing masochist.
<i> All the injustices that you rightly see – point to the God of the Bible as the creator and author of life and the judge of right and wrong – wars, slavery, murder, oppression, injustice, stealing – come from the sinful and selfish desires of the human heart.  Mark 7:20-23 exposes who you are on the inside. The NT certainly does condemn the slave trade and hence, slavery in 1 Timothy 1:10; and it was exactly because of that and other Biblical principles that western civilization finally realized it was wrong and abolished it – William Wilberforce, Granville-Sharp, etc. – though it was very late. Better late than never. Those text that talk about submission are telling Christians not to lead rebellions, etc.  They do not mean that that are approving of the oppression itself. </i>
I sincerely do not believe god exists. I am not suppressing anything.
<i> Yes you are suppressing the conscience and knowledge of God on your inside.  Romans 1:18-21 teaches you are suppressing the knowledge of the creator God; but it doesn’t matter if you deny it or not.  You are denying reality.</i>
Divided up because I tried to post it earlier and it would not take.

18 Ken Temple July 14, 2013 at 7:08 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple
The thinker wrote:  The New Testament didn’t invent morality,
 God did; in creation, conscience, and He also inspired
both the Old and New Testament; so you are wrong.
basic morality is innately embedded into our very nature,
The creator of our souls (God) put it into our
conscience.  (Romans 2:14-16)  Your naturalistic materialistic
worldview (matter and chemicals and randomness) has no explanation for logic,
morality, knowledge, reason, the soul, the spirit, order, the design of
creation, irreducible complexity, or the supernatural.
and the NT simply capitalizes on it.
Wrong.  The NT is the inspired word of God and it judges
you and condemns you and no matter how much you rebel, or deny it; it is true
and it doesn’t matter if you say, “it has no authority over me.”
If I was borrowing from god’s standard, I’d be a misogynistic
hypocrite, who’s forced to suppress normal human desires that do not
unnecessarily harm anyone and turn myself into a self-loathing masochist.
The perceived injustices; some that you rightly see come from
a standard outside of yourself  – and point
to the God of the Bible as the creator and author of life and the judge of right
and wrong – wars, slavery, murder, oppression, injustice, stealing – come from
the sinful and selfish desires of the human heart.  Mark 7:20-23 exposes
who you are on the inside. The NT certainly does condemn the slave trade and
hence, slavery in 1 Timothy 1:10; and it was exactly because of that and other
Biblical principles that western civilization finally realized it was wrong and
abolished it – William Wilberforce, Granville-Sharp, etc. – though it was very
late. Better late than never. Those text that talk about submission are telling
Christians not to lead rebellions, etc.  They do not mean that they are
approving of the oppression itself. 
I sincerely do not believe god exists. I am not suppressing
anything.
Yes you are suppressing the conscience and knowledge of God
on your inside.  Romans 1:18-21 teaches you are suppressing the knowledge
of the creator God; but it doesn’t matter if you deny it or not.  You are
denying reality.
Divided up because I tried to post it earlier and it would not
take.

19 Ken Temple July 14, 2013 at 7:13 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple
“The Thinker” wrote: 
What you are doing is projecting your religious personality
onto me.
Not at all; you are projecting your idea that I am
“projecting”; since you cannot read my mind.  God’s word
describes the reality of what atheism really it – anger at God for allowing
suffering and injustice in the world and history. 
 It is very common to project ourselves onto others and
think they’re like us.
 That is true that that is a common thing that many
people do; but that is not what I am doing here.   There are many
things we have in common as humans, and there are many different personalities,
backgrounds, natural giftings and talents. 
 I’m a “natural born skeptic”
 I am very skeptical of most things also – like
marketers and salespersons and liberal media bias and some conservative media
bias (though it seems less pervasive) and politicians and Pentecostal and
Charismatic Word of Faith heretics and modern claims of miracles
and healings – I am very skeptical of most of the claims. 
When you quoted Mark you made one mistake: the Bible holds no
authority over me.
 it is not a mistake, though you think so.  And
it does hold authority over you, whether you like or not; that is why you are
angry at God, because you don’t like His rules and Him telling you to repent,
etc. 
 I don’t accept that it is anything other than a man
made book, just like the Qur’an. . . .
 I understand that, that you think that; but
they are very different.  
1 Timothy 1:10 does not forbid the institution of slavery,
yes it does. It deals with it at the root, and
ultimately inspired all kinds of reforms and abolition.
You ask: why is it a contradiction for God to both love
truth and goodness and hate evil also?
Christians say god is love. They are the
same thing, right? 
God is love by nature; but love is not necessarily God.  All oranges are fruits; but not all fruits are oranges. 
So how can love hate? Hate is the opposite of goodness and
love, the two are incompatible.
No; you communicate that you don’t understand these
concepts. It is actually a good thing to hate evil ideologies and actions like
those of Hitler and Stalin, etc. Hatred of evil is a good thing.

20 Ken Temple July 14, 2013 at 7:22 pm

The_Thinker
The Thinker wrote:
If you want to say that god can be hateful, wrathful, angry
and jealous, fine, go ahead, but then don’t tell me god is love.
 I can tell you God is love if I want to; and He is
(1 John 4:8-19); and who are you to tell me I cannot say that?  Are you
trying to forbid my free speech?
And Finally you ask: if atheism and random chemical
processes are all we are, and there is no soul or God or judgment day, why
should you care about those injustices?
You are forgetting one major thing:
 No; I have never forgotten that at all.
we are alive! We are conscious, we can feel pain
and happiness and can react to our environment both physically and emotionally.
Why do we feel pain?  Who created the system
of nerve endings in our bodies in order to feel pain?  Who created the
soul and mind and spirit in order to feel emotional pain and joy and happiness?
That’s why I care about injustice.
Yes, I know!  Everybody cares about injustice to some extent or
another.  What injustice or experience or burden or trial or suffering
happened to you that caused you to be angry at the creator? 
 You don’t know how many times I’ve heard that
fallacious accusation.
It is not fallacious.  Doesn’t matter how many
you may have heard it; and I have the right to make that argument – you cannot
live consistently within the worldview that all reality is only random
chemicals and materialism, because the Creator created pain receptors, nerve
endings, and emotional pain capacities that cry out in your mind and soul for
justice, which proves you act inconsistently with your worldview which is deep
down an anger at God for allowing injustice. 
Fundamentally yes we are all atoms, but it creates emergent
properties so we’re consciously aware of ourselves and our environment
and nothing spiritual is needed.
 those atoms and emergent properties point to the
conscious and internal mind/spirit/soul – your assertion that “nothing
spiritual is needed” is just unfounded assertion that flies in the face of
reason and logic.
“Just being upset at injustice proves the existence of a
standard, a spiritual truth that is outside of you, – it comes from God Himself
in your conscience, which you are working hard to push down and suppress.”
Nope. You assert it comes from god, your god,
with no evidence, except the Bible,
 Nope.   Creation and conscience is proof,
and evidence, as is the Bible; and you are just trying to suppress those 3
evidences/proofs – 2 of them speak to you everyday when you hear and feel your
conscience and when you look at the design of creation.
which I already said is about as truthful as the Qur’an.
Sorry, you’re going to need better proof than the Bible, as it is circular
reasoning run amok. 
 No; I don’t need any other proof to you than those
3 –  creation, conscience (morality/ right vs. wrong), and the
Bible.  Every reasonable argument has some assumptions that we all must
start with, so as long as there are some assumptions, in a sense, every
intellectual argument is in some ways circular, since there is always a
starting point that one has to rely on, those  basic starting
assumptions.

21 The_Thinker July 14, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker “God did; in creation, conscience, and He also inspired both the Old and New Testament; so you are wrong.”
Prove it.
“The creator of our souls (God) put it into our conscience.”
Prove the soul exists. (Hint: Saying ‘the bible says so” is not proof of anything.)
“Your naturalistic materialistic worldview (matter and chemicals and randomness) has no explanation for logic, morality, knowledge, reason, the soul, the spirit, order, the design of creation, irreducible complexity, or the supernatural.”
Yes we do, have you even bothered reading up on science of do you spend your days on creationist websites? The supernatural and the soul obviously has no evidence supporting it so it doesn’t exist.
“The NT is the inspired word of God and it judges you and condemns you and no matter how much you rebel, or deny it”
Muslims say the same exact thing about the Qur’an and they’ve offered me the same exact amount of evidence as you have: The bible is true because the bible says it’s true! Wow, some evidence. 
Sorry my friend, I will never bow down and submit to an Iron-age fairy tale. And fewer and fewer numbers of people are willing to as time goes on.
“wars, slavery, murder, oppression, injustice, stealing – come from the sinful and selfish desires of the human heart.”
War, slavery, murder, oppression, injustice, stealing – all these things have been commanded by god in the Bible. So even you’d have to admit that if god commands them, then it becomes good to do so. And besides, I see that you’re a Calvinist, so don’t you believe we’re all predestined to do everything we say and do and are basically like god’s little meat puppets that he controls? There is no free will under Calvin.
“The NT certainly does condemn the slave trade and hence”
It was exactly because the Bible allows the purchase of slaves for life that the slave trade even got started, that’s why the Confederacy justified their practice of slavery using the Bible. But listen to what you’re actually saying, are you saying slavery was perfectly OK, until 1 Timothy?
 “Yes you are suppressing the conscience and knowledge of God on your inside.”
Perhaps you didn’t get it the first time when i said the Bible is a man made book that holds as much authority over me as the Qur’an does to you. The Bible has been disproven over and over again, on historicity, accuracy, archaeology – you name it. Romans 1 was written by a human being. If his words are divine, then Leviticus 25:44-46 is too, and that means slavery for life is OK.
“Not at all; you are projecting your idea that I am “projecting”; since you cannot read my mind.”
You cannot read my mind either, yet you know what I think because the Bible says so. This is the height of arrogance that gives religion a bad name.
“And it does hold authority over you,”
Oh yeah, well the Qur’an holds authority over you whether you like it or not. No more pork from now on. 
“God is love by nature; but love is not necessarily God.  All oranges are fruits; but not all fruits are oranges.”
OK, as long as you admit god is temperamental, and can be jealous, angry, and hateful, fine. 
“Hatred of evil is a good thing.”
Fine, just don’t tell me god is love or that Christianity is all about love. Say hatred is a part of being a healthy Christian.

22 The_Thinker July 14, 2013 at 8:36 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker “who are you to tell me I cannot say that?  Are you trying to forbid my free speech?”
No, taking away free speech is usually done by religious fundamentalists. I’m trying to ask you to be logically consistent. God isn’t love if he also is hateful, angery, jealousy, indifferent, and intentionally cruel. Period.
“Why do we feel pain?”
Because we evolved a nervous system.
“Who created the system of nerve endings in our bodies in order to feel pain?”
That question presupposes a creator. No one created it, it is evolved because it is evolutionary beneficial to sense your environment as it allows an organism to avoid danger and find food.
 “Who created the soul and mind and spirit in order to feel emotional pain and joy and happiness?”
There is no need for a soul to feel emotional pain and joy. Animals don’t have souls and they feel emotional pain and joy. You’re a presuppositionalist and I can see it.
“What injustice or experience or burden or trial or suffering happened to you that caused you to be angry at the creator?”
My life has been mostly pleasant. I’ve experienced no major tragedies and grew up in a decent middle class home. I care about injustice because I am human and I feel compassion and empathy towards my fellow human beings – and nature. And no I require belief in god to do so. Compassion and empathy evolved in mammals and we can see animals have it too.
“you cannot live consistently within the worldview that all reality is only random chemicals and materialism, because the Creator created pain receptors, nerve endings, and emotional pain capacities that cry out in your mind and soul for justice,”
You can say whatever you want – I’m all about free speech – especially the antireligious kind, but again you assert god did everything. “God did it” is your explanation for everything. Where would we be today in our scientific explanations if the preferred methodology was to imagine that god does everything using magic? 
“your assertion that “nothing spiritual is needed” is just unfounded assertion that flies in the face of reason and logic.”
How can you believe we’re all predestined to go to heaven or hell and are essentially meat puppets controlled by god and think this is a god who is perfect and good and worthy of worship? That defies logic and reason. Oh yeah, and it has no evidence.
“Creation and conscience is proof, and evidence, as is the Bible; and you are just trying to suppress those 3 evidences/proofs – 2 of them speak to you everyday when you hear and feel your conscience and when you look at the design of creation.”
Well I’m into this thing called science – you know that thing Christians hate as soon as it explains something naturally – yes and we can explain more and more things naturally now than every. In fact, every single explanation we have is a natural one. It’s like there’s a horse that wins every single race, and so the next time it competes, are you really going to put your money on the horse that has yet to win a single race? That takes a lot more faith then betting on the champion who’s record is solid. Science works. Religion fails. 
“No; I don’t need any other proof to you than those 3 –  creation, conscience (morality/ right vs. wrong), and the Bible”
Ha ha! And the Muslim just needs creation/morality/ and the Qur’an? Are you a young earth creationist who literally believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Your presuppositions are that god exists and the bible is true. How can you be an honest person using logic and reason when there are tons of criticism against creationism and the Bible? I could never ever believe a book that is not backed up by evidence.

23 Ken Temple July 14, 2013 at 9:29 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple  You say, “prove it” – (existance of God, the soul, creation points to a creator – Romans 1:18-21; conscience points to a moral standard and creator also (Romans 2:14-16).) 
 I don’t have to prove anything; I have tried to reason with you and you have rejected and you have spent a lot of time in that rejection and hatred of God.  
That is your choice.
  It is you who are not logical, nor scientific, since you deny the one who created logic and science/knowledge.  I don’t have to prove the soul exists; it just does – everyone knows deep down there is something more than chemicals and atoms and reactions and materialistic Evolution.
I percieve that have a obvious rage against God and you think you are right and intellectual and logical and I scientific, but you are decieved.   Your heart is deceitful and sinful and you cannot explain that, that is why you don’t like Mark 7:20-23 or Jeremiah 17:9 or Genesis 6:5.  You cannot explain why arrogance and pride and jealousy and lust and selfishness is wrong.  
Anyway, I think we already exhausted each other’s points, as now you are just repeating yourself and I am too.   It doesn’t mean repetition is bad necessarily.
Your materialist worldview has no authority over me.

24 The_Thinker July 14, 2013 at 10:04 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker Ken, it seems that you don’t know the first thing about logic. There’s this thing called circular reasoning, and you get an A+ in it. You simply cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. Saying “it just does” is the worst explanation ever. I can say “it just doesn’t.”
You say god created logic. How is that possible? God has to submit to logic, he cannot have created it. Can god create a square circle? No. That means even god cannot violate logic, and that means he cannot have created it.
My anger is really geared towards religious fundamentalism, which is an malignant strain of ignorance. If I could pinpoint the one thing that I despise most about religion, it’s that it hinders intellectual and moral progression by asserting that its frozen philosophy and claims to knowledge are true and should reign supreme just because they are written in a book and are believed to be the words of god. Why should we ever refrain from doing what we believe to be right and that we can justify through reason and scientific evidence simply because a book that someone tells us is the word of god says otherwise? And why should we ever disbelieve what the most accurate scientific data tells us to be true simply because a book that someone tells us is the word of god says otherwise?
I’m not trying to have authority over you. I respect your right to believe what you want and say what you want about. I’m just going to make sure that people like you don’t exert your religious belief over other people politically and violate our secular democracy.
There may be no hope for you, but there’s hope for others.

25 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 9:42 am

The_Thinker Ken Temple    God has never violated logic, and I say again that He created it and is totally consistent with it.  There are mysteries and paradoxes that we cannot grasp, but the fault is with us, not God.  
If by “Secular democracy” you mean:  Constitutional Representative Republic and original intent of freedom of religion without hinderance from the State, informed by a basic Christian worldview/morality – then yes; and it only works with the tradition of Christian morality.  (some sort of separation of church vs. state, as originally intended to keep the state from controlling the church and to keep from one state church, as in Europe), but that does not mean separation of concept of God/talk about God and Jesus Christ in public schools, public, prayers, etc. – if you mean a total separation that no one is allowed to speak about God or Christ in public (which is what many atheist campaign for) – that is wrong.  
A lot of circular reasoning is bad, but all thinking from the first premise will involve some sort of circularity, because we have to start somewhere with a thought.  “I think, therefore I am.” (Rene Descartes) is famous, but it also has some starting premises.  A total skeptic may say, “how do you know you are thinking?  Maybe your thinking it all an illusion and we are some sort of computer program by some higher alien?”, etc., etc.

26 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 9:48 am

The_Thinker “If I could pinpoint the one thing that I despise most about religion, it’s that it hinders intellectual and moral progression by asserting that its frozen philosophy and claims to knowledge are true and should reign supreme just because they are written in a book and are believed to be the words of god. ”
How has true Christianity (not wrong forms of it that did things like the Crusades, Inquisition, slavery) hindered intellectual and moral progression?
What areas do we need to have “moral progression” to a new morality?
Can you give an example today where true Christianity hinders intellectual progress?

27 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 9:52 am

The_Thinker Mark Lamprecht – Mark, feel free to jump in anytime and moderate, as this is your blog.  Sorry that the secular atheist thinker took us off the subject of the Qur’an and Dr. White’s book. (and I try to respond as best I know how to his continued objections)   I think there are solid answers to his issues, but he has taken us away from the precise subject of this post, pointing out his hatred for both the Qur’an and the Bible.

28 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 9:58 am

The_Thinker again – slavery was wrong at the time of Constitution, and the realities of political compromise are there in the historical record.  The efforts of  William Wilberforce and Granville-Sharp and the abolition of the slave trade was informed by a basic NT Christian morality being against slavery, as all men are created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26-28).  Human rights grew out of the Bible’s teachings on the equality and dignity of every person.  (such as Genesis 1:26-28; 5:2; and NT applications of that in the church – Colossians 3:10; Galatians 3:28; Revelation 5:9)

29 The_Thinker July 15, 2013 at 5:21 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker Well I see you’re fond of just making bold assertions without backing them up. Let’s forget about god and logic, since you’re logically impaired in that regard.
Now when I say secular democracy I do not mean preventing anyone from talking about god/religion in public, or openly professing religious faith. I’m fine with that. But, I mean when it comes to government (including public schools) there shall be a neutral position and no law can be passed that is justified via religion. That would of course include sharia law, which I’m sure you’re against.
No teacher can lead prayer to public school students. If the kids want to pray, they can do so on their own. Just as I’m sure you wouldn’t want a Muslim school teacher lecturing his students on the glory of Islam and the Qur’an and leading Muslim prayers to their young minds, the same cannot be done in Christianity or any other faith.
Now you ask me 3 questions:
How has true Christianity (not wrong forms of it that did things like the Crusades, Inquisition, slavery) hindered intellectual and moral progression?
What’s “true” Christianity to you is not to another. So it’s hard to say. 
What areas do we need to have “moral progression” to a new morality?
On equal rights for same-sex couples, on issues related to contraception and safe sex (things proven to reduce STDs and abortions yet all churches are against), issues related to freedom of speech/mind, reducing superstitious ignorance that’s still prevalent, like people thinking witchcraft exist and that witches need to be put to death ( as the bible says), that certain diseases and natural disasters are caused by people’s sins which is still widespread especially among the third world Christians. We need to once and for all get rid of our ancestors iron-age superstitions and embrace a rational, scientific worldview that shows there is no evidence for this nonsense. 
Can you give an example today where true Christianity hinders intellectual progress? 
That’s easy. Creationists who want to introduce “God did it” into the classroom. That would retard science if such a methodology were adopted. Can you remember Galileo and how the church forbid his heliocentric idea because it was believed to contradict scripture? Same thing with evolution and cosmology today. You got 50% of Americans thinking the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Religion is the only culprit. True science cannot progress with religion in the way. That’s why religion and government need to be separate.

30 The_Thinker July 15, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker Since you believe morality comes from god, do you believe that it was at one time, perfectly OK for human beings to own other human beings as slaves? Yes or no? And please justify your answer.

31 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 6:03 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple About public schools – the problem is that they don’t take a neutral position, they actually take an anti-Christian position.  There should be some allowance for an equal time type of debate, like we have here, but from an expert and believer in Christianity vs. an atheist or Evolutionist or vs.  a Muslim, etc.  A big problem is teaching Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution as Dogma, rather than teaching it, but allowing for open critique of it by other scientists who doubt the macro-Evolution and atheistic origin of life theory of evolution.  there are lots of Intelligent Design types, long day / old earth view, and even six day/young earth creation scientists, who do observational science very well, in science jobs and experimentation, but question the philosophical materialist presuppositions about the origin of life and matter that lie behind what is taught today in public schools. 
Granted conservative Christians have not always expressed themselves in a compassionate way on individuals that genuinely struggle with same sex attractions and want help to overcome them.   Those people do exist and we all have broken aspects of our lives – sexual sinful tendencies, laziness, gluttony, pride, anger, etc.  I am a sinner and not better than anyone else.  Having said that though, it would wrong of me to say that there is such a thing as a marriage between 2 men or 2 women.  It cannot happen.  It is not marriage.   Homosexuals should not be allowed to get married, and they should have never been allowed to adopt children. It is by nature wrong, and creates confusion in the child, no matter if the 2 daddies or 2 mommies are nice people, etc.   But they are free to do what they want to in the privacy of their own homes, and they can stipulate in their wills how they want their inheritance given out and they can make legal contracts, etc. to cover the other complaints they have.  There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”.  Re-defining marriage is morally wrong and dangerous for society.  
This is very good by a former lesbian and gay rights activist and English professor.  I hope you will take the time to listen to it.  
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/07/15/homosexuality-the-christian-faith-a-lecture-by-and-qa-with-rosario-butterfield/

32 The_Thinker July 15, 2013 at 6:22 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker “There should be some allowance for an equal time type of debate, like we have here, but from an expert and believer in Christianity vs. an atheist or Evolutionist or vs.  a Muslim, etc.  A big problem is teaching Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution as Dogma,”
Evolution is the best scientific explanation we have to explain biological diversity, and allowing Christian/Muslim creation accounts into the classroom will only confuse kids such with what is clearly non-scientific hypotheses. That’s why creationism gets knocked down time and time again when it’s “science” is put under the microscope. The only way creationists every succeed is when they ram their agenda using politics. 
Should we teach astrology and alchemy in the classroom too? Religious creation myths have no place in a public scientific classroom.
“it would wrong of me to say that there is such a thing as a marriage between 2 men or 2 women.  It cannot happen.  It is not marriage.   Homosexuals should not be allowed to get married, and they should have never been allowed to adopt children. It is by nature wrong,”
Ken you are entitled to your own opinion, but not you own facts. Prove that it is unnatural. Gay people are born the way they are, and homosexuality exists in many animal species. The definition of marriage has been continually redefined. Polygamy was widespread in the bible, and so was forcing underage girls into arranged marriages with older men. I wouldn’t call that “traditional marriage” by any stretch of the imagination.

33 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 6:58 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple    2 conservative Christians – Douglas Wilson (white Presbyterian pastor who defends the Bible and at least tries to explain the slavery passages instead of avoiding them)  and Thabiti Anyabwile (African American Baptist pastor and former Muslim – also believes in inerrancy like me and yet tries to get Douglas Wilson to see his insensivity to the issue by the way he defends the Bible in the OT passages on slavery that you are getting at. )
 I tend to agree more with Thabiti’s way of looking at things.
They had a public on-line debate about the Bible and slavery (see below) and I have not had time to read it all with full understanding, so, since you are forcing the issue, I can’t say “yes or no” until I really understand what the Leviticus 25 passage really means.  I honestly don’t know how to deal with that passage except for how I have been approaching with you so far and below.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/04/02/a-black-and-tan-round-up/
 I am honestly skeptical of thinking it means what it appears to say without considering other historical background and contextual issues.  Maybe there is something I don’t know that would help me understand it better.   All the other passages in Exodus and Lev. and Deut, etc. appear to have good explanations of indentured servitude, that was voluntary, in cases of war, poverty, debt, oppression, famine, etc. and people voluntarily served in order to survive and eat and have  a place to live, etc.  (which I already told you.)  Exodus 21:16 does seem to be clearer than your interpretation of Leviticus 25:44-46.  
Since the NT fulfills the OT (no more sacrifices (book of Hebrews chapters 7-10), no problem eating pork and crabs and lobster and shrimp, etc. – see Mark 7:19, Acts 10-11; no more Jewish festivals, and the Sabbath Day changed from Sat. to Sunday (Colossians 2:15-17; Galatians 4); and the kingdom of God was taken away from Israel – Matthew 21:43-45; it honestly seems like some things were changed from the OT to the NT.  (God allowed holy wars to drive the Canaanites out of the promised land, but God never commands or commends that today.  But “just war theory” developed in the west from Augustine seems right, and I have no doubt that the Allies were right to fight Hitler in World War 2.  At this point, that is the only way I can understand or explain Leviticus 25:44-46; that is was temporary for theocratic Israel and probably put there when they defeated the Canaanites and others in the wars for the promised land – Deuteronomy chapters 7, 9, book of Joshua.  (God gave the Canaanite and Amorite nations 400 years to repent by taking Israel to Egypt – Genesis 15:13-18; so one should always keep that in mind when dealing with those “holy wars” of Israel.) But, I also want to read and understand better what Douglas Wilson and Thabiti Anyabwile wrote, but it is hard to make the time to get through all of it without other work and life issues interfering with completing it with good comprehension.  Much of D. Wilson’s writing is over my head – he has so many historical and literary references that I am unfamiliar with, and high vocabulary, that it just takes me a long time to read his material.  
the NT passages basically say, “don’t rebel” (submit) and work hard and if you are freed then be grateful, etc.  But 1 Timothy 1:10 is great that it deals with the root of the slave trade, and all unjust force and slavery.  (not voluntary indentured servitude)

34 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 7:14 pm

The_Thinker  Evolution is the best scientific explanation we have to explain biological diversity,
Not true; and not proven at all.  That is just yours and other’s opinion, – it is debatable and the problem is the public school teachers should not be afraid to allow critique and questioning of it’s interpretation of the data.  There are many scientists who are not even Christians who question many aspects of the theory of the Evolution.  Phil Johnson’s Darwin on Trial and Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Dilemma are three  excellent examples of pointing out the problems with Evolutionary theory.  
 and allowing Christian/Muslim creation accounts into the classroom will only confuse kids such with what is clearly non-scientific hypotheses. 
No; don’t be afraid to allow open debate, as long as experts and believers in both fields are allowed for both sides.  (not liberal bible scholars, but believing scholars, etc.)  – free market of ideas. 
That’s why creationism gets knocked down time and time again when it’s “science” is put under the microscope. The only way creationists every succeed is when they ram their agenda using politics. 
John Dewey and the whole secular education government schools movement is what first took control of the children and started teaching immorality and evil things in seeking to capture children’s minds away from their parents.    Conservatives have just been trying to get the right to teach their children again.  Public government schools are too dogmatic in their agenda to control the minds of children.   Before Dewey and public school movement, the Bible and morality were taught.  Education should be done by private institutions and religious groups and allow vouchers and school choice.

35 The_Thinker July 15, 2013 at 7:28 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker I’m aware of Doug Wilson and his sympathy for the Confederacy and I’m not a fan of his. Let’s face it, the Bible condones slavery. That’s one of the reasons why I know beyond any reasonable doubt that it is a man-made piece of literature. 
Do you believe it was once ok to kill those who worked on the sabbath, or practiced witchcraft? 
There’s a huge difference between WW2 and the Canaanite genocides. For one thing, we didn’t kill all the Germans down to the last child as your lord commanded the Jews to do.
And I hope you are aware that these stories, although grotesque, are not backed up by any real evidence. The Egyptians controlled the land of Canaan at the time the Canaan conquest allegedly started. Read the book, The Bible Unearthed, there is no archaeological evidence supporting some of the most famous tales of the Old Testament, including the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt, the exodus and wandering in Sinai for 40 years, and the military conquest of Canaan. We can confidently say that these tales were written fabrications, perhaps intended to be myth by their writers, perhaps not.

36 The_Thinker July 15, 2013 at 7:34 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker In science class we teach science. not crack-pot “ideas”. If you want to teach your kids creationism, do it at home or in private school, not public school. But let me ask you, is creationism falsifiable?
“conservatives have just been trying to get the right to teach their children again.  Public government schools are too dogmatic in their agenda to control the minds of children.   Before Dewey and public school movement, the Bible and morality were taught. ”
We live in a secular democracy, hate to inform you. But teaching the bible in public school is a clear violation of our principle of secularism. And who says morality is not taught in school, and who says only Christians have the copyrights to morality? “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

37 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 7:41 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple “Doug Wilson and his sympathy for the Confederacy” – I do not have much sympathy for the Confederacy and yet I am a Southerner, – I believe the Civil War was God’s judgment on our nation for allowing slavery.  
If you are familiar with Doug Wilson, have you actually read much of his full argumentation or just sound bites from hostile bloggers, articles, etc. ? 
I share Thabiti Anyabwile’s way of handling the problem passages in the OT law.  But Douglas Wilson was excellent in his over 3 hours of lectures and answering questions of hostile atheists, skeptics, professors, and homosexuals at the University in Bloomington, Indiana.  He was right. 
http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/

38 Ken Temple July 15, 2013 at 7:48 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple Where in the Constitution is “the principle of secularism” – the modern type of it that you are advocating?
The Declaration of independence declared “all men are equal and endowed from their Creator with certain inalienable rights” and speaks of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”, and that is the historical worldview and context of the first amendment that “Congress shall make no law that establishes religion (no state church or telling the church what it can preach on or cannot preach on) nor inhibits the free exercise thereof.”

39 The_Thinker July 15, 2013 at 8:24 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker I know Doug Wilson from numerous debates he’s had with atheists like Christopher Hitchens, and from his speeches, lectures etc. I’m not a fan of Calvinism to be honest and biblical inerrancy. It’s intellectually bankrupt. 
You “believe the Civil War was God’s judgment on our nation for allowing slavery” but your mentality allows anyone to interpret anything as “God’s judgment” without a shred of evidence. So you can keep believing all you want, I’m working towards ridding society of that iron-age superstition.

40 The_Thinker July 15, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” We know from Jefferson’s other writings what he meant, he meant the separation of church and state, just as he wrote to the Danbury Baptists. 
Where in the constitution does it say an individual has the right to bare arms? No where, but we interpret the 2nd amendment as meaning that.

41 Ken Temple July 17, 2013 at 6:24 am

The_Thinker Ken Temple – been busy; but as God gives me time; I will try and make a few more comments. 
You wrote: Ken you are entitled to your own opinion, but not you own facts. 
Don’t understand that last phrase; did you mean “not to your own facts” or ?
Prove that it is unnatural. Gay people are born the way they are, and homosexuality exists in many animal species. 
Some people have more tendencies to be lazy or prideful or angry or gluttonous or jealous or be gossipers – all sin is at various levels genetic, since we inherited our sinful selfish prideful nature from our parents, and it goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.  (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Psalm 51; Romans 5:12; Mark 7:20-23)   That does not give license to acting it out or trying to force society to change the definition of words and marriage. 
Regarding animals; I have heard that argument before, that because some animals may do some homosexual type actions, that that somehow makes it “natural” or ok for humans to do that.  Well, let’s see, dogs greet each other by smelling each other’s butt- holes, so does that mean it’s ok for some people to do that and try to force the rest of us in society to approve of that stupid behavior?  Black widows eat their husbands after mating with them, does that mean that humans can do that and murder ok after mating?  Obviously no one would buy that kind of argument.  Some male dogs just start humping on poles or people’s legs sometimes, etc. and you can argue that that is natural, (instinct, non-thinking) but I don’t know anyone who is going to seriously argue for any of these three behaviors – that is how logical that argument of yours and the homosexual agenda is.  Homosexuality is always wrong and those that are trying to force society to approve of them will certainly face a harsher judgment on judgment day; than the sincere and humble person who struggles with same-sex attractions but realizes they are perverted and seeks help to overcome them. (or is private about it and not a political activist.)   But the good news is that God really does have the power to change people through the gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.  1 Corinthians 6:9-11  That does not mean that those who have those struggles with be completely free from those attractions; but it means that person admits their desires are wrong just as others who have angry tendencies, prideful tendencies, lazy tendencies, gluttonous tendencies do not define them as people and they keep seeking God for help in working to overcome them. 
The definition of marriage has been continually redefined. Polygamy was widespread in the bible, 
God allowed it; later, because of the selfish human sinful heart;  but it was not the original design of Adam and Eve.  The Genesis account does not have God creating Adam and Eve and Susan and Jennifer and Carla and Rachel.

42 The_Thinker July 17, 2013 at 7:36 am

Ken Temple The_Thinker You’ve gone deep into theology land. 
I mean that you’re not entitled to your own facts. 
“since we inherited our sinful selfish prideful nature from our parents, and it goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.That does not give license to acting it out or trying to force society to change the definition of words and marriage.”
So god creates us sick or defective from birth, then commands us to be perfect according to his arbitrary standard, so that we’ll feel like crap our whole lives for falling short. Is that a worldview I should be jumping with joy over, especially when there’s no evidence backing up the existence of such a god? I think not. And I fail to see how any person would want that world to be true.
“Well, let’s see, dogs greet each other by smelling each other’s butt- holes, so does that mean it’s ok for some people to do that and try to force the rest of us in society to approve of that stupid behavior?  Black widows eat their husbands after mating with them, does that mean that humans can do that and murder ok after mating?  Obviously no one would buy that kind of argument.”
As humans we don’t use our sense of smell like dogs so there’s no reason why we need to engage in such behavior. But there’s a very simple common sense approach to these moral issues. And that is the no harm principle. If what you’re doing does not cause unnecessary harm, for the most part it is fine. Homosexuality does not cause harm to anyone not involved in it, so there’s nothing wrong with it. So there’s no comparison to cannibalism or humping people’s legs. This is a abject failure of your ability to be reasonable, a by-product of religious indoctrination.
“Homosexuality is always wrong and those that are trying to force society to approve of them will certainly face a harsher judgment on judgment day; than the sincere and humble person who struggles with same-sex attractions but realizes they are perverted and seeks help to overcome them.”
Why is it wrong? Because god says so? “Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?” I’d like your opinion on that.
“but it means that person admits their desires are wrong just as others who have angry tendencies, prideful tendencies, lazy tendencies, gluttonous tendencies do not define them as people and they keep seeking God for help in working to overcome them.”
What if they don’t want to? What if they are proud of their homosexuality? Why would god give people homosexual desire if he didn’t want people to be gay? It makes little sense. Why make us prideful, gluttonous etc if only to hate these things? Why not just make people perfect? It seems to me that you’re worried about what you think god will do to you because other people are gay. Well. like I said earlier, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But all I can say is that you can expect an ever increasing assault of arguments against your conservative religious worldview that happens to be dying at an increasingly rapid rate.

43 Ken Temple July 17, 2013 at 1:20 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple  God originally created us (meaning Adam and Eve) good and upright – Ecclesiastes 7:29   – but when they freely chose to sin and rebel, that plunged all of us into sin and so everyone born after them has a natural selfishness and corruption and pride.  So to be proud of something is wrong.  “Proud to be an American” is wrong (see Mark’s recent article here around July 4) We can be grateful to be an American, but not proud.  That kind of pride is a massive turn off to people of other nations; and I have spent time with them and reached out to them, eaten food with them, and learned one language fluently and another one enough to be “dangerous”.  God judged creation by allowing these different corruptions and brokenness – entropy, age, death, rust, corruption, rotting, suffering, deformities, etc.  (Romans 8:20-23) 
Homosexuality is wrong because it is by nature wrong; against the design of our bodies and souls; and because God says it is – you know the verses; and it is very harmful to the homosexuals themselves (even though they deny it); and it is harmful to any children who are adopted, and it is harmful to society and civilization to accept it and approve of it.  It is the homosexual activists and liberal judges who have forced it out into the public and forced the government to “get into the bedroom”.  It is a very selfish immature attitude of using the excuses of inheritance taxes and visitation rights, etc. to try and get society to approve of the evil lifestyle.  
I am not worried at “what God will do to me” – that doesn’t make sense.  It’s not for me;  Christians are concerned for the damage this does to society and children and the future.  It is being concerned for society and the future of civilization, but that is not the only thing.  Abortion is murder and wrong; adultery is wrong; divorce is wrong most of the time.  (there are 2 exceptions – Matthew 19:1-7; 1 Cor. 7:15) Gluttony is also wrong.  Anger usually is wrong.  Pornography is wrong.  the sex-trafficing slave trade is one of the most hideous evils I have ever heard of.  Stealing is wrong.  Government take over health care is wrong too.  (smile)  
If they don’t want to be free from wrong desires and actions, well, that is their choice – they can do those sinful things privately in their own homes, but they have to right to say that is marriage and try to force the rest of us to approve of them.  
The answer is the gospel of Jesus Christ – He is the only hope of redemption and freedom from sin and the only power to love people and deal with the selfish pride in the heart and the rebellion of pushing down on the inside of what you know to be true – that God exists and shows Himself in the design and purpose of creation and the universality of internal morality and conscience and sense of “right and wrong”.  
This just came to my attention this morning; and it is really good and communicates the effect of the gospel of Christ in how she (Kirsten Powers) could not resist the Lord anymore with intellectual arguments. 
http://www.dennyburk.com/journalist-kirsten-powers-tells-about-her-conversion-to-christ/#more-25086

44 Ken Temple July 17, 2013 at 2:17 pm

The_Thinker
I noticed a typo – 
but they have no right to say that is marriage and try to force the rest of us to approve of them.

45 The_Thinker July 17, 2013 at 6:56 pm

Ken Temple The_ThinkerKen I see you put so much emphasis on scripture, I wonder if you have ever considered that many parts of the Bible have been altered. For example, the famous story of the adulterer in John 8:7 is not in any early manuscripts and doesn’t appear until the 10th century. That’s 1000 years after Jesus. There are hundreds of significant discrepancies in the New Testament alone from the manuscripts in the original Greek. It was not written by eyewitnesses as it was written in Greek and Jesus’ followers would have spoken Aramaic. The “Authors” Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were added 200 years later by scribes. 
On top of that, there is an excellent documentary called The Bible Unearthed. It’s based on the 2001 book from Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Silberman, contributing editor or Archaeology magazine. Their work made some interesting findings. There is no archaeological evidence supporting some of the most famous tales of the Old Testament, including the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt, the exodus and wandering in Sinai for 40 years, and the military conquest of Canaan. We can confidently say that these tales were written fabrications, perhaps intended to be myth by their writers, perhaps not.
So biblical inerrancy is not a tenable position. I don’t see how you can maintain it given the evidence we have now, except on pure faith. Even if I was a Christian I could never ever believe the bible literally, that goes for Adam & Eve, which there is absolutely no archaeological or scientific evidence for. The fact of the matter is that we evolved, as all animals did, whether you like it or not. Now you will deny this, but the rest of the educated world will go on accepting science for what it shows us to be true. Even St. Augustine warned of interpreting Genesis literally. It’s a shame so many adults make this mistake. 
Now you are entitled to your opinion on homosexuality and I agree that no one has the right to force you to accept them. But legally gay couples are entitled to the same constitutional rights as heterosexual couples. Just like no one has the right to force a racist to like black people, but black people are entitled to equal constitutional rights. 
I actually agree with you that gluttony is wrong, not because the Bible says so, but because it is extremely unhealthy for the people, for society and let’s face it, fat people take up too much space and increase healthcare costs. Universal healthcare is I think a very Christian thing to do. The alternative is to simply let poor people die or go bankrupt. That’s not Christian to me. 
Aside from that you can believe whatever theology you want, as it is your right and your opinion. I have the right to think it’s ridiculous and to openly criticize and make fun of it as much as I want.

46 Ken Temple July 18, 2013 at 2:02 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple
Conservative Biblical scholars have been providing  answers to all of those issues you bring up; it is just too much right now for me to copy from books, etc.   and the book you listed,  The Bible Unearthed, has been answered adequately by conservative Bible scholars.  All of the manuscripts that we have that survive with the title page of the gospels have “kata . . . ” (according to Mark or Matthew or Luke or John) Earliest manuscripts are fragments of certain passages – one cannot demand that that they have to be in tact – that is the nature of time and the rotting of old papyrus and animal skins.  Liberals questioned the existence of the Hittites for many years, but then they found the evidence in Turkey of a massive civilization – in central Turkey of the Hittites – there are whole museums full of the evidence of them.  There is an underground city from the Hittite civilization there in Central Turkey – I have been there, gone underground, spend several days in the museums, etc.  Liberals doubled Pontius Pilate existed for a while, then archeological digs and study found an inscription in stone of him, etc.  Liberals doubted the existence of the cities of Sodom and Ghomorah, but sure enough, right in that area south of the dead sea, there are mineral deposits that are unusual and consistent with the descriptions of the destruction with sulfur and intense fire (fire and brimstone – KJV) .  The liberals doubted Sargon, the Assyrian king, and then found him, same for Nineveh, then found it, etc.  Every archeological question has been vindicated with the passage of time.  
You wrote: But legally gay couples are entitled to the same constitutional rights as heterosexual couples.
They already have every legal protection as individual citizens.  What you and they are promoting is special privileges.  Are you a homosexual?     
As or marriage privileges, they are not entitled to those – No they are not entitled to those because it is not marriage.  They can make contracts and make wills to leave inheritance if they want; but the government and society has no business deeming that they are marriages with equal status as normal heterosexual marriage.  Homosexuality is wrong and abnormal and sin, and perverted.  Those who are humble and keep to themselves and are not activists – they are not the problem – the problem is the combination of the activist agenda coupled with the atheists agenda to use government to silence Christians from being able to talk about God and Christ and sin and the consequences in public.  That includes public schools.  
The reason why Public government schools are falling apart is because their is no more normal morality or accountability to a higher power that convicts the conscience anymore or discipline or PE – they take up too much time with political correctness and liberal brainwashing and Global warming and gay diversity training, etc. 
(Al Gore is a nut and hypocrite driving his SUVs and using airplanes, and selling his TV network to Al Jazera) 
obviously companies can still drill and use oil and do it responsibly and at the same time take care of the environment.  ANWAR , gulf, Keystone Pipeline, Fraking, etc. and every other energy source should be used for jobs and industry and so we can drain Saudi, Kuwait, Lybia, Iran, Iraq (and any other evil dictator regimes) and other Islamic nations of their power because they use that incredible oil wealth to buy land, buildings, churches, companies, stocks in Europe, and then there are Islamic terrorists who eventually get some percentage of their wealth in the past 30 years, just because of the nature of relationships in their culture.)  
Too much gay diversity training rather than observational science, math, science, writing, reading, history(without political correct agenda and hatred of western history), logic, Latin, Greek, etc. 
I don’t have time for any more comments right now.  Got to get back to work.

47 The_Thinker July 18, 2013 at 9:10 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker “The Bible Unearthed, has been answered adequately by conservative Bible scholars.”
The problem with conservative and especially evangelical scholars is that they must twist the evidence to make sure their view of biblical inerrancy is maintained. Now you did not address any of the things in the bible I mentioned were not supported by archaeological evidence. You mentioned the Hittites, so what? At the time of the exodus story the Kingdom of Egypt controlled all of Canaan. And Sodom and Gomorrah are still disputed, but a confirmation of their existence does not confirm the biblical narrative about them. The story could have been made up but made to take place in a real location. Sorry, Ken, but archaeology has not been kind to the bible.
“They already have every legal protection as individual citizens.  What you and they are promoting is special privileges.  Are you a homosexual?”
No I’m not. but gay people do not have equal rights in all 50 states. Why should our secular government adopt a purely religious stance on gay marriage? You say it’s “wrong and abnormal and sin, and perverted.” Besides the bible, can you make a secular case against gay marriage?
“the atheists agenda to use government to silence Christians from being able to talk about God and Christ and sin and the consequences in public.  That includes public schools.”
So you’re perfectly fine with Muslim school teachers praising Mohammad in public schools and holding Islamic prayer ceremonies while the kids have to be exposed to it?
“The reason why Public government schools are falling apart is because their is no more normal morality or accountability to a higher power that convicts the conscience anymore or discipline or PE – they take up too much time with political correctness and liberal brainwashing and Global warming and gay diversity training, etc.”
Something tells me that it’s been quit some time since you’ve been in school. If public schools teach god, that violates the principle of secularism. Why should an atheist school kid be lectured on god in a public classroom? If you want to do that in church which is private – fine, but public schools – hell no! You’d be forcing your religion onto people, and if it’s Ok to do that with Christianity, it’s OK for a Muslim school teacher to do that with Islam.
Let’s talk about gay diversity training. What if white racists objected to racial diversity training their kids are exposed to in public school? Should we stop all racial diversity training because some people may object to it?
And why not clean energy instead of the same old fossil fuels that we know are polluting the earth? And “observational science” is interesting, does that mean no evolution or geology that goes back billions of years? I bet you want to teach creationism in schools.

48 Ken Temple July 19, 2013 at 5:24 pm

“No I’m not. but gay people do not have equal rights in all 50 states.”
yes they do, they already have all the individual rights that is morally acceptable.  The right to call what they do “marriage” or  “proper and legitimate marriage” is not a Constitution right – it is not a Constitutional right to change meanings of words and to change definitions of words.  The 11 (?)  or so states that have decided that there is such a thing as “gay marriage” are all wrong – those states that have changed the meanings of words and the meaning of marriage – that is not a Constitutional right.  
 Why should our secular government adopt a purely religious stance on gay marriage? 
The view I am espousing is not just a religious view, it is the only view period.  
You say it’s “wrong and abnormal and sin, and perverted.” Besides the bible, can you make a secular case against gay marriage?
Yes, What is Marriage? Man and Woman – by Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis, and Robert P. George
http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225
“Sorry, Ken, but archaeology has not been kind to the bible.”
yes it has, and it has so far proven it to be true.  Your arguments are arguments from silence.  Many things have not been discovered yet, and some things are so old that there is no more evidence left of them; and every piece of evidence requires interpretation and surrounding factors.

49 Ken Temple July 19, 2013 at 5:31 pm

@Thinker
On Clean Energy:
Clean energy is fine if it is done and
developed in such as way as to not to require the government to try and do
things like “bankrupt the coal industry” (Obama said that in his
campaign) and also, it honestly seems like “get rid of the oil industry by
sudden force”; and stop any oil production now until the other industries can
compete fairly with both quality and free-market principles.  We can
eventually get to clean energy if the technology and free markets naturally
bring it about without government interference. 
(Obama’s Solyndra scandal and the panic and market problems caused by
the corn –ethanol event (that caused worldwide panic and problems) should be 2 classic
and enough examples to tell every thinking person that that whole agenda is
wrong and immoral, and not smart economically.
 There
should be full blown industry development and drilling in ANWAR up in Alaska
and the Gulf and Fraking in N. Dakota and S. Dakota and full blown go ahead on
the Key Stone pipeline and just operate on the Biblical principle of taking
care of the environment by the rules of proper disposal of wastes, etc. –
 The Liberal Environmentalist agenda is bad for security (keeps us
enslaved to Arab oil countries – whether 15 % or 25 % ( ? I forget) – any is
too much.  ) and it is bad for economics and jobs.  It does not take
a rocket scientist to see this.  But if the government comes in and forces
all the “dirty” methods out by draconian methods (as what they are
doing), that is wrong and it seems to want and enjoy destroying the economic
health and power of the USA.

50 Ken Temple July 19, 2013 at 5:35 pm

Public Schools – 
I understand what you are saying – I
don’t want any free for all for every kind of religion.  We have drifted
too far to be normal anymore.  Even when I was in school (First grade to
high school – 1967-1979), there was no endorsement of religion.   But
there still was a nice morality and respect for the 10 commandments kind of
thing, and saying the pledge of allegiance.  And teachers and adults were
respected and police and firemen were respected.  Political correctness
and government trying to replace conscience is part of the problem. 
 But there should not be diversity
training on gay issues – it is all inappropriate for elementary school, (sex
education should be taught by parents solely and at appropriate time and age)  and disgusting subject to even talk about and
the teachers don’t have a right to tell my children that it is ok and that gay
is somehow normal.  It is not.  But I also don’t agree with bullying
or beating up people either.  Gosh, I was bullied and teased and made fun
of just for being “dorky”(I realize that word came into vogue later,
in the late 70s, I think) and “not cool” and having a big head (they
called me Frankenstein, etc.) and  and K-mart shoes and old 1950s haircut
– i was the only kid in the 60s who did not have a Beatles haircut – I had a
1950s haircut and I was teased and called names all the time.  And my
parents could not afford Adidas  or Nike or Puma cool shoes, so I had
the K-Mart brand and suffered for it.  That’s life; even though it is
painful, we have to learn to not let what other people think of us, bother us.
 I had to grow up and learn to not be controlled by what other people
think, and also it was God’s way of preparing me for having compassion on
others who are downtrodden and looked down upon.  
Eventually I taught and explained to a
homosexual the gospel of Jesus Christ – and he repented and placed his faith in
Christ –  he came to our church and wanted to be free.  I spend time
with him and ate meals with him and he was shocked.  My wife and I
befriended another former homosexual who had recently become and Christian and
repented of that lifestyle, but no one would reach out to him; and I did and he
was also shocked and we became good friends – eventually  I taught him the
Bible both at home over breakfast once a week before he went to work, and I
also taught him several Bible courses for college credit that I was teaching on
a part time basis in the evenings at our church; and eventually he got married
and had 4 children and became a missionary to the Middle East.    If
you read my article above on the Qur’an and James White book, part of my
motivation to outreach to Muslims and share the gospel with them was because
the Church in history was wrong and afraid of these people who are created in
God’s image (Genesis 1:26-28) and God wants us to befriend them and reach out
and love them and talk to them; even if they may kill us. (Matthew 28:18-20;
Revelation 5:9; Colossians 3:9-10; Galatians 3:28; Luke 9:23)  
You see, the modern human rights
movement has a history and background and it all came from the Bible (Genesis
1:26-28; 5:2; Galatians 3:28; Revelation 5:9) and from Christianity slowly
working its way through our culture and getting rid of evil institutions,(like
slavery, etc) etc. and being infiltrated into our western culture.  The
declaration of independence’s phrases, “inalienable rights endowed by
their creator” and “the laws of nature and nature’s God” were
informed by the Bible and Christianity – Deism and human rights were all
informed by Trinitarian Theism and the Bible.

51 The_Thinker July 19, 2013 at 9:00 pm

Ken Temple Gay people don’t have equal rights and you want to make sure they don’t. So don’t pretend otherwise. Marriage has always been redefined, you don’t have the constitutional right to enforce your narrow minded biblical worldview.
The view I am espousing is not just a religious view, it is the only view period.  Nope. The majority of Americans agree with me, so you’re just plain wrong that it is the only view. 
Yes, What is Marriage? Man and Woman – by Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis, and Robert P. GeorgeWhat about a man and a 13 year old girl? Or a man and several women? Or a man and several women and several concubines/slaves? All were permitted by your god in the bible. So don’t tell me the “definition” of marriage is between “a” man and “a” woman”.
yes it has, and it has so far proven it to be true.  Your arguments are arguments from silence.  Many things have not been discovered yet, and some things are so old that there is no more evidence left of them; and every piece of evidence requires interpretation and surrounding factors.  Let me see if I get your logic here. The bible has been “proven it to be true” and yet “many things have not been discovered yet, and some things are so old that there is no more evidence left of them.” How is this logical, I ask? How can something be proven to be true that has no evidence supporting it? I might as well believe any other religion if that’s your standard. Ken, you need to find cold hard evidence to back up your faith in the bible, otherwise it is blind, unreasonable faith.

52 The_Thinker July 19, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Ken Temple It’s amazing how Christians love to claim credit for everything good, while often ignoring the horror it has unleashed. 
I’m all for respect in our schools, we don’t need to violate secularism to achieve that. Plenty of people are good without god. What we need is more parental responsibility and that’s a deep issue I don’t have space to go into because it’s tied to economics and many other factors.
On the gay issue, one thing is for sure: Gay people exist, they always have, and they always will. Pretending they don’t exist is not going to make them go away. So how do you deal with them? You seem to want to treat them kindly, well then how does that mentality start? It starts by fostering a culture that is hospitable to them. It seems that you are OK with gay people, as long as they repent and feel ashamed. Well that’s not going to happen to most of them. Most are out, gay and proud. Now the question is, how will you deal with those kinds of gay people?
I agree with your article about the Qur’an. I’m not one of those liberals that bends over backwards for Islam. I’ve got the Qur’an and read it and yes – it is a deeply disturbing book in many areas. But so is the bible. And that’s how this started. I’ve got a few questions I want to ask you:Would you rather live in a universe where atheism is true or where Islam is true? Would you rather see a future US that is mostly secular and atheist or mostly Islamic in 10 or 20 years? Is your answer the same for Europe and the entire world? Those are your only two options.
You have the right to preach the gospel Ken, just not in government or a public classroom. And of course others have the right to criticize your religion openly.
The modern human rights movement had many enlightenment elements to it that drew upon philosophy that was not always Christian. If slavery is an evil institution, why did god allow it? Is god evil then? The declaration pays lip service to a deistic creator, but it in no way endorses Christianity. And “the laws of nature” can be interpreted as a naturalistic justification of these very rights. To talk about human rights is ironic, because the main forces worldwide that are preventing them, are religious, like your restriction of gay marriage and other issues. In Christian and Muslim countries in Africa they execute homosexuals and use Leviticus 20:13 as justification. Some human rights.

53 Ken Temple July 19, 2013 at 11:57 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple – those 2-3 questions – why do you lock me into only 2 choices?
What is your motivation for only those choices?

54 The_Thinker July 20, 2013 at 12:09 am

Ken Temple The_Thinker Because you’d obviously prefer Christianity. So given only those two options which would you prefer?

55 Ken Temple July 20, 2013 at 5:08 am

The_Thinker Ken Temple The first question is weird, because I cannot conceive of the Universe where atheism is true (the formal philosophical idea of Truth), since there necessarily has to be a Creator / Designer (which you are suppressing in your heart and conscience – Romans 1:18-21; 2:14-16)- the God of the Bible – the Holy Trinity.  Islam is better on your first question, for at least it maintains some aspects of proper morality and believe in one creator God and judgment day; but it is not true in its denial of the true God (The Trinity – one God in three persons).
Islam is a false religion that was built on mostly Jewish Midrash stuff that Muhammad was exposed to, mixed with the Arab desert culture, and a few things from Christianity that were distorted in his ears because he got his got his information from Gnostic gospels and other heretical groups and heard things from the nominal groups of “Christians” who had begun to exalt Mary too much.
The second question is about government – there are aspects of having a secular government that are right – but pure secularism is wrong.  The founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the first amendment to protect freedom of religion and to keep the government out of the church’s business and to keep from favoring one church over another.  (like the Danbury Baptists were worried that the Congregationalists were going to interfere with their convictions and beliefs. – context of Thomas Jefferson’s letter.)  Definitely do not want an Islamic government – they are all really bad all through history and they did aggressive war and subjugated the Christians and Jews and converted the Persians, Kurds, Turks, etc. by force  in their Jihad conquests.  
A “secular” (meaning not favoring one church or establishing a state church)  government (Representative Republic of original intent Constitutionalism)  but informed by Christian truths, traditions, history with marriage as one man and one woman and freedom of evangelism is preferred as better than Islamic government, the USA as it was in the 1950s (but without racial discrimination) it still is now, although loosing the cultural battles for people’s minds and hearts. 
Another thing about public government schools – the government should be out of the education business and let churches, synagogues, private institutions do education.  The Department of Education is one of the worst run departments of our government.  
This is really interesting and pertinent to our discussion:
http://www.dennyburk.com/gay-marriage-and-the-slippery-slope-to-incest-and-polygamy/#more-25135

56 The_Thinker July 20, 2013 at 5:55 am

Ken Temple The_Thinker Oh Ken. LOL. Your response reminds me exactly why I am an atheist and antitheist. Citing the Bible to me is about as effective as me citing the Qur’an to you. We been there before. You have not offered a single piece of proof that the entire Bible is true, yet I’ve offered you evidence that many of it’s core stories are mere myths. As such, the Bible is just a man-made book written by Iron-age desert dwellers.
Firstly, if you’d like to submit to the Qur’an rather than live in a world free of celestial tyranny, by all means that is your choice. It seems you put so much emphasis on having a “proper morality” that is dictated to you as opposed to thinking morally for yourself. 
Why is it that you can so easily see the falsity of Islam, but can’t see the same thing of Christianity right under your nose? At least from my perspective it is apparent. 
On question two, I was mostly talking about the people, the citizens – not the government. Assume we had the same governments we have now, would you want most of the American people to adopt an atheistic view or an Islamic view if those were your only choices? That’s the question I want to know about. 
Lastly you say “the government should be out of the education business and let churches, synagogues, private institutions do education.” I’m shocked. That’s the Glenn Beck idea. With no public education, our kids will become illiterate and we will fall back into the days of 90 percent of the populace illiterate and unskilled. It would be devastating. The education system should be fixed, not destroyed. You just want churches teaching kids creationism and inculcating Christianity and making it so that the church is a parent’s primary educational option with government out of way. That’s exactly what you want.
That is so dangerous, and this is exactly why religion is so dangerous to the human mind and society. My stereotypes are being confirmed with you.

57 Ken Temple July 20, 2013 at 11:25 am

The_Thinker Ken Temple  You cannot fix the government schools because the root philosophies of 1.  Throwing money at problems – stupid leftism – Obama seems sincere in his philosophy, but sincerely wrong; he doesn’t have a clue as to economics or history or proper role of government.  How stupid is calling what Hassan Nidal did “Work place violence”?  Leftism is foolish.  Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are proving how stupid Leftism is  
2.  no God, no conscience, no morality, hence “do what you want to do” is the result – modern lack of respect for authority and gangs, violence, pornography and sex industries and sex slave trade, mobs, gangs, mafia; pre–marital sex and fathers leaving their pregnant teenage mates to care for the babies and then government trying to fix it was automatic welfare programs  – that is the root of inner city school problems – lack of conscience and morality and respect.  Materialistic naturalism/atheism feeds that.  “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7) and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”.  (Proverbs 9:10) You have no real knowledge or wisdom by that philosophy – that is why things are getting worse.  
Where do you get the idea that 90 % of the population would be illiterate – everyone could go to the school of their choice – allow vouchers and charter schools and all kinds of options so that no one doesn’t not go to school – the government is doing a very poor job of it right now – as long as everyone can go to some school, they can all still learn observational science, math, history, reading, writing, computers, electronics, technology, etc. Get rid of political correctness and gay agenda, put PE back in and normal learning without the Darwinism as Dogma, and historical revisionism and political correctness.   Teach Evolution, but teach all of it – the problems with it and allow questioning of it  (Darwin on Trial – by Philip Johnson; Irreducible complexity and Darwin’s Black Box – Michael Behe; Darwin’s Dilemma, by Steven Meyer  – Intelligent Design, long day creationism, the gap theory, 6 day creationism and John Salhaimer’s view (book, Genesis Unbound) – allow all kinds of freedom to study all of the options as the origins of the Universe.  
Atheist and naturalistic materialism sears the conscience and destroys morality.  The Atheism of Marx / Engels birthed socialism and communism  – Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the killing fields, etc, Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, and other dictators.

58 Ken Temple July 20, 2013 at 1:00 pm

The_Thinker Also – using your atheist naturalistic presuppositions are about as effective on me as the Qu’ran or Hindu Scriptures or Greek mythology or Mormonism.  But the word of God is powerful and God’s Spirit can overcome your stubbornness if He wants to – He is more powerful than you and your stuffing and suppressing the truth of God inside of you.

59 The_Thinker July 20, 2013 at 6:05 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker If leftism is stupid, look at what conservatism is offering us as an alternative in the form of you. Literacy rates were about 10 percent until we introduced this thing called public school. Once we educated the masses, literacy slowly rose to levels we see today. That’s why it works. Ending public school would make everything worse. You just want churches and religious organizations like Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis teaching Christ oriented creationism. 
And what if the king of Saudi Arabia offered to use billions to build Islamic Maddrassas all over the US to offer kids cheap Islamic oriented education? Would you prefer that instead of public school?
It does not follow that no god means no morality. Explain to me why a country like Japan has much less violent crime and rape and about 70-90 percent of them are atheists? In America, 99 percent of the prison population believes in god. Most gangs and criminals believe in god. I grew up around idiots like that who always thought god would forgive them in everything they did. Believing in god is useless to most people, they will always find a way to rationalize their bad behavior.
All of those creationist books and ideas you mentioned – Darwin on TriaI – Irreducible complexity, Darwin’s Black Box, Darwin’s Dilemma,Intelligent Design, long day creationism, the gap theory, 6 day creationism and Genesis Unbound – all have been thoroughly refuted. None of them are backed up by mainstream science and they are all based on the Bible which is a religious book – not science – and has no place in a science classroom or a public school for that matter. Creationism is dead FYI it has no real evidence backing it up. Just as we don’t teach astrology to our kids, we don’t teach creationism. Actual science is evolution, whether you like it or not, it is a fact.
Don’t tell me atheism destroys morality, Who is still burning witches, killing homosexuals, forcing arranged marriages to underage girls now in the 21st century? It is through religion that all these things get justified. Slavery is OK in the bible, forcing underage girls to marry older men is ok in the bible, witches are to be put to death, “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live”
And you ignored my challenge: can you cite for me a bible quote that explicitly says polygamy and incest is morally wrong? 
The bible is a man made book that contains bronze age myths that ignorant people today believe actually happened. All of its myths have been refuted by science and archaeology, I don’t understand how you can still believe it as truth in the fact of this? Faith? Why don’t you provide me with proof that they actually happened instead of just asserting them as truth? Are you not able to meet this challenge?

60 Ken Temple July 22, 2013 at 2:29 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple
Literacy rates were about
10 percent until we introduced this thing called public school.
I am
not saying you are wrong about that, but can you prove that statistic with exact dates (public schools started in certain areas in the late 1700s and grew out from there, and existed at various degrees and localities, in the USA)  and breakdowns?  What official date are you operating from as “introduction of this thing called public school”?
You just want churches and
religious organizations like Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis teaching Christ
oriented creationism. 
No!
When did I write
that?  I wrote that Darwinian Evolution
should be taught, but not as dogma, and it should be allowed that students have
opportunity to critique it, including, but with not only by Ken Ham’s
criticisms of it, but other critiques such as Micheal Behe (Darwin’s Black Box)
and Philip Johnson (Darwin on Trial)  and
Steven Meyer (Darwin’s Dilemma) of Intelligent Design movement who are not 6
day creationists, but progressive creationists, Gap Theory, John Sailhamer’s
view, Hugh Ross, even Theistic Evolution (though it is an oxymoron) is better
than pure Darwinian Evolution as Dogma. 
I would not say only teach Ken Ham’s view (that is allow students who come from that view in their church and parents, to have that view of the origin of life, etc.),  but that is one valid view,
since everyone can still do excellent observational science with that
view. 
And what if the king of
Saudi Arabia offered to use billions to build Islamic Maddrassas all over the
US to offer kids cheap Islamic oriented education? Would you prefer that
instead of public school?
No. Islamic schools funded
by Saudi or other Muslim countries should not be allowed; but I honestly don’t
know the solution to that issue.  (Since the principle of freedom of religion is a principle; but it seems the founders never envisioned the problem of Islam in today’s world.)   Our
government does not understand real Islam – real Islam – that is consistent
with all of its doctrines and teachings – Doctrinal and consistent Islam is the restoration of the Khalifate
and Jihadist Islam.   The Deism of some
of the founding fathers of USA was a Christian Deism mixed with nominal Christianity.  (even Franklin and Jefferson spoke of “Divine Providence” and “prayers”, etc. )  They don’t seem to have thought through that possibility of Islam spreading in the future – and
who can blame them? – they probably would have never foreseen that Muslims
would be immigrating so much and seeking to take over the world in the future,
either by civilizational Jihad, using the freedom of religion and political
correctness to their advantage, or through the chaos of militant and political
Islam.  The reason Islam is taking over in western Europe is because of pure secularist – naturalistic materialist presuppositions and political correctness and multiculturalism.  Along with liberal self hatred from the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, slave trade, etc.

61 Ken Temple July 22, 2013 at 2:49 pm

The_Thinker Ken Temple
It does not follow that no
god means no morality.
Yes it does because – it places a beach head upon civilization that will eventually lead to that – survival of the fittest – getting rid of the weak, old, expensive, – materialist philosophy –  it destroys and sears the conscience and the materialist -atheist worldview has no answer if enough materialist materialists get power and decide they want to do something – for example that you now think is wrong, but if majority thinks it’s ok and some dictator gets power, etc. – there is no transcendent idea that holds them in check that is consistent with atheism or materialist worldview.  
Explain to me why a
country like Japan has much less violent crime and rape and about 70-90 percent
of them are atheists?
Are you sure that they are
atheists, or are they Shinto-ists, Buddhists in their practical lives ? –
respecting ancient traditions, etc. They know homosexuality is wrong by
nature.   They are still following their religious traditions of Shinto-ism and Buddhism – respect for elders, etc.  But if what you say is true, and they are consistent materialists/atheists, then eventually that non-violence etc. will change – like the book “Lord of the Flies”.  
In America, 99 percent of
the prison population believes in god. Most gangs and criminals believe in god.
I grew up around idiots like that who always thought god would forgive them in
everything they did. Believing in god is useless to most people, they will
always find a way to rationalize their bad behavior.
Believing in God, just as an intellectual assent, is not enough.  There must be proper fear and respect for God, and in the day of judgment – that all our actions are accountable to God.  
Doing something wrong and
evil with the attitude that, “I can repent and get forgiveness later” – is
wrong and that shows it is doubtful that they will really get forgiveness –
there is no forgiveness without true repentance; and that attitude beforehand
is dangerous – it is presumption. 
All of those creationist
books and ideas you mentioned – Darwin on TriaI – Irreducible complexity,
Darwin’s Black Box, Darwin’s Dilemma,Intelligent Design, long day creationism,
the gap theory, 6 day creationism and Genesis Unbound – all have been
thoroughly refuted.
No they have not been
refuted. 
None of them are backed up
by mainstream science and they are all based on the Bible which is a religious
book – not science – and has no place in a science classroom or a public school
for that matter. Creationism is dead FYI it has no real evidence backing it up.
Just as we don’t teach astrology to our kids, we don’t teach creationism.
Actual science is evolution, whether you like it or not, it is a fact.
The key is that word “mainstream” – requires lots of interpretation as to what that means.  
No, it is not a fact; Evolution is only one theory,
with many inherent problems, as even Dawkins had to admit in the film, “No
intelligence allowed” with Ben Stein.  Did you see that where he had to admit design was there, and in order to not say it was God, said some space alien seeded us on this planet.  Ha!  Right.  Very intelligent indeed.  
Don’t tell me atheism
destroys morality, Who is still burning witches, killing homosexuals, forcing
arranged marriages to underage girls now in the 21st century?
Only Islam does that, that
I know of; and that is a false religion and a plague on humanity.  Some other religions may do some aspects of
those things that in some areas, but Christianity does not.   (some forms of Hinduism may do some of that
stuff; I don’t know.)

62 Ken Temple July 22, 2013 at 2:58 pm

@The Thinker

The Thinker wrote:
Slavery is OK in the
bible, 
With all the qualifications of what it is; that we have already covered; slavery the way we think of it was not ok – we already covered everything like indentured servitude, 1 Timothy 1:10, Exodus 21:16; the NT emphasis is on “don’t generate a rebellion”; temporary Theocratic israel – Matthew 21:33-46, etc. 
forcing underage girls to marry older men is ok in the bible, witches
are to be put to death, “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live”
That was temporary for
Theocratic Israel under the Old Covenant. 
You don’t seem to be up to speed on what the Bible teaches about the 3
parts/aspects of the law of Moses.  There
is the moral aspect that never changes; there is the ceremonial aspects
centered around the temple and sacrifices, etc. – all fulfilled in Christ – and
3rdly there is the civil aspects of the punishments and laws pertaining to the
land of Israel that were fulfilled in Christ and abolished when Jesus took the
kingdom of God away from Theocratic Israel – read Matthew 21:33-46 and 1 Peter
2:9-10 and the book of Hebrews and Colossians chapter 2 and all of
Galatians.  You don’t understand the
Bible or Christianity at all. 
And you ignored my
challenge: can you cite for me a bible quote that explicitly says polygamy
and incest is morally wrong? 
Didn’t ignore it deliberately; just have not had time to get to everything you keep responding to.  For someone who wrote at the beginning, some thing like, “I don’t want to get into Theological back and forth”, etc. you certainly keep on doing just that.  
Polygamy was allowed after
the fall of man – Genesis 4 – but it was not God’s original plan or ideal – God
allowed it, just as he allowed slavery and other sins, in order to show how
evil men’s hearts are.
Incest is condemned in the
law – Leviticus 18:9-18.  That moral law
still applies for today. 
The evidence for God is
from creation and design and order and logic and reason and conscience and the
Bible itself.  The disorder and violence
and sin and suffering and evil are explained by the choice that Adam and Eve made
to rebel against God and plunge everything into various levels of chaos and
suffering and brokenness – birth defects, rust, rotting, corruption, entropy,
etc.  Genesis 3 and following; Romans 8:20-23.

63 The_Thinker July 22, 2013 at 11:21 pm

Ken Temple The_Thinker can you prove that statistic with exact dates (public schools started in certain areas in the late 1700s and grew out from there, and existed at various degrees and localities, in the USA)  and breakdowns?
There was no one date. Public education spread over many decades and a it did literacy rose. 
I wrote that Darwinian Evolution should be taught, but not as dogma
What other scientific theory has the power to compete with evolution? Creationism is not science – it’s continually refuted, and it’s based on magic. Did you see/read about the Dover PA trial in 2005? If we allow creationism, (which is not science) then we’d allow astrology, and alchemy (which are also not science). There is no controversy among scientists on evolution – it is a fact – and some 97-99% of scientists agree. Case closed. If you want your kids to learn creationism, send them to church.
No. Islamic schools funded by Saudi or other Muslim countries should not be allowed
Hey, you know you and I are on the same page on Islam. We both recognize it to be problematic. The best defense against privately funded Islamic schools to indoctrinate our kids is to have a robust, working public school system – that teaches actual science and that stays neutral on religion. Otherwise education would be a free for all for rich Islamic countries to build school here. And if they cannot do it, why can Christian churches do it? Isn’t that discrimination?
The reason Islam is taking over in western Europe is because of pure secularist – naturalistic materialist presuppositions and political correctness and multiculturalism. 
Wrong. The Islamists in Europe want to tear down secularism because it restricts their religion from being privileged. The WORST thing to do is tear down secularism because it is our only hope. But I agree with you that there are bleeding heart liberals out there who don’t see Islam for what it is and bend over backward to accommodate it. They are sealing their own destruction if they do. 
or example that you now think is wrong, but if majority thinks it’s ok and some dictator gets power, etc. – there is no transcendent idea that holds them in check that is consistent with atheism or materialist worldview.
If an evil dictator gets into power, why would belief in god stop him from doing anything evil? Evil people will do evil regardless whether they believe in god. You’d have to prove that there never was a dictator who believed in god in order to be able to make an argument. There have been many kings in Christian Europe who for centuries ruled with an iron fist and justified it with the “divine right of kings.” So don’t pretend like you don’t know history. 
But if what you say is true, and they are consistent materialists/atheists, then eventually that non-violence etc. will change – like the book “Lord of the Flies”. 
And you know this is a fact because….? Or is this a theory? Atheism does not lead to violence, in fact it may even lead to stronger ethics since we don’t have to continue believing bronze-age fairy tales. A new study in the Federal Bureau of Prisons shows that the federal prison population of atheists is .07 percent, far lower than the number of atheists in the US. 
The problem you have is you conflate communism with atheism, as if they’re two in the same. That would be like me conflating all theism with radical islamic terrorism. They are not in the same. So saying atheism leads to communism is like me saying that believing in god automatically leads to suicide bombing and jihad! You are making a gross error of logic that is one of the oldest fallacies in the book. 
 there is no forgiveness without true repentance; and that attitude beforehand is dangerous – it is presumption.
If that’s true, then how come there are people who are born mentally ill, and psychopathic, who lack the ability to make moral judgements as normal people do, and who lack the physiological ability to feel compassion and feel sorry for what they’ve done? How does that fit into god’s grand plan? It seems that these people defy the whole scheme.

64 The_Thinker July 22, 2013 at 11:22 pm

Ken TempleNo they have not been refuted. 
Have you even done research into this area? Irreducible complexity and specified complexity have been destroyed. I don’t know every nuanced theory all these authors make, but if they rely anything on the standard creationist account, they are dead wrong. So what is the best piece of evidence you’ve got against evolution?
No, it is not a fact; Evolution is only one theory, with many inherent problems, as even Dawkins had to admit in the film, “No intelligence allowed” with Ben Stein.  Did you see that where he had to admit design was there, and in order to not say it was God, said some space alien seeded us on this planet.  Ha!  Right.  Very intelligent indeed.  
Evolution is a scientific theory, that has predictive power. Creationism is not a scientific theory, so it does not belong in a science classroom. Teach it in church where it belongs.
The makers of “No Intelligence Allowed” tricked their interviewees and took their words out of context. What they did was they asked Dawkins if he could imagine any kind of plausible scenario where life started by intelligent design. He thought hard and came up with the idea of aliens designing us. Then they took that clip and made it seem as if that’s what Dawkins believes when he doesn’t. It’s dishonest and designed to appeal to creationists like you who will not do any further research. You’ve been conned and you fell for it.
Only Islam does that, that I know of; and that is a false religion and a plague on humanity.
Funny I think the same thing about your religion, which you have NO evidence is true.
Some other religions may do some aspects of those things that in some areas, but Christianity does not. 
Have you researched into this? In Africa – where they take the bible literally – Christians still burn witches alive just as god commanded them to do so. There are many reports on it in the news – just look it up. So tell me, is it morally right to burn witches alive as god commands or not? I want to see how great Christian morality is on practical issues.

65 The_Thinker July 23, 2013 at 12:20 am

Ken Templeslavery the way we think of it was not ok

The bible clearly allows people to be purchased as slaves against their will and they can be kept for life. Even among Jews there was a loophole that allowed male slaves to be kept for life – force him to choose between the wife his master gave him or freedom. Do you see the wickedness of the moral system we have here, It’s far from family oriented. Yahweh is clearly not thinking of the family, The Code of Hammurabi, that predates the book of Moses, allows for slaves to be released after 3 years, and the Jews kept them for 6 – for Jewish slaves – foreign slaves could be kept for life.

So the god you worship does allow slaves to be purchased as property which is dehumanizing. It doesn’t matter if it is about race – it’s still slavery. And slaves can be beaten, so long as they do not die in a few days. 

No, even though parents were involved in their children’s marriage decision; a godly parent gave the child the final choice – see Genesis 24:57-58

Are you forgetting that rape victims were forced to marry their rapists? And if fathers could sell their daughters into slavery, there’s no reason that they would not arrange a marriage for them. 
That was temporary for Theocratic Israel under the Old Covenant. 
So where are the 3 parts separated so that I can clearly know exactly what verses fall into each category. I heard this argument before, and I’ve never been provided with a reference. Jesus in Matthew affirms that children who curse their parents are to be killed. So don’t tell me Jesus abrogated the the laws of Moses. Is stoning to death homosexuals part of the never changing law?
Polygamy was allowed after the fall of man – Genesis 4 – but it was not God’s original plan or ideal – God allowed it, just as he allowed slavery and other sins, in order to show how evil men’s hearts are.

That is the worst excuse for slavery I’ve ever heard. If we take the fall story as legit, you cannot commit polygamy with just 2 people on earth!!! It’s simple math. If god permits slavery and polygamy, then admit he’s a moral compromiser. He could just have said “slavery is wrong” or “polygamy is wrong” and end it right there. No, god instead allows it, moderates it, and never, ever once abolishes the institution. Along with that, he allows a whole host of other moral abominations that create unnecessary suffering and misery. You’ve never had the moral high ground. 
Incest is condemned in the law – Leviticus 18:9-18.  That moral law still applies for today. 

Then why did god create the world in a way that required incest? And if leviticus 18 applies today, so does 19 right?

4 “‘Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the Lord your God. 

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

23 “‘When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden.[b]For three years you are to consider it forbidden[c]; it must not be eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the Lord your God.

And lev 20:

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
The evidence for God is from creation and design and order and logic and reason and conscience and the Bible itself.  The disorder and violence and sin and suffering and evil are explained by the choice that Adam and Eve made to rebel against God and plunge everything into various levels of chaos and suffering and brokenness – birth defects, rust, rotting, corruption, entropy, etc.  Genesis 3 and following; Romans 8:20-23.  

And what scientific evidence do you have that proves Adam and Eve were real? Because if they are, then you have to refute everything about evolution – I mean everything – since it is a total contradiction of the bible. You need to prove that not a single incident of suffering took place before this alleged sin. I want definitive answers. How old is the universe? How old is the earth? How long ago did Adam and Eve live? And back this all up with scientific evidence. 

If creationism is true and evolution is false, then its explanatory power should be better then what we get from modern science that confirms evolution. So you should be able to find better answers than I can find through science. Good luck.

Previous post:

Next post: