On Creationism

Wikipedia introduces "Freedom of religion" like this: Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief.[1] Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamental human right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion It is interesting to compare this fundamental human right with what the Bible says - not least because many Christians claim humans rights come from God. From NASB: Deuteronomy 13:6 “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife [e]you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end o...

I was directed to a very long rant against evolution by a guy called Fred Reed. He admits it is "atrociously long", making me wonder why he does not edit it, as it excessively verbose. This is a guy who was a journalist, and should know better. https://fredoneverything.org/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/ He starts with a rant against science in general - copied, it looks like from here , but with no link or credit (though it is in quote marks). Again, a journalist should know better than to plagarise without proper credit. You have to love the irony of a rant against science published on the internet, using the heights of technology that science - and not religion - has given us. From there we get to learn how he started to think about evolution in school. I wondered why this was worth including, given the document is "atrociously long", and I strongly suspect this is supposed to give it authority. This is a guy who has given this a lot of thought, so...

Having no actual evidence, creationists engage in character assassination in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution, and a common ploy is to pretend that Darwin was a major influence on Hitler. The reality is that Hitler was far more influenced by Christianity. They do not mention that. But if they say that Darwinism should be abandoned because it was an influence on Hitler, then surely they must also agree that Christianity should likewise be abandoned, if there is good evidence it was an influence, right? I mean, surely these Christians are not hypocrites... Houston Stewart Chamberlain I thought it would be interesting to compare the impact of Darwin on Hitler to that that of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Like Darwin, Chamberlain was English, but he took German citizenship in 1916. He is best known for his book, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century , written in 1899. First published in Germany, it became a best seller and was later translated into English a...

All About God I came across this web site (some time ago in fact), which purports to offer a history of Satan. I found it fascinating how it has to corrupt Biblical verses to support its claims. http://www.allaboutgod.com/history-of-satan.htm The history of Satan is described in the Bible in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19. These two biblical passages also reference the king of Babylon, the King of Tyre, and the spiritual power behind the kings. In fact the verses are purely about the king of Babylon and the King of Tyre respectively, and hovering over the links on the web page makes that clear. The author then repeats the usual Christian dogma: What caused Satan to be cast from Heaven? He fell because of pride that originated from his desire to be God instead of a servant of God. Satan was the highest of all the angels, but he wasn’t happy. He desired to be God and rule the universe. God cast Satan out of heaven as a fallen angel. But the reality is there is no justifica...

What is the evidence for the Trinity? Specifically, how well does scripture support the claim that Jesus is equal to God? Jesus: Messiah, Lord, Son of God Jesus was not unique in being considered the son of God. Jews believed that all their kings were the adopted sons of God. This Old Testament text illustrates that: 2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’” ...

Any monotheistic religion that posits a loving and all-powerful God has a problem: Why does evil happen? The book of Job suggests evil is God testing us to see if our faith is strong; God is actively involved in tempting you to do wrong to test your faith (and this is why the Lord's Prayer has that bit "Lead us not into temptation"). Later, Satan became the source of evil - which does not sit well with monotheism, but so what? Modern Christianity has got more sophisticated, but in the end makes no more sense. Here is an article by Frank Turek on why God allows evil, specifically discussing why God allowed the terrorist attack in London, and is a great example of the nonsensical reasoning these people use to delude themselves. Because evil doesn’t exist on its own; it only exists as a lack or a deficiency in a good thing. Evil is like rust in a car: If you take all of the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing...

Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus seems pretty certain to have happened. We have an account in Acts probably written by a companion of Paul's, and we have the obvious fact that Paul was a Christian later in life. Both Acts and Paul's letters indicate Paul was originally involved in persecuting Christians. So what did Paul believe before and after that event? The Pharisees http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-resurrection-of-the-dead/ Paul was a Pharisee originally, charged with rooting out Christians. Curiously the best source of information about the Pharisees is the Christian New Testament, with Josephus (who was probably a Pharisee himself) being the second of two. Neither are exactly objective! The defining feature of the Pharisees was the belief in a set of spoken laws, supposedly given to Moses, to accompany the w...

Elsewhere I have cited Paul as the earliest source on the resurrection. The books of Acts has comments that are reported to have been made even early, and it is worth looking at them, if only for completeness. Paul in Acts 13 Acts 13:29 When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. It must be pointed out that Luke was written around 90 AD, perhaps 40 years after the event. No one can remember a conversation from that long ago verbatim; these must necessarily be a case of the author of Luke putting words in someone's mouth. I think it reasonable to assume Luke sincerely believed this was broadly what was said, but that could have easily been coloured by the author's own beliefs. So does that show that Jesus was buried in a tomb? That could be the case, but a perfectly plausible explanation here is that Paul said Jesus was buried, and Luke, who clearly believed Jesus was buried in a tomb, and after fort...