On Creationism

Evolution I do not know how morality arose in mankind, but I offer this as a possibility. Firstly, evolution gave us the basics. Our morality is based on empathy and a sense of fairness. We want the best for ourselves, but we can appreciate that others want - and deserve - the same. That empathy and sense of fairness is something we have got from evolution. Man is a social animal; he survives best by co-operating in a group or tribe. And co-operation is going to work best if members of the group get on with each. If in one tribe the members empathise with each other, and so share food fairly, they will co-operate better than in a tribe who do not share food fairly, but are constantly fighting each other for the better share. Thus, if empathy and a sense of fairness are inherited, they will be selected for. Is there a reason to think this is true? Absolutely! Chimpazees, our closest relatives, have empathy and a sense of fairness, as these links show. http://www.onekind.org/ed...

I stumbled across something today that I felt was worth noting. Most Christians are, of course, good people, and even when you meet them on line, they are usually pretty decent. A notable exception is JP Holding. He is the least Christian Christian apologist I have ever come across, and a lot of his interactions with non-Christians come down to bullying and intimidation. Unfortunately, he has a bunch of cronies on TheologyWeb who love to emulate him, calling their behaviour " riposte" . He seems to work a lot with someone called Nick Peters, also on TheologyWeb, who in contrast seems a really nice guy. So I was interested to learn that someone who used to post at TheologyWeb is suing JP Holding. A couple of interesting web pages: http://lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/thanks-for-stopping-by-ill-get-right-to.html https://lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.wordpress.com/2016/04/ This from the other side, with some discussion: http://vridar.org/2...

What I find curious about the sightings of Jesus in Jerusalem is that they are absent from the original account. The first resurrection account we have is in Mark: Mark 16:5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. The subsequent verses are generally recognised to be a later addition. So what we have is a guy in white, perhaps an angel, telling the women that Jesus would see the disciples in Galilee. Not only does the original not mention Jesus being in Jerusalem, it speci...

Christians sometimes say that if you want to understand Christianity, just read what Jesus said. Is that really going to work? Modern Christianity has deviated from Jesus quite a way, a process that started with Paul. This page lists some ways Christianity if different to what Jesus preached. A Religion For Everyone? Jesus said his message only for the Jews: Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Christianity, starting with Paul, decided otherwise. Paul wanted to sell this religion to the gentiles. He ignored that Jesus had said he was sent to the Jews only, he told the gentiles that God's commands did not apply to them. He had to to get the converts to his religion. The OT Laws No Longer Apply (Well, Some Of Them) Jesus was quite clear that all the laws of the Old Testament still apply: Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 Fo...

There is good evidence that anti-Semitism in Europe (and later America) has its roots in this verse: Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. The author of the gospel was probably trying to exonerate Pilate, to make the text palatable to the gentiles, and was probably refering to the destruction of the Temple when he said his blood was on their hands. However, the effect was to have the whole Jewish race pronounced guilty of deicide. The so-called "Blood Curse", the Jews as the "Christ killers". We can see the early church fathers took it that way in many quotes: If someone had killed your son. could you stand the sight of him or the sound of his greeting? Wouldn't you try to get away from him as if he were an evil demon; as if he were the Devil himself? The Jews killed the Son of your Master......... Will you so dishonor Him as to respect and cultivate His Murderers, the men who crucified Him? - John...

With Christmas so near, I thought it would be interesting to review the evidence for the virgin birth. Paul The earliest writing we have is Paul, who says nothing of a virgin birth, but then again says nothing of Jesus' life at all, so we cannot really draw any conclusions there. Mark I think it is more significant that the virgin birth is missing from Mark, who, afterall, wrote a lot about Jesus' life. Mark is supposedly the account of Peter told through Mark. Peter was not there at the birth, so one might excuse Mark on this basis, but Peter was also not there at Jesus' baptism, and that is present in Mark. The reason, as argued here , is that Mark believed Jesus was adopted the Son of God at the baptism. To Mark, Jesus' birth was of no great significance, and when Mark was writing it is likely that the story of a virgin birth had yet to appear in the Christian community. None of the early texts mention a virgin birth because no one had heard of ...

Modern Christianity asserts an eternal Jesus, existing through all time as part of the trinity, however, groups of very early Christians believed Jesus was adopted by God, originally around the time of his crucifixion/resurrection or ascension, and later at his baptism. The Gospel of Mark indicates that its author subscribed to the latter view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism The Adoption Account From the first chapter: Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[d] with you I am well pleased.” This is a description of the adoption. God is choosing Jesus, and then the dove descends to confirm or bestow Jesus' special status. Bear in mind that Mark explicitly states that the beginning of the goo...