This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


stainedglass

The Best Argument Against Christianity

A short while back, I had lunch with a Christian friend of mine I hadn’t seen in a while. Roger owns the largest Microsoft consulting company in our area of the country, is a good businessman, and a solid believer.

We got to talking about work and he surprised me by saying “I really don’t like doing business with other Christians.” When I asked him why, he told me that once the other business finds out he’s a Christian, they take what he called “extensions of grace”. He explained that it could take the form of not paying on time, not delivering work when promised, or asking for fee or labor reductions without cause.

Rather troubling to hear, wouldn’t you say?

When atheists and skeptics try to refute Christianity, most times their primary argument will be one of ‘theodicy’; that is, how can an all-good and all-powerful God exist in world that is unmistakably filled with evil. However, the truth is, the Bible never denies the existence of evil and says that God actually uses it to accomplish His divine purpose. The writer of Proverbs says: “The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Proverbs 16:4).

Many Christian theologians and philosophers have put forward very sound defeaters for the problem of theodicy and answer well the arguments put forward by unbelievers like David Hume and J. S. Mill in this area. In my opinion, the problem of evil and God is not the number one arrow in the skeptic’s quiver.

If I were asked to present the best case possible against Christianity, my argument would have nothing to do with the existence of evil per se, but would rather zero in on one very sad observation that I’ve made over a number of years:

The best argument against Christianity is sometimes the life lived out by a professing Christian.

Continue reading at m.blogs.christianpost.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Steve

    Evil only exhists to the degree that God allows it. As Abraham Lincoln once stated; "evil only exhists or continues when good men refuse to do anything about it." Remember, God is always in control and He will allow men to perform their evil works as He does not require anyone to follow Him. However, the consequences of doing evil will always be judged and the real punishment in the end is the total absense from God in eternity.

    • Bell

      Steve, you nailed it correctly. A lot of people I've talked to, cannot see what you just wrote…the truth of Gods word.

    • Terry

      That isn't true. There is nothing in the Bible that says God allows anything. In fact, evil exists in this world because Satan and his off spring the Jews own this world. II Corinthians 4:4.

      • bighoss

        Anti-Semitic rattlebrains like YOU are one reason why civility and a breakdown of mutual respect for others are on the wane in this country.

        • Terry

          The Jews are not Semitic, they even say so. The Jews are not the people of the Bible. They never wrote any portion of the Bible. The Jews are Canaanites, Edomites, and Khazars. They are the most hybrid people on the face of the earth. They have at least 112 different genetic diseases. I suggest that you research it yourself. Arthur Koestler wrote a book entitled, "The Thirteenth Tribe. The truth is that God's chosen people Israel (the white Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred people) are under attack by the Jews who have usurped the name of Israel. 95% of the Jews in Israel today never originated in Palestine. They come from Southern Russia by the Uriel river in the Volga.

      • Melody

        God allows us to choose…. some do their best to follow God, and fail, which is why God gave us Jesus…. and others immerce themselves in the world and have a mindset they are good and not that bad… But God gives us freedom of choice to believe in Jesus and be saved from the judgement of our evil deeds and thoughts… that is a gift of grace, mercy, and love. We will have to live with the evil around us, but in the end…. God will end it all and bring his followers home…. and those outside his mercy… will be left behind.

      • petroskhan1262

        "There is nothing in the Bible that says God allows anything."

        He allows us free will, to follow Him, or sin.

    • Despeville

      Isaiah 45:7

      NASB© 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
      ESV© 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
      NKJV© 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things .’
      NRSV© 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things.
      KJV© 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
      NIV© 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

      I form the h light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
      ~ Geneva Bible

    • Evermyrtle

      You are right HE allows us to d evil or to do good if that is what we want. The greatest drawback to being a Christian, I think are those who lie about being Christian and being anything but a Christian. How many times have I heard people who did not claim to be Christians make remarks about the evil that Christians are doing. Does these things cause non Christians to change their lives if this is what Christians represent? There is no way that they not knowing anything much about Christianity, will desire such a life. Many non Christians live cleaner, life that these "so-called" Christians.

      The WORD OF GOD says"Many will be called but few chosen." I believe that is referring to people who call themselves Christian. If we proclaim to be Christian it is our duty to GOD to live as Christians. We need to stand up for what we know is the truth, the things GOD tells us in HIS WORD. We cannot be wishy washy. We make choices every day, we need to be sure that we do not lead others astray by these choices.

    • Melody

      I believe the quote is…. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing….. That isn't to say that evil goes away… but evil unchecked and not fought…. will overtake a country, a community, a family….. And when enough people have had enough of turning the other cheeck and trying to straddle the fence and be tolerant of evil and is manipulation in the world around us…. then God will empower His people to take charge again. We need more Christian leaders in all aspects of our world…. and be a light of hope.

      • Evermyrtle

        I agree 100%. one of the things wrong in our country is the fact that good men/people stood by and watched the evil and talked about but did nothing to stop it. "It is none of my business," we say and go on out way, doing nothing and saying nothing about the about the abuse to our SAVIOR.

      • wesley

        All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Sir Edmund Burke

  • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

    I fail to see any argument against Christianity here, let alone the best argument. As in any religion, and any faith where there are similar courtesies periodically extended, there will always be those who come to expect the courtesy as a right and not as an extension of mutual aid. In this instance, Christians are no more guilty than any other religion. Rather a dumb and pointless article. Of course that is my opinion as a Christian.

    • Dick Vincent

      Christians are believers who recognize that sin is prevalent in everyone, the difference is that they try to live up to the way and life of Jesus, thereby being offered the salvation that comes with that effort. Anyone questioning one's sincerety in this regard doesn't want to understand His Power and Love for us. This is also an opinion and am still studying, trying to be as good a person to all humanity as possible.

    • Paul F.

      The point is, true Christians have reason to be BETTER than followers of ALL other religions.

      • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

        If you can gleen that point from this article about "The best Argument Against Christianity", your insight is a far sight better than mine.

    • Evermyrtle

      Watchman, I believe the problem of the writer is the fact that he/she does not know the difference between a Christian and a person who only uses the name Christian, but who is no more Christian that my cat.

      • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

        Well said!!! <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px"></DIV>

        • Gedi

          Hey, readers: ZIONICA consors me. Help me ask why? It could be you next. Thanks

  • James Stevenson

    I disagree. I believe that the argument against Christianity is that the scriptures that describe it violate the observable laws of physics and that the scriptures are internally inconsistent.

    It is easy enough to say that there is something that existed prior to the big bang; it is quite another to say that the Bible is an adequate explanation of it.

    • William LeMaster

      Not a believer I guess.

      • Evermyrtle

        Not a believer nor someone that knows anything about the Bible. There are many like him who wants to explain it, but know no facts,about about it, to speak of. It is impossible to read a scripture here and another there and understand it.

        • Despeville

          Hearing that from you who affirms Mormon "god" living on planet Kolob is truly special Ever-muddled.

          • ermyrtle

            It takes one to know one,or so they tell me.

          • Despeville

            You were the one who affirmed "god" as man from Mormon's Doctrines and Covenants as your "god" so do not lie about it now…

          • Evermyrtle

            Bosh and humbug!!!!

          • Despeville

            You know what you said and I can find it if I want but I won't be playing Dixon here because even if present it here you would still deny it.

    • churchvictory

      It is easy enough to say that there was a "big bang"; it is quite another to say that science is an adequate explanation of it.

    • Dennis

      It is easy to write "that the scriptures that describe it violate the observable laws of physics and that the scriptures are internally inconsistent" but that is merely an opinion unless you can show what you mean.

      Couldn't be possible that physics is not completely understood and some of it may be in error?

    • Despeville

      it violate the observable laws of physics"

      SUCH AS? NAME THEM and SUPPORT THEM…

      • James Stevenson

        Coming back to life from the dead and walking on water come to mind.

        • Despeville

          So you want miracles that fit mundane and regular framework of physics? :) Then they are not miracles but a norm nor is the one God if that could be done by a man as well. If He was and is God that is nothing for Him which is internally consistent with Christian Faith and teaching as contained in the Scriptures and therefore debunking your baseless shenanigan of "that the scriptures are internally inconsistent". You are the one who contradict himself and not the Scriptures. You may disbelieve as you do but do not assume that because you do not believe that means that the Scriptures are inconsistent for you completely failed to show that.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Miracles that were noticed by others besides the writers of the bible would be nice. When Jesus was crucified and dead people were walking around, you might think some contemporary writer would have mentioned that odd occurrence. But no, it only happened in the mind of the person writing the bible verse.

            No Egyptian mentions the miracles that Moses performed, or the plagues. No one mentions the Exodus.

            A whole lot of miracles that were completely unnoticed.

          • Despeville

            "..contemporary writer would have mentioned that odd occurrence. "

            Oedipus Dodo you are consistently showing massive holes in your education. Sorry.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, I assume you know of a contemporary writer who mentions these walking dead?

          • Despeville

            See Dodo for you your "contemporary" would have to be an account written by someone within 10 days of the event and copied with 0.0001% accuracy rate which is by the way what Ehrman fantasizes about as far what it would take for him to "believe" in Gospels account. That is not only a radical skepticism but also irrational skepticism. No amount of testimonies can change your beliefs and no amount of education can make your shallow posts more interesting.

        • petroskhan1262

          You are saying that these violate the laws of physics? Name for me just ONE physicist who will state that physics is a complete science, with nothing left to discover or learn.

          If everything about physics is not currently known, if all laws are not resolved and discovered, then how can you know that the two examples you give violate those laws?

    • GuyMacher

      Please cite the doctrinal inconsistencies. I am always willing to learn from a biblical scholar.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Thieves cannot inherent heaven.

        Luke 23:43, Jesus tells the thief- “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.

        1 Corinthians 6:9-10

        Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

        "But lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal" (Matthew 6:20).

        "Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the Heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth" (Luke 12:33).

        The verses are pretty clear, a thief cannot be in heaven. So, was Jesus lying when he told the thief that he would be in paradise today with Jesus?

        If Jesus went to heaven when he died why did he tell Mary he hadn't yet ascended to his Father (John 20:17)? Now this is at least three days after his conversation with the thief on the cross, and he said, "I'm not yet ascended." Furthermore, according to Acts 1:3, he didn't ascend until forty days thereafter. This, of course, makes at least forty three days from the conversation between Christ and the thief on the cross to the ascension of Christ. Therefore, it is evident, that Christ did not go to heaven the day he and the robber died.

        So, a thief cannot go to heaven and Jesus lied when he said the thief was going to be in heaven with him that same day. Yet, for some reason, we are told that Jesus is sinless. Pretty sure Christians consider lying to be a sin.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Where did Cain get his wife?
          Many have argued that Cain simply married one of his sisters. I believe that this answer is a biblical impossibility. Those who hold to this answer concede that God gave laws forbidding sexual acts between close relatives (Leviticus 18; Deuteronomy 27), but they argue that God did not give these laws until the time of Moses, and so early humans (including Cain) were excluded from these laws. However, this argument fails for the reason that God’s moral law is supposedly unchanging. If the moral law of God has no meaning until it is given, then Cain also did no wrong in murdering his brother Abel, and yet God holds him responsible for it. For the ‘sister argument’ (if I may call it that) to work, incest must be considered ceremonial or civil law, but it is clear from the context of Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 27 that Christians are to consider incest to be moral law. If it is indeed moral law, then it is impossible for God to have commanded mankind to multiply and fill the earth by means of incest, for God would have been commanding disobedience unto Himself.

          Why was Cain guilty of murder although the Mosaic Commandment had not been given (and why were the Sodomites guilty of sexual sin before the Mosaic commands against homosexual behavior)?

          Furthermore, Christians must consider the reason that God gives for forbidding incest, or as the Bible expresses it, uncovering the nakedness of a relative: ‘for their nakedness is your own’ (Lev. 18:10). Those who argue that Cain married one of his sisters claim that the law against incest was only given at a later time in order to protect people from biological defects, but that is not the reason that the biblical God gives for His commandment.

          The argument is often made that incest could not be inherently against God’s moral law if He blessed the marriage of Abraham and Sarah, who were half-siblings. This argument can be refuted quite simply. Does God only bless people and their actions if they are sinless? Since none are considered sinless, the answer is obvious.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "If the moral law of God has no meaning until it is given, then Cain also did no wrong in murdering his brother Abel, and yet God holds him responsible for it. "

            Laws can be given two ways: Written, or oral. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, before Cain was born. Even thought the written command "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Genesis 9:6) came after Cain's murder of his brother, we can safely assume that there was either an oral law (or a written law that did not survive the flood) indicating that murder was wrong.

            In fact, notice that Cain was not put to death for his sin of murder, so obviously the Genesis 9:6 law was not in effect at the time of the murder. But from the text of Genesis 4, we can immediately see that Cain knew what he had done was wrong. " And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9)

            Why would Cain have lied if he thought nothing was wrong with his murder? He obviously knew beforehand that it was wrong, so there must have been a law God had given them prior to the incident. And Cain did not argue with God that he should not be punished, only that the punishment was greater than he could bear:
            " And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear."
            Genesis 4:13

            As for the incest question, that law had not been given at the time of Cain or else the human race would have perished for lack of a mate. God's Law, just like man's law, is given progressively over time and does not ordinarily apply retroactively, but only from the point it was given and forward. The difference between God's Law and man's law is that God is eternal, knew the totality of what His Law contained, and already knew from eternity how and when his Law would be progressively given, whereas man, being finite and unable to see into the future, develops his law as the situation on the ground changes.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            In other words, the eternal and never changing laws of your god change.

          • Despeville

            Nope mope Oedipus.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "In other words, the eternal and never changing laws of your god change."

            No, the laws themselves are eternal because God is eternal and had them all in His mind from eternity past. Man, however, is finite and lives in a world in which there is a progression of time. All history happens in the context of time. Likewise, God progressively delivers His Laws to mankind over a period of time as His eternal plan for mankind unfolds throughout the course of history. No contradiction whatsoever.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I have to admit Key, you are able to talk out of both sides of your mouth very well.

            So, the laws of god are known to him but seem to change to us as his plan unfolds? Then how do we determine they are unchanging?

          • keyboardshark

            You have it right, they "seem" to change, at least from our perspective, because we are not eternal and the Laws have to be delivered to us at a certain point in history. But from God's perspective, who IS eternal and therefore outside of the constraints of time, the Law has been known to Him from eternity past. You just have to understand that you are comparing an eternal being (God) with a finite being (man) who is constrained by time and history.

          • petroskhan1262

            I don't understand the problem with Cain's wife.

            "5:16 And Cain went out from the presence of YAHWEH. And he settled and married in the land of Nod, east of Eden."

            Now, if there is a "land of Nod", wouldn't that sort of imply that someone had named and settled it?

            And let's look at the two verses just before that one:

            "14 Behold! You have driven me out from the face of the land today. And I shall be hidden from Your face. And I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth. And it will be that anyone who finds me shall kill me.
            15 And YAHWEH said to him, If anyone kills Cain, he shall be avenged sevenfold. And YAHWEH set a mark on Cain, so that anyone who found him should not kill him."

            Obviously, from this verse, Cain was aware that there were other people around. If there weren't, then why would he even be afraid that "anyone" might kill him?

            We are told that God created man in 1:27, and told them to "be fruitful and multiply." Then, later on in Chapter 2, Adam is made. The chronology is simple, and fairly easy to follow. A patient reading of the chapters should clear up any misunderstanding.

        • GuyMacher

          I expected a knowledgeable answer after such a bold opinion. The thief had been forgiven by Jesus. Therefore, he was deemed righteous. Your other verses are clearly about priorities of good Christians and not really about thieves. But in case you think they are, see my first comment. Jesus forgave the thief. Seeing Me in Heaven means seeing God. Jesus is God. If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.

          You should study more with an open mind before you form such strong opinions, Jeff, and definitely before you publish them.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Irrelevant. God clearly stated thieves cannot enter heaven.

          • GuyMacher

            Jeff, now I gave you instructions on how not to appear ignorant and you never took a word to heart.

            A thief or any sinner cannot get to heaven unless he has been pardoned by Jesus. That is the Christian doctrine. Your insistence in adhering to your incorrect idea is an indication of mental illness. You should seek professional help.

            Please, do yourself a favour and resist making another ignorant comment.

            Christians here must pray for this man.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Your instructions are as worthless as your opinion.

            So, on one hand, the word of your god never changes.

            On the other hand, it can change if one part of the godhead decides to alter it. Yep, completely consistent.

          • Despeville

            Oedipus you are mumbling as always.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, my comments are easily seen and read.

          • Despeville

            Your comments are inane and useless.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You say that because you cannot refute my comments. I also refuse to allow you to dominate the conversation as so many on here do. You are good as an attack dog, but a bite from your computer means nothing, as do your opinions. Humpty, you are a pompous blowhard, and I learned long ago that you offer nothing that concerns me.

          • Despeville

            Dodo, please do not patronize yourself for it is rather obscene. You have really nothing to offer, nada, zero. You have this egomaniacal idea that those shallow cliches that you call arguments that you find on internet represent any serious or original thinking. No they do not and you not realizing this time and time agin shows how shallow and under-informed you really are. You just have not invested time and effort in your life to read from good and primary sources nor have you been educated to be analytical and critical thinker. Somehow you have assumed that internet sites and your Google searches will replace that and cover up those deficiencies. No Dixon it does not work and your lack and need is glaring.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Do not worry, for I patronize you, not myself. I have shown your arguments to be idiotic and without foundation. Whatever you post, I know it will be meaningless.

          • Despeville

            Dodo you would have to go back to a real school to even begin to approach a possibility of coming across and patronizing to me. You are simply too dumb and too shallow to even pretend that. Go and plagiarize some more idiotic nonsense from the net and plaster it here. That will make you feel better.

          • JPM

            To Jeff Dixon, And I suppose your opinion is more valid and carries more weight. Jeff I continually pray for you and for the renewing of your spirit. I guess that makes only one of us between the two of us. Ay the Lord deliver you from your confusion.

        • KnowTheTruthToday

          You may be well learned in other areas but exhibit very little Bible knowledge:

          Start off by stating clearly that at the time the thief died Paradise was not in Heaven, it was in the center of the earth. This is easily checked by looking at Luke 16 and seeing that you could look across from Hell and see the place that Lazarus was in (Paradise)

          Then consider the fact that Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

          He would be in the heart of the earth in exactly the same place the thief on the Cross was going to be.

          So he did see the thief that very day just as He said.

          After His resurrection the Paradise that had been located in the center of the earth was moved to the third Heaven

          Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

          Men were held in Paradise in the center of the earth until the blood was shed and Jesus was resurrected – then He moved them to Heaven.

          Christ did not see the robber in Heaven, He saw him in Paradise just as He said he would – that very day.

          It is not Jesus that is lying – it is someone else that is off the deep end – yes Jesus is sinless because he was not lying.

          Nothing like looking at the Scripture to clear up a big mess that someone has created that doesn't know the author of the book he is trying to explain. Stick to the science books and you'll do just fine.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Well, that paradise sure moves around a lot. lol.

        • keyboardshark

          Jeff says: "Thieves cannot inherent heaven. "

          Yes, that is true of unforgiven thieves. The thief on the cross next to Jesus was forgiven right before our eyes as he hung there next to Jesus. Notice at first that he had been railing on Jesus just like the crowd:

          "41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,

          42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

          43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

          44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
          Matthew 27

          But then, he suddenly changes his attitude about Jesus:

          "39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

          40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

          41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

          42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

          43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
          Luke 23

          Something obviously happened to the thief to so radically change his attitude in such a short period of time. That "something" was the supernatural intervention of God as we see him almost instantaneously saved right before our eyes, and gain everlasting life in the last few moments of his earthly life. Glory to God for His marvelous grace and work of salvation that is entirely independent of man's actions!

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            There is nothing in the verses that state a thief cannot get into heaven which gives this escape clause. You are merely adding that to the conversation because it is needed for your point of view to be correct. However, the bible always warns Christians about adding to the verses.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "There is nothing in the verses that state a thief cannot get into heaven which gives this escape clause. "

            But you yourself quoted above: "1 Corinthians 6:9-10

            Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. "

            These verses indicate a thief cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but ANY sin, whether it be the sin of stealing or any other sin you can thinks of, can be forgiven by God by the payment for those sins through the atoning death of His Son, Jesus Christ. I am not adding anything whatsoever.

            "3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

            4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

            5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

            6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

            7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

            Ephesians 1

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            So, was this thief predestined to go to heaven? If so, then it did not matter if Jesus forgave him. If it matters, then he was not predestined. Either way, the verse does not offer you the foundation you hope for.

          • keyboardshark

            Of course he was predestined. Everyone who is ever saved is predestined. It certainly did matter that Jesus forgave him because without that forgiveness, which was predestined from before the foundation of the earth, he would not be allowed into heaven in the presence of God because of his sin debt. Even though it was predestined, there had to be a point in history when the forgiveness actually occurred, or rather, when it was applied, which ever way you care to look at it.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            If he was predestined to go to heaven then he did not need to be forgiven. You really do not think through these issues very deeply, Key.

          • Despeville

            Hahhahaah what an imbecility on display by you Dodo. That is a false dichotomy able to pass as argument only in your illogical and irrational mind.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            hahahaha, what a delusional mindset you display, Humpty.

          • Despeville

            Should be very familiar to you Dodo from your growing up with your father and his faith which you desperately try to annihilate now as every Oedipus complex driven victim does.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "If he was predestined to go to heaven then he did not need to be forgiven."

            You apparently do not understand predestination because you do not grasp the concepts of the eternalness of God as juxtaposed with man's constraints of time and history. Without forgiveness there can be no salvation, and from God's perspective the forgiveness was accomplished irrespective of time (from eternity past), but from man's perspective this forgiveness had to occur at some point in time (history) since a man's life on earth is defined in terms of years. Not sure how else I can simplify the explanation.

          • JPM

            What you say is true. One must remember that foregiveness also requires repentance. To repent we must also ask for the help of the Holy Spirit. The theif on the cross accepted Jesus for who He is and received forgiveness. Also I might add that the bosom of Abraham is part of hell. Those within Abraham's bosom still had their sin attached to them. The sins were only civered by the blood of animals and the sins did not get washed away until Jesus death on the cross. It was His cleansing blood that accomplished this.. Then the captives who were in Abrahams bosom were set free and able to go before the Holy Father, God.

        • msjallen

          When Jesus Christ dismissed His spirit:
          His human spirit went into the presents of God the Father – Luke 23:46
          His human body went to the grave of Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:53)
          His soul went to Hades or Sheol – Ps 16:10; Acts 2:27; Eph 4:9 (“Abraham’s bosom” or “Paradise” – Luke 23:43). The Old Testament saints were sent to the 3rd heaven (Eph 4:8; 1 Pet 3:18-22).
          Therefore, the thief, who became a believer while he was on his cross, did go to Paradise – not heaven but was then removed to the 3rd heaven along with the OT saints. Know the scriptures; know God.
          Anyone can believe in Jesus for salvation, it doesn't matter what they have done. Even Saul (who changed his name to Paul) who killed Christians became a believer and God used him in tremendous ways.

        • keyboardshark

          Jeff says: "If Jesus went to heaven when he died why did he tell Mary he hadn't yet ascended to his Father (John 20:17)? "

          Jesus had told the thief on the cross "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

          In John 20, Jesus says: "7 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

          Notice the difference in language between "in paradise" and being "ascended". Jesus was hung on the cross Friday evening when He told the thief that "today" he would be with Jesus in paradise. The incident in John 20 did not happen until Sunday morning, so it is certainly possible that Jesus went to "paradise" with the thief on Friday, returned in bodily form on Sunday, and then did not make His final "ascension" to the Father 40 days later. Jesus most certainly did not lie. You simply have to read the text carefully.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You are adding a final ascension to your comment. Nothing talks about a final ascension. It merely states he will ascend. That is a bad habit you exhibit often.

          • keyboardshark

            My point was, that in the first instance, when Jesus saved the thief on the cross, He spoke of going to "paradise". In the second instance, He spoke of His ascension. We see the nature of that ascension in Acts 1, where He was taken up in a bodily form:

            " 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

            7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

            8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

            9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight."

            There was a period of time between the crucifixion (Friday) when He spoke of going to paradise, which He likely did in spirit, and the incident when He spoke with Mary (Sunday). The timetable would indicate that during that ~1.5 day period He was in paradise (heaven) at least part of that time with His Father, the thief, and the other believers, which would make more sense rather than being in some kind of 'limbo'.

            Since He specifically told the thief that He would be with him in paradise "that day" it would be reasonable to assume that He was in paradise for a period of time until His bodily appearance. The ascension was simply the point at which He departed from earth in a bodily form, never to return again until the Final Day.

        • petroskhan1262

          Two things jumped out at me in regards to your comment above, which I would like to address, if you don't mind.

          Firstly, yes, those who are still following a sinful life cannot enter into God's kingdom. Once one has repented, he is cleansed of his sin, therefore he is no longer a thief, adulterer, etc. The record has been expunged, as it were. All charges dropped.

          Secondly, there is a slight translational error in the passage you quote. It is quite common, and I have run across it before numerous times. It has, with a great many people, caused much confusion.

          The verse to which you refer (Luke 23:43) is usually quoted thus:

          "And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

          It is important to note here that punctuation was not introduced into these passages until centuries later. A more accurate translation, with more appropriate punctuation, would be:

          "And Yahshua said to him, Truly, today, I say to you, you will be with Me in Paradise."

          It's an important issue, and one that should be looked at closely. Thank you for bringing this up. I'm sure others have had the same question regarding this passage that you have.

          • keyboardshark

            Thanks for that additional insight, petroskhan1262. i wasn't aware that it could be read more than one way. I will indeed have to look more closely at the Greek to see whether it allows the alternate reading, although I do not claim to be any expert on Greek.

      • Despeville

        You have excited Dodo who does not believe in the Bible in one bit but nor does he understand it nor does he know it yet thinks of himself as "biblical scholar" :) The randomness of atheist mind reflects the unattainable randomness they ascribe to the reality and science.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          It is okay, Humpty, I know this is beyond your ability. Go and enjoy your Canard.

          • Despeville

            Mope Oedipus with wet shoelace IQ I live that kind of junk to you.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Your command of English is more pathetic than usual, Humpty. What glass of Canard are you on?

          • Despeville

            Dodo Oedipus no you just don't know another word i.e. "mope". You are making shoelace look intelligent.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, it is this absurdity that I referred to.

            "I live that kind of junk to you."

            I assume you meant leave, but that is not just a typo, but a complete misunderstanding of grammar. Which is typical for you.

          • Despeville

            Yes I misspelled the word and made an error and you caught it when I did not. I mistype a lot especially when I am in rush. So you scored a point but you still do not get your complex which is far more important than you correcting my typos and erros.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You mistype often when you are drinking Canard.

            My complex will always be more complex than you are able to determine.

            Humpty, you are not the intellectual heavyweight you pretend to be. You may run off lightweights such as Kalev, but do not fool yourself that you can actually go toe to toe with someone willing to duel.

          • Despeville

            Dodo I don't drink your cheap wines and in deference to you I actually read and widely which you never did and still struggle with barely pushing few books a year and of rather dubious and simpleton's quality. There is a reason for that, you simply cannot process more and on a higher level. You are a rustic simpleton masquerading more with a Google search window.

        • GuyMacher

          Exactly. See Jeff's answer to my explanation of how a thief, or any sinner, enters heaven. I have worked with people with this particular mental obstinacy and it is a long recovery period even with professional help. Jeff is fixated on a belief and cannot modify it even in the light of new information. The average dog is more capable of changing its behaviour than a person with perseveration. Strange but true. I cautioned Jeff about making another stupid comment but just watch, he will not be able to stop himself.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I do not take advice from delusional people. Never have, never will.

          • Despeville

            That speaks volumes about you as a son. You had to be one rebellious and ungrateful son Oedipus Dodo.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            My parents taught me to be an independent and critical thinker, Humpty. Something that will elude you your entire life.

          • Despeville

            You stated that your father is a Christian and at the same time you call Christians delusional. Therefore it follows that you considered and consider your own father delusional. Dodo Oedipus try to follow your own lies sometimes.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Christians are delusional, but not all Christians are complete loons about their views. My father fully admits he believes only because it makes him feel better.

          • Despeville

            A. Dodo notice that I did not say anything about loons that is another description you impart now.
            B. By your own admission and your own standard your father is delusional then.
            C. If your father believes solely "because it makes him feel better" as you assert and which I don't buy nor believe then you father is not a Christian and never was one.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            He is delusional about his beliefs, which I have shared with him.

            Your views on who is a Christian is another meaningless expression of your stupidity.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Let me be more specific. There are no Christians for there was no Christ.

          • Despeville

            You shared with him his delusional beliefs? :) A lot of things appear as stupid to the stupid Dodo and you are stupid and that is a fact.

    • keyboardshark

      James Stevenson says: "I believe that the argument against Christianity is that the scriptures that describe it violate the observable laws of physics…"

      If you are talking about the creation of the universe, then yes, this would violate all kinds of Laws of Physics. But the Bible never claims that the creation would follow the Laws of Physics. It is a supernatural creation, which by definition would violate physical Laws.

      But this is also a good argument to use on those who claim that the creation of the universe was an entirely natural event. It is impossible for it to have been a natural event because creating everything from nothing (ex nihilo) would have to violate known Laws of Science. Since there is no plausible natural explanation for the existence of the universe that would not violate natural Laws, the Bible offers the only logical explanation, namely, that it was a supernatural event.

      The idea of a 'big bang' in the past. is pure speculation, because there is no written record of it. However, there is a written record that indicates that there will be a 'big bang' in the future:

      " But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

      II Peter 3:10

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Key says: It is impossible for it to have been a natural event

        It is not impossible at all. An eternal universe with multiple big bangs resolves your apparent dilemma with no issues.

        Key says: The idea of a 'big bang' in the past. is pure speculation

        No, as with all scientific theories, it is based on evidence.
        The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

        Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

        The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

        The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

        The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

        The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

        The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

        Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

        Inconsistencies are not necessarily unresolvable. The clumpiness of the universe, for example, was resolved by finding unevenness in the CMB. Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions; we simply do not know what it is yet.

        There are still unresolved observations. For example, we do not understand why the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up. However, the big bang has enough supporting evidence behind it that it is likely that new discoveries will add to it, not overthrow it. For example, inflationary universe theory proposes that the size of the universe increased exponentially when the universe was a fraction of a second old (Guth 1997). It was proposed to explain why the big bang did not create large numbers of magnetic monopoles. It also accounts for the observed flatness of space, and it predicted quantitatively the pattern of unevenness of the CMB. Inflationary theory is a significant addition to big bang theory, but it is an extension of big bang theory, not a replacement. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html

        • keyboardshark

          "An eternal universe with multiple big bangs" itself would violate numerous Laws of matter and energy, and then by definition would have to be a supernatural event.

          "The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence." The only 'evidence' I have ever seen is circumstantial evidence based on unprovable assumptions which is interpreted to 'imply' a big bang. So it is essentially a guess.

          For example: "Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting. " Implies?

          "An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past. " Again, Implies?

          In the interest of saving time by avaoiding a point-by-point refutation, here is some additional information to consider:

          "The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect. See The Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe by Grote Reber and Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect by John Kierein.

          Reber showed that the Compton effect was the cause of the red shift in order to explain the observations of bright, very long wavelength, extragalactic radio waves. Kierein used the Compton effect explanation to explain quasars and the red shift on the sun.

          Quasars may be much closer than their red shift would indicate if they have an "intrinsic" red shift due to being surrounded by a 'fuzzy' atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual red shift as the light travels through it and loses energy to these electrons per the Compton effect. If quasars are nearby, they may even exhibit proper motion in the sky as the Earth travels around the sun. Such a proper motion has been seen. See Quasar Absolute Proper Motion for a table that includes such proper motion observations.

          Some quasars may be double stars, with one member being an ordinary star and the other exhibiting a large red shift and being labeled as a quasar. The 100,000th Hubble Image is a good candidate for such a pair. Ken Kellerman of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has also suggested that the red shift of quasars may be intrinsic and not an indication of their distance in a classic 1972 paper Radio Galaxies, Quasars and Cosmology published in the Astronomical Journal. A recent discovery of a quasar with a huge red shift greater than 7 has called into question whether the big bang is wrong. Most distant quasar raises questions. All problems are gone if its redshift is intrinsic.

          The red shift on the sun is obviously not Doppler since the sun is not moving away from us. This shift shows a variation in magnitude that correlates with the number of electrons along the line of sight. It is smallest at the solar center and greatest at the limb where we are looking through the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere. John Kierein and Brooks Sharp showed this correlation as a Compton effect interpretation in the journal "Solar Physics" in March of 1968. Compton himself believed this was the cause of the solar red shift (see Compton, A. H., 1923 Phil. Mag. 46, 897). The electrons on the sun are concentrated in altitude by gravity with the greatest density near the sun's surface (the photosphere) to produce the sun's intrinsic red shift. Similarly, the quasar red shift (and other bright, hot young stars' "K effect" intrinsic red shift – see Arp's book.) have an intrinsic Compton effect red shift concentrated at or very near the object's surface.
          http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

          VIDEO: The Big Bang Is Wrong (This video highlights a recent finding showing that our ideas of expanding space and the big bang are wrong.)
          <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KdKOKw03Sk          " target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KdKOKw03Sk

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            "An eternal universe with multiple big bangs" itself would violate numerous Laws of matter and energy, and then by definition would have to be a supernatural event.

            Which ones?

          • keyboardshark

            First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed (by natural means). Where did all the energy come from? Certainly not from natural processes.

            Second Law of Thermodynamics-Entropy. Systems tend to move from a state of order to a state of disorder. In a closed system the amount of energy that is no longer available for useful work is increasing. This is energy “lost” to the system per unit degree of temperature, and it is called the entropy of the system. The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added.

            Violation # 3–The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved").

            The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mas…

            Where did all the mass/matter in the universe come from? Certainly not from natural processes because this would violate known Laws. Neither matter nor energy can be eternal. The amount of useful energy in the universe is constantly decreasing, so it had to have an initial state (beginning, a point where 100% of the energy was useful) to decrease from.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Compton Effect: The hypothesis of a dualistic wave-particle nature of all physical objects became established in the 1920's when the Compton Effect allegedly showed that x-rays scatter off electrons with an energy loss that could only be explained if they are considered to be particles rather than waves.
            This can already be ruled out for reasons of logic alone as waves and particles are mutually exclusive physical concepts (see Dualism). Apart from this it can be shown that the theory of scattering by free electrons is logically inconsistent (see Scattering of Radiation).
            The usual interpretation of the Compton Effect is however also flawed from a practical point of view: the also observed release of electrons from the target would charge up the latter until no electrons can escape any more. At least in a steady state, electrons can therefore only be detected if the initial x-ray beam is already accompanied by electrons which compensate for the loss of electrons out of the target material.
            It is therefore likely that the actual x-rays are simply reflected (scattered) off the target (resulting in the unshifted Compton line) whereas the accompanying electrons (of identical energy) are also scattered but lose most of their energy in collisional excitation of an x-ray transition which is detected as the shifted Compton peak.
            (see also Dualism, Scattering of Radiation, Radiation Pressure, Photons, Matter Waves, Quantum Theory).

          • keyboardshark

            PART 1

            "Some say that the Compton effect should cause the light to be scattered and distance sources blurred. Does scattering cause blurring? Not necessarily. Note how the Milky Way stars at the edge of the Barnard 68 dust cloud are not at all blurred even though they are dimmed to extinction as their photons are absorbed and scattered. Also note how, when this object is viewed in the Infrared, the background stars shine right through this cloud without blurring! Dark matter causes light to bend without blurring.

            OTHER PROBLEMS WITH BIG BANG

            There are a great many problems with the Big Bang Theory that have not been solved. Many of these are identified in Bill Mitchell's paper, " Big Bang Theory Under Fire". These problems include the idea that there are many objects observed that are older than the time from the big bang, which is variously estimated to be from 10 to 15 billion years ago, with the best estimates being 10 billion years using trigonometry rather than cepheid variable brightness.

            Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy are thought to be older than 15 billion years and there seem to be similar stars that are seen in galaxies that are many billions of light years away from us and thus apparently formed closer to the time of the big bang.

            Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best direct measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age. Radio galaxy measurement has found carbon in the early universe which shouldn't be there if there was a big bang since it takes too long to form.

            The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang. VLT observations of a gamma ray burst has found an early galaxy with ingredients much older than the big bang.

            Similarly, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape. Many spiral galaxies are seen at a large distance and therefore from a time closer to the big bang which would indicate they would have had time for even fewer rotations. Recent Hubble Photo shows spiral galaxies within 5% of big bang time leaving time for only 2 or 3 rotations at our galaxy's rotation rate. The galaxies in this photo don't seem to be crowded closer together as one would expect if they were really so close to the big bang.

            There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.

            Galactic redshift surveys show a regularity in the spacing of galaxies a quarter of the way to the time of the supposed big bang. This is totally different from a big bang expectation which would have them closer together as they get closer to the time of the big bang.

            How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?

            Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.

            There are also some great problems with the "singularity" of the big bang. What happened before the big bang?? The big bang theorists can't answer this question and just say it's a meaningless question. (They like to say it's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?" – Actually it's not like asking that at all. North is a direction; time is a measure of change. If there was no change before the big bang, then how could it have started?)

            If there was a big bang, the temperature of the background radiation would have had to be much higher in the past. Yet there are observed cosmic ray particles, that are protons or nuclei of atoms that are traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light. These particles can't plow through the background radiation field at these higher temperatures without interacting with the photons of such a high temperature background and being stopped. But the highest energy cosmic rays are observed at energies beyond this theoretical cutoff energy.

          • keyboardshark

            PART 2

            "The temperature of intergalactic space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion. They predicted the 2.7 degree K background temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang. See "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves in Aperion Vol.2, Nr. 3, page 79f, July 1995. See also their other paper: "Redshift revisited" (Unfortunately, their second paper misses the greater number of collisions a longer wavelength photon has when the red shift is comprised of multiple Compton interactions.)

            There are many other discrepancies in redshift observations that are much better explained by non-Doppler shifts. Hubble, of course, didn't agree that the redshift was Doppler (see his book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" or Allan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs). There were several difficulties with this interpretation that he pointed out. Not the least of which is that if it were Doppler, then not only should each photon be stretched out by the Doppler effect, but also the distance between each photon. Because the photon flux is reduced, this causes the object undergoing a Doppler redshift to appear less bright than a corresponding object undergoing a non-doppler redshift. Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with this brightness correction. He also knew that a simpler, non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation, and he felt that simpler was better. He didn't know what causes the photons to lose energy as they travel through space, but he felt that it is some "new principle of nature" that I think is the Compton effect."

            MORE: http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

  • Gene Roy

    Which internal inconsistancy did you have in mind?

  • Keith E. Hendrickson

    Please show us a inconsistent passage (s). If you tried you wouldn't find one.

    • daves

      There is so much in the old testament that tells us to do cruel things and there is so much in the new testament that tells us to be kind.

      Exodus 31:12-15
      The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'

      Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you;

      • Ronnie Dail

        There is nothing in the Old Testament that tells "Us" to do anything. It is a record peoples and nations and how they interacted with first the Patriarchs and then Ancient Israel.

        • Ronnie Dail

          That statement needs to be qualified and it would take more space than available here to go into particulars.

          • Ronnie Dail

            The simplest qualification would be to add the word cruel after anything above. But more could be said!

          • daves

            Killing people for working on the Sabbath is cruel.

            Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 )

          • Despeville

            That is not in anyway "inconsistent" it is something that you don't like and what is troubling but this is consistent with the Gospel. What that is is only a PREVIEW of what is coming on all haters of God on the day He appointed to execute His fury and judgment of this fallen world and technically this is known as eschatological intrusion.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            < Mark 2:27 >>

            New International Version (©1984)
            Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

            If that is true, then killing people on the Sabbath is cruel, for they did not deserve to die. .

          • Despeville

            Mark 1:15 only Dodo. You cannot get past that.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Empty verses, Humpty. You cannot get around that.

          • Despeville

            Tell that to your Daddy Oedipus.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Our dinner conversations are much more complex, Humpty. You would not be able to keep up.

      • Evermyrtle

        You forget Daves HE made the entire universe and everything in it, it is HIS, HE made you, you are HIS even though you don''t accept that fact.HE can do as HE pleases with what is HIS. If we break HIS commandments and do not repent HE has the right to punish us just as HE pleases. In the end

        Matt 25:31-36
        31 When the SON OF MAN shall come in HIS Glory, and all the HOLY Angels with HIM, then shall HE sit upon the throne of HIS Glory:
        32 And before HIM shall be gathered all nations; and HE shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats:
        33. And HE shall set the sheep on HIS right hand, but the goats on the left.
        34. Then shall the KING say unto them on HIS right hand, Come, you blessed of my FATHER, inherit th kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

      • keyboardshark

        daves compares Exodus 31:12-15 with Matthew 5:44

        These are two separate issues. The OT law concerning the death penalty for not keeping the Sabbath was abolished when Jesus arrived on the scene, because He is Lord of the Sabbath:

        "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

        2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

        3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

        4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

        5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

        6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

        7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

        8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day."
        Matthew 12 (also Mark 2 and Luke 6)

        Hebrews 8 also speaks to this change (the new covenant):

        "6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

        7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

        The Matthew 5:44 passage is not directly related to the Sabbath issue. This was a new command given by Jesus that describes unconditional love, which is to be the hallmark of the true born-again believer:

        "43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

        44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

        45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

        46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

        47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?"

    • msjallen

      Correct, and God’s own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. They are the languages carrying Divine Authorship.

      God will not allow His Word to be distorted in any way even if man has translated from inferior manuscripts. For example, the KJV was translated from the Latin in 1611 before so many Dead Sea Scrolls were found with the original languages.
      2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy (Biblical knowledge) was ever made by an act of human will (design, purpose), but men were carried along by the Holy Spirit who spoke from God.

  • Guest

    Alas, I have found that some business dealings with people who profess to be Christian use it as a tool to get you to use their business. As a very senior citizen I find this used many times when I call for a repair to be done. They then do not give good service or complete the work. They may or may not be true Christians and just using the word to get your attention. I just really check out the references for these people carefully – anyone can use the word Christian

    • Dandy

      Almost always when some one uses the word Christian in their advertizing or sales pitch they are a fake!

    • msjallen

      Not everyone who calls themselves Christians are true believers in Jesus Christ. Many pastors expect businesses to give them discounts but our pastor told us that one time he went to buy a new suit and when the store owner found out he was a pastor told him he would get a discount. My pastor said no, he would pay the same amount that others paid. He did not consider himself any more special that anyone one else. He was God's servant as all Christians are. I know people who join churches just to get business out of people. God will deal with them in His timing.

  • Ken

    Sadly, I've observed this in my own experience….I remember hearing from waitresses, for example, who said they hate working Sunday afternoons because it seemed that the people coming out of church (or at least people who were dressed up on Sunday) were notoriously cheapskate tippers.

    But while we all need to do better at living our faith, I'd say this is actually an argument FOR Christianity….to paraphrase John Newton, we are great sinners but we have a great Savior.

    • Ronnie Dail

      That is one of the reasons why when I go out for a meal (which happens a lot less lately) I make a habit of giving a tip of around twice the rate of sales tax unless there is bad or poor service. And when that happens I often inform the management of the difficulty, as there may be factors that I am not aware of that can be taken care of.

  • http://www.computab.co.uk phil stilliard

    "the scriptures that describe it violate the observable laws of physics" Since God created the laws of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc, it is not surprising that he can break those laws with miracles when He chooses.
    "scriptures are internally inconsistent" All scriptures are from God and true, perhaps you misunderstood? The culture of that time was different to today's culture. The bible is the book of truth.

  • Robert De Leon

    Not the best argument against Christianity but the only one: to behave as if we were not Christians. A christian must follow the Ten Commandments and the whole Jesus Christ's Doctrine and Teachings. Otherwise is a "christian" only in name.
    Robert.

    • Despeville

      DeMelon,

      Have you succeeded to follow the Law and all of it PERFECTLY even for one day??? If so then you can improve on that and will work your way to salvation APART of the Perfect Savior. If not then why are you being a nauseating hypocrite?

      • Robert De Leon

        Desperville:
        There is no doubt about it. You are a perfect Calvin's child. As intolerant, severe, autocrat, and in a bad humor as the heretic John Calvin. So sad!
        Robert.

        • Despeville

          DeMelon,

          Do notice that as usual instead of answering a factual question you obfuscate with your ad hominems only. Your mind is totally gone and given over to your religion and not Christ.

        • Despeville

          'The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

          ~ Catechism of Roman Catholic Church, Point 841, Official Vatican Site: http://bit.ly/LEYfzU

          DeMelon,

          I forgot to ask you how is that Allah worship of yours going?

  • James Stevenson

    Biblical inconsistencies are well known. If you are a Bible reader and are not aware of these, then you have not really studied the Bible.

    If a person believes in something, anything, then there is a tendency to ignore statements that contradict the beliefs.

    If the Bible is the unerring word of God, there should not be inconsistent passages.

    • Despeville

      If they are so "well known" and since you have "really studied the Bible" then name JUST THREE most serious inconsistencies"… I hope you can deliver and I hope those "inconsistencies" that you have found in your extensive studies will not be from a typical lists of shallow, mindless canards circulating the internet and so favored by under educated, herd mentality like atheists who never bothered to even check it with so basic source like New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" or similar compendium. So name them…

      • Ronnie Dail

        I am inclined to think that James can't respond to your challenge because he does not really know what he is talking about. Besides he has probably never hear of the book you mentioned. I have been a student of the Scriptures for over forty years and I have yet to find One of James's inconsistencies. Difficulties there are not a few and that primarily because we do not know enough and the times and culture of Biblical times. It is my understanding that not one archaeological discovery of the last 150 years has undermined the Accuracy and Authority of the Bible. Another thought to consider, What kind of a Bible would it be if we could understand it in it's entirety? I will give you a clue, It would not the God Breathed, Inspired and Inerrant, Holy Bible. The answer would be one of the following options: 1) The Book of Mormon or 2) The Quran.

        • Despeville

          Good points and be observant to James response if it does show up at all. For many talk general ambiguities or well known and long ago refuted apparent "contradictions" while very few actually know what they talk about and can deliver on their assertions…

          • Ronnie Dail

            Not a few members of my own family fit into that category. One also named James, a younger brother!

          • Despeville

            All of my family fits there too. All…

        • clovis

          God has put enough into this world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, He has left enough out to make it impossible to live on sheer reason alone.

      • Dandy

        Go to tentmaker.org their are many more than three.

    • Despeville

      Just as I thought… silence :)

    • handgunnar

      Nice use of circular reasoning as avoidance tactic, James….. now answer the question and show the answer you claim to have.

    • clovis

      You say there are Bible inconsistencies, will you take a momment and name me just two of them.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
        http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-a…

        • Despeville

          The impossible pseudo education of Dodo and his complex of Oedipus are the reasons for his irrational trolling here.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, I know you have trouble understanding what words actually mean, but if my pseudo education is impossible, then it does not exist. I, therefore, cannot have a pseudo education. Once again, you post utter nonsense. But I do appreciate you showing what a complete loon you are yet again.

    • darrelljr

      James , I see you failed to back-up you thoughts without any facts. But hold that thought my friend, you will have your chance to tell the CREATOR where HE contradicted HIMSELF soon enough.

    • msjallen

      God’s own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very words carrying Divine Authorship.
      Gal 1:12 For I (Paul) neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
      There are no inconsistencies in the original languages. Where newer versions have been written there are some but can be proven to be translated incorrectly by the translator. However, nothing is inconsistent with God’s information to mankind as to why we are here, His plan of salvation and our eternal life in Him.
      Every so called inconsistency has been proven to be consistent with God's Word.

  • Despeville

    "The best argument against Christianity is sometimes the life lived out by a professing Christian."
    ~ Robin Schumacher

    That is a complete irrational, illogical and unbiblical statement. The truth of Christian Faith and the Gospel of Jesus Christ IS NOT depended on the degree of performance of its adherents but on a COMPLETED, FINISHED and SURE performance of Jesus Christ and certainty of His promises. All people fail in time. All. God and man never did and never wil in time and outside of it too.

    • jOHN

      AMEN.

    • bighoss

      One factor working against more progress on Christianity in 21st Century America is the proliferation of the greed-infested "seed-faith" cable televangelists in the tradition of the disreputable Oral Roberts. Many un-churched people form their opinions of evangelical Christianity from observing these charlatans, who command huge increments of Cable TV time to propagate their materialistic heresies and deceive and rob the naive and gullible.

      • Despeville

        Hoss,

        There is a new breed of them syphoning resources from the society for their monuments with flat screens and their gulf-stream jet life style while selling puke pseudo gospel. For example two popes of narcissistic self idolatry and self preaching in South Carolina: Perry Noble (what a sarcasm of a name) and Führer Steven Furtick. Look at recent PR lie of not so noble Noble where he tries to milk people out of their money by claiming that 85% of people of South Carolina do not attend church while Gallup statistics show that only 44% of South Carolina residents do not attend and that is only a "slight error" of DOUBLING the numbers to milk more effectively those who will fall for this "noble cause"….

        Read and watch this and more here: http://www.alittleleaven.com

        • bighoss

          I watched as much as I could stand. D-e-e-sgusting!

          • Despeville

            Indeed it is and that is the pablum of the "me, myself and him" pastors and their goat herding entertainment centers.

            "A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats."
            –C.H. Spurgeon

      • Despeville

        "A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats."
        –C.H. Spurgeon

  • Chris

    Yup – my "super duper" Christian renter left my house with holes in the wall, dug up the lawn, left piles of trash and didn't properly clean up.

    Yet another anecdote proving that that I was right – at great expense to me.

    • Despeville

      And because of tose holes and the lawn and the trash Jesus Christ and His Gospel surely is not true… :)
      Evidently way bigger holes are in your mind.

    • Robert De Leon

      Chris:
      If your Christian renter left your home as you said, then he/she is not a Christian. Period.
      Robert.

      • Despeville

        Really DeMelon? So since he failed here as he did you are absolutely sure that He is not saved and never was? What if he had and issue with Chris and failed to his rage and his desire for vengeance which is a sin and not right but what if? There is simply not enough information about him to make such a bogus proclamations and you making this is another proof for your confusion and elevation of orthopraxy over orthodoxy.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          It is no different than the bogus proclamations you utter with far too much regularity, Humpty.

          • Despeville

            Beat it schizoid with kitsch, trite cliches infested neurotic mind.

    • KnowTheTruthToday

      I have my doubts you would know a Christian if you saw one – probably an atheist.

    • petroskhan1262

      It would require more information than your brief post to ascertain the nature of the renter to whom you refer. As a general rule, though, I would say that a pattern of non-Christian behavior should tell you (or anyone) that the person claiming to be a Christian probably isn't. "From their fruits you shall know them", right?

  • Despeville

    "those" :)

  • DanMK

    The best argument against Christianity," is this condemnation that light is come into the world,and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For everyone that doeth evil hates the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.But he that doeth truth cometh to the light,that his deeds may be made manifest,that they are wrought in God. John 3:19-21 Christians are perfect in Christ but are not made perfect in deeds until they get tnto heaven where a judgement of burning will burn away the wood, hay, and stubble.

  • lambsev

    There is a need in the church to repent. There is a need for better teaching and preaching. There is a need to make more effort to do as our Lord commands This is true every day at all times until we are taken away into the everlasting Kingdom. I pray that Roger is able to communicate his displeasure to his christian clients in Biblical truth, that he is also able to forgive them, yet if necessary to cut them loose if they continue to offend, even to sue the recalcitrant offenders as they need the rebuke.

  • Despeville

    "A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats."
    –C.H. Spurgeon

    That time HAS COME and world watching the clowns assumes that this falsehood and caricature is representative of Christianity for the world could not possibly know any better.

  • Donald E. Evett

    Evil has been a significant part of man's culture since the origin of man. I am not a believer the God has anything to do with evil per say, rather man himself dedicates the rule for Evil. In all religions, evil exists and it has nothing to do with the religion. To believe in a Deity is one thing, but to accept and follow the rule set forth by Satan is another matter. Satan rules the World with his 1/3 followers and he will continue to do so until Christ returns. Again, people chose to be evil in most part, and some even worship Satan. What made Cain slew Able? Jealousy mostly and it was easy for him. What makes one kill another in cold blood? Why does a man rape and kill a six year old girl? Evil power, absolutely the most heinous behavioral attitude of people for they express no positive rationale for the actions. A true believer in God and a faithful Christian who has faith and hope will not succumb to evil deeds.

  • Despeville

    I am not a believer the God has anything to do with evil per say, rather man himself dedicates the rule for Evil."

    No anything? That is just easy "belivism" and escapism for it looks like God does not have any problem with owning up to what don't want him to own up to. This issue is way more profound than you allow yourself to believe or allow yourself to read…

    NASB© 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
    ESV© 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
    NKJV© 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things .’
    NRSV© 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things.
    KJV© 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
    NIV© 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

    I form the h light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
    ~ Geneva Bible

    • Despeville

      Above quotes refer to Isaiah 45:7…

  • John Flanagan

    The author should have thought about his perceptions before writing this article, which does not refute Christianity in any way, shape or form. If his friend in the business world had read his Bible closely, he would have recognized that sin abounds in and out of the church, infects believers as well as atheists. THAT IS WHY JESUS CAME, TO SAVE US FROM OUR SINS. WE ARE ALL SINNERS SAVED BY GRACE WHO CALL UPON THE LORD. A simple child in elementary school at our local Lutheran parochial school (LCMS) knows about sin. To expect that Christians are above sin is impossible, however, those who truly strive to obey God and follow His will, and lay their lives at the foot of the cross, will not perish, as John 3:16 states very clearly. So why do people have to write articles like this one? If one is a believer, the writer or anyone else should realize their sins separate themselves from God, and only through Jesus can we be made perfect.

  • L.D. Jones

    I would say what has been exposed is the difference between a "Christian" someone who loves the LORD and desires to honor Him with their whole life, heart soul mind and strength… and a "false convert" a christian by name only, The LORD told us " on that day, they will say, LORD, LORD, we did this and we did that in your name, and He will say, away from me, I never knew you… So called Christians, who by name only claim the LORD, those who want a Savior but not a LORD, at most are luke warm, and the Scripture says, the LORD will spew them from His mouth!!! The truth is, people really don't love the LORD… For if they did, they would love the things He loves and hate the things He hates..

  • wesley

    "Peach the gospel always and use words when necessary." St. Francis of Assisi we as Christians are the only gospel that many people will ever see. we are to live out our lives differently so the world can see that there is something better out there. unfortunately many "Christians" make many non-Christians look like saints by the way their profession and the way they live out their lives. the church at Antioch lived their lives in such a way that the people saw Christ and not that individual. we should live our lives that way for Christ's church is His hands and feet in this world. we should take a lesson from St. Francis and live out the gospel and use words necessary. let our deeds speak louder than our words.

  • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

    Science has a better track history than religion. In the past 150 years, there has been more advancement for mankind than was either conceived of by the religious.

    • Despeville

      Dodo but you cannot account for science and its laws in your inconstant schizophrenic reality so please stop being an obnoxious hypocrite you are :)

    • petroskhan1262

      Are you including among the discoveries of science the work of scientists who believed in God? Or would that be a different group? Just asking, you understand. Curiosity…

      Edit: Oh, and by science, I am assuming that you are referring to solid, concrete science which has been verified, tested, and corroborated.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        A belief in a god does not mean they were conducting scientific experiments using god as a causal factor. Just what would be the causal factor that describes a god that they would be using? Just curious.

        • petroskhan1262

          A belief in God does not mean that He was being used as a causal factor, nor does a pursuit of scientific truth mean that one must abandon a belief in God. I actually find the two to be complimentary.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            So, the scientific discoveries made by Christians could have been made entirely without using god as a causal factor? Which means their religion was irrelevant to their investigations. What a shock.

          • petroskhan1262

            Their religion may have been irrelevant to their investigations. I'm not saying it was, nor am I saying it wasn't. Only that it is possible. Can you say that your religious viewpoint is irrelevant to your worldview?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am saying it makes no difference how I read the results of a test.

          • petroskhan1262

            But it does influence the reading of the results. One possibility, once conclusion, has already been discounted from your mind before the test was even done or conceived. And that could (and has) influenced not just the results of the testing process, but the very nature of the test itself, by many, many scientists.

  • deeply grieved

    This is what happens when you leave the structure that was previously ordained for the congregation, be it "new testament" or "old testament". One of the reasons (there are many) that God has set these laws in the worship of Him, is so that we will be distinct (that's what "holy" means) from the worldly enviroment where we live. To be frankly honest the numbers tell the tale, Divorce, adultry and drug and sexual abuse are as prevalent in the "church" as it is anywhere else. Do we think that the world needs more of what they already have, only with "Jesus" attached to the end of it. When we become doers of the word and refuse to tolerate sin in our congregations, we'll make a difference and be a light to the world, not until then. On the other hand, if we insist on accomadating the practises of the world system into the worship of the true God, we stand in danger of recieving the same judgement, just like Israel of old.

  • Dennis

    The problem i see is everyone wants to blame others for their own short comings.Personal responsibility is lost on many.Calling oneself a chrstian doesnt make one a actual christian but living an actual christian life does.

  • http://AOL Whatchman

    Go ask Job.

    • Gedi

      I wonder why ZIONICA censored my reply to Watchman's earlier comment about the writer's argument against Christianity to the point of deleting it. Are we in China now?.

  • http://zionica.com/2012/07/09/the-best-argument-against-christianity/ Tom

    A very apt essay. As a former WDW Castmember while on a college program and being a Christian myself, I had the occasion to observe a "Christian celebration" school day at the Disney park where I worked. The local kids came to the parks free and enjoyed discounts unique to this celebration. I had never heard that Disney did such a thing before this and thought it was a splendid idea, that is, until the buses started rolling in.

    (Part 01 of 04)

  • http://zionica.com/2012/07/09/the-best-argument-against-christianity/ Tom

    With all the bad press and hate mail Disney gets from people who seem to hate the company marketing programs and some of their movie and cartoon content, you would think that the open welcoming benevolence of this simple kindness would be something people would appreciate. But oh no.

    (Part 02 of 04)

  • http://zionica.com/2012/07/09/the-best-argument-against-christianity/ Tom

    While there were a few well behaved kids disembarking from the Disney buses that were shuttling these students and their chaperones from the parking areas into the parks, the vast majority of the kids (many teenagers and thus old enough to have known better) rushed off the company buses loud and obnoxious, trying to purposely damage the buses they were exiting and park property, dumping over trash cans and pretty much hitting the park like a devastating whirlwind. They were unruly and showed no care or consideration of anyone else other than what they could find to get into and tear up. The worst of it was that a number of these kids came from church schools.

    (Part 03 of 04)

  • http://zionica.com/2012/07/09/the-best-argument-against-christianity/ Tom

    I remember shaking my head and wondering what their parents and teachers must have been teaching them and even wondering frequently if anyone was even trying to teach these kids anything positive at all. Don't get me wrong. I am not writing this to rag on the children's behavior, but rather to make a point and perhaps get some of the parents of such children to consider what they are unleashing on the world and where kids brought up this poorly might end up. Such behavior is a very sad commentary on Christian and even human values, courtesy, respect and upbringing.

    (Part 04 of 04)

  • Chris

    Nice honest Christian deacon gives his wife AIDS
    http://www.everydayhealth.com/hiv-aids/aids-in-bl…