I do not wish to leapfrog Wolfie with regard to your post.

You have quoted several passages from the Bible, and appear to be knowledgeable regarding Bible content.

May I ask: Are you a Christian?

Please consider me as an ardent participant in discussions concerning God/Jesus/religion [particularly Christianity].

I shall follow up, after Wolfie.

“For your info, Charles DARWIN accepted Jesus as his Saviour and denounced Evolution, but his followers carried on with the evolution theory which was actually rejected by its own inventor.”

Old creationist urban legend that has been thoroughly debunked. The Lady Hope story has been going around for ages, but there is no evidence to indicate that Darwin ever recanted and denounced the Theory of Evolution on his deathbed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

Even Answers in Genesis claims that it is highly unlikely that Darwin had a deathbed conversion.

Besides, the fact that evolution occurs does not hinge on whether Darwin himself believed in it or not.

You wrote: “I also read in the bible that before Jesus died on the cross he called out to God: My lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me?

So can I also say that before Jesus died he realised the non-existence of his god but it was his followers who continued with the charade?”

The incident is only valid if you take the rest of the gospel also.
Jesus, prior to His crucifixion, made numerous statements about his relationship to the One the Jews called God.

His statements often pointed to a Oneness with God.
example:
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” John 8:20

You can reference the Bible here: http://bit.ly/cgruRA

So, you are kinda right about a sense of non-existence.
You see, Jesus, hanging on the cross was experiencing separation from His Father.

The Bible elsewhere explains this as the moment Jesus’ purpose on earth was being actualized.

Galatians 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”[a]

So, in context, the reason why Jesus was talking about being forsaken was because at that moment, He had become the bearer of all the evil of all of humanity. He had taken the penalty of all our sin and in so doing become unholy, separated from the sight of God.

“the charade”

What you call the charade involves a rag tag group of believers, going on to care for the poor, suffer torture, establishing education for the masses, emancipate slaves, establish healthcare for the common man.

Surely you don’t think it was all done regardless of a lie?

I’m sure you are a bright individual but please understand that Christians have struggled with the same text you have read and come out on the other side with faith.

Have a great day.

PEACE on earth obviously means something different to some of these people.

I also read in the bible that before Jesus died on the cross he called out to God: My lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me?

So can I also say that before Jesus died he realised the non-existence of his god but it was his followers who continued with the charade?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68&feature=related

When it comes to belief, it is not a question of right or wrong; there is no right or wrong belief.

The discussion is about religion sneaking into science class. Science is founded on knowledge, not just belief. In scientific discussions, only that which is known and can be rationalized should be taught. Some degree of creative imagination is allowed in science, but it should always be founded on reason and logic. Religion is anything but reason and logic.

You said, and I quote, “…you Evolutionists believe what you believe without seeking from the heart.”

A scientific mind would say the heart is an organ which pumps blood to the rest of the body; it is incapable of thought or subjective feeling/emotions (unless the feeling you describe is angina).

Regarding your comment that Jesus died for my sins, my rational mind tells me I was born sinless.

“God talk” doesn’t offend me; people who proselytize and seek to push their illogical and irrational beliefs do, especially in the guise of valid scientific discourse.

You talk of your fear of your own helplessness and the only redemptive action such fear requires. That is a profound statement which sums up the reason for the existence of religion. A person whose life is not founded on religious belief has no fear nor is he helpless.

You a Christian, a Catholic perhaps?

Presumably you believe in so-called original sin and now have to thank your so-called lord savior, Jesus Christ,for your salvation from the eternal fire of Hell?

Would you be offended should I project an image of the God you, as a Christian, worship?

I shall base on none other than the so-called Gospel of God that you, presumably, believe to be inerrant and inspired by your God.

Show me the literature that says that “Darwin denounced Evolution” and “accepted Jesus.”

Please respond to the above questions/request.

Its not about just God and creationism.

Its about Jesus dying for your sins
Thats all which offends the offended.

So you Evolutionists believe what you believe without seeking from the heart.

The error is not in unbelief. Its in not seeking sincerely. Its not being truthful to that which you already know.
Then you shall find. And you will know when you know that which you have found.

Find out exactly what offends you in God talk. 99.9% the offence comes from the fear of knowledge of our own helplessness in our sins and that the redemptive escape is by only one means!

For your info, Charles DARWIN accepted Jesus as his Saviour and denounced Evolution, but his followers carried on with the evolution theory which was actually rejected by its own inventor.

Accuracy in the bible does not mean the things actually happened. Actually, there are numerous historical inaccuracies littered throughout the bible.

It is not correct to say all the 66 books say the same thing without conradiction. Even the accepted gospels do not agree entirely with each other. Would you contend that all the 66 books were written independently, without borrowing from each other? I would say no. They started off as oral traditions and were written down by different authors at diferent periods.

There is a class of texts known as the apocrypha, which have been excluded from the official bible, as they deviate from the mainstream teaching (aka, the teachings enshrined by the Nicean Council).

Some believe the Gnostic bible predates the gospels recognised today, yet they are considered apocryphal.The Gnostic gospel claims, among other things, that Jesus was a man (and not God) who had an identical twin brother, who incidentally, was the one crucified, not Jesus. It also says Jesus was actually the son of a prostitute and a Roman centurion named Pantera.

Of course, the Gnostic gospel was written in metaphors, and the Gnostics themselves practised a highly esoteric religion. (Jesus is actually each one of us, and we each have an undying twin [Daemon] in the sky, who is our Higher Consciousness. The purpose in this life is to identify this higher self and be one with it.)

The religions of today are corrupt versions of the Higher Truth which Man was not meant to know. So we end up tearing each other up with very little understanding of what these Scriptures tell us.

You said light, water and oxygen are toxic to life. Do you have any references to back that up?

You said God’s hand is real to those who believe. I think that pretty much sums up your argument. You believe, I do not.

Well there’s a problem. 1. Millions of people want specific foods without certain ingredients and 2. they need to eat. Just make their food as they want to. This isn’t school, creation myth and evolution science. We can all go without religion in school. There’s no science at all in religion. Go on youtube and watch videos that debunk creationism. But we need to eat. While I’m an atheist for freedom of religion, I’m all for standardizing the food to make it compatible for most religious people and even vegetarians and vegans. Who even wants cow’s puss in chocolate commonly named milk powder? I don’t want any of this stuff in food. I’m not a vegetarian, but I prefer if food would be food instead of putting in food all kinds of nonsense that we don’t need. Why do they use MSG? To make you addicted to food. That’s it. MSG is not a preservative. There’s too much nonsense in the food we eat and some standardization would be welcomed. If someone doesn’t want certain ingredients, respect their wish. Religious people or vegetarians won’t eat that food until it contains the ingredients they accept. To let them go almost hungry and using precious time just to search for food that they can eat is a violation of human rights.

But really, doubting evolution is like doubting forensics and modern medicine. A same scientific method is used to study bones and DNA. Drugs are tested to see if a virus will mutate (evolve) and become resistant to the drug. Humans are so silly. But I’m wondering what does evolution have anything to do with origin of life such as creationism? Why is it always evolution vs creationism?

You have raised several interesting points and I wish to discuss each of them, hopefully in a rational, in-depth basis. But before that, I would like you to answer a few questions.
1. Are you a Christian/Catholic?
2. Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
3. Do you believe in the so-called inerrancy of the Bible [Judeo-Christian]?
4. Are there any parts of the Bible you do not believe in or are not in agreement with?
5. You have unequivocally stated that there are no contradictions in the Bible, right?
6. How much do you know about Thomas Aquinas, supposedly one of the “early” great leaders of the Church?
7. About Jesus, the main character in the New Testament, do you agree that no, repeat, no non-Christian historians who can be considered as Jesus’ contemporaries, or who lived, say, in the first century after Jesus’ death, wrote anything of substance about Jesus?
8. Do you agree that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the only official records about Jesus’ life/teachings are the books of the New Testament?
9. Do you agree that, except for a very brief account of Jesus being found in the Temple when he was supposedly 12 years’ old, discussing with some elders, nothing has been recorded about the first 30 years of Jesus’ life? Nary a thing!
10. Do you believe that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old? Four of five scientific studies have been conducted and they all point to the age of the Earth as being around this figure.
11. Are you familiar with the law of contradiction, in logic? For example, A and not-A; if A is true, not-A must be false. Yes/No?
12. Lastly, have you read the Bible?

Besides, there has been much evidence that science cannot explain: how life could form with the essential ingredients of light, water and oxygen, when these basic ingredients are actually toxic to life? There is a need for complex systems to ensure that life won’t be killed by these same ingredients that enable life to occur: science cannot prove that so are you saying that there’s no evidence for life?
Carbon, found in all cells and the basis of DNA has been shown by science to only be formed in supernovas – dying stars. Would such material safely float onto a planet, somehow form itself into a singular-cellular object? Multi cellular? Organs – a creature with multiple organs? I think not. It is much more reasonable to believe in creation that such a wild theory. As earlier, the conditions for life are in itself its killers – it is not reconcilable.

There are many others – and it is a pity.

I don’t wish to argue that Mohammed didn’t exist. But Jesus did exist. God’s hand is very real for those who believe. Personal experience is the qualifying factor for belief. It takes faith to know that something is God’s hand, and not an impossible coincidence.

“Buddha may have been a fictional character just like Jesus. As for Mohammed, there is ample corroborating evidence to prove he existed.

His life and deeds are recorded not only in the Islamic canonical writings of the Hadith and Sira but also in
contemporary Jewish, Byzantine and other non-Islamic sources. If there was one person in history whose life has been meticulously compiled, recorded and scrutinised, it would have to be Mohammed.”

I am someone who has no qualms about Mohammed being a person who lived and died.

But I have reservations aplenty, about beliefs in Mohammed flying up to Heaven on a winged-steed, about the existence of a so-called angel Gabriel, about Gabriel dictating the texts of the Quran to Mohammed, about the existence of the Hewbew God, known as Allah to Muslims.

I recall reading a passage in The Koran with parallel Arabic text, by N J Dawood [1990], that says that rain is an
outcome of a command from Allah.

Do you think that rain is the outcome of a command from Allah?

“Buddha may have been a fictional character just like Jesus. As for Mohammed, there is ample corroborating evidence to prove he existed.

His life and deeds are recorded not only in the Islamic canonical writings of the Hadith and Sira but also in
contemporary Jewish, Byzantine and other non-Islamic sources. If there was one person in history whose life has been meticulously compiled, recorded and scrutinised, it would have to be Mohammed.”

I am someone who has no qualms about Mohammed being a person who lived and died.

But I have reservations aplenty, about beliefs in Mohammed flying up to Heaven on a winged-steed, about the existence of a so-called angel Gabriel, about Gabriel dictating the texts of the Quran to Mohammed, about the existence of the Hewbew God, known as Allah to Muslims.

I recall reading a passage in The Koran with parallel Arabic text, by N J Dawood [1990], that says that rain is an outcome of a command from Allah.

Do you think that rain is the outcome of a command from Allah?

You are right about the last comment you made, halal food is a marketing issue.

You said:
What does proving mohammad existed means when you imputed that JESUS did not! Is it proof that HALAL food is ideal??

My comment on the existance or not of Mohammed/Jesus has nothing to do with the validity of halal food. I never suggested halal food is “ideal” or beneficial in any way, except if you are in the F&B industry and would like to maximize your sale. There is no “science” to halal food, it’s all about economics.

You imply and insinuate things which aren’t there. I have been very clear in my comments and arguments. Please read my comments as they are written before assuming implications where none exist.

+++++++++

of course your insistence that mohammad is real, hence halal food is acceptable in school is correlated. it has everything to do with religion not economics.

so why not teachers in school teach about the absurdity of halal food which is not proven at all and be done with it.

economics is no excuse for allah to be in school.

besides, you did insinuate that islam is a forgery only because the bible is fake.

do consider for a moment that copious amount of literature could have been written about mohammad but they won’t make his claims any more true.

they could all be forgeries based on some other truths. which begs the question why is unproven forgeries being propagated in schools.

isn’t the subject matter allah sneaking into classroom — through the economics of halal food in this instance. — since there are no other religious grouping promoting the economic benefit of their kind of religious food.

perhaps some marketing students should look into this matter.

You said:
What does proving mohammad existed means when you imputed that JESUS did not! Is it proof that HALAL food is ideal??

My comment on the existance or not of Mohammed/Jesus has nothing to do with the validity of halal food. I never suggested halal food is “ideal” or beneficial in any way, except if you are in the F&B industry and would like to maximize your sale. There is no “science” to halal food, it’s all about economics.

You imply and insinuate things which aren’t there. I have been very clear in my comments and arguments. Please read my comments as they are written before assuming implications where none exist.

+++++++++

of course your insistence that mohammad is real, hence halal food is acceptable in school is correlated. it has everything to do with religion not economics.

so why not teachers in school teach about the absurdity of halal food which is not proven at all and be done with it.

economics is no excuse for allah to be in school.

besides, you did insinuate that islam is a forgery only because the bible is fake.

do consider for a moment that copious amount of literature could have been written about mohammad but they won’t make his claims any more true.

they could all be forgeries based on some other truths. which begs the question why is unproven forgeries being propagated in schools.

isn’t the subject matter allah sneaking into classroom — through the economics of halal food in this instance. — since there are no other religious grouping promoting the economic benefit of their kind of religious food.

perhaps some marketing students should look into this matter.