Just some rubbish, but this is MY God's gospel, so READ or you will be d---ned

[ssmutters]

AN APPLE A DAY
===========

Eve: God, why did you create the apple when I am not supposed to eat that?

God: To test your faith and your ability to follow orders blindly.

Eve: God, did you create the serpent that goaded me into eating the apple?

God: Ugh... no, I had nothing to do with creating the disgusting creature, which is nothing but the embodiment of all evil.

Eve: Then God, if you are the master of all creation, who created the snake?

God: How in heaven would I know? And what's that tone supposed to mean? ARE YOU QUESTIONING MY OMNIPOTENCE?

Eve: Of course not God. I was asking a question.

God: You pay attention to me and pay it hard. I am the creator of everything. I designed everything. It took me 6 days. I had to rest on the seventh day. and this means the snake is not everything. If it's not everything I don't know what it is. It is just evil. I didn't create evil.

Eve: Is it true that you made us human beings out of your own image? How did you do that God?

God: I hired a scientist to clone me.

Eve: Is that so? God, did you create the scientist?

God: No, no, he's evil too, the scientist. He claims that he evolved from a slime that created itself 4 billion years ago on the earth.

Eve: God, did the scientist create you as well?

God: Nah, he's not capable of blind faith, which is required to create me.

Eve: Then who created you God?

God: The bloody scientist has no theory as to who created me. Whenever I visit him, he refuses to see me saying there's no evidence for my existence. So, I don't know how I came into existence. God, if only I knew who created me, then I will meet him and kill him for the job he has given me. I am sick of answering all these questions. I stand right before the scientist and he passes through me as if I were a ghost.

Eve: Oh, why is that God? Can't you just appear before him so that he realizes you are there?

God: Oh he cannot see me with his filthy ape-eyes, can he? He needs evangelical vision. And he hasn't got that.

Eve: And what is evangelical vision God?

God: To have evangelical vision a man needs to close his eyes. Stop his ears. He should be lobotomized. Only his lips should be open. I pour what is called a "BLIND BELIEF" concoction into his mouth. And then I feed him dogma by giving him a barium enema. If he doesn't believe in God then, I threaten him with another barium enema. If he doesn't budge, then I threaten him with the ultimate weapon. I tell him I will give him a "you will burn in hell" enema. Eventually he believes. And then the gospel (or is it the enema) comes out of his throat and lips and he's filled with a great desire to impart gospel to others. The best part is I dont have to do it myself. Ugh.... I have my disciples, the religious priests to do it. Oh, but how I hate them. Sometimes they exaggerate. I did not kill all the people in Sodom or was it Gotham city? And I did not cause the flood. Spiderman or batman did it and I had to take the blame.

Eve: I see, I hear that your message is one of love God. Isn't it possible to simply give everyone the evangelical vision without having to give er.. the barium enema or destroying a city since you are OMNIPOTENT?

God: Eve, you have started reasoning now. Didn't I tell you all reasoning is blasphemous. Just believe that I have to give barium enema for evangelical vision.

Eve: God, why is Adam better than me and why do I have to obey him?

God: Because he is a man. Man is my best creation. Females are inferior.

Eve: God, why is it that all your creation is not men?

God: If that were so, how will procreation happen?

Eve: Couldn't you clone yourself again for procreation?

God: I had to pay a million dollars for the scientist to clone me to create Adam. And then I had to hush up the fact that I visited a scientist by giving him another million. I am broke already. Now why do I have to answer all these questions? Is this a courtroom. Leave me alone. Remember - JUST BELIEVE. DON'T QUESTION.

Eve: God, God, wait a minute... I have one last question - are you immortal?

God is gone. He is nowhere to be seen. Eve goes away in search of Adam biting another juicy apple.

[solja247]

Do I sense a straw man fallacy?

God: No, no, he's evil too, the scientist. He claims that he evolved from a slime that created itself 4 billion years ago on the earth.

You do realise that about 40% of scientists believe in God?

[Minimalist]

There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense. I defy any genuine scientist to say that he believes in the Resurrection, or indeed in any other cardinal dogma of the Christian system.
-- H L Mencken

[solja247]

There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense. I defy any genuine scientist to say that he believes in the Resurrection, or indeed in any other cardinal dogma of the Christian system.
-- H L Mencken

If you want to use quotes, understand the context. When Mencken most likely said that was when the resurrection of Jesus wasnt taken serious by any academics, scholars or scientists, it was completely dismissed. It wasnt until after the War, in the 50s that scholars and academics began questioning, seriously, if Jesus did resurrect from the dead...

[ABierman1986]

It wasn't until the 1950's that scholars seriously questioned the resurrection? Is that not in itself a cause for concern? And if they did just begin this line of inquiry then does that mean that scientists have been becoming more religious since then? I find it difficult to support that scientists of the dark ages and renaissance would not have been more inclined to be religious. And if you agree that during this period scientists would have been more religious than in modern times then what caused the lull in religious fervor besides increasing technological advancement and scientific discovery? And more importantly what is driving this religious fervor that is beginning to resemble the climate of the aforementioned dark ages?

[solja247]

It wasn't until the 1950's that scholars seriously questioned the resurrection? Is that not in itself a cause for concern? And if they did just begin this line of inquiry then does that mean that scientists have been becoming more religious since then? I find it difficult to support that scientists of the dark ages and renaissance would not have been more inclined to be religious. And if you agree that during this period scientists would have been more religious than in modern times then what caused the lull in religious fervor besides increasing technological advancement and scientific discovery? And more importantly what is driving this religious fervor that is beginning to resemble the climate of the aforementioned dark ages?

In the 18th Century (around then) The Germans, God bless them, started something called textual criticism, they stripped down a lot of things in the Bible, including the resurrection of Jesus. It was concluded that Jesus did not rise from the dead and anyone who did believe that was basing their ides on faith not any evidence, however after World War 2 it was reopened, 'Did Jesus arise from the dead?' Now most theologians and some scholars believe Jesus did rise from the dead, purely by evidence and zero faith, it is the only logical thing to conclude.

That statement is rather bold. Dark ages? really?

[Darwinian]

What evidence?

[ABierman1986]

It wasn't until the 1950's that scholars seriously questioned the resurrection? Is that not in itself a cause for concern? And if they did just begin this line of inquiry then does that mean that scientists have been becoming more religious since then? I find it difficult to support that scientists of the dark ages and renaissance would not have been more inclined to be religious. And if you agree that during this period scientists would have been more religious than in modern times then what caused the lull in religious fervor besides increasing technological advancement and scientific discovery? And more importantly what is driving this religious fervor that is beginning to resemble the climate of the aforementioned dark ages?

In the 18th Century (around then) The Germans, God bless them, started something called textual criticism, they stripped down a lot of things in the Bible, including the resurrection of Jesus. It was concluded that Jesus did not rise from the dead and anyone who did believe that was basing their ides on faith not any evidence, however after World War 2 it was reopened, 'Did Jesus arise from the dead?' Now most theologians and some scholars believe Jesus did rise from the dead, purely by evidence and zero faith, it is the only logical thing to conclude.

That statement is rather bold. Dark ages? really?

Well I would gladly look at the evidence supporting the resurrection, especially since it will first need to conclusively substantiate the existence of Jesus in the first place without referencing the Bible. I also find it alarming that the issue of the resurrection is something that needs this intensive level of debate to be sure, and that such radically different conclusions could be found through two supposedly logical series of inquires. Is this not one of the central tenants of the Christian belief system? How can it be so open to debate and why should scrutiny reveal diametrically opposite results?

The Dark Ages is defined as an era when Religion ruled the state and matters of the church stunted scientific advancement and growth. Today we seem to be seeing rising resistance to much of the advancement the last century of science has given us and the scientific method itself seems under ridicule. From climate change to stem cells to genetics to evolution being taught alongside ID, there is a resistance to these new discoveries that is growing. That is why I say we are beginning to resemble the same climate that the Dark Ages lived through.

[solja247]

Well I would gladly look at the evidence supporting the resurrection, especially since it will first need to conclusively substantiate the existence of Jesus in the first place without referencing the Bible.

You do realise that any serious scholar KNOWS and BELIEVES Jesus existed, its not even a question. Not even Dawkins argues that.

How did Chrstianity start?
Dont give me a silly conspiracy theory.

Is this not one of the central tenants of the Christian belief system?

Your not a Christian if you do not believe in the resurrection. Even liberal theologians dont deny the resurrection.

How can it be so open to debate and why should scrutiny reveal diametrically opposite results?

I dont understand the first part but why would it not? Perhaps the resurrection of Jesus has more evidence than you think.

Today we seem to be seeing rising resistance to much of the advancement the last century of science has given us and the scientific method itself seems under ridicule. From climate change to stem cells to genetics to evolution being taught alongside ID, there is a resistance to these new discoveries that is growing. That is why I say we are beginning to resemble the same climate that the Dark Ages lived through.

People are skeptical of scientists. I honestly dont know why but they are. ID will never be taught in schools, judges see that creationism has no evidence.
I dont think we are going to the dark ages, but I think governments need to stop this fundamentalist conquest. I think one of the best ways is to ban hell houses, if you dont have the kids terrified that God is going to torture them for eternity if they believe in evolution or contrary to what they have been taught, you have one half the battle.

[downbeatplumb]

In the 18th Century (around then) The Germans, God bless them, started something called textual criticism, they stripped down a lot of things in the Bible, including the resurrection of Jesus. It was concluded that Jesus did not rise from the dead and anyone who did believe that was basing their ides on faith not any evidence, however after World War 2 it was reopened, 'Did Jesus arise from the dead?' Now most theologians and some scholars believe Jesus did rise from the dead, purely by evidence and zero faith, it is the only logical thing to conclude.

That statement is rather bold. Dark ages? really?

Evidence that jesus was resurrected like........what exactly?

There is no conclusive evidence that jesus existed in the first place so the likelyhood that there is anything like proof of resurrection is frankly zero.

And even if there were somehow proof of him walking around after his crucifiction, well he wasnt crucified for very long, (according to the texts),when you look at the normal length of time time it took people to die on the cross, so was he actually killed? If I saw some one walking around after theyd been declared dead I would suspect an error in diagnosis not a miracle.

I would want to see the medical records and the qualifications of the dr.

I like evidence with my facts how 'bout you.