If Creationists Want to Consider the Bible a Science Book, Then It’s Time to Start Taxing Churches

bible-scienceI’ve never been very outspoken on the subject of churches and the shield they receive from the burden of having to pay taxes.  Though it’s definitely a subject that brings out quite the feverish debate.  Then again this is a debate that’s been created by those religious folks who seem to obsess over their desires to have every American following the religious ideology that they follow.  Once these people began sticking their nose into the political landscape, becoming activists more than simple church leaders, I believe they volunteered themselves for such scrutiny.

What they want is the best of both worlds.  They want the protections they’re given for being under the umbrella of being a “religious organization,” all while interjecting themselves into the political process like a business or any other activist.

And I feel this push to get creationism in our schools is a prime example.  See, it’s clear to me that these people don’t understand the difference between science and faith.

Science has an extremely detailed and rigorous process it must endure before it’s considered “accepted.”  Heck, even history books are put through much of the same scrutiny.

The Bible is just a book without evidence, proof or any process by which it had to pass in order to be accepted.  It’s like I’ve joked about the story of Noah.  These people claim that the world is only 6,000 years old, and Noah lived for 900 years (or nearly 1/6 the age of the Earth), yet there’s no evidence of his existence – anywhere.

But if these people want to consider creationism as being on the same level as science (even though that’s utterly ridiculous), then I feel it’s time we tax churches and treat them as we would any other business or activist organization.  Why should they be shielded as religious institutions when they’re acting more like lobbyists?

They want to influence policy like businesses often seek to, well then make them pay taxes.  And these people can’t play innocent.  You have heads of many of these right-wing churches going on political shows vocally expressing their political views seeking to influence politics.

Especially when it comes to something like creationism.  It’s one thing to oppose a social issue derived from a religious beliefs (say abortion for example), it’s entirely something else when you’re trying to challenge overwhelmingly accepted science so that schools might be forced to teach your utter nonsense.

See, this is why we need a strict separation of church and state.  Keep religion private, just as our Founding Fathers intended.  Let’s let science be science, history be history and faith be faith.

Creationists just don’t seem to understand that there’s a huge difference between proven facts and faith.  The fact remains, faith can be anything that we want it to be – science and history cannot.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Gary Menten

    If the bible is a science book, then when I go to a bookstore, I should find it in the same section as books by Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins. In the library, I should find in next to books by Darwin and Newton. But I don’t. Both keep it in the “religion” section. Let’s make sure the schools treat it the same way.

    As to taxing churches; it sounds good on the surface, but we all know it’s never going to happen. Amusing notion, yes. Practical possibility, no. Education ourselves and our children is really the only defense against this idiocy.

    “if we can’t think for ourselves, if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands of those in power.” But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reason for a Bill of Rights.

    Carl Sagan

    • UltraMan

      Whether the Bible is a “science book” or a history book or a current events book is subjective. I find it amusing that people keep bringing up Stephen Hawking the one person who argued that black holes existed only to refute that claim years later. Or better yet Darwin of all people; whose theories about natural selection have all been pretty much proven false. For the record, regarding taxing Churches I have no problem with that at all. The Christian church has been taxed since it’s inception. If Im not mistaken it was only 50-60 years ago that American churches were taxed. I believe Johnson enacted legislation that forbade Pastors from electioneering from the pulpit and that was the impetus in the restriction of taxing of the American Church.

      • Gary Menten

        You live in a completely fact free universe.

        1.The bible is not a science book or a current events book. It a work of mostly fiction of unknown authorship written by different writers over a period of time, and which conflicts with other books of it’s type, and at times, contradicts itself. If it were a science book, it would contain falsifiable hypotheses. It does not, and isn’t, period.

        2. 150 years worth of testing Darwin has has only served to confirm him. Stop getting your information from creationist websites. Just stop.

        3. As to Hawking and black holes…
        A. Their were theorized long before Hawking.
        B. You are misrepresenting his statements and position; Hawking has not said they exist and now they don’t. He no longer believes that they trap all light forever because this does not reconcile with quantum mechanics. You show a clear misunderstanding of how science works. Many hypotheses in science are ultimately proved incorrect. (Darwin so far, has held up very well.) That’s okay though, because this is part of how science gets to the bottom of things. It’s a self-correcting mechanism. Ideas are put forward and tested, over and over again. Those that fail the tests are dumped.

        For certain obvious reasons, black holes are difficult to study from here on earth; we didn’t discover Cygnus X-1 until 1964 and scientists didn’t confirm it as a black hole until about 1988 or so. It’s foolish to say at this point we know everything about them at this point and continued observation will doubtless continue to change our understanding of them over time.

      • UltraMan

        You sir are misinformed. You speak on things on which you know nothing about. To say the Bible is fiction and contradicts itself proves that you are ignorant in this sphere so it’s best to hold off any debates with you regarding this until you become versed in what we are debating. Secondly, I believe that Hawking made the statement that matter sucked into a black hole, ceased to exist if the black hole disappeared, which contradicts scientific law itself. Because every first year high school student knows that matter doesn’t cease to exist, it just takes on another subatomic form. Now you can attempt to rephrase what he said to fit your own belief system but this is further evidence that your deities which is Hawking and others are fallible. Regarding Darwin, I hesitate to debate with you on this as well because your faith is so strong it’s blinding you to facts. First, I’ll try to keep it simple. First off regarding why Darwinism is false, two things · “Ape to human evolution” is impossible – recent DNA tests reveal that ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes. Secondly,
        “One species into another species evolution” cannot occur in bisexual animals becaue the laws of genetics and embryology preserve each species and prevent any bisexual species from evolving into another. Now before you continue this debate please research first what I’ve said then implement cognitive reasoning to determine if this is still worth debating or are you just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? Or maybe you’ll continue for the need to rationalize your faith and belief system to continue to cling to the continued worship of your deities Hawking and Darwin.

      • Gary Menten

        Really, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, neither in physics or evolution and clearly haven’t read Hawking’s 1974 paper or the more recent one, so I’ll just limit myself to Darwin right now.

        Men don’t evolve from apes and nothing in Darwin says they do. Men and apes both evolve from a common ancestor, way, way back, now extinct, period, end of discussion. There are no half-man half apes out there, nor will there ever be any more than there grizzly-gators. You don’t have to look any further than then many, many breeds of dogs there are out there, all crafted by humans by artificial selection, and yet all traceable back to wolves through DNA, to know that evolution occurs.

      • UltraMan

        Are you being obtuse or are you just stupid? In “Darwin’s Descent of Man” he DID state in numerous places his belief that men were descended from apes or monkeys. Regarding Hawking, it common knowledge that whatever his past view of black holes was, his most recent paper concluded that matter within black holes WOULD CEASE to exist if the black hole evaporated or disappeared! No disrespect to you but I think that you are just arguing for the sake of being argumentative or you are ignorant to the subject matter and more study is needed or just plain stupid. I sincerely hope it is the former two of the three.

      • Gary Menten

        Darwin states nothing of the sort, stating only that men and monkeys both descended from lower common ancestors which were ape-like. Not really the same thing, and he spends most of the book writing about sexual selection. Not to mention that the common ancestor we have with monkeys also descended from lower life forms and so to with that one, and the one before it and so on. Move on.

        We’re sorry this upsets you, and frankly, so are the monkeys, but hey…that’s the way the world spins.

        Now on to Hawking. You are confusing his earlier position with his current one. Not surprising as I’m sure you opinion is straight from a creationist website. What his most recent paper actually says is that that light can probably pass through what he once defined as a point-of-no-return void, and that black holes can leak “information” in the form of matter. This reversal proposes that matter and energy can be temporarily held before being released back into space in a scrambled form.

        In Hawking’s own words.

        “The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to in finity. There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field. It will also mean that the CFT on the boundary of anti
        deSitter space will be dual to the whole anti deSitter space, and not merely the region outside the horizon.”

        However, it doesn’t really matter at this point if he was correct in 1974 or if he is correct today. I keep saying it. Science is a self-correcting mechanism. You’ve said it a few times too without realizing it, which is kind of funny when I think of it. Simply put, there is much we still don’t know about black holes and the universe and the moment that science (or anyone ) thinks we have all the answers and know everything is the moment we’ve failed.

        Notwithstanding this, what science posits can be falsified whereas what you state is just false.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Well done, sir!

      • Gary Menten

        Debunking creationist trolls is not particularly difficult if you consider that they’re get their information from creationist pseudo-science websites which abound on the internet.

        The thing I am beginning to suspect about them is that the best way of getting rid of them is to ask them to explain what would falsify God or the great flood or some other alleged biblical event. Since they cannot admit even the possibility that God doesn’t exist or that scripture might somehow be wrong, they can’t come up with an answer. It’s not surprising mind-you because nobody, not even Albert Einstein could suggest a mechanism for falsifying what can’t be falsified. On the other hand, it exposes the lie they tell when they claim that what they present is scientifically valid.

      • cimmo

        I think that you are just arguing for the sake
        of being argumentative or you are ignorant to the subject matter and
        more study is needed or just plain stupid.

      • UltraMan

        LOL! Ok, thanks for lending us your sophomoric attempt at ridicule. It’s entertaining to see someone result to parroting my earlier comments because they have no useful dialogue to converse or rebut the argument presented to them. No worries though I won’t waste my time commenting on your and Gary’s shtick; I’ll just sit back, eat my popcorn and laugh at you and Gary Menten’s silly posts. Ready, set, Go! Let the Jackass games begin!

      • Gary Menten

        Is that the best you have? Apparently so. i guess you’ve run out of biblical quotes or misrepresented scientific research and down to making personal attacks? It don’t bother me. I’ve been called worse by smarter folk than you.

      • ROFLMAOAY

        Your ignorance is astounding!

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        I’m leaning towards “self-taught.”

      • ROFLMAOAY

        UltraStupidMan, please stop embarrassing yourself.

      • surfjac

        This comment proves you to be stupid. I can’t be kind here. What you’ve written is nonsense. If you believe it, you should consider suing someone for your poor education. The theory of evolution IS THE MOST SUBSTANTIATED theory on the planet. In fact, you don’t talk about evolution as a theory; IT just IS, like gravity or the speed of light. If you disagree, have a conversation with a tree or fence or a wall. You won’t get anywhere talking like that in the real world.

      • surfjac

        Darwin’s theories proven false?
        References please?

  • UltraMan

    Big Bang, God Particle are all theories (suppositions, hypothesis) and some theories have been proven false e.g. Martian Canals, etc. There has been nothing in the Bible that has been proven false. There are over 300 prophecies just regarding Jesus alone, that have all been proven true! Not to mention the other prophecies that have been proven true as well. So tell me again why man-made science is superior to made-man science?

    • Tony

      That’s your delusion. If it were proven true, everyone would be a Christian. There’s no great awakening or truth only you and other Christians know that heathens like me don’t. Those truths are delusions you’ve talked (or had others talk) yourself into. The Higgs Boson theory was not proven false, neither was the Big Bang theory. It was only proven false by your beliefs and people who believe as you do. Those beliefs are no more factual than believing the sun revolves around the Earth. To disregard science on the grounds of “the Bible already explains everything” is dark ages thinking, and it’s dying out thankfully. So believe in all the nonsense you like. People can believe in many gods, and there are many different ways to believe in the Christian God (with all the denominations), but science is the only real constant and very human idea, in that it always teaches us to expand our horizons, progress as a species, and question it and everything else. If you accept only one thing as being constantly true, you’ve closed your mind off to many more possibilities. So, I repeat, that’s your delusion.

      • UltraMan

        Higgs Boson has been proven elusive at best! It along with the missing link has forever escaped people who believe that a divine hand was not necessary in the creation of everything. Your faith in concepts regarding a god particle, a missing link is extraordinary to say the least and impressive. So as I said before if you choose to believe that then fine but don’t get upset when I speak of the extraordinary and supernatural as well.

      • Kesian

        Why it’s called the God Particle is an interesting story. But a simple book title being used out of context has lead to all this religion vs science debate regarding this one particle. If that title had never been taken out of context I bet the general public would pay about as much attention to the Higgs Bosun as they do Tachyons. That is the irony.

      • UltraMan

        I believe it was called the God particle because in theory it enables an intermingling of all known and unknown subatomic particles. It’s also one of the fundamental pieces for the creation of the known universe. I don’t think that this theory had to do with the debate raging about science vs religion though. This debate has been going on forever.

      • Gary Menten

        Higgs Bozon first theorized in 1964, discovery announced 2012.

        Black Holes first proposed 1783
        Cygnus X-1 not discovered until 1964.
        Cygnus X-1 not confirmed as a black hole until 1988

        1. It took a lot less time to confirm the Higgs Bozon than it did to confirm the existence of black holes.

        2. Science sometimes takes its sweet time. How many millennia of looking up a the night sky did it take before science figured out that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around? How much less time would it have taken if the Church of Rome (and others) had not held that it was the other way around?

        Where did the Church get this idea? Oh yeah…your infallible Bible.

        NEXT!

      • ROFLMAOAY

        Classic slap-down of a delusional zealot!! LOL

    • Tony

      Also, if the Big Bang theory was proven false and another theory took it’s place, it means we were able to physically and repeatedly observe something that changed the theory or discredited it. That’s also part of science, and that’s the difference between it and faith.

      • UltraMan

        The problem with your statement is that you are arguing something that isn’t scientific law. A theory that changes constantly to conform to the delusion accepted by so-called scientist. Our Bible is immutable and God’s word is final. Faith along with empirical evidence continues to prove the Bible’s authenticity and accuracy.

      • Gary Menten

        1. The Bang Theory has not changed constantly.
        2. As previously noted, science is a self-correcting mechanism. Some hypotheses, many in fact, are ultimately proved incorrect. When they are, they are discarded. This is a normal part of the process.
        3. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for anything in the bible so all you have is blind faith. Science offers and requires much more.

      • UltraMan

        Blind faith! Now that’s laughable! “Scientists” once RECENTLY believed that the world was just 100 mil yrs old, then they pushed it back to a billion, then 10 billion now 13 billion! Talk about constantly changing! You’re right science is a self correcting mechanism, which is analogous to a chronic liar who changes his story when it’s discovered he was lying, once he discovers he was lying he self corrects with another tale. Regarding the Bible, try reading it first and then engage in discussion. The issues that you think you may have, may not be issues at all once you invest serious time in the study of it.

      • PRIME79

        Wow. Clearly you have no idea how science works or what the purpose of science is. I mean how do you think that computer you are using right now came to be? Or your cell phone? Do you know how fire works? Do you know how gasoline works? Do you know what will happen if you mix the two?

      • UltraMan

        Sure I know how it works on faith! Now with that being said, I don’t discount scientific law meaning that I don’t discount or disbelieve that Newton’s laws of motion or Archimedes’ Buoyancy Principle ( I think I spelled that right) aren’t factual. My point of contention is when you attempt to turn or convert theory into scientific law! There is a difference you know?

      • PRIME79

        Explain to me how a human being can live inside the stomach of a whale underwater for days and not be digested, crushed or at least drowned. How exactly did Jonah breathe? And you do know that you only believe what you do because of where you happened to be born and raised right? If you were born and raised in the Peoples Republic of India you would believe in something totally different, if you were born and raised in Thailand you would believe something totally different, if you were born and raised in Iran you would believe in something totally different. You can be a Christian today and decide to convert and become a Muslim or Buddhist at any time. This is because beliefs and faith are nothing more than opinion based on really old stories, none of which have any factual evidence to support them. Science is the same no matter where you are born or raised or what language you speak, this is because science is based on facts in reality and not just what you think about one really old story.

      • UltraMan

        Jeremiah 32:27 “I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?

      • Gary Menten

        Apparently demonstrating your existence. Let me ask you then, what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, inaudible God who is never proven to do anything and no God at all?

      • Gary Menten

        Also, I might say, answering any question with an answer that can be tested scientifically (without resorting to scripture.)

      • Gary Menten

        Wrong. Scientists never blindly believe anything. Science, unlike faith, requires evidence. And as I have previously mentioned, science is a self-correcting process, which you would know if you had studied it for any length of time. And no, it’s not analogous to lying over and over again, since almost all of the errors made are discovered by scientists themselves. You seem to reject out of hand the possibility for error or that with time, new data becomes available that would force science to revise a previously held view. In the real world, this is called honesty.

        You should also know that no-one in science pretends that they don’t sometimes get things wrong, and why scientific theory remains classed as “theory;” anything in science remains hypothetically falsifiable. Hence were we to find a single rabbit fossil from the pre-Cambrian era that would pretty much up end Evolution. Good luck with that.

        Now since you insist on maintaining the delusion that what’s in the Bible can be falsified, please tell us exactly what would falsify the existence of God?

        And since you mentioned lying, I’ll leave you with a few choice words from Thomas Paine:

        “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that man should tell a lie? We have never seen in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

      • UltraMan

        Science never blindly believes anything! You must be stupid! Let me end this here. We know for a fact that the current atomic model is false. We just haven’t figured out a better one yet. The first sentence is a demonstration of how people are not blindly following the current atomic model, but applying it when it works, and admitting its faults.
        Remember your beginning algebra class? How about those postulates you learned? Take, for example, the Line Postulate, which states that “For every two different points there is exactly one line that contains both points.” This is something that you and I believe, but it is not proven. Instead, your math textbook probably said that it was a postulate because it is a fundamental part of Euclidean geometry, but it is not possible to prove. They asked you to believe that it is true, but to understand that it is not a universal law. (Note that in a non-Euclidean geometry, you can sometimes find two distinct lines through two distinct points.)
        Back in the day, I know that I was introduced to the scientific method as a way of describing the world around us. These theories and equations come up because they are of practical value to us. My chemistry teacher taught us the Bohr model of an atom, and we believed that it was true because it made sense. Then he proceeded to teach us a model that was an even better representation of an atom, because it worked for atoms other than hydrogen. The point he made was that even the modern quantum model of an atom is not necessarily correct, and it is likely to be replaced by the discovery of a new model sometime soon, but until then it works!
        So as I said before faith takes on many forms. My faith dictates that their is an intelligent design in the creation of what we consider the known universe. Your faith; though CHANGING, dictates something else, until something else comes along.

      • Gary Menten

        Yes, yes, I must be stupid. You’ve already established this as the rest of us have established you must be completely delusional, not to mention incoherent. So let’s talk about atomic models.

        If we even postulate that there is a better model of the atom that’s out there that hasn’t been discovered yet (and for which we obviously don’t have enough evidence) then it means that our faith is NOT blind. We must be admitting therefore that we MIGHT be wrong…something you appear to be incapable of.

      • Guest

        The story of the whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough
        to do it, borders greatly on the marvelous; but it would have approached
        nearer to the idea of a miracle if Jonah had swallowed the whale.

      • ROFLMAOAY

        Remember your beginning spelling class?? Does your faith dictate the difference between their, there and they’re?

      • Scienceismygod

        Your bible is a book. That is it. If I went around preaching Harry Potter or LOTR people would think im crazy and no one would believe. It boggles my mind that any coherent being can support a book with no evidence, unknown authors, and unbelievable works of fantasy. You are delusional. Im proud to be apart of a generation where people are beginning to realize how stupid the bible truly is. If you need religion to tell you how and why to be a good person i pity you and simply living isn’t enough of a reason to make it through the day. If simply accepting that the universe is complicated and we can’t explain and don’t understand every single thing in it (at the moment), then may “God” help you in your little mind-box of ignorance.

      • UltraMan

        I think your display name says it all. You are beyond any reasoning. Good luck to you!

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        You are aware, I assume, that the Bible has been revised, edited, re-revised and re-edited far beyond its original message, do you not? Those are facts, verifiable ones. Or is your “faith” in men as great as your “faith” in God?
        When you can convince me that God came down, and with His own hand, and Holy Quill Pen, wrote out the Bible as it reads today…..then you are truly He Who Has Come To Deliver Us From Having To Think For Ourselves. Not holding my breath…..

        That’s okay, though; God forgives your stupidity. You might want to lay off the sacramental wine, though…..

      • UltraMan

        Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returns to its vomit,so a fool repeats his foolishness.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Laughing my ass off at the fool, trying to win an argument with quotes from a book that has SO many different writers/editors to its credit as to render it little more than a collection of fairytales. My God appreciates that I don’t piss all over the intellect and curiosity he blessed me with. I hope your god is as generous. You can go back to your vomit now.

      • Gary Menten

        You are certainly demonstrating that maxim every time you post.

      • Thekid

        For all your talk of knowledge of scientific theory I would think you would know that there is a difference between the scientific definition of theory and the everyday definition, scientific theory means it is constantly tested and refined but enough evidence is available that minor refinements are made, its not constantly changing.

    • Stephen Polasky

      “There has been nothing in the Bible that has been proven false.” The Bible is filled with narrative and theological contradictions and historical and scientific errors. Just for starters, the Great Flood? – never happened. Zero geological evidence that it occured and no reasonable explanation for the origin of all the water and where it went. And the ark as described isn’t sea worthy and too small for the number of animals, supplies necessary, etc., even if you use the Bible’s “kind” wordage. Oh, and many of the ‘prophecies’ regarding ‘Jesus’ were written after the fact or creatively interpreted and/or edited. Tell me, when was Jesus actually called Emmanuel during his life?

      • David Shaw Jr

        Don’t you know? The ark was just like the TARDIS, bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.

      • Cole Raney

        That is how Moses lived so long. He is a timelord.

      • UltraMan

        I can debate you and show you empirical evidence on the complete accuracy of the Bible and God’s word. But I’ve learned the hard way that it’s impossible to debate belief systems even with intelligent individuals. Remember Mattehew 7:6 “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Nice; the first sentence declares that you have “empirical evidence.” And in your second sentence, you invalidate it by claiming it’s “impossible to debate belief systems.”

        So what exactly do you have? Empirical evidence or a belief system?

      • Gary Menten

        He has a book of fanciful tales of unknown authorship combined with a delusion that it recounts facts.

      • UltraMan

        It means simply that people are so blind with their faith and belief that even if you show them overwhelming proof that the Bible is accurate and factual that they will cling harder and more desperate to their belief system regardless of what is presented before them, so why undertake that task? Like I said before, my faith tells me that God is real and is the architect of everything. You continue to BELIEVE that everything was created by random chance, with a probability that is astronomic in equation! That sir is a belief system that is extraordinary to say the least and my faith pales in comparison to yours!

      • PRIME79

        Faith is believing in something without the evidence to prove what you believe to be true. How are you claiming to have faith and at the same time claiming that you have facts to support said faith? This makes no sense.

        Want to see something in the bible proven false? Snakes cant talk, period. And outside of you faith(opinion) I guarantee that you can not prove otherwise….not even close.

        You can have all the faith in the world that if you jump off of an 80 story building and land on concrete that a magical being will protect you and that you will get up and walk away but science will tell you exactly whats going to happen to you and science will be right every single time. This is not a belief, this is 100% provable scientific fact.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        You know what is really cool about facts? That they are real and true and it doesn’t matter what anyone else “believes.” They are still facts. I don’t know a single thinking person who thinks that “facts” and “faith” are synonymous.

      • PRIME79

        Are you having as much fun as I am with this UltraMan character? : )

      • Gary Menten

        I rather wonder i he isn’t actually a joker masquerading as a creationist, saying the stupidest things imaginable just to make creationists look dumber than they actually are. Then I think about it a bit and realize that creationists are dumber than I can imagine.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        He’s becoming rather tiresome, actually. You’d think that he’d finally just give up, given how outnumbered he is here. Farts in the wind……

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        You so funny; you make me laugh long time.

        Can’t help if you want to be wrong; I’m not the Dumbass Whisperer.

      • UltraMan

        Nor I the jackass whisperer. The Bible puts it simiply, Proverbs 26:4 When arguing with fools, don’t answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Considering how many times I see your posts on this thread, (and seeing you thoroughly spanked in the process) do you REALLY want to make that assertion?
        Takes one to know one, huh?

      • UltraMan

        Please refer to last post regarding you. It begins with, “Nor I the jackass whisperer”. I later followed with a scripture verse from the Bible; Proverbs 26:4 that reads, “When arguing with fools, don’t answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are”.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Keep it up, “Ultra” Man, (wow, sounds like a little overcompensating to me, but whatever floats yer boat.) You might convince one person on this thread, but I doubt it. You’re farting in the wind, and can’t RESIST having the last word. I will grant that to you now. Go ahead; dazzle me.

      • UltraMan

        1 Corinthians 3:6 I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos (he was an evangelist) watered it, but it was God who made it grow. Much peace to you 2Smart2bGOP

      • ROFLMAOAY

        Sad that you spend your life living in fear.

      • ROFLMAOAY

        So you admit to being a fool.

      • cimmo

        “show you empirical evidence on the complete accuracy of the Bible”
        How about this for accuracy?

        Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

        The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)
        …actually, to just shorten this: The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong

        The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)

        The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

        Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

        Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)

        Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

        The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

        Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

        God’s cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

        Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)

        Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)

        Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

        The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

        The Earth has pillars…I guess instead of being hung it’s placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6…actually, a lot of places)

        Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

        Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own…well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

        The Earth doesn’t move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10…and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

        People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

        Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

        The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

        Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

        The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

        Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

        The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

        The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

      • UltraMan

        I won’t tackle all of them but I will address your query regarding the ambiguity you have about the order in which the sun, the moon, day and night, were created.
        5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (Genesis 1:5)

        This verse implies the creation of light and the implementation of it to create the first day. Darkness already existed, so only light was needed.

        16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.
        This verse implies the creation of the sun and moon—notice the “greater” and “lesser” lights.

        These lights—the sun and the moon, which were created three days after light itself was—are simply vessels to carry greater and lesser versions of the previously created light which govern the limits of the day and of the night.

        And if we read a bit further:

        16 cont. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
        Stars were created to be vessels for light as well, but to separate this greater light (the sun) from this lesser light (the moon), and to govern both day and night.

        Before questioning the bible (and God, by extension), always look more closely at what is being said and you will understand. This is especially true for scripture, because many times we find it to be ambiguous, but upon closer examination it just comes to us. If you are sincerely interested in learning more about the word of God, I suggest that you read the word for yourself and to find a bible teaching church to assist with any questions you may have. Hope that this helps.

      • cimmo

        “I suggest that you read the word for yourself”
        I have.

        ” and to find a bible
        teaching church to assist with any questions you may have.”
        Nope, I read it without a spin-doctor. The words say what the words say. And they are so often obviously wrong that I cannot trust one single thing in that book to be a genuine fact.

        “Hope that
        this helps.”
        Did you really think I was asking for help in interpreting that rubbish? I was challenging your bullshit assertion of “the complete accuracy of the Bible”.

        So far you’ve put some spin on only a single point. You’ve got a hell of a lot more spinning to do.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Bravo.

    • Lauren Lagergren

      You’re one of those the author was talking about: a creationist who simply does not understand science.

      • UltraMan

        That’s dismissive and closed minded. You don’t know me, nor I you. I could be a nuclear engineer for all you know or a Network Engineer. Just because one believes in our Father who lives in heaven doesn’t mean that they can’t appreciate scientific law.

      • Gary Menten

        An engineer, (even a nuclear engineer) is not a scientist, though it seems pretty clear from what you are writing that you aren’t either. For one thing, you don’t seem to grasp the scientific method or how it works.

      • UltraMan

        “Scientist” is a loose term that can be attributed to anyone who studies the natural or physical sciences. Which I have undertaken in earlier years attending UNC. You seem so quick to judge me yet you don’t know me, the Bible says judge not unless you be judged. Now unless your willing to post resumes online, let’s keep the labeling out of the dialogue.

      • Gary Menten

        In which case you should have a better understanding of physics and biology.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Or even cares enough to try.

    • Vinay Choytun

      What were you doing two weeks ago when scientists published their findings in the South Pole? Scientists reported that they observed theGravitational waves that originated from the Big Bang. This along with the microwave background radiations are proof of the Big Bang theory. What proof do you have that a talking snake convince Adam and Even to have sex? God Particle was discovered a few years ago and the original Physicist even got a Noble Price. Please, why don’t you even read and get informed!!

      • UltraMan

        The gravitational waves are BELIEVED to be the leftover footprint from the alleged Big Bang phenomenon. We won’t have proof until many years later when or if it holds up to scrutiny. Secondly, this in no way eliminates God from the equation! Remember John 1 1:5 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

    • Half-Baked-Gogglebox-Do-Gooder

      Your trolling powers are weak, old man.

    • what exactly been proven true about it??

      • UltraMan

        Finally an intelligent question! Thank you My2Cents! To answer your question, the Bible is unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in DETAIL-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter with no errors!

      • Gary Menten

        Pffft. So has Nostradomus. All nonsense, subject to wide interpretation. Your argument would be more convincing if God had told everyone that the stars were other suns or if he had told Moses that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared..”Hey write that down someplace Moses. It won’t make much sense to you now, but trust me, someday, one of your own tribe will figure it out.

        Okay genius, show time. Tell us how to falsify the alleged crossing of the Red Sea.

      • ::shaking my head:: any historical event can be manipulated to meld with the perceived history, same as with the prophesies of Nostradamus, sorry that is not proof

      • Sean Libecco

        Please provide provable examples of those 2000 scientific prophecies you say are in the Bible! And, please bear in mind that the Bible is NOT a historical document!

    • mrm1138

      You’re confusing the general definition of “theory” with the scientific definition. In science, a theory is “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.” In other words, anything currently designated as a theory has yet to be proven false.

      • UltraMan

        A coherent group of tested propositions? Hmmm…in layspeak someone proposes that something is true based on evidence manifested from historical evidence. Sound a lot like my Bible to me.

      • Gary Menten

        1. There is little or no historical evidence for events described in the bible, especially the Old Testament.

        2. Hypotheses in science are tested over and over according to the rigorous standards of the scientific method. Most of what’s in the Bible that you hold dear cannot be falsified and therefore cannot be tested. However, since there is no evidence to support it, no-one needs to believe it.

      • UltraMan

        This shows how ignorant you are in what the Bible contains. The Bible is replete with historical content! Archaeologist rely heavily on the Bible as a reference tool when investigating long lost civilizations or cultures! Statement 2 is just another example of your ignorance. Now when I say you’re ignorant it’s not meant to be demeaning but rather that you lack appropriate knowledge regarding a certain subject. With that being said, the Bible lists historical accounts of people, places and events which CAN be falsified! So your statement has no validity. So in summation you continue to argue belief (your belief) on how the Bible is inaccurate and their is no divine plan in the creation of the known universe. As I said before if that’s your belief then fine I won’t judge you on your belief but I ask again please don’t judge me on mine.

      • Gary Menten

        No it’s replete with unverified stories of uncertain authorship which is not the same thing at all.

      • UltraMan

        See what I mean?! You unwittingly continue to prove my point on your ignorance related to this subject matter. Please invest more time in a subject to at least become familiar with it before debating it. Instead of parroting some nonsensical rhetoric that is blatantly incorrect.

      • Gary Menten

        Kindly show your falsifiable evidence for the destruction by God of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    • mrm1138

      ADDENDUM: I’m not entirely sure why you refer to it as “man-made science,” when the things to which you refer are just observances and interpretations of natural occurrences. Also, “made-man science” sounds like it has something to do with the mafia.

    • Adam of Portland

      Not proving something to be false does not mean that it is true.

    • 2Smart2bGOP

      For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
      For those who don’t believe, no proof exists.

      The definition of “faith” is to believe without evidence. Nice thing about science, though; facts are facts, no matter WHAT you “believe.”

    • Gary Menten

      1. Martian canals were NOT a scientific theory. Clearly, you misunderstand the meaning of the word. They were are best mistaken observations.

      2. Hypotheses and theories for that matter in science, must be falsifiable. There must be a given set of conditions or more than one, that if demonstrated, would prove the idea is wrong. There is much in the bible that cannot be falsified, though some of it has…the explanations for the sun and stars, hail, snow, etc. However that which cannot be falsified, cannot be disproved by science, nor can it be demonstrated by science. So the bible’s tales are just that…stories without evidence.

    • Brian

      “There has been nothing in the Bible that has been proven false.”

      Exodus is a giant lie that is directly contradicted by ancient Egyptian writings from the time stating who built the pyramids. Jews never lived in Egypt like that and Moses never existed.

      “There are over 300 prophecies just regarding Jesus alone, that have all been proven true!”

      Source? At the moment there’s literally no historical evidence from the time Yeshua was supposedly alive that indicated he ever even existed. In fact, Roman records from the time even specifically state that there was only one, single crucifixion in Roman Israel, since pagan Rome was very mutilcultural and respected the beliefs of their client states. Romans in Israel used stoning as the chief means of execution because of that.

      “Not to mention the other prophecies that have been proven true as well.”

      Such as? The thing about prophecies is that they’re intentionally vague or nonsensical to make it easier for people to claim any given event might be part of them.

      “So tell me again why man-made science is superior to made-man science?”

      “Made-man science” is man-made by Constantine. Council of Nicaea.

    • ROFLMAOAY

      ROFLMAOAY!! Wow, you are delusional. Talking about some fairy tale being as though this fairy tale being is anything more than just a character in a book of fables.

  • Neal Jones

    I am a minister (Unitarian Universalist), and I couldn’t agree more. The separation of church and state protects both sides of that wall — it protects the hijacking of the political process by religious zealots to impose their religious beliefs and practices on the rest of society, and it protects religions from unnecessary interference from meddling politicians. I’m disappointed that many religious people don’t understand that the separation of church and state is not an attack on religion but a bulwark in its defense.

    • Billy Howell

      Funny enough separation of church and state was a religious idea to begin with. A king or prominent official used to come through and commandeer churches to give speeches and do business in the region. One religious leader put his foot down and said that they shouldn’t be using church resources for such things.

    • Gary Menten

      You make perfectly valid arguments, but such is the power of the zealots in Congress that you can safely bet everything you own that churches will never be taxed in America. I’m not sure that wouldn’t do a certain amount of harm anyway; As much as I would love to see the big televangelists and multi-millionaire clerics have to pay taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars they sweet talk their congregations into donating to them, there are other churches doing legitimate things with some of the money they take in; running soup kitchens or shelters and I’d hate to see those close because they can’t afford to keep them up.

      I believe really, that the best way to keep the zealots from hijacking the country is to inform ourselves and our children about science, the scientific method and the reasons for the Bill Of Rights.

      • surfjac

        The churches taking in money for soup kitchens are not taking in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars the mega-churches rake in.

      • Gary Menten

        Which is why I wouldn’t necessarily want to see them being taxed.

      • surfjac

        There is no reason why the first $500,000 or $1,000,000 in donations be tax free and then taxed on amounts greater than that. I believe that would protect the small churches and their relief efforts. Most of their donations used in that fashion would be deductible for anyone.

      • Robb Thompson

        Although not a bad idea, you don’t have to just have a “tax exempt floor” to accomplish this. Set the tax rate for churches at some level, then allow for deductions from income to things like a deduction per attending person (like counting dependents) for buildings and other fixed expenses, or allowable deductions for auditable contributions to things that meet certain criteria. Political contributions would not be deductible at all. Non-monetary political contributions (such as appearing on Meet the Press) would be counted as taxable “income” at a fair market value.

    • LaurenV

      I agree as well. I hope you are teaching your parishioners these truths. I am Lutheran and accept the truths of all religions and the imperative that religion and politics be kept separate

  • Fred

    To criticize how the government spends your tax money, firstly it must be YOUR tax money

  • Billy Howell

    I would be happy if they would at least pay proper postage to stuff my mailbox with useless adverts.

  • PRIME79

    Can a religious person please explain to me, in a non-magical way, how god or any other all mighty and powerful being can make 2 + 2 not equal 4? Some one please tell me how a god or super being could change mathematics.

    • UltraMan

      Isaiah 38:8 I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.'” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down. Luke 19 39:40 But some of the Pharisees among the crowd said, “Teacher (this being Jesus), rebuke your followers for saying things like that!” He replied, “If they kept quiet, the stones along the road would burst into cheers!” Lastly, Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

      • Gary Menten

        Not proven. Maybe you didn’t get the part about no magic?

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        That’s because faith requires no evidence. And that is all he has, but he expects everyone else to agree with his faith, which is, of course, not only unreasonable, but impossible.

      • Gary Menten

        It’s quite obvious that his only purpose for joining this discussion thread was to quote scripture and convert people to his beliefs. When he realized this wasn’t going to happen, he scratched off.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        lets see ur “god” cure fully an amputee

      • ROFLMAOAY

        Quoting from a fable is akin to watching a cartoon of Donald Duck and then stating that ducks can talk.

  • UltraMan

    Isaiah 38:8 I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.'” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down. Luke 19 39:40 But some of the Pharisees among the crowd said, “Teacher (this being Jesus), rebuke your followers for saying things like that!” He replied, “If they kept quiet, the stones along the road would burst into cheers!” Lastly, Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

    • Gary Menten

      Yes, yes. You can quote the bible verbatim and I can recite Shakespeare’s “To Be Or Not To Be” soliloquy by heart and I’ll bet my delivery is more entertaining. This being said, when challenged, all you’ve done on this thread to is to misrepresent facts and intersperse these comments with quotes from scripture which fail to offer any empirical evidence to back up single position you’ve taken. You are selling snake-oil where there is no market for it. Go back to your bible studies and leave this place to grown ups.

  • Dave

    cite to me, the phrase “separation of church and state” in the constitution or bill of rights. You folks are always claiming it… show me…..

  • Dara Ahrens

    I don’t want to sound obtuse, but for for a religious person, you, sir, are awesome! (I’m decidedly not religious).