?

The religious desperately want a "god" to impose some "meaning" on their lives, because they can't figure out how to be responsible for their own lives.

The religious desperately want a "god" to give them "commands" about how to behave, because they can't figure out how to behave as responsible adults in a society of human beings.

And in christianity, the believers desperately want to believe that a man-god was used as a human sacrifice for them, so they won't be held responsible for their bad actions (Jesus will take the consequences for them).

Does that all add up to trying to escape responsibility? For anything and everything?

That's what one pastor says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-penwell/frankl...

"You see, Franklin Graham is at it again, making life difficult for thoughtful Christians everywhere. In a speech at the Family Research Council’s Watchmen on the Wall, Graham made it his business to remind the audience of pastors about the people God hates...."

"Speaking as a Christian pastor, I attest that following Jesus is difficult enough without having to live down the advanced billing from folks like Franklin Graham, who are convinced that God has nothing better to do than to figure out new categories of people to despise.

I know love is more than uncritically affirming everything a person does; but I still can’t figure out a way to call a god who hates people “loving.” And if that’s true, Franklin Graham is the worst thing to happen to God in awhile."

Clicking on any question brings up a page that, once loaded, starts scrolling white space right after the question, pushing all the existing answers down out of visible range, and making it impossible to answer any question.

It's not just me, at least a dozen other users have reported the same issue. It seems to be somehow linked to the ads that show up right under the question.

Oh, and is Yahoo also aware that their "contact us" page on Yahoo Help has no way to contact them by e-mail and report a problem such as this?

Can we at least agree that the bible contains contradictory descriptions of "god?"

1 John 4:8 -- "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

1 Corin. 13:4 -- "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous..."

Exodus 20:5 -- "...for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..."

Exodus 34:14 -- "...for you shall worship no other God, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God..."

Deut. 6:15 -- "...for the Lord your God, who lives among you, is a jealous God..."

So, the NT says god is love, and love is not jealous.

While the OT says god is a jealous god, and even says his NAME is "Jealous."

Can we at least agree that those descriptions are contradictory?

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the *****. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the *****. It is a practice, not a doctrine..."

Yet just 5 years earlier, the church's First Presidency, under the leadership of president George Albert Smith, released a letters stating:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the *doctrine* of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time."

So George Albert Smith and his first presidency declared that it WAS doctrine of the church. Then just 5 years later, David O. McKay claims it's not doctrine, and never was.

What gives?

Why do some of you try to use "information theory" to "disprove" evolution?

After all, isn't information theory just a theory?

in reference to this:

http://www.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20...

Which of these do you believe actually occurred, and which do you think are myths/stories/fables meant to illustrate some moral point?

-- God kills 42 teenagers, by sending bears to maul them to death, for calling a "prophet" bald... (2 Kings 2:24)

-- God kills a man for "pulling out" while having sex with his dead brother's wife (Genesis 38:9)

-- God commands a man to be killed for picking up sticks to make a fire for his family on a Saturday (Numbers 15:32)

-- God kills, by magic poisonous snakes, anyone who won't look at a snake on a pole (Numbers 21:4)

Do you realize that the bible never says any such thing?

It only says he formed man from the dust of the ground.

It doesn't say, "God designed man, then used his design to form him from the dust of the ground."

Not only that, but it also says he "made man in his own image" -- which means he simply *copied* himself. Copying is not designing, it's plagiarism.

So do you realize that your claim that "god designed humans" is not biblical, and is actually contradicted by the bible?

We have no autographa (original texts written by the author him/her self) for any bible books, none for the "OT" or Tanakh, none for the NT.

The oldest OT manuscripts come from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to around 100 BCE or so, but nowhere near all of the OT is there. The oldest complete OT manuscript is the Septuagint from the 4th century CE. Most bible scholars put the original composition of most OT books between 600 BCE and 100 BCE, making our oldest copy possibly 1,000 years removed (and nobody knows how many copies of copies of copies) from any originals.

The oldest NT fragment is the Rylands fragment, a couple of verses from the gospel of "John," dating to the 2nd century CE. The oldest complete NT collection dates to the 8th century CE, probably around 500-700 years after any originals, and again nobody knows how many copies of copies of copies are in between those.

Didn't anyone put enough value on original texts to safeguard them? Why don't we have ANY original, autographical bible texts?

Other than desperately appealing the decision (and losing), asking for a stay in implementing it twice (and losing both), and blaming the mormon judge who ruled their ban unconstitutional for being an "activist judge" who "overrode the will of the people of Utah?"

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-allows-gay-marriage-ut...

Are you a strict trinitarian?

Do you believe god, jesus ,and the holy spirit are three separate "beings?"

Do you accept jesus as chosen of god and the messiah, but not "god" himself?

Something else?

Also: do you believe that your belief regarding the "godhead" affects your "salvation?" That is, if someone doesn't believe the same way you do about this subject, they can't be "saved?" Or, at least, not "saved" as well or the same as you will be?

...just because you have a "not of this world" sticker on the back of your car, that doesn't mean you're *actually* not of this world? And that you're still driving in the real world, among the rest of us real people?

I only ask because twice this morning, I was nearly in accidents after being cut off by people who didn't signal and weren't paying attention, and both had those "not of this world" stickers on their cars. If you want to pretend you're "not of this world," please don't do it while driving, ok?

These people do:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rall...

"As reported by the Montgomery Advertiser, Prattville (Ala.) East Memorial Christian Academy super coach Scott Phillips, who led the school’s football program to its first state playoff berth in years and coached the boys basketball team to the first state title in any sport, was dismissed because he refused to force his family to attend East Memorial Baptist Church."

Fact: the Earth's Moon is visible in the daytime sky *exactly* as much as it is in the nighttime sky during its 27.3 day orbit.

Bible: Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.

16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

23 ‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.

29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. 31 Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’”

(Numbers 5:11-31)

Can you admit that this "test" is essentially worthless, and basically just a superstitious ritual that can't determine whether a woman has committed adultery or not?

Exodus 28:31-35

"And thou shalt make the robe of the ephod all of blue.

And there shall be an hole in the top of it, in the midst thereof: it shall have a binding of woven work round about the hole of it, as it were the hole of an habergeon, that it be not rent.

And beneath upon the hem of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the hem thereof; and bells of gold between them round about:

A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem of the robe round about.

And it shall be upon Aaron to minister: and his sound shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the Lord, and when he cometh out, that he die not."

In this story, "god" gives explicit instructions for the bell-and-pomegranate robes he must wear when he goes in or out of the temple, so that god will know it's Aaron and not kill him.

Wouldn't an all-knowing, all-seeing "god" already know if it was Aaron or not, without needing bells to let him know?

Isn't this more than a little absurd?

...your car and you really *are* in the world?

And you're driving really badly in front of the rest of us?

(based on an experience this afternoon)

You guys don't think having a "not of this world" sticker on your car makes you magically invisible to us heathens, do you? Please go the speed limit, and use your *%$! signal.

...the bible clearly says otherwise?

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49

So, kind of like conservative christians who oppose any social programs today, Sodom's "sin" was to have an excess of food and prosperous ease, but not aid the poor and needy."

Ezekiel says *that* is why god supposedly destroyed it -- not because of homosexuality.

So, why claim it was because of homosexuality?

Trying to divert attention away from not aiding the poor and needy, perhaps?

"I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT

God says he utterly destroyed cities, leaving no survivors to even tell what happened.

But with no survivors around who knew what happened, he's then perplexed as to why survivors aren't obeying him. Doesn't that seem pretty ridiculous, expecting survivors who don't exist to obey you?

And if your claimed god is omniscient, why does it expect that if he wipes out cities people will obey him, and then is surprised when they don't (even though there aren't any survivors to do so)?

Not too bright this "god" of yours, huh?

In 1969, Thomas S. Monson told a story of a friend named “Arthur Patton” and his sad widowed mother.

Here's a link to the entire story:

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1698

Thomas gives some very detailed info about Arthur in this talk.

He had blond, curly hair.

A smile as big as all outdoors.

Arthur stood taller than any boy in the class.

Enlisted in the Navy at the tender age of 15.

He wrote lots of letters to his mother.

Mrs. Patton, (his mother) was a cleaning woman for a downtown office.

Arthur was on the carrier USS Lexington, and was killed in the Battle of the Coral Sea when the Lexington sunk.

Big problem though: US Navy records showed that "Arthur Patton" was never assigned to the Lexington. The Lexington, though damaged in the battle of the Coral Sea, was not sunk then. And Arthur Patton was not killed in that battle. That battle was in 1942.

This talk was later reproduced in the 1991 Ensign, unchanged from the original.

Monson repeated this same "inspiring" talk again at General Conference in 2007:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/mrs...

38 years after he gave the original talk, the details had changed: Now, he says Arthur was assigned to the USS White Plains in 1944 (2 years after he "died" in the original story), and was killed in March 1944 when the White Plains was attacked while at Saipan.

More big problems, though: The White Plains' own battle reports show it didn't suffer any significant damage or casualties while at Saipan. And that Arthur Patton wasn't killed in any battle at Saipan -- he was declared “missing as result of own misconduct” (not dead) in July 1944, after the White Plains had already left Saipan. Oops.

Monson was fairly well known for being fast and loose with "facts" before he became president and "prophet." And this story is just another example of him not being very honest, it's just that this time he sort of got caught, and change details hoping nobody would notice (though he still didn't get them right).

Does it make you sad when your prophet lies?