There is NO PROOF of evolution for if there was, it would be FACT and not THEORY.

The babble about White people and Black people being "related" is pure race mixing propaganda.

Did the pale skinned, blue-eyed blond 'evolve' from the dark-skinned, black eyed wool head as they currently teach in schools? Furthermore, does any teacher tell you that they are teaching THEORY and nothing more? SIMILARITY DOES NOT IMPLY RELATION! The ocean and urine are similar in that they are both 95 percent water. A rocket is similar in shape to a spear and they are both projectiles. They are similar but not related and I cannot believe that the rocket evolved from the spear. ABSTRACT MAN-MADE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE PROOF OF NOTHING! The "proof" that a Bantu is related to a Nordic is circular. First, they are classified as being related and then that classification is used as 'proof' that it is fact.

Question:Why are Blacks and Whites classified as belonging to the same species when their physical differences -- hair, teeth, circulatory system, sweat glands, bone structure, etc. -- surpass in number and divergence those possessed by the the different species of crows, for example? If relatively minor differences between crows are sufficient to place them in a different species, then why are the greater differences between the Black man and the White man ignored?

The claim that the nigeroo and the white man are related simply because some biologist's clan gave them both the name Homo sapiens, makes about as much sense as saying that president George Washington is related to Booker T. Washington because someone gave them the same name. "Homo sapiens" refers to things which are no more related than is the octopus (Japanese taco) to that funny sandwich (Mexican taco).


Much of what we call science, is actually religious in nature. They both have their priests, interpretations, disciples and heretics.

There is NO PROOF of evolution for if there was, it would be FACT and not THEORY.

The babble about White people and Black people being "related" is pure race mixing propaganda.

Be careful you are surrounded by Evolution believing Atheists that believe we are all brothers beneath the skin, of course this is the only route to go if you believe in evolution.

Be careful you are surrounded by Evolution believing Atheists that believe we are all brothers beneath the skin, of course this is the only route to go if you believe in evolution.

Actually, I believe in both creation and evolution.

The error of most creationists, is the belief in the "one day" that God created the heavens and the earth. Yes, one day on the earth is a 24 hour period. But, one day in the heavens (read: galaxies, universe, etc) could be millions if not billions of years. Think about the time it takes the Milky Way to complete it's "orbit".

It is arrogant to believe that God was just talking about earth time. I feel that the create/evolve argument is just another divider planted by the Jew.

I think most rational and educated folks believe in evolution; creation comes into play when you think about how the whole evolutionary process started in the first place.

And that is the very spot it does damage to. Research into where or what we sprang from is always derailed by concerns about how the info impacts religion. Like a fence around the spring that is the source of a river. Many have journeyed upstream to find the source, only to be turned back near the source. I want to know what lies in the fenced-off area. Ignoring the "fence" is the first step.

There is NO PROOF of evolution for if there was, it would be FACT and not THEORY.Your statement reflects a common misconception about what a scientific theory is.

A theory is a model that is used to explain and predict observations. The better a theory is at predicting observations, the stronger the theory is said to be. Therefore, just because evolution is referred to as a "theory" does NOT mean that scientists aren't convinced that evolution occurred. Remember, scientists still refer to gravitational theory, electromagnetic theory, and atomic theory. One theory in particular, quantum field theory, predicts experimental results better than any other science known to man. In short, none of these theories is in doubt. Neither is evolution.

Here's the key point: It is a well-confirmed FACT that evolution occurred, just as it is a fact that macroscopic matter is made up of atoms. (No one has ever seen an atom directly, yet we KNOW they are there through mountains of indirect evidence. The situation with evolution is analogous.) The reason that evolution and atomic theories are still referred to as "theories" is that many of the details of how these things work are still not fully understood.

Why is evolution considered a fact? Because much of modern biology makes no sense without it, and evolutionary theory has been confirmed by many observations. For example, many discoveries of fossils with particular DNA sequences were predicted solely on the basis of evolution. For more information, try http://www.talkorigins.org/. There's a lot of good stuff there, although it can take a long time to wade through it.

The fact that evolution occurred doesn't rule out the existence of God, of course, but it does rule out a literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course, the Bible contradicts itself in numerous places anyway, so no one needs evolution to rule out a literal interpretation of the Bible anyway. And even if evolution were proven false -- something that is now extremely unlikely -- that would still by no means prove the Bible correct. After all, maybe the Hindu, Zoroastrian, or some other ancient creation myth is the correct one.

As for racial differences, we can't judge the truth or falseness of a scientific theory based on what perceived implications there might be for our own racial theories. If evolution is true, then it's true -- period. On the other hand, I've always felt that evolution tended to fit in well with racialist theories. For example, many have surmised that the reason for Negroes' lower intelligence as compared to Whites is the harsher, colder environments in which most Whites evolved. At some point in the past, though, it's clear that Whites and Negroes had a common ancestor -- just as the first humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor (as the DNA sequences of both show clearly).

In any case, there is so much evidence that evolution is correct that every reputable expert in relevant fields such as molecular biology and genetics accepts that evolution happened and continues to happen. The only people who don't accept evolution are people who have either been misled, or who don't want to accept it because it disproves their treasured religious dogma/delusions.

Actually, I believe in both creation and evolution.

The error of most creationists, is the belief in the "one day" that God created the heavens and the earth.
Something like this?
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.











Teaching that humans evolved from something else is somewhat like performing a magic trick. The magic wands used to pull off this illusion are words like "common ancestor" and "hominid." The term common ancestor explains nothing; it is a fancy-sounding word used to avoid explaining missing missing links. For example, an evolutionist might argue that man did not evolve from an ape but that they both had a common ancestor. What does that mean? It proves nothing; it explains nothing. Simply put, it is double talk. The word "hominids" is a word that has come to mean humans and their evolutionary ancestors. Therefore, to the creationist, it is a meaningless term. Humans are all descendants of Adam. Thus, the use of such a word necessarily excludes the creation model of origin.

Consequently, the evolution argument presented in classrooms can be best described as one that "begs the question." An argument is said to beg the question when it assumes to be true the very thing it is trying to prove. Thus, the illusion is created that science proves evolution by first assuming that evolution is true. This required teaching of human evolution by begging the question is one of the best-kept secrets in this debate.

Teaching human evolution as such has caused the general public, science teachers and even committed Christians to unwittingly overlook the lack of foundational scientific support for human evolution. Once again, if all sides of this scientific issue are examined fairly the error of evolution is revealed. The only way evolution can survive is through censorship; through suppressing or prohibiting any alternative view.

The scientific problem with human evolution is that it is built upon the weak science of paleoanthropology. Even one of the most orthodox evolutionist evangelists Richard Leakey admitted, ". . . I often felt that paleoanthropology was more of an art than a science." Sir Peter Medawar, a Nobel Prize winner in medicine referred to paleoanthropology as, "a comparatively humble and unexacting kind of science."

Paleoanthropology is the study of human fossils. It is much like the field of astronomy. These are both soft sciences; ones in which empirical evidence is hard to find. That is, in these sciences there is not hard physical evidence that proves a point. (Interestingly, these two "soft sciences" are the two in which most of the “scientific” evidence for evolution is being provided.) Astronomy many times will appeal to mathematical formulas and physics. Then, when NASA goes to space and gathers more information these formulas are changed once again. Likewise, paleoanthropology depends on very flimsy data. Most of those in the field study castings, or models of human fossils instead of the actual fossils and most have never even seen an actual human fossil. The actual fossils are kept under heavy guard, locked behind thick walls in climate and temperature controlled room. Because they are so fragile it is understandable why they are kept under such tight security. However, the actual number of human fossils worldwide is really quite large. According to Marvin Lubenow in his book "Bones of Contention" he estimates that there are probably more that six thousand fossils available. One of the reasons evolutionists cry over the lack of fossils is the fact that the fossils that do exist do not agree with their presupposition of human evolution. This over committment to human evolution has often been the cause of embarrassment for evolutionists. Such examples are the fraud of Piltdown Man, the incorrect classification of Ramapithecus and the misinterpretation of Neandertal. David Pilbeam of Harvard University promoted Ramapithecus as a hominid and later had to admit that it had nothing to do with human origins. His confession illustrates the problem that preconceived assumptions can create: "Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive data….We are unaware of many of our assumptions…Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of actual data….I am more sober than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us."

Not only has the search for missing links or common ancestors in paleoanthropology come up empty in supporting human evolution, but also the most basic laws of science disprove any idea that humans have evolved.

The Bible makes it clear in Genesis 5:1 that man was made "in the likeness of God." This gives man a uniqueness apart from the animals. God has given man value above the animals by relating to him in a personal way. In contrast, in order for a student in the United States to answer correctly on a standardized test he or she must view man as an animal. Redefining man as an animal destroys the meaning and value that God has placed on human life. As one preacher so aptly put it, "Man becomes just a big blob of protoplasm waiting to become manure." This quote by Jeffrey Dahmer on "Dateline" illustrates the logical conclusion of evolution: “If a person doesn’t think there’s a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point in trying to modify your behavior to keep within acceptable ranges. That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed in the theory of evolution is truth; that we all just came from slime, pond scum. When we die, you know, that was it, there’s nothing.”

The fact that the way one views his origin ultimately effects the way one views his destiny is further illustrated in this quote by evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, "He [man] stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process, with unique understand and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but his own master. He can and must decide his own destiny."

The two students who shot their classmates at Columbine High School would certainly agree. According to the William J. Murray Report they, "wore black trench coats to school every day, and the Internet sites they maintained glorified the occult, and of all people, Charles Darwin. There is now evidence that they believed themselves to be evolved beyond mankind!"

Ultimately, human evolution gives birth to a self-centered philosophy in which man he has no obligation to value human life. Animal life is elevated to equality with human life causing some to consider chicken farms to be no different that of concentration camps.

More importantly, redefining man as an animal and simply as the product of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease, suffering, mutations and extinctions redefines God. The character and nature of God is changed from a loving God who cares for His creation to a wasteful, careless and indifferent God.

To understand the immensity of the problem of this wrong view of God consider how God is relentlessly affirmed and defined as creator in the Bible. In Isaiah 42:5-6a: "Thus says God the Lord," (Who?) "Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it. I am the Lord,…" Also, in Psalm 148:1 "Praise ye the Lord, Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise him from the heights. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens, Let them praise the name of the Lord:" (Why is He worthy of such overwhelming praise?) "…for he commanded and they were created. He hath also established them forever and ever." Revelation 4:11 proclaims, "Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power;" (Why?) "…for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created."

The Bible is clear. Humans did not evolve; we were created in the image of God.


Now perhaps someone could explain why a racist would believe groids and whites evolved from the same monkeys and are brothers beneath the skin. When the bible teaches that man was created in God’s image.

Note to all you racists how many Images does God have? One or many as a racist would contend? Think about that one for a minute.




Pa. town puts Darwin on notice
In Dover Area High School biology classes, the Creator will get equal billing with Charles Darwin.
Make that a creator.

The rural, 3,600-student school district, 20 miles south of Harrisburg, is the first in the nation to require the teaching of "intelligent design," a theory that holds that the complexity of the natural world offers overwhelming evidence of a supernatural force at work.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/10233215.htm?1c

Of course, the Bible contradicts itself in numerous places anyway, so no one needs evolution to rule out a literal interpretation of the Bible anyway.
I love how people that claim to be educated grasp at the contradiction straw even though for nearly 400 years all those contradictions have been proven over and over again to be misunderstandings, not taking something in context, the inability to count or just plain laziness to study.

I love to mock the contradiction straw men. I have answered almost all of the supposed 287 contradictions and got tired. I couldn’t believe how educated people could be so ignorant as not able to study a verse before or after a supposed contradictory verse.

In the end no one has ever been able to prove one single contradiction in the KJV. Go to bible contradictions .com you will find a couple hundred of supposed contradictions but they are nothing more that simple common sense that a child has. The only thing that has kept that theory alive this long is the desperation for people to believe in biblical contradictions as an excuse not to believe in the bible. Similar to “can God make a rock so big he can’t move it” joke. Just an excuse and annoyance and a joke.


Now you seem to try and act like you know what you are talking about. I have a question for you. How many of those alleged contradictions have you found for yourself? How many times have you read the bible? Don’t run to a web site or a book, I am asking how many of them have you actually seen for yourself without looking something up now.

Are you going by facts or just taking someone else’s word for it? More than likely you are taking a phrase that you have heard and using it as the truth, just like evolution. Now no matter how much of a beaten your pride takes don’t lie about this tell the truth. How many contradictions can you name without looking? How many times have you read the bible and found contradictions? The answer? Zero. The truth? Unlikely.

Now being that this a faceless message board you will probably come up with a story about how you was a minister that quit because the contradictions drove you to it and run to a web site and grab a couple to prove your point.

doc, with your "humans are all descended from Adam" line of thinking, you are cousins with niggers. Isn't that special?

Provided he considers niggers human, that is.



At this point, I'd regard evolution as more of a theorem than theory, but Angler does nonetheless speak true.

Your statement reflects a common misconception about what a scientific theory is.

A theory is a model that is used to explain and predict observations. The better a theory is at predicting observations, the stronger the theory is said to be. Therefore, just because evolution is referred to as a "theory" does NOT mean that scientists aren't convinced that evolution occurred. Remember, scientists still refer to gravitational theory, electromagnetic theory, and atomic theory. One theory in particular, quantum field theory, predicts experimental results better than any other science known to man. In short, none of these theories is in doubt. Neither is evolution.

Here's the key point: It is a well-confirmed FACT that evolution occurred, just as it is a fact that macroscopic matter is made up of atoms. (No one has ever seen an atom directly, yet we KNOW they are there through mountains of indirect evidence. The situation with evolution is analogous.) The reason that evolution and atomic theories are still referred to as "theories" is that many of the details of how these things work are still not fully understood.

Why is evolution considered a fact? Because much of modern biology makes no sense without it, and evolutionary theory has been confirmed by many observations. For example, many discoveries of fossils with particular DNA sequences were predicted solely on the basis of evolution. For more information, try http://www.talkorigins.org/. There's a lot of good stuff there, although it can take a long time to wade through it.

The fact that evolution occurred doesn't rule out the existence of God, of course, but it does rule out a literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course, the Bible contradicts itself in numerous places anyway, so no one needs evolution to rule out a literal interpretation of the Bible anyway. And even if evolution were proven false -- something that is now extremely unlikely -- that would still by no means prove the Bible correct. After all, maybe the Hindu, Zoroastrian, or some other ancient creation myth is the correct one.

As for racial differences, we can't judge the truth or falseness of a scientific theory based on what perceived implications there might be for our own racial theories. If evolution is true, then it's true -- period. On the other hand, I've always felt that evolution tended to fit in well with racialist theories. For example, many have surmised that the reason for Negroes' lower intelligence as compared to Whites is the harsher, colder environments in which most Whites evolved. At some point in the past, though, it's clear that Whites and Negroes had a common ancestor -- just as the first humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor (as the DNA sequences of both show clearly).

In any case, there is so much evidence that evolution is correct that every reputable expert in relevant fields such as molecular biology and genetics accepts that evolution happened and continues to happen. The only people who don't accept evolution are people who have either been misled, or who don't want to accept it because it disproves their treasured religious dogma/delusions.


It is incredibly starnge that there is no evidence of any further stages of human evolution occuring within recorded human history. Similarities [vague similarities at that] in DNA sequence do not "prove" that the negro and the Aryan had a common ancestry at all.
Even if you accepted the theory of evolution as being "fact" that does not establish that we necessarily have to have a common ancestor. Evolution could have been localised and negroes and Aryans could have arisen with seperate lines of development.
Even if your contention is true what you are saying is that the negro is little more than an intelligent ape. Indeed why are they not classified as apes rather than homosapiens? They certainly have a greater resemblance to them than we have to the negro.
Also there is a lot of "similar" DNA between humans and bananas are you seriously suggesting that there is any relationship of kin there? :D

doc, with your "humans are all descended from Adam" line of thinking, you are cousins with niggers. Isn't that special?

He is also implying that he is kin with the kikes too![But we have always known that!] ;) :D

evolution as a scientific theory is full of holes. but, there is no sense turning to mysticism for a literal explanation of these anomalies. what is needed is abetter scientific theory, and perhaps one that will be so profound as to mark a fundamental paradigm shift. if you are really interested in this, read this book by Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance. Come on back to this forum and discuss it with me, nobody has done so yet and I am a little disappointed, it was the best book I read in 2003 and I read tons of em.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089281537X/qid=1102188241/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3655269-9797511?v=glance&s=books

evolution as a scientific theory is full of holes. but, there is no sense turning to mysticism for a literal explanation of these anomalies. what is needed is abetter scientific theory, and perhaps one that will be so profound as to mark a fundamental paradigm shift. if you are really interested in this, read this book by Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance. Come on back to this forum and discuss it with me, nobody has done so yet and I am a little disappointed, it was the best book I read in 2003 and I read tons of em.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089281537X/qid=1102188241/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3655269-9797511?v=glance&s=books

In a sense I agree but dont be too quick to write off "mysticism" as "science" is inept at explaining everything.
We are after all multidimensional beings and not everything can be explained by "reason" alone. We must look deeper within for the answers.
We must in effect "know thyself".

doc, with your "humans are all descended from Adam" line of thinking, you are cousins with niggers. Isn't that special?
I don’t recall a post where I said that. Perhaps you can find it for me. Or are you just trying to make up a lie to prove yourself right. So show the post where I said that or else admit you lied which is common for the filthy pagans or atheists.



Provided he considers niggers human, that is.

Now you are getting the hang of it. :)

What do you mean "now"?

What do you mean "now"?
Oh I misunderstood your post I thought you meant I didn't consider groids humans. My bad.

No I don't consider them human.

Is diligent study required to achieve this degree of denseness, or is it something innate? (This is not meant to insult - I just happened to think of a nice turn of phrase, and couldn't in good conscience let it go to waste. For the betterment of all, you see.)

What I meant was: why do you say "now", when it stands perfectly clear to one and all that I have ALWAYS had "the hang of it"?

I love how people that claim to be educated grasp at the contradiction straw even though for nearly 400 years all those contradictions have been proven over and over again to be misunderstandings, not taking something in context, the inability to count or just plain laziness to study.

I love to mock the contradiction straw men. I have answered almost all of the supposed 287 contradictions and got tired. I couldn’t believe how educated people could be so ignorant as not able to study a verse before or after a supposed contradictory verse.287? Is that all???

In the end no one has ever been able to prove one single contradiction in the KJV.Actually, apologists simply refuse to admit that the contradictions are there.

Go to bible contradictions .com you will find a couple hundred of supposed contradictions but they are nothing more that simple common sense that a child has.Perhaps. I've never been to that site. But I don't need it to know that the Bible is flawed.

The only thing that has kept that theory alive this long is the desperation for people to believe in biblical contradictions as an excuse not to believe in the bible.Even if the Bible did not have a single flaw in it, that would hardly be proof of its divine inspiration. Human beings write fiction books all the time without contradictions in them. Does that mean all such books are based in reality?

Similar to “can God make a rock so big he can’t move it” joke. Just an excuse and annoyance and a joke.There are FAR greater philosophical problems with God-belief than that. You'll never hear me make the "big rock" argument.

Now you seem to try and act like you know what you are talking about. I have a question for you. How many of those alleged contradictions have you found for yourself? How many times have you read the bible? Don’t run to a web site or a book, I am asking how many of them have you actually seen for yourself without looking something up now.You sure seem to assume a lot about me. I'll have you know that I was a practicing, churchgoing, Bible-studying Christian for the first 30 years of my life. I'd always had some doubts about the Bible even from a young age, but for the better part of my young life I was too afraid of angering God to follow up on those doubts. It was actually only when I was in my late teens that I started to seriously study the Bible, and it wasn't until I was finished with college and graduate study (in my late 20s) that I had enough time to really dig in and think about what the Bible said. That's when my doubts started to snowball.


Are you going by facts or just taking someone else’s word for it? More than likely you are taking a phrase that you have heard and using it as the truth, just like evolution. Now no matter how much of a beaten your pride takes don’t lie about this tell the truth. How many contradictions can you name without looking? How many times have you read the bible and found contradictions? The answer? Zero. The truth? Unlikely.Whoa, dude -- are you just asking me questions, or are you also answering them for me?

There are countless minor contradictions in the Bible that even a young child can notice. I don't remember what the first one I saw on my own was, but it was probably something really obvious like this:

Mark 15:27-32 --

And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

So, we see that in Mark's Gospel, the two thieves who were crucified with Jesus were both abusive to him. How does Luke tell the story?

Luke 23:39-43 --

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

In Luke's Gospel one of the thieves was abusive and one of them was good. That's an obvious contradiction to Mark.

Now, even as a Christian, the above contradiction never really bothered me that much. It rules out Biblical inerrancy, but I was never a Biblical literalist even when I was a believer. Other contradictions, however, are devastating to the claim that the whole of the Bible was divinely inspired.

The first major contradiction I noticed on my own when studying the Bible -- and this was long before I had the Internet, and even before the popular rise of the Internet -- probably had to do with the "faith and works" issue. There are verses in the Bible that say salvation comes only through faith, and others that say it comes through works. Example:

Mark 16:15-16 --

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So, according to the above verse, salvation is only by faith (and baptism). But then there's this:

Matthew 25:31-46 --

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Call me crazy, but from the above verses it sure seems to me that Jesus is going to judge people based on how they treated their fellow man. Am I mistaken in my assessment, Sean?

So yes, I noticed that on my own, as well as many other contradictions and apparent absurdities. Years later, when I got the Internet and lost my fear of "offending God" by researching these questions, I found a wealth of other such information, all unified and easily accessible, which heightened its impact. Using the "faith versus works" example again, take a look at this:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

So maybe you can explain what the Bible really teaches, Sean. Is salvation by faith, by works, or both? Let's see you "mock" this contradiction that Christendom hasn't been able to resolve even among itself despite centuries of hairsplitting and straw-grasping.

Here's another must-read describing all the different beliefs of the major Christian denominations: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192

If God is perfect, then He is without flaw. Why, then, did He not use a flawless method of communicating His message to mankind? How can a perfect being do anything that isn't perfect?

The above arguments only scratch the surface of my reasons for skepticism. Believe me, if I had the time, I could easily write a long book filled with reasons why Christianity is no more likely to be true than Islam, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism.

Now being that this a faceless message board you will probably come up with a story about how you was a minister that quit because the contradictions drove you to it and run to a web site and grab a couple to prove your point.Why do you assume that I'm going to lie to you? Perhaps you want to believe in Christianity so badly that you've convinced yourself that only dishonest people can doubt Christianity? I can tell you right now, such a view doesn't reflect reality. In fact, it was nothing but unflinching honesty that finally forced me to admit to myself that I didn't believe in Christianity anymore.

Is diligent study required to achieve this degree of denseness, or is it something innate? (This is not meant to insult - I just happened to think of a nice turn of phrase, and couldn't in good conscience let it go to waste. For the betterment of all, you see.)

What I meant was: why do you say "now", when it stands perfectly clear to one and all that I have ALWAYS had "the hang of it"?
I don't read your posts so I dont know anything about you.

That was probably the most devastating retort I have ever had levelled against me. Dumb luck. From now on I demand you read my posts in slack-jawed reverence.

That was probably the most devastating retort I have ever had levelled against me. Dumb luck. From now on I demand you read my posts in slack-jawed reverence.
The term slack jawed comes from an indention in your jaw from chewing tobacco. Since I detest all tobacco products it is safe to say I am far from slack jawed.

Thou truly art a fount of knowledge, sean.

I don't read your posts so I dont know anything about you.

Spoken like a true egomaniac. We really are puppets on your vanity stage aren`t we?