Joslyn James, the porn star Tiger Woods was banging on the side of the side of the side.... of how many sides? At any rate, according to Jones, Woods managed to knock her up twice. She miscarried the first baby and aborted the other.
How did that happen?
Ignorance? I doubt that a porn star lacked knowledge about birth control.
Poverty? Neither one of them was broke and unable to afford birth control.
Garden variety carelessness?
BINGO!
Joslyn James, the star of such adult classics as Big Breasted Nurses and My Sex Teacher #12, said her lengthy and steamy affair with Tiger Woods always involved unprotected sex.
Using protection "was never talked about," the actress told U.S. television show Inside Edition.
"It was never protected."
Why "take precautions" when you know you can just scrape it out and throw it away?
Not that the sexual revolution or the porn industry or casual adultery in any way cheapens human life.
29 comments:
And your solution would be to force this woman to grow Tiger's pregnancy and to give birth against her will???
No wonder the right-to-life movement is a joke.
You're hilariously clueless, OC.
"Grow Tiger's pregnancy"?
OMG! TIGER WOODS WAS PREGNANT! STOP THE PRESSES!
How about she had no right to kill her baby, regardless of who the father was. And its' not like you can claim that poor destitute Tiger Woods couldn't have afforded child support.
But this trashy woman exemplifies what your movement is all about -- people who know better being casual about creating new human beings because they know that they can just have them killed.
How about people stop pretending that that sex doesn't make babies? How about adults acting like mature, responsible, decent human beings? Instead of taking the attitude that if they make a baby, they can always pay somebody to dismantle it?
Tiger had no goddam business shagging a woman he wasn't married to. It's called ADULTERY, and though abortionists are big fans of the practice (it helps keep their coffers full) it's a shitty way to treat your spouse. That slut had no business shagging another woman's husband, for the same reason. Two adults being thoughtless, selfish assholes. Which is what, again, keeps abortionists in business. It's your bread and butter.
Tiger Woods and his porn star tramp of "lover" may be richer and more high profile than most, but they exemplify what "prochoice" is about -- People behaving badly, and being treated as if they're entitled to bail out of their responsibilities at the cost of a child's life.
That baby didn't entice Tiger to bang a porn star, or a porn star to bang somebody else's husband. But he or she paid for their sexual gratification with his or her life.
And sick bastards like you consider this something to celebrate as "freedom of choice".
Well said, Granny Grump!!!
How about thinking about some form of birth control before you have sex with someone?
Okay, I don't know anything about Joslyn James, but I do know that most people don't choose lives of prostitution or pornography unless something drives them to it. Be it economic desperation, a sense of self-worth that has been eradicated by childhood abuse, or simply the corrosive effects of our pornographic culture, Joslyn James probably turned to porno out of some kind of desperation. I doubt that she is a crass, calculating vixen on the make; she is more probably a very hurt child, desperately clutching out for whatever kind of love she thinks she is worthy of. Sex workers are the victims of the system and they need our compassion. It is the porno producers, pimps, and johns that ought to be in prison, not the poor women and boys who are exploited by them. Joslyn James is probably not a "tramp," she is more probably a damaged soul, desperate to know some kind of love and recieving only money instead.
Thank you Dutchman - there is hope! What I want to add is that is that it takes a good enough childhood to raise mentally and physically healthy adults.
Segamon - please go back and read your bible - both new and old testament and tell me how many men there only slept with one wife or concubine? Tiger woods is the norm and that unfortunately is how God made us:)
Well, Lilliput, just going on memory, you've got Adam, Cain, Seth, and all the men listed up until Noah, for sure; except Lamech (I think it was) who was the first of whom it was specifically said had two wives -- but he wasn't in the line from Adam to Noah, so all his progeny died in the Flood. Then Noah and his sons were specifically delineated as monogamous (there being only four on the Ark); and there was Lot, Job, Isaac, Joseph, and Moses and his father. Most of the rest of the men listed up to this point in history were not specifically said to be either monogamous or polygamous. Abraham's father had at least two wives (though it is possible that one wife died before marrying another), because Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. Abraham seemed to be monogamous until Sarah had him take Hagar as a concubine, then after her death, he took another concubine. Ishmael and Esau both had several wives and/or concubines. Jacob had two wives and two concubines. His sons' monogamous statuses were not specifically listed, although Judah did turn to a woman he thought was a prostitute, which was actually his daughter-in-law, by whom he had twins (that DIL had previously been monogamously married to two of Judah's sons in succession -- the good ol' levirate marriage).
Anyway, now we're at the time of the Exodus. In the Law and/or Moses' farewell speech to Israel, polygamy is allowed (though it seems to be reluctantly given as bare permission, such as the allowance of divorce); and a warning or perhaps prophecy is given against the Israelites wanting a king, specifically saying that kings would multiply their wives and concubines, taking daughters from the regular people to serve him in that status. This wasn't said as a good thing; and indeed, history shows that it wasn't, with David's children fighting their half-siblings, and Solomon being led astray by his foreign idolatrous wives, etc. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
While there were millions of Israelites living at the Exodus down through the time of the Judges, almost none are recorded, and the marital status of most of those who are mentioned is not listed either. Samson's father was monogamous, though it seems that Samson had some trouble keeping his pants on. The high priest Eli had only one wife, and it appears his sons each only had one wife; Samuel's father had two wives, but I think Samuel only had one. Ruth, her sister-in-law and her mother-in-law were all monogamously married to their husbands; and she monogamously married Boaz, who became the father of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David. The kings did have multiple wives and concubines, and since the history of Israel from this time down to the Babylonian captivity is mostly centered on them, one would expect to see more polygamy (although perhaps not -- I'm reading through this time period now, having just gotten to Ahab [who was only said to be married to Jezebel, though he may have had other wives and concubines not mentioned], and there is precious little mentioned about "wives and concubines), but this doesn't mean it was the norm for the time period, nor does "normal" mean that God made us that way. It is "normal" to lie, cheat, steal, and be selfish, but that was not how God made us.
To be continued...
Continued...
Elijah and Elisha were neither listed as married, much less polygamous. The widow of Sarephtha was monogamously married, as was the woman whose son was raised from the dead. I'm trying to remember if anything was specifically said about monogamy from Ahab through the captivity, or from the captivity through the time of Christ, aside from the kings, and I'm having a hard time with it. I know that one of the prophets was told to take a prostitute for a wife -- his only wife -- and this was symbolic of how Israel had made a prostitute of herself, though she was (symbolically) "married" to YHWH. There may be others -- scattered stories of one man or another having more than one wife, or of someone fighting with his own half-siblings because they were from different mothers -- but I can't remember any more.
Then in the time of the New Testament, there is precious little said about whether a given man practiced monogamy or polygamy, so I suppose it could be open to interpretation. It was never said that Jesus' earthly father Joseph ever married anyone other than Mary, though those who are hung up on Mary remaining a virgin forever use that as a possibility for how Jesus had brothers. I don't. Most of the disciples and apostles are not specifically listed as single, monogamously married, or polygamous, but a few are. Peter had a mother-in-law, and in 1 Corinthians, Paul reiterated that Peter had a wife, though he (and it seems Apollos) had none -- though it was allowable for him to be married. In another epistle, in the qualifications of a preacher, it is said that he must not have more than one wife, which specifically forbids polygamy. In Acts 4 or 5, the story of Ananias and Saphira is told -- husband and wife who colluded together to lie -- a monogamous marriage. Then, later on in Acts, there is another monogamous couple, Aquila and Priscilla, who helped Paul. In fact, I can't think of any place in the New Testament when it said that anyone had more than one wife or any concubines, except perhaps among the ruling Romans. But even there, Pilate and Festus and Felix are all mentioned as having a wife in singular; and Herod killed his own brother to be able to marry his wife. So, if you know of any place in the New Testament that talks of a man having more than one wife -- and especially, if it speaks favorably of polygamy -- please refresh my memory. Thanks!
Phew Kathy - you know a lot.
I don't know anything about the NT so here are a few who seem to:
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/polygamy-commanded-in-new-testament/
http://waspolygamyasininthenewtestament.blogspot.com/
http://www.thegodmurders.com/id182.html
I know Adam had Lillith - Cain either married his sister (as there were no other women around)or married out of the species.....
I'll find out more.
They "seem" to, unless you actually know the NT. The first instance is merely twisting the text to suit their own preconceived notions. Here is the full text of the chapter under discussion, if you'd like to see for yourself. It is monogamy under consideration.
The second link was similar -- taking a clear command that a polygamist man could not be a church leader, and trying to do away with it. Now, I will say that there is no absolute clear and definitive prohibition against polygamy in the NT; I will just say that there is nothing *good* or encouraging said about it, with most of the times marriage is considered, it is with a husband (singular) and wife (singular) -- as in the previously cited 1 Cor.
The second link said something about Christians in the first and second centuries may have had 4-5 wives. Perhaps. But from my reading of the link you gave, it appeared to me that they were already married to several women and converted to Christianity afterward. There were also Christians who had been homosexuals -- but when converted to Christianity, gave up that immoral practice. What was socially allowable in that day and in that culture was not necessarily what is right or good or allowable by Christianity. What is implicit though not explicit in the texts concerning marriage, is that monogamy is preferred.
Your third link was not worth reading.
As to Lillith -- that is not in the Bible, but is Jewish myth, and as such I do not accept it. The Bible is clear that God created two humans (Adam and Eve), with the man being the federal head, and all mankind represented in him (with his sin all his progeny became sinners); and Eve is called "the mother of all living." Yes, Cain married his sister; if Abel married, it was to his sister; and Seth married his sister, and any other sons Adam had would have married their sisters or nieces.
This was not a bad thing at the time for a simple reason. Man was created perfect; sin marred that, but the genetics were perfect at first. Incest is a danger to us now because of the genetic defects and mutations that have arisen. But that wasn't a concern at the time. Noah's grandsons married their cousins or sisters, all other humans having perished in the Flood. [This created a bottleneck that geneticists can see, even though they don't believe in the Flood; They place the genetic bottleneck hundreds of thousands of years ago, because of their false assumptions of the rate of mutations.] Again, not a problem with the relatively few mutations that would have arisen in the 15 or so generations between Adam and Noah. After that time, the mutation rate would eventually make close marriage potentially dangerous, leading to the prohibition in the Law of what we now call incestuous relationships.
Dutchman, if a porn star who commits adultery for kicks doesn't meet the definition of a "tramp", nobody does.
The woman is over 30 years old, filthy rich, with a college degree. She's not a 15 year old runaway who some pimp picked up at the Port Authority Terminal. At what point does she start becoming responsible for her choices?
Kathy,
Well I think that this is the difference obviously between Jews and Christians. Jews believe that the Old Testament comes with a huge oral part that was passed down from generation to generation - without which it is incomprehensible. The oral part was writted down in books which are used when studying the old testament.
God created Adam and Eve and yes the were man and women - but they weren't human in teh way that we are human today - they didn't look the same way at all - but they were also born with the potential for good and bad - thats where free choice comes in - and that is why we don't believe in original sin and being born bad.
Just think about how men and women think differently about sex - how men has loads of sperm throughout his life while women have limited number of eggs. See humans in connection with the other animals where men beat off competitors to mate with as many females.
Even a million dollars can't buy you a new childhood, or self-respect, or self-worth. Michael Jackson had how many hundreds of millions of dollars and he was still just a damaged child aching for the love he never felt himself worthy of.
I am not trying to make any excuses for anyones behavior, but I think there are degrees of guilt and responsibility. Joslyn James was livin' the porno life — okay. Tiger Woods was the one who was supposed to be married and loyal.
I know money can't buy happiness. But it can buy mental health treatment. It can buy self-help books. It can buy freaking CONTRACEPTIVES if you're still too screwy in the head to keep your knees together when you're with another woman's husband.
Part of the problem, though, is the looking to childhood trauma as the root cause of all evil behavior. Plenty of people have traumatic childhoods and rise above it rather than create misery for other people. And it gets down to -- choices.
Mostly small choices, really. Because nobody launches straight into spectacular evil.
But society today teaches people that envy, sloth, lust, gluttony (as long as it's not of food), and other sins are okay, even healthy and to be encouraged. If somebody has things you want, demand that the government give them to you. If you are sexually attracted to somebody, have sex with them. There's no such thing as having more than you need of something. Live in an enormous house, with more cars in the garage than there are licensed drivers in your house, with a TV in every room and more satellite channels than you could watch in a lifetime....
We encourage sin and then wonder why people do evil things.
Lilliput said: "Segamon - please go back and read your bible - both new and old testament and tell me how many men there only slept with one wife or concubine? Tiger woods is the norm and that unfortunately is how God made us:)"
Kathy knows a heck of a lot more than I do regarding Sacred Scripture. However, I need not look to Sacred Scripture to see the brokenness of human nature. I know that there are many temptations that ensnare all of us who are part of the human race. This does not mean that we have a permit to do whatever we want, whenever we want, with whomever we want to do it with. As humans we have the ability to use self control. There are also cultural norms of responsibility for our actions.
In short, just because my natural desires tell me to get into a fight with a person that I'm really pissed off at doesn't mean that I should. It also does not mean that I would not have to take responsibility for wrong doing if I did decide to get into a fight.
Tiger Woods and Joslyn James are both responsible for their actions. We are called to help them change to be better people so that they can commit to more responsible actions, sure. However, the ones who are responsible for sinful behavior are the sinners themselves whether we like it or not.
that is why we don't believe in original sin and being born bad.
First, I disagree with your principle that "we can't understand" the Bible without the oral traditions. In fact, one of the negative things Jesus consistently charged the Jewish leaders of His day with, was that they depended too much on the oral traditions, at the expense of the written word -- "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men."
But if you don't believe that mankind was born bad and born a sinner then you don't believe the Psalms. Psalm 51:5 says (NIV), "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Psa. 58:3, "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies"; Ps. 53:3, "Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one."
Please pick a story of the origin of man and stick with it. You say that God created Adam and Eve, but in other conversations, you affirm that man evolved from animals, and as such is basically just a higher form of animal, and can't control his animal instinct. In this comment, you've basically done the same. Was man created, or did man evolve? Is man in the image of God, or is he just a highly evolved animal? Can men control themselves through the in-born conscience, or are they just barely-in-control animals who will rape and breed without conscience or ability to stop themselves?
Kathy, no one knows what adam or eve looked like - there are theories that they had scales or were incredibly hairy or how long a day of the seven days of creation was and therefore it is completely plausable to believe both. There are many layers to the old testament - as children we learn the stories ie adam and eve or noah's arch etc but as we get older and we evolve our minds we are able to see metaphor and more sophisticated spiritual concepts we can delve deeper and see what the stories are trying to present.
I find it hard to accept the fact that Jesus took the written word over the oral tradition when he then went on to completely deny the commandments of sabbath and kosher and create his own oral tradition.
As for are we animals or not I suppose my theory is that God put us on this earth within tje same natural laws that all living creatures live by - otherwise. God would have made us angels. We are animals in that we are programmed by our DNA to reproduce. Our main aim is to ensure the survival of a copy of our genes. There are two main strategies - first and more primitive is having as many as you can in the hope that at least one will survive to procreate or the more sophisticated method of having fewer and pouring more resources into them to survive. I belive this is very easy to spot in humans.
Violence - which rape is but one is maladaptive in that the perpetrator might be injured himself or the womans man might come to kill him. This is what keeps the level of violence to a bearable minimum. We are animals in that we fight over the same resources as otjer animals. I am very comfortable of being both a primate and a spiritual being - I can't understand why you can't ?
I will get back to you on the psalms.
Kathy, no one knows what adam or eve looked like - there are theories that they had scales or were incredibly hairy or how long a day of the seven days of creation was and therefore it is completely plausable to believe both. There are many layers to the old testament - as children we learn the stories ie adam and eve or noah's arch etc but as we get older and we evolve our minds we are able to see metaphor and more sophisticated spiritual concepts we can delve deeper and see what the stories are trying to present.
I find it hard to accept the fact that Jesus took the written word over the oral tradition when he then went on to completely deny the commandments of sabbath and kosher and create his own oral tradition.
As for are we animals or not I suppose my theory is that God put us on this earth within tje same natural laws that all living creatures live by - otherwise. God would have made us angels. We are animals in that we are programmed by our DNA to reproduce. Our main aim is to ensure the survival of a copy of our genes. There are two main strategies - first and more primitive is having as many as you can in the hope that at least one will survive to procreate or the more sophisticated method of having fewer and pouring more resources into them to survive. I belive this is very easy to spot in humans.
Violence - which rape is but one is maladaptive in that the perpetrator might be injured himself or the womans man might come to kill him. This is what keeps the level of violence to a bearable minimum. We are animals in that we fight over the same resources as otjer animals. I am very comfortable of being both a primate and a spiritual being - I can't understand why you can't ?
I will get back to you on the psalms.
Ok, now I've heard everything. Theories! Yes, there are theories that the moon is made of green cheese! You can theorize all you want about Adam and Eve having fur, feathers, fins, scales, wings, or halos -- not sure why that is even a consideration -- why it would be a suggestion that they would look anything different from humans today. But if you need something to keep your mind busy and active, I suppose you might as well theorize about that instead of Bigfoot and Yeti.
The plain fact is that Genesis was written as plain historical narrative -- not some sort of fanciful myth, not with prophetic language, not even poetry. Plain narrative. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are written in the same plain historical style as the rest of the book. All Hebrew scholars agree that that is the sense and style of the book -- even though they don't believe Genesis to be true and factual, they believe that the author of Genesis was intending to relate plain history.
Sure, there are spiritual and life lessons to be learned from historical Biblical stories, but the most important point ought to be that it is in fact history. It is a twisting of the word and meaning to make "yom" the Hebrew word for "day" in the story of the creation to be anything but what we consider "day" to be now -- a 24-hour period of light and dark. Yes, occasionally it is used in the Bible to mean a time period -- such as "in the day of Moses," or whatever; but not with the numbers like that -- "there was evening and there was morning, day one [two] [three, etc.]" -- it always means literal days.
I think if you'll read the New Testament more carefully, He *fulfilled* the Law. Sure, He deliberately violated their manmade traditions, but He fulfilled the Law of His Father.
Humans are biologically mammals, and I don't have a problem with that. There is much benefit in being able to dissect animals and experiment on them in order to figure out how better to heal humans without harming them -- this would not be possible if we were completely different. But you act as if man were simply a more highly evolved animal than the rest, unable to control himself, and I don't believe that. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the more people who believe that "I can't help it" -- because of evolutionary theory that we're just rearranged pond scum, and we exist only because of random chance, and that our thoughts and emotions are likewise just random outworkings of the blind chance that caused our existence -- the more people who believe *that*, the less they will control themselves, and the more they live *down* to expectations. Instead, we need to give them something to live *up* to.
I would have preferred the moon be made of bleu cheese or maybe feta.
Kathy there are nothing but theories when it comes to that time period as there cannot possibly be facts. As far as the theory that the moon is made of cheese - I hate to break it to you but we have in fact gone to the moon and brought back a few samples and that theory has been proved wrong and now we proof of what what the moon is made from.
Unfortunately we haven't yet produced a time machine to take us way back in time to adam and eve and therefore until then we have to make do with theories.
I don't know what "father's law" you are refering to.
Do you have theories as to the American War for Independence against Britain? No? What about a time machine? No? How do you know about that or any other war or period of history? Simple -- it was written down. The book of Genesis is the first book of history.
On what basis do you advocate theories about scales and fur and whatnot for Adam and Eve? If you believe that they existed, it would behoove you to read their history, not wild speculation.
"Father's law" -- God's law, as written down by Moses.
GrannyGrump, yes, I AM a tramp, and a whore, thank-you-very-much!
And Tiger's trashy woman really DOES exemplify exactly what my movement is all about -- people who know better being casual about creating new human beings because they know that they can just have them killed. Yep, bingo, spot-on, you said it, that's it in a nutshell.
When I reflected, as a teen, that abortion was no longer a black and white issue for me, and I decided could no longer call myself pro-life -- that is exactly what went throught my head. I want women like Tiger's girlfriend to be able to have multiple abortions -- so desirable! Yeah!
Yep, that's me -- 100% pro-abort whore.
Kathy I don't know who you believe wrote the bible but in jewdaism we believe that God told Moses the whole old testament and the oral tradition that went with it and he wrote it down and tought the rest to the jews. Its not like the other history books is it?
In terms of learning history like the war of independance - we don't take one persons account but look at all the writings of the time. Plenty of times we think something has happened and on further research we find different.
Genesis is the first book of history, which you say to be written by Moses directly from God... and you would reject that?? What history could be better than God's viewpoint and God's words?
And I will have you know that not one part of the Bible has *ever* been disproved. In fact, it has been corroborated time and again. For instance, Egyptian history currently is thought to disprove the story of the Exodus, but recent research shows that Egyptian history is likely misunderstood (there were co-regencies, and two kings ruling different parts of Egypt at the same time, when most historians have put them as consecutive, thus giving longer periods of history than there really were), and when a proper chronology is taken into account, true Egyptian history lines up with the Exodus story perfectly.
Kathy God told Moses the written and oral tradion ie the commentary that goes along with the old testament. Its the commentary that adds incite to the big picture that God wants us to believe. I am not rejecting it - you are by saying we have to take the bible literaly.
Also, there will never be proof of the biblical story as God wants us to have faith and belief - if we have solid proof - if there ever can be such a thing then we don't have belief.
You've got some twisted logic there, Lil. I believe that when God literally said He literally made the world in six literal days, and that the genealogy of Adam on down to Noah, and from Noah down to Abraham was literal, because this was written as literal historic narrative -- the same was that the Exodus story was, and the same way that Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles all were, as well as non-Biblical Jewish historical accounts -- that we should take it literally... and **I'm** the one rejecting the Bible??
You're not even a believing Jew, yet you're lecturing me on what I should believe the Bible and the Old Testament to say? You believe that man evolved from apes, in direct contradiction to God saying He made man from the dust of the earth on the 6th literal day, yet **I'm** the one rejecting the Bible?
And as far as your second paragraph -- there is and always has been plenty of ability in mankind to reject and hate his Creator, despite the evidence. There have been people who have set out to disprove the Bible and ended up becoming Christians, when they saw how accurate it was. Is there absolute proof of special creation? of man and other land animals being created on the 6th day? of birds and fish and other sea creatures being created on the 5th day (I think it was)? of a worldwide flood that destroyed all breathing creatures? No, not exactly -- but the facts that we do have are all consistent with this history. There is worldwide evidence of major floods -- for instance, fossils of sea creatures and seashells on the tallest mountain peaks, showing that at one point they had to be underwater; numerous "flood stories" from all areas of the world and from all types of people, with some even agreeing down to the number of people who were saved on the big boat; not to mention the millions of layers of sedimentary deposits that are consistent with heavy flooding, then gorges such as the Grand Canyon that were most logically made rapidly, as flood waters receded and cut through soft layers of sand (there are even eye-witness accounts of smaller gorges being made in just this manner).
Atheists say that Christians believe the Bible the way children believe in Santa Claus -- because their parents told them, and they want to believe the myth, despite the evidence. I do not believe *despite* the evidence; the evidence backs up what I believe. Yet, "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God," and there are and always will be fools who will look out at this grand and glorious creation, and think it all came from random chance. Because if they believed it was created, then there must be a Creator, and they must owe Him allegiance and honor and must obey Him. They refuse to do this, so the only other alternative is to believe in something that is statistically impossible.
Kathy we will have to agree to disagree here because we see different things. You see old and new testament and I see old testament and additional oral tradition given to moses to go along with the written. God is many things to many people which is why we have many religions and views on why the earth is the way it is. I can't say mine is right and yours is wrong and neither can you because we both have evidence to both prove and disprove each other. We also don't know what God wants us to do ie old or new testament or any of the many other religions - there is no certainty either way so in the end we all have to do what feels right for us and respect the freedom of others to obey God the way they feel is good for them.
Lil, this is a cop-out! And not true - you don't believe the Old Testament and the Mishnah, or you'd be a practicing Jew. What you have is, "Everyone did that which was right in his own eyes," which was a frequent condemnation of the Israelites throughout the period of the Judges.
My presupposition is the Bible is correct; and if so, there are things that we can predict that we should find.
All scientists agree that the universe had to have had a beginning, although they disagree with each other and with creationists as to when and how it happened. Geneticists agree that all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single maternal figure, whom they have called (much to evolutionists' chagrin) "mitochondrial Eve." Geneticists likewise can trace all men back to a single paternal figure, whom they may call Y-chromosome Adam, but who is more rightly called Y-chromosome Noah. Although their assumptions put these two people back several tens of thousands of years ago, using different assumptions (ones that are more in line with what has been *observed*, rather than what has been inferred), the single paternal figure fits in nicely with the Bible story and time-frame of Noah, and the single maternal figure does the same with Creation and Eve.
The Bible records that there was a global flood, and there are scores of such stories in tribes scattered around the globe, with many having remarkable similarities to the story of the Bible, which shows either a great coincidence that the Chinese happened upon 8 people saved from a worldwide flood (the main one named Nuah) in a completely separate and unrelated incidence to the one the Hebrews recorded.
Plus, there are three families of languages, with about 16 major sub-families -- is it just coincidence that this is the number of Noah's sons and grandsons, by whose family lines the Bible recorded that the languages were confused?
Not to mention the lack of transitional fossils from one type of creature to another, which would be predicted by God creating animals to reproduce after their kind; the evidence around the globe of flooding (although evolutionists refuse to accept a story of a global flood, but break it up piecemeal into many local floods); the evidence of great sedimentary rocks, only possible by great flooding; rapid fossilization preserving raindrops, footprints, and soft-bodied animals like squid (which evolution predicted couldn't happen, since fossilization supposedly takes so long to accomplish).
Then there are the post-flood Biblical stories which have been repeatedly confirmed by archeology.
Profound coincidence if "we can't figure out which is right"! If you at least believed your own Jewish writings, that would be a place to start, but you don't even do that. You only believe in them enough to disbelieve Christianity (which is odd, because rightly understood, the Old Testament is the proof of Christianity, and what Paul and the Apostles used to convert Jews and non-Jews alike to Christianity - take Isaiah 53, which is clear writing of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, written centuries before He lived).
It does not make sense that a God who would create this great universe and provide life on it, would care so little that He would not leave instructions on how to live and how to treat each other. From that presupposition, we can see which religion does that, and we can see that Judaism which was superseded by Christianity does just that. The Islamic Qu'ran speaks of a god who is fickle and changes his mind; but the natural world is one of order, run by laws. Other writings speak of many gods as the ancient Romans and Egyptians had, but this also leads to a world of chaos, not of order as we see. The Bible is, then, not one out of many books or many religions that are all equal, but is the only religious book that is reliable and makes sense.
Post a Comment