Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Opinion|Sun, Mar. 16 2008 12:14 PM EDT

Equating Animals with Humans

By Chuck Colson|Christian Post Guest Columnist

The groom was attired in a black tuxedo, and the bride—decked in a white silk gown and pearls—carried a small bouquet. Max and Bella exchanged rings, and the reverend declared them wed. And then the bride and groom ran off, barking and wagging their tails.

Max and Bella, you see, were Chihuahuas—and their owners had just had them joined in “holy muttrimony.” The dogs’ owners say they did it just for fun—but I am not so sure. It appears to be just one more sign of the success of an aggressive animal-rights movement—one that seeks to blur the distinction between animals and humans. And even some Christians are being unwittingly pulled into their orbit.

For example, I know of a Bible-study group in Los Angeles that recently laid hands on a sick dog, praying God would heal her—and if not, receive her into heaven. Dozens of websites offer so-called biblical “proof” that animals are resurrected just like humans. Well-meaning evangelical authors write of their hopes that God will admit their beloved pets into heaven.

Of course Christians have a specific command to care for the creation. But that is not what we are witnessing here. These are signs of Christians weakening their own best defense on what constitutes the distinctiveness of humans. Christianity teaches that humans are the only part of creation that bears the image of God. We are, thus, unique in all creation, conscious of our existence, aware of death, and capable of works of great creativity. Humans alone have eternal souls, which confers upon us a unique moral status.

Many animal-rights activists dismiss any distinctions between humans and animals as “speciesism.” Princeton professor, Peter Singer, defines this as “a prejudice” that favors “the interests of the members of one’s own species . . . against those members of other species.” If the material world is all there is, if humans are nothing more than the product of evolutionary forces, then they are essentially no different from pigs, dogs, or rats. We are merely the latest stage in evolutionary development.

Singer and PETA are consistent at least. Their campaigns to grant constitutional rights for pigs or make it illegal to keep laying hens in cages are perfectly logical. It is Christians who behave irrationally when they fall into naturalist positions out of love for their pets.

I am not suggesting that people should not love their pets. There are few things more painful than the death of the family pet, long-time companion. But nowhere do the Scriptures teach that animals have souls. They will perish with the rest of creation. When Christ returns and our bodies are resurrected, we will live in the new heaven and the new earth—where there may be new (but not resurrected) animals.

If we fail to understand our own doctrines, more and more Christians will accept the idea that animals and humans are morally equivalent. Animal-rights activists will then press on: eliminating animal agriculture and banning life-saving research, and yes, Singer says, affording the same rights to animals that we give to humans.

Christians, arguing that humans alone are made in God’s image, can make the only logical defense of the uniqueness of human life. But if out of sentimentality we treat our pets as if they have souls, we give away the argument. What tragic irony if the Church finds it has been conquered through our beloved pets.

____________________________________

From BreakPoint®, March 11, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "and earth is only 4 billion, only 3 billion have had life (according to modern science). "

    More like the Earths age is around 4.6 billion, while oldest signs of life being 3.85 billion.

    "Dawkins was wrong, his math was wrong (in "The God Delusion" I believe). "

    Sorry, Dawkins doesn't refer much to the Origins on life in TDG, he might mention it only by name, but doesn't go into any details at all. His book is not very detailed in biology at all, its mostly theological or philosphical rebutalls to the most common justifications for being a theist.

    "Evolution will solve it, nothing else can, because evolution will!"

    No Chris, I say lets stick with the NATURAL explanations, as to go outside the natural means you've gone off onto the supernatural which ceases to be actual science. ID as a hypthesis rests on some unknown, unseen, untestabled designer which can't be critiqued at all directly, a totally unscientific resolution to learning things.

  • Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Many of your predictions are not predictions but simple observations, others have been set up as unfalsifiable.

    Prediction 1: Could mean a common designer.

    Prediction 2: Non-falsifiable, even if you found such "contradictory" hiearchies, you would simply deem them "transitionals" or find another place for them.

    Prediction 3: Forgive me, I have no idea what this is (haha)

    Prediction 4: unfalsifiable, at least the way you have propositioned it. I think that if you found a mammal like bird, then you would simply find some way to explain it through evolution. I think large gaps and explosive varieties of species would be a better test. (Does it pass, oh no!)

    Some are good, but they certainly do not prove that evolution must be true, and the vast majority are not mutually exclusive with ID.

  • Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorange,

    Sorry for the delay, I have been on vacation.

    First, minorities do not have to vote to be slaves, majorities can vote for it, and then minorities can be forced into it. Rightness or wrongness is not based on democracy, you need to provide another source for moral truth, or else abandon moral truth for relativism.

    "All possible scenarios when used in an infinite or substantial time allotment effectively become = 1."

    We have not had infinite time, the universe is at most 15 Billion years old, and earth is only 4 billion, only 3 billion have had life (according to modern science). 3 Billion years is infinitely smaller than infinite time (or near infinite). Dawkins was wrong, his math was wrong (in "The God Delusion" I believe). The math just doesn't work like you want, unless you can come up with an infinite universe (please do, and then submit your ideas to the meta-physicis society so that you can recieve the nobel prize).

    "Well, no not quite."

    Point taken, "Everything in the realm of biology" my point still stands, that making a statement like this kill scientific enquiry. Any holes that are in evolution, you just say, "Evolution will solve it, nothing else can, because evolution will!"

  • Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prediction 23: endogenous retroviruses. Since endogenous retroviruses are heritable, their presence should mirror common descent, nested hierarchies, and the phylogenentic tree.
    Potential falsification: endogenous retroriviruses which do not fit into the same nested hierarchies and patterns of common descent as the phylogenetic tree.

    Prediction 24: genetic change. There should be sufficient genetic change to support the existence of macroevolution. When we compare the genomes of various organisms, we should see that genetic change traced out in the same pattern as the phylogenetic tree. Genetic change should be heritable and largely irreversible.
    Potential falsification: if genomes were highly resistant to change, or commonly and typically reverted to wild type, macroevolution would be difficult to explain.

    Prediction 25: the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that as one looks at older and older sediments, one should see organisms that have increasingly primitive (in the cladistics sense of the term) features.
    Potential falsification: essentially modern organisms all the way back in the fossil record, or alternatively, no pattern of primitive and derived characteristics chronologically.

    Prediction 26: speciation. If speciation is an ongoing process, we should see various degrees of speciation, from fully-interbreeding populations to partially interbreeding populations to populations with reduced fertility or complete infertility to completely genetically isolated populations.
    Potential falsification: if all species were genetically reproductively isolated and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be difficult for macroevolution to be true.

    Prediction 27: speciation rates. Current estimates, based on the fossil record and mutation rates, are ~3 million years for complete reproductive isolation, on average. Rates of speciation and of morphological change should be as high as or higher than that observed in the fossil record.
    Potential falsification: rates of morphological change that are much slower than that observed in the fossil record.

    27 Predictions that had the potential to falsify ToE and did not because the prediction was proved to be correct.

  • Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prediction 18: molecular suboptimality. There should be evidence of suboptimal design at the molecular level, such as the large amount of the human genome that seems to serve no known function. E.g., the human GDPH gene. There is one functional GDPH gene, and at least 20 non-functional copies of the gene.
    Potential falsification: if the genomes of all organisms were efficiently designed, with only the DNA required and no more (no pseudogenes, no nonfunctional tandem repeats, "junk DNA." - even if latest findings indicate that perhaps up to 20% of what we though was "junk" isn't that still leaves a lot of "junk")

    Prediction 19: protein functional redundancy. There should be many genes that are common to all organisms regardless of whether they are needed. I.e., there should be genes in bacteria that also appear in humans even though they serve no function in human beings. Further, organisms which are related should have similar ubiquitous genes, and less closely-related organisms should have less closely-related ubiquitous genes.
    Potential falsification: no pattern of relatedness to ubiquitous proteins. A chimp cytochrome c protein should be no more closely related to the human version than the rat protein, or the douglas fir protein, or the yeast protein, or the e. coli protein.

    Prediction 20: DNA coding redundancy. The same pattern of relatedness should show up in the DNA coding for ubiquitous proteins. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their DNA sequences should be for ubiquitous genes.
    Potential falsification: there should be no pattern of relatedness to DNA sequencing for ubiquitous genes, or a different pattern that is unrelated to the pattern for the amino acid sequence for the protein.

    Prediction 21: transposons. Since transposons are random, but heritable, there should be a pattern in transposition that follows the phylogenetic tree.
    Potential falsification: transposons that do not fit into nested hierarchies, or fit into different nested hierarchies from the phylogenetic tree.

    Prediction 22: redundant pseudogenes. There should also be a pattern among pseudogenes that follows the phylogenetic tree.
    Potential falsification: since pseudogenes are rare, it should be extraordinarily unlikely that the exact same pseudogene would appear in two distantly-related organisms. Therefore, pseudogenes should fit into the same nested hierarchies established by the phylogenetic tree. If there were no pattern, or a different pattern from that required by common descent, common descent would be falsified.

  • Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prediction 11: Past biogeography. We should not find the same taxon on two landmasses that separated before the taxon evolved (excepting, of course, later imports)
    Potential falsification: ape fossils in South America, elephant fossils in Australia.

    Prediction 12: human and ape fossils should not be found in Australia, South America, or on remote islands which would have been inaccessible to ancestral apes at the time they evolved.
    Potential falsification: human, H. erectus, Australopithicus, etc. fossils in Australia, the Americas, Antarctica, etc.

    Prediction 13: Anatomical parahomology. There should be no anatomical features that are not derived from previously existing structures.
    Potential falsification: an existing anatomical structure that cannot be derived from more primitive, ancestral features. A horse with wings would be a falsification, since there would be no anatomical features of any horse that could be modified into wings (no ancestors of horses have six limbs).

    Prediction 14: molecular parahomology. All proteins currently in existence should show statistically significant similarities to proteins with more primitive, core functions.
    Potential falsification: proteins that are not related to any previously existing proteins (i.e., "new" proteins which are not derived from any previously-existing proteins). Also, derived proteins that are more deeply rooted in the phylogeny, i.e., older, than the core proteins they derive from.

    Prediction 15: anatomical analogy. If two unrelated organisms evolve an analogous structure, that analogous structure must be explicable in terms of modification of ancestral structures in both organisms.
    Potential falsification: gills in aquatic mammals or birds. There are no structures available in immediate ancestors from which gills can evolve. Evolution can't "skip steps."

    Prediction 16: molecular analogy. If two different organisms evolve analogous molecular structures, those structures must be modifications of previously-existing structures in both organisms.
    Potential falsification: no cases of molecular analogy, where all organisms that perform a function with a particular structure all use exactly the same structure; i.e., no convergent evolution.

    Prediction 17: anatomical suboptimality. Since evolution can only work by modifying pre-existing structures, there should be many examples of suboptimal evolution.
    Potential falsification: a mammal or reptile with no optical blind spots. Evolution cannot got back and "fix" a suboptimal design after the fact, since the ultimate use for any structure cannot be "known" by evolution.

  • Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prediction 1: a universal genetic code.
    Potential falsification: a finding of multiple, unrelated genetic codes.

    Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species.
    Potential falsification: organisms that violate nested hierarchies, such as feathered platypuses, non-vascular plants with seeds, birds with mammary glands, insects with placentas.

    Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies.
    Potential falsification: independently-derived phylogenies which do not converge, or which produce wildly divergent hierarchies.

    Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record.
    Potential falsification: fossils which do not fit into nested hierarchies, such as a mammal-like bird or an insect-like starfish.

    Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates.
    Potential falsification: a negative correlation between the stratigraphy and the phylogenetic tree. E.g., mammal-reptile intermediates older than reptile-amphiban intermediates, or reptile-amphibian intermediates older than proterostome-deuterostome intermediates.

    Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges.
    Potential falsification: a vestigial feature that was not functional in an ancestor. Examples: snakes with vestigial wings, insects with vestigial backbones, primates with vestigial horns, mammals with vestigial gizzards.

    Prediction 7: Atavisms (e.g., living whales with legs, living humans with tails)
    Potential falsification: the same as the falsification for anatomical vestiges.

    Prediction 8: Molecular vestiges (e.g., the broken human gene for ascorbic acid).
    Potential falsification: essentially the same as for anatomical vestiges and atavisms. A finding of pseudogenes for chloroplasts in any metazoan.

    Prediction 9: embryonic features of ancestors, such as traces of gill formations in amniotes.
    Potential falsification: embryonic features that do not exist in ancestral lines, e.g. nipples in reptile embryos or bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos, leg buds in teleost fish.

    Prediction 10: Present biogeography should reflect common descent.
    Potential falsification: elephants on remote Pacific islands, amphibians on remote islands, Antarctic or Australian indigenous cacti.

  • Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I understand, vacations and family time are important.

    “democratically vote for slavery to be legal,”

    We I suppose (technically speaking) yes, we could. But that in itself doesn’t make it any more ethical than being written in some sacred holy book paritally condoning it either. Society progresses and it’s truly hard to imagine in a democratic vote that people would willingly subject themselves to be slaves and stick around for it to unfold for it to happen. Regardless of legality on slavery or other laws, people at least to the smallest degree or as a minority will commit illegal acts.

    “and possibly scientific truths”

    In regards to epistimology, we only have ‘science knowledge’ and not science ‘truth’, but I get your point. In regards to the REPS, they are elected to make not just to decide on behald of the people, but to decide on what’s in the best interest for all parties involved. In that regard the laymans don’t know what’s good for them as generally most can’t distinguish pseudo science (ID) that argues from incredulity, isnt’ tested, isn’t a science theory at all and from actual science which is. The Dover trial was interesting Chris, as Behe had to admit in court that under his looser definition of what is deemed scientific, Astrology alongside ID would be deemed science. I don’t know about you, but that isn’t not progress.

    “No you are confusing the point made. It is not about probability, it is about possibility.”

    But Chris you’re ignoring that over a hypothetical infinite (or substantial amount of time) all outcomes become no just possible, or even plausible, but rather certain. All possible scenarios when used in an infinite or substantial time allotment effectively become = 1.

    “you said that evolution can explain everything that it doesn't explain now.”

    Well, no not quite. Evolution as a model can be used for predictable, falsifiable tests, but it won’t explain everything in every realm of science, it will mostly be relevant to biology. Just b/c we don’t have certainty in a detail of the theory (PE or Gradualism) doesn’t mean the model/theory can’t be used to produce results. A good science theory is strengthen by the number of correct predictions it makes, its essentially reaffirming the veracity of the model. I’ll list some predictions the theory has passed above.

  • Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorange (Part 1)

    Sorry this is late, I was on vacation.

    "You see, in a democratic process where all parties are represented, a group of people would never have elected to have themselves as slaves in the first place, and that is how I was referring to the Democratic process being able to address laws and adjudication."

    Well, we could democratically vote for slavery to be legal, and if we were truly democratic then it would be legal, even if the minority voted against it. You did not answer the assertion.

    "You’re mixing up the system of laws and how our REPS decide what’s best and how our REPS in academia decide what’s best on our behalf. We don’t have a ‘true democracy’, but rather a representative one and as so our REPS are those that make such dire choices."

    No, I know the difference, and I know what we have. But you mixed up what I was saying, I was challenging your assumption that Democracy gets to decide what is right. Whether it is representative or not, the REPS should not ever go against certain moral truths (such as they should never legalize rape) and possibly scientific truths. As you vociferously defended yours.

    "Democracy is the best system yet offered, if you have a better idea go ahead speak up."

    Again, you missed my point. I said, "Who decides that Democracy is right?" Because you seemed to think it was so good. From our perspective Democracy is great, but from Fidel Castros, or from Bin Laden, well not so great. Does you or my or 50 people's saying it make it right? No, there must be something else. It works (well sometimes, I'd say most democracies end up being miserable failures if you do not have resources and a stable economy) but that does not make it right.

  • Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorange (Part 2)

    "Well the odds of that happening are essentially zero and equal as a single group of people (blacks) voting to self elect themselves as slaves, agree?"

    No you are confusing the point made. It is not about probability, it is about possibility. You avoided the direct answer. I said "IF we did elect to eat babies, would it be good?" If you say no, then democracy is not good for deciding truths, if you say yes, then you speak for yourself. If you say nothing (as you basically did) then you are just stalling.

    "What crack are you smoking? We challenge every single science theory with every single test it undergoes!"

    Again missed the point, you said that evolution can explain everything that it doesn't explain now. Well that is like saying, "The flat earth theory can explain everything it is having trouble with now" It kills scientific inquiry. I am not making this stuff up, it just so happens to be obvious, irrefutable, objective truth. (I don't smoke either)

    "Desire? Does matter coalesce and 'desire' to produce energy via fusion? No, it doesn’t. It’s just matter working according to fundamental laws."

    Am I seeing this? You have created a brand new theory (or one I have never heard of)! That there is a fundamental law that says that nonliving matter will become living and subsequently evolve into higher life forms. This is not even a theory, it is a humungous assumption. It is equivalent to saying, "Life came into being, because life comes into being." Well isn't that nice... I am going to need a full outworking of your theory (I am sure it will take many many books to write, so send me a link to buy them off of e-bay). It is one thing to say that certain elements under certain circumstances ungergo fusion, but it is incomprehensibly another thing to say that elements become alive and then naturally evolve.

  • Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ”Well this seems to kill all scientific inquiry, "unless a theory can NEVER explain something, then we should not challenge it"

    What crack are you smoking? We challenge every single science theory with every single test it undergoes!
    With every piece of evidence is found, it has the potential to change or destroy any theory. When DNA was discovered in the 60’s it had the potential of destroying the evolutionary theory. Instead, it has filled in many of the gaps of knowledge and lead to more tests to validate evolution as a unifying theory.

    In all realms of Science, we opt for a natural explanation as this is one least cluttered and most pure and useful as it produces falsifiable evidence, where as using ‘god done it’ isn’t falsifiable, doesn’t explain anything or answer anything. For this reason we use theories that unify and explain things best, and thus far as far as the diversity of life goes, evolution is the leading tested theory. If you have another that equally explains all evidence, is falsifiable then start forming hypothesizes, running tests, follow the scientific method, publish you results and have them torn to shreds under peer review. And then IF it makes it out, it can and should be taught in public schools. But you see, the ID folk don’t want to go that route, rather they’d rather have their totally untested and unsupported idea injected directly into the science classroom.

    “I believe it is silly and down right crazy to believe that matter just turned into life which just so happened to desire to REPRODUCE and EVOLVE. (Talking about origins not Natural selection).”

    Desire? Does matter coalesce and 'desire' to produce energy via fusion? No, it doesn’t. It’s just matter working according to fundamental laws. Wouldn’t such laws be governed by god and regardless would therefore he’d be the indirect cause of how and why matter does what it does in the end anyway? Of course, so what exactly are you crying over? if the god makes all the laws from the get go, then anything derived from it is therefore directly or indirectly credited to his working.

    You’re right, ID isn’t limited to Behe, but his and its loose standards it uses to be considered within the science is used outside of Behe. FYI, Behe doesn’t doubt common ancestry (including humans) he only suggests that god/ID worked his magic somewhere in the process. As soon as a biological system is reproducing then Natural Selection can act on it and thus evolve.

  • Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333,

    “when slavery was acceptable by the majority that means it was morally good?”

    Well no. From the slave owners point of view all was well, but from the other perspective from the slave this was an obvious injustice. You see, in a democratic process where all parties are represented, a group of people would never have elected to have themselves as slaves in the first place, and that is how I was referring to the Democratic process being able to address laws and adjudication.

    “And if the majority thinks that ID should be taught instead of evolution then that means it should be so? “

    You’re mixing up the system of laws and how our REPS decide what’s best and how our REPS in academia decide what’s best on our behalf. We don’t have a ‘true democracy’, but rather a representative one and as so our REPS are those that make such dire choices. If people hold elections and their REPS choose not to back ID, then the people have spoken via our democratic republic process. In Dover, ID was shown to not be Scientific and the only way to bring such an idea into Science would be to loosen the standards that Science works under, which as I mentioned earlier would result in other pseudo sciences like Astrology also being coined as scientific. Surely you can see the problem when the Science stands are being brought so low to incorporate ideas like Astrology as being Scientific.

    “Well who said democracy was right?”

    Democracy is the best system yet offered, if you have a better idea go ahead speak up. “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill.

    “And what if we democratically decide that eating babies is good?”

    Well the odds of that happening are essentially zero and equal as a single group of people (blacks) voting to self elect themselves as slaves, agree?

  • Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ive been gone for the weekend so this is gonna be along one, sit back and get some popcorn....

    to Agentorange: too comment on this:

    "No, we shouldn’t. We should strive to teach what is backed by facts and supported by evidence so we can be sure we are progressing our knowleedg for humanities sake. It’s not a matter of ‘forcing’ anything, it’s about teaching the otherwise ignorant kids who can’t tell the difference from science from psuedo science on what the facts and evidence supports. "

    Thats what i have been saying all along, give them the facts and only the facts not hearsay and conjector, the problem comes when teachers, administrators, legislators, parents and politicions try to force incomplete and inadequate "facts" upon the the students. Another thing tho is that you expect me to believe that we shouldn't give the kids all the information on a subject just because they may make a judgement about history, i don't buy that... However, we make the same judgements about their ability to determine when is a right time to have sex in school, we give them birthcontrol and condoms in schools because we believe that "they are going to do it anyway" right, well the problem lies there, we know certain people are going to kill them selves should we provide the gun and bullets, yet we don't think that these children can make an honest interpretation of the data they are provided. pish posh....

    To star2, no prob, i didn't read any of the back and forth after i posted because i got busy with the family and easter, but it was a great weekend...

    To Howard, welcome back, i am not sure why responces got erased again, and i didn't get to read any of them to respond but i hope you read my post, God has laid you and your anger heavy on my heart, I hope you don't mind me praying for you.

  • Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorange,

    "Well, we live in a Democratic Republic, which is a form of representative consensus governance, so the majority certainly does make the decisions."

    So, by your thinking, when slavery was acceptable by the majority that means it was morally good? And if the majority thinks that ID should be taught instead of evolution then that means it should be so? What if the majority would rather discriminate against a certain minority? I know you don't really believe what you have said. (I hope not).

    "I would say both have areas of strong evidence..."

    Certainly, however I can test gravity right now, just by dropping a penny. I cannot test evolution right now. That was my point.

    "We democratically decide and adjudicate our laws and punishments..."

    Well who said democracy was right? And what if we democratically decide that eating babies is good? Does that make it good? If not then your idea about democracy deciding right and wrong is virtually worthless.

    "What ‘holes’ do ID folk speak of that are legit, tested, and show evolution can’t now or ever explain?"

    Well this seems to kill all scientific inquiry, "unless a theory can NEVER explain something, then we should not challenge it" I always get people tell me that if you assert God you kill science, well I'll be... Besides that ID is not limited to Behe. I am an ID proponent, because I believe that God did create us, whether evolution was the 'vehicle' or not. That makes me 100% Intelligent Design. I believe it is silly and down right crazy to believe that matter just turned into life which just so happened to desire to reproduce and evolve. (Talking about origins not Natural selection).

  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Howard

    God laid it on my heart that I needed to apologize to Slacker for deleting your comment to him. I tried to do what is right when God convicts me of the need to do it.

  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    star2, (yeah, it's me again, the person the Christian Post doesn't like very much)

    I noticed you did the right thing in your comment to Slacker, which surprised me. I have to respect what you did. Thank you.

  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333,

    Since you're falling in love with the idea of ID acting like it's science, perhaps you should read something from the trial regarding Behe and under HIS definition how 'ID is science, so would Astrology.'

    "In order to call intelligent design a "scientific theory," he had to change the definition of the term. It seemed the definition offered by the National Academy of Science, the largest and most prestigious organization of scientists in the Western world, was inadequate to contain the scope and splendor and just plain gee-willigerness of intelligent design.

    So he devised his own definition of theory, expanding upon the definition of those stuck-in-the-21st-century scientists, those scientists who ridicule him and call his "theory" creationism in a cheap suit
    .
    He'd show them. He'd come up with his own definition. Details aside, his definition was broader and more inclusive of ideas that are "outside the box." So, as we learned Tuesday, during Day 11 of the Dover Panda Trial, under his definition of a scientific theory, ASTROLOGY would be a scientific theory". (my emphasis added)

    Source: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Chris333,

    "Who gets to set the rules?" .......the majority? Certainly not”

    Well, we live in a Democratic Republic, which is a form of representative consensus governance, so the majority certainly does make the decisions.

    “Dwen's original statement was that evolution has more evidence than gravity”

    I would say both have areas of strong evidence and like all theories have small details to yet be worked out, or more fully explained, but they don’t negate the theory itself but rather shed light on how exactly the processes work.

    “You have turned eating babies into what could be called business proposition. Eating babies alive is not morally wrong it is only possibly societally disadvantageous.”

    So eating kids is a business proposition….sounds like a non sequitur to me. We democratically decide and adjudicate our laws and punishments, so in this sense morality is somewhat relative as it progresses overtime.

    “However I do want to reassert that there is no real way I can know for certain that evolution is what happened.”

    Well the evidence might help. refer to those links I gave earlier).

    “I do believe that holes in the evolutionary theory should be vigorously investigated, and taught in public schools”

    Chris, I am perhaps sure you’re aware the ID proponent’s arguments are born from arguing over gaps of ignorance or personal incredulity and failing to understand how evolution would address such issues in the first place. I.e., the arguments Behe had were wrong and shown to be only by closely examining he evolutionary evidence for his instances of IC. What ‘holes’ do ID folk speak of that are legit, tested, and show evolution can’t now or ever explain? All the ID camp has going for them is to 'teach the contreversy' as ID was deemed creationism and not scientific b/c it's not falsifaible.

    ID is nothing more than neo-creationism and Dover showed that without a doubt. You have to wonder, if ID has so much evidence for it, why didn’t Dembski, Myers and other DI clowns stand up for their pet idea in Dover.

  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange,

    I will begin by addressing your position on morality. First, you have not given a system of morals, you have given a system of societally beneficial prospects. You have turned eating babies into what could be called business proposition. Eating babies alive is not morally wrong it is only possibly societally disadvantageous. But what does it really matter if something is societally disadvantageous? The only reason we should care is if we really care about society as a whole, or for the most efficient propagation of our species. But you cannot force someone to accept this view.

    Regarding evolution. Yes I said that I do not necessarily deny evolution. Dwen's original statement was that evolution has more evidence than gravity. And you are right in quoting me that I do not believe it makes even slight difference. However I do want to reassert that there is no real way I can know for certain that evolution is what happened. You said yourself that the average layman cannot test evolution, and the theory of evolution is one of the more complex fields of study. I am in about as good a position to say, "Evolution is not true!" as I am to say, "Evolution is true!" Either way, my literal faith in the Bible is unchallenged. I do believe that holes in the evolutionary theory should be vigorously investigated, and taught in public schools. For that I applaud the ID crowd, because they have challenged evolutionary theory, which is always a good thing.

  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333,

    I'll try to answer your questions on moraltiy and perhaps the notions of 'why be moral in absense of god'. To be sure many animals are also moral, symbiotic and altruistic in their nature, but this brings an interesting question to be pondered. Why would animals need to be moral at all? The answer might suprise you. As it turns out, being moral is benefiical to many species survival.

  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Slacker,

    “as for your contention that we shouldn't teach both sides of an issue, i don't agree with that at all, teach both sides either the cival war, the holocaust or WW2 in general and let the facts speak for themselves, rather then forcing only one side of an argument on unsuspecting kids...”

    Are you listening to yourself? Why does it sound logical to allow or ‘let the kids’ decide on the efficacy on matters for which they aren’t educated in? Does it make sensee to teach both alchemy and chemistry and then let the ‘kids decide’ especially when they lack the basic understanding of how chemistry works?

    Does it make sense to teach both sides that the holocaust did and didn’t happen and merely leave it up to the kids whom are ignorant on histoy to decide if it really occurred? No, it doesn’t sound very intelligent to lead our kids on that all the evidence for the holocaust are somehow equal to the virtually non existant evidence against it.

    Don’t you see the inherit harm in leaving something that is a well known fact (holocaust) and why it’s not in our best interest to give them (the uneducated kids) the impression or false information that it didn’t occur? Should we teach both sides about the moon landing too then?

    No, we shouldn’t. We should strive to teach what is backed by facts and supported by evidence so we can be sure we are progressing our knowleedg for humanities sake. It’s not a matter of ‘forcing’ anything, it’s about teaching the otherwise ignorant kids who can’t tell the difference from science from psuedo science on what the facts and evidence supports.

    In science, theories live and die accordinging to how much evidence and supportive testing upholds it. The end goal is deducing what epistomological ‘truth’ is in all matters, we are here to make a dent in the universe so to speak.

  • Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333,

    “Evolutionary theory and Gravity are not equal, they are not equally testable.”

    I wasn’t trying to compare the 2 in how easily they are for laymens to test and observe, after all if that were the criteria then no realm of Science should be trusted by you as you’re arguing you can’t demonstrate validation experiments. However, this stance isn’t logical, as you personally can’t also conduct Quantum, Atomic and other theories, which requires labs and sufficient technology to test.

    My comparing the 2 is relative to how both rely on observable, testable evidence, which produces falsifiable testing which can strengthen or weaken the efficacy of the model/theory (this is paramount in science and progress) No, you can’t readily test all the aspects of gravity either though as you without sufficient technology and math can’t personally demonstrate ‘Relativity’ and yet this principle is nearly a century old and well understood and accepted. You would feel a fool to argue that although you can’t test the relativity aspect of gravity that some how it’s void right? Same goes for all other realms of science.

    I noticed earlier you mentioned you have no issues with evolution and that it in itself doesn’t negate god and that I would absolutely agree with as the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

    “Either way, I am fully convinced that we did not arise from incredible chance and non-living matter randomly+natural selection”

    Well, if god created all the fundamental laws and their derived forces then the answer would be no, there is nothing really random about it. Matter doesn’t behave in a completely random outcome, it obeys laws and so at the very foundational level, indirectly or directly you have an all-encompassing stemming governor. As far as Natural Selection, it too isn’t random at all, only mutations are random, but the processes and how it breaks down work according to again natural laws, so again it too can be directly or indirectly attributed to the governor.

  • Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    star2,

    If a post contains offensive, or abusive language in it, then you never need to apologize for flagging. Dwen can complain all he wants, but do not let it get to you. I don't have much patience for whiners and name-callers.

    Dwen said, "You nothing but an annoying pest."

    We have to remember that young people are reading these posts too, and they don't need this kind of ugly language, they get enough of it in schools.

  • Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Slacker

    Slacker

    correction: "... Chris333 at 11:23pm." should read " ... Chris333 on Fri at 11:23pm."

  • Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Slacker

    Dwen posted a comment on Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:01 pm in response to your last post to him at 3:02 pm. I was the only one who read it. The content of his post to you was in line with and in the same spirit as his post to Chris333 at 11:23pm. .

    I flagged his post. Please forgive me for flagging it and not allowing you a chance to read what he wrote you. I was out of line here especially since it was not directed to me.

  • Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You're immoral and I want nothing to do with you."

    Still waiting on that system of morals... I mean you have already said that anyone who gets in your business is risking their life... yet you call us immoral...

    "(I want) An end to the constant harassment."

    IRONY, IRONY.

    "I don't want to be your favorite subject anymore. Just leave me alone."

    Who is making who a favorite subject? What self-pity?

  • GMG »
    Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dwen, you can't deny it because you did it. So, then, do you want me to apologize for bracing you with your actions, or what? Because that would require no apology from me. Rather, it seems you owe a lot of people apologies.

    You owe apologies for calling all christians immoral, dishonest, liars, and for personally insulting their religious beliefs. And you CERTAINLY owe EVERYONE an apology for your mass flagging of everyone's comments a couple of weeks ago. And you owe everyone apologies for your disrespectful attitude in general in your treatment of posters on this site.

    Dwen, I don't know why you have such a burr under your saddle, but your angry tirades will never remove that burr. If you are interested in any kind of real discussion, there are a number of people here who would converse with you if you can be civil. But throwing angry, convoluted jabs and insults just turn others away from you. Your choice.

  • Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dwen

    I appoligize for flagging your comments to Slacker.

    I pray that God will remove from your heart and bring healing to you in whatever is bothering you about God and Christians.

  • Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GMG

    The last comment that I made to Dwen that I deleted was "May God heal your tormented soul."

  • GMG »
    Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You haven't really answered my question. Do you categorically deny flagging ANY of star2's comments?

  • Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dwwen

    Yes, I deleted my last comment. There was a reason for it.

  • Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dwen

    Re:It's very obvious that star2 has been flagging my comments and the comments of other people for a long time now.

    How little you know. I don't flag very often. I did not flag the comments the 5 atheists made on the article,"Gospel of Godlessness...". You actually accused CP management for doing it. How little you know.

    Tonight I only flagged you twice. You flagged every comment that I made on at least three articles. You are the one who is out of control.

    Re:When she isn't busy doing that, she is spreading lies about people.

    Not so big boy. You are the liar. Everything I said about you is true. It was all in reference to the flagging rampage you went on Sunday Mar 9.

    Re: I have never seen her write an intelligent comment.

    It is rare you ever say anything intelligent.

    Just about everything you say is wrong, including your opinions about God and how everything came into being and why it is the way it is.

    Your godless evolution fairy tale is only making you look foolish. Only a blind illogical person would buy into that lie. There is not one stitch of evidence for it.

    Re: All she does is harass people,

    You harass the Christians all the time. I am fed up with you refering to my God as the sky fairy and etc. That is why I deleted the comment you made to Slacker.

    I don't care how much time you spent on it.

    You have fed us your hatred for God long enough. I am sorry that you had bad experiences with the Catholic Church you were raised in. If they were hypocrites then I am sorry. If people laughed at you when you were a boy about the religious beliefs you held then I am sorry. The world is cruel. Unfortunately, you have become as cruel as they were when you were growing up.

    You probably enjoy being ugly towards Christians and towards their God. Fine, in the end you are the one who is going to be hurt the most.

    We don't really care what your opinions are. You can spit them out all you want and it will not change a thing. You will not make one convert.

  • GMG »
    Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So then Dwen, are you categorically denying that you flagged any of star2's comments?

  • GMG »
    Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    She didn't flag herself, and I didn't falsely accuse you. Why are you saying she flagged herself, you know better than that. What do you hope to gain by making yourself out to be a martyr?

  • GMG »
    Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dwen

    >>>After you get done apologizing for falsely accusing me,<<<

    I didn't falsely accuse you. You flagged her after she flagged you. Look, she owned up to flagging you and told you why she did it. You don't have to agree with her if you don't want to. But if you are interested in conversing with people, then addressing the issues that come up are part of that.

    >>>It's very obvious that star2 has been flagging my comments and the comments of other people for a long time now. When she isn't busy doing that, she is spreading lies about people. I have never seen her write an intelligent comment. All she does is harass people, lie about them, and delete their comments, not caring how much time was spent on them. I never met a more immoral person.<<<

    That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? She doesn't go around flagging people on a regular basis. You must admit that she did own up to flagging you. If she admitted it to you, don't you think she would admit it if she flagged someone else?

    Everyone has their own style of addressing issues. If you're offended by someone's style, address it directly. But making sweeping comments solves nothing.

    And btw, anyone who posts here spends a bit of time typing it up, which is one of the reasons why if you flag someone they deserve an explanation.

  • GMG »
    Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Well now, look at the flagging, could it be that the moral Dwen, who believes censorship is so dishonest, is having a bit of a temper tantrum? Well bob, danny, danny2, first, oldguy, xxxx, yyyy, and all those other letter combinations, if you truly believe censorship is wrong, then it's time you practiced what you preach. If you REALLY believe that you and everyone else has the right to air opinions as they see fit, then you will let others do that, without censorship, no matter what. And if you believe that someone is truly deserving of flagging, then you would own up to it and state the reason why. At least, that is the moral, honest, and MATURE thing to do.

  • Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dwen or Bob or whatever...

    I see you are trying to make and effort to have a dialogue rather then your previous namecalling and i respect that you are trying to understand the difference so i will comment on what you posted...

    My point is that if we create this idea that we evolved from nothing (regardless of evolution, that is not the argument), but the idea that we evolved from nothing means that we are worth nothing therefore if we evolved from a slug we don't need to understand that life is worth something more then nothing. As for God creating us is that we know that we have a loving creator that wants to have a relationship with us thru his son Jesus Christ and their for we don't need to fall for this idea created by the evil one that Life is worthless.

    Calling God a sky fairy does annoy me but it isn't my point to change your mind but if i happen to help adjust you into someone with a bit more compassion then that is a first step, i have noticed from your post that you seem very angry, i don't know if that is from a interaction with christians in your past but i can guarantee that not all christians are evil, some may not follow Jesus and his commandments but most do and alot are misrepresented in the media, so don't judge all by the actions of a few...

  • Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:56 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I often think of all the millions upon millions who wouldn't have died to a hideous, tortured death, had it not been for atheism. I don't bash atheists for it and make fun of them. I prefer being civil.

  • Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:06 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Well Dwen,

    If anyone was promoting a magical sky fairy with a wand, and if anybody was invoking magic, then you would have a somewhat valid point. But seeing as no one is doing that, you do not have a point, and I see no reason why a Christian should engage in dialogue with you, because we are not saying what you are claiming. I wouldn't go up to a Muslim and say, "Oh don't you feel childish for believing that a giant turtle has created the universe!" Why? (This may be hard for you to understand, I am not sure...) Because Muslims do not believe that a giant turtle created the universe! It would make me look like someone who does not know what he is talking about if I assumed as much, because I would be unable to overcome my own predjudices.

    So in the exact same way, I suggest to everyone here not to engage you in dialogue, as we are clearly talking about completely different things, and you are on the wrong blog.

  • Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ""If we lessen human worth thru evolution,"

    So if humans were magically created by a sky fairy, they would be worth more?"

    What in your eyes they are worthless, all human life is worlhless, sorry Pal but life isn't worthless even thou you may feel that way...

  • Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Don't you have something better to do, or do you just hate yourself so much and are so miserable that you want to make everyone else miserable. I mean come on you went around to all the articles and put in some nonsense about the management of the Christian Post, I mean really come on.

    But anyway, i know my creator loves me, even tho you do know want love your life, i feel a great deal of sadness or you that you are so increadibly angry that you must exert that anger on other people...

  • Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well to get back on topic i had a very good conversation with a friend of mine about this very article and what it meant, i discussed with him how i think that when we put animals on the same footing as humans we lessen human worth, that that is what this type of ideal wants to do. If we lessen human worth thru evolution, animal marriages and such we only make less hope for those that are lost. Only in Jesus Christ do we have everylasting salvation and the hope. We are more then just animals we are loved by our creator, we are loved by Jesus Christ.

  • Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/reproductive_history_writ_in_t.php

    agentorangex, you're a fan of PZ. So am I.

    Don't forget to say nice things about the preacher man Jesus, the dead guy who performed magic tricks to prove his daddy is the sky fairy of the entire universe.

    The management of the CP is very sensitive. They want everyone to love and worship their invisible friend"

    Do you have any idea what you are taking about or are you just so angry at christians that you don't care to have a decent debate....

  • Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ""to yyyy or bob or what ever..." yyyy was one of at least 4 atheists who were banned. The CP is terrified of atheists. Not just me. They want all atheists to leave.

    Slacker, you are a creationist. That's all the evidence I need. Creationists know nothing about evolution. If they understood it, they wouldn't be creationists. Since you don't understand it, you are totally unqualified to say anything about science education.

    The "one sided view" you don't like is a pro-science pro-evidence view. The other side you want is your total ignorance of science. Don't expect me to believe that a creationist knows anything about science. Creationists don't even know what science is. "

    And you have no idea about a good debate...

    Agentorange, my argument wasn't about science education but some how bob turned it into that, i am married to a teaching family, wife, mother in law and sister are all teachers so i understand the one sided teaching that they are required to do. I don't agree with that, as for your contention that we shouldn't teach both sides of an issue, i don't agree with that at all, teach both sides either the cival war, the holocaust or WW2 in general and let the facts speak for themselves, rather then forcing only one side of an argument on unsuspecting kids...

  • Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange,

    There is a big difference between me dropping a ball and seeing if it does actually fall, I can even see how long it takes and make simple measurements if I am not sure, and testing in a labratory where only scientists can make any judgement. Evolutionary theory and Gravity are not equal, they are not equally testable.

    I have said numerous times (it is funny how often I must repeat myself) that evolution is literally of no consequence to my faith. If the proofs you have given me are actual proofs, then what does it mean? NOTHING NOTHING AT ALL, it means you are right, and it means I am right. Either way, I am fully convinced that we did not arise from incredible chance and non-living matter randomly+natural selection. I am fully convinced that God did create us, and that the Bible is literally true.

    This post is not, "Atheist debate blog" however, and I am assuming that is the reason so many "atheists" were banned. I am also pretty sure that you can thank your good friend danny for everyone getting banned, his inflammatory remarks and tendency to flag every single person on CP is crazy, and I am sorry if you had to suffer for this, but rather than take it out on CP, why don't you think and take it out on him? He changes names every hour and thus how is the CP supposed to know who he is an who he is not? Many of the atheists who come on here actually are just here to pick a fight. Some aren't, but many are. I don't mind, I enjoy debating, but that is not what this blog is for, and there are many young viewers here that do not need all that garbage. I have been on several atheist blogs and they look like a bunch of this garbage for the most part, well if you want to make fun of Christians and revel in circular arguments then go there, everyone will agree with you. (Not you, but any atheist who is here for that purpose)

    To all the decent people,

    Ignore or flag any person who is incessantly saying this kind of garbage.

  • Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
    I'm also very familiar with their evidence: "It's in the Bible."”

    yyyy,

    You have given me info that supports common decent. That was not my argument. Neither is this the argument of the I.D. camp. Thank you anyway!

  • Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “…there is a person currently posting on this site who was recently banned for flagging every single post on the CP.”

    Asdfg, zxcvb, aka danny boy?

  • Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:41 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Dear CP Admin / Christian brothers and sisters,

    as some of you may all ready be well aware, there is a person currently posting on this site who was recently banned for flagging every single post on the CP. This person is not worth the time spent writing in contention with. He/she is, however, worth our prayers. Please avoid getting into a discussion with this person, as it will only lead to a temporary shutdown of all posting.

    To subject:

    You know who you are. There is absolutely nothing terrifying about an atheist or an intellect. Go attend to your poor self esteem elsewhere.

    "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rent you." - KJV, Mt. 7:6

  • Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris,

    Speaking of testing evolution daily in the labs here is something quite recent....

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/reproductive_history_writ_in_t.php

    http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063

  • Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Slcaker,

    Know this first, in Science we teach according to what the evidence supports. In science it’s not logical to teach not supported pet ideas, this goes for any and all things. This is why we don’t equally teach alchemy vs chemistry, or astrology vs astronomy, or flat earth vs round earth. With such well-supported concepts in science it’s a disservice to the student who know nothing about science to being with and can’t distinguish pseudo science from actual evidence based science.

    Should we be obliged to teach both sides regarding the holocaust or the cival war? No, we shouldn’t. We have the facts and we know what occurred and so to teach that the Jews weren’t nearly exterminated or that the south won the civil war are wrong, as they aren’t supported.

    Having lost in court in Dover in 2005 and having the judge define ID as a reframing of creationism and not being science in any way the ID proponents have gone the route of public relations campaign by resorting to an upcoming movie to give the impression that there is some actual debate about the validity of evolution, when in fact this is false. Some 99.98 of all scientists globally support and accept evolution as a main unifying theory. I’ll cite that if you’d like.

    After the lost in Dover, the ID crowd have now moved to ‘teach the controversy’, as if there were controversy with the actual theory itself. To be to sure there are genuine debates based on evidence over ideas within Evolution such as Gradualism or Punctuated E Equilibrium or the very fine lines between mammal like reptiles and mammal like reptiles. But there is not a genuine debate on the theory itself.

    Chris333, use some deduction, he's likely in the 18-35 age group, or somewhere near there as this is the largest growing section for non-believers. I don't so how his age is relevant though.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links