A central teaching of orthodox Christianity is that the Bible was inspired by God and is without error. Many sincere Christians voted for President Obama and have different political views than me.

Since you find the New Testament “in many ways an excellent guidebook for being a good human being,” you may enjoy reading my translation of Martin Luther’s translation of Levi/Matthew the Tax Collector’s original Greek account, which persuades his fellow Jews to believe in Yeshua as the promised Messiah.

That way we can get pretty close to what Jesus actually said and did, not just speculation about what He would have taught and preached.

Wiley - very well said.

Sweeping generalizations is a great description of Dale's comments, especially when he refers to anyone who he disagrees with. Since his life and educational expertise appears to be engineering, this piece, written by an engineering professor regarding Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", might be interesting. But since it challenges McDowell, particularly saying that he errors in use of the sources he cited in his book, Dale will not acknowledge that McDowell could have made significant mistakes if not misrepresentations, but that Hazen is a liberal non-historic Christian, a non-Christian, humanist, secularist, or a Democrat. Maybe a damned Democrat.

Sorry here's the link. http://users.iems.northwestern.edu/~hazen/McDowellRebuttal.html

The illogical leap made would be even if the writer is all those things, it doesn't mean he's wrong. Attack the messenger not the message (ad hominem). It's so much easier to just call someone a [insert label] even if the label doesn't apply, than to deal with the facts of the matter.

If your beliefs are so strong and true, why bother attacking other people? What does attacking people who believe differently than you have to do with recovering from serious illnesses?

I cannot speak to Christianity. But, there is NO archaeological evidence of anything in Genesis ever happening. There are tales in other ancient writings of a group of about 700 people escaping Egypt. Some scholars believe this is the story of Exodus. But we're talking archaeology here, not religion. You can't prove or disprove religion. By the above logic, any archaeological find of any ancient rite proves any religion. And please stop grouping Judaism and Christianity together. They are two different religions.

I'm not sure why I am bothering to respond, because it appears you've reached your conclusion without evidence.

But for the record, Aviva is correct.

According to William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, neither biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events or personalities of the Mosaic era. Nor is there any direct archaeological proof that Abraham ever lived.

There is no archaeological evidence to support many of the claims of the Christian bible. For example, Matthew's account of the slaughter of the innocents has no reliable support in the archaeological record. Nor is it recorded in Josephus.

And for the record, both the Qu'ran and Hadiths contains historical accounts of the activities of Muhammad which correspond to historical places and events.

Finally, the Pali canon contains an historical account of the life of the Buddha which corresponds to historical places and events.

To assert that Christianity and Judaism are the only two religions that contain historical facts is simply erroneous.

Dale: you misrepresent thermodynamics. Maybe you dont understand it. More likely you are choosing not to. If you are looking the unverise as a closed system, you need to look at the whole universe over the whole of time. If entropy (the motion of molecules) is decreasing in one part of the universe, that does not mean it isn't increasing elsewhere in the universe. It really has to do with the transfer of heat into other forms of energy. You are misusing science inappropriately.

Another misrepresentation: Big Bang theory says absolutely nothing about the actual bang. There is not a lot of actual evidence at this time for what happened then, so science does not pretend to understand what cannot be supported by evidence. There is an enormous amount of evidence in support of the Big Bang model (what happened after the bang). Because that particular model does not answer every question does not make it invalid or illogical. There is a lot that is not known about how gravity works, but I'm pretty sure if I drop something it will fall.

You misrepresenting science is what is illogical. You are not merely stating your own beliefs, you attack the beliefs of other Christians and whoever you label secularists as inferior to your own. You do this constantly.

Also, the President is a Christian. Not a member of the nonexistant religion you made up.

And the labels you constantly use with attached bad associations are the very definition of ad hominem attacks.

You don't disparage other people's political or religious beliefs? That's simply false. I don't know or care who you think fits these labels of yours, but you constantly disparage "liberals" and "liberalism" and the "left". In this very writing you disparage the beliefs of deism, atheism, secularism, humanism, liberalism, theological liberalism, naturalism, and whoever you think are not believers of what you say is historic Christianity.

Many of these are sweeping generalizations

Sweeping generalizations are ad hominem attacks.

John David,
I think Dale is translating Luther's translation of the Bible as a personal religious exercise and then since it is fresh in his mind will use it as a springboard for discussion on Patch, and only one book, Matthew, at least that is how I interpreted what he said. Perhaps he feells he is helping others this way...different strokes for different folks.

John David,

You point to a really interesting phenomenon. In Matthew 19:21, the standard to follow Christ is "go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Christ didn't require Christians to go combing through historical records or archaeological pits as prerequisites to be a Christian. It could be argued that if a person needs "evidence" in the form of relics and scientific data, then they have no faith.

Supporting faith with "evidence" is a modern phenomenon, as a result of the development of scientific methodology, and is not required by Christ. Anybody who claims different is probably trying to sell you something.

John David, as a Christian I serve my King and believe He meant what He said. Therefore trying to persuade others to follow Him and spend eternity with Him is not a waste of time.

Presenting His story in a new way for today’s readers may cause also fellow Christians to think differently about their faith.

I’m accountable to my King for how I spend my time; leading a balanced life is a challenge for everyone. I realized I was spending too much time arguing about politics, which doesn’t ultimately matter that much.

Cookiepro2 has it right. I was doing it anyway, so I thought I’d do a little extra and share something new for people to ignore, enjoy or throw rocks at.

John has misinterpreted Matthew 19:21. I do agree with him that requiring proof eliminates the need for faith, but disagree that apologetics is a new phenomenon. Surely Matthew intended this as he wrote his account. Our scientific age has made belief harder for some as we understand more about the wonders God has made.

Sometimes looking at a familiar (or unfamiliar) thing from a fresh angle is helpful. Many people go to church regularly but rarely read from the Bible. Others never go to church and also don’t know what the Bible says.

Even fewer understand what it means. No one on earth understands it completely, but with logic and the help of faithful teachers we can discard false teaching.

Dale,

I want to say this as clearly as I can: You have no authority to summarily conclude that I have "misinterpreted" Matthew.

At minimum, Protestantism stands for the proposition that men need no ecclesiastical authority between man and God. Yet you have the temerity to summarily dismiss my opinion without rhyme or reason.

You are not qualified to pass judgement upon my opinions. It's insulting that you believe you do.

Scripture interprets Scripture is one of the main principles of Bible interpretation. I could quote John Wesley, Martin Luther, numerous other Reformers, early church fathers and the Apostles Paul, James, Peter etc. who would disagree with your interpretation.

You also have to understand what else Jesus taught in context before you can apply that passage. As the incarnate Son of God, He knew that was the stumbling block to faith for that particular man. Applying that to everyone is false teaching.

You're right that Protestantism requires no mediator between God and man (the Bible teaches that Jesus is the only mediator - Prophet, Priest and King), but have stretched that beyond the original principle to mean that you can go off with your Bible and misinterpret it as you choose. We need the help of faithful teachers who understand things better than we do.

So yes, I disagree with your opinion, but agree that you are entitled to it.

Dale,

Once again, you assert that I have misinterpreted a passage from Matthew, yet your only support for your opinion is to claim that Wesley et al., would disagree with me.

I find that extremely condescending.

First, you do not have access to the minds of the Apostles or reformers to determine if they would or would not agree with me. Plus, by pointing to the authority of reformers, you're placing a mediator between humans and God. You're violating your own stated tenets.

Second, sola scriptura is not an idea found in the bible. It's a concept you bring to the text as an interpreter. It's also a concept rejected by the Catholic church. Are you so bold to claim the Catholic Church is interpreting the bible incorrectly?

If I seem irritated, I am. I hold a degree in religious studies and philosophy, and am familiar with hermeneutics and and exegetical methodologies. If you're implying that I do not know what the bible contains, you're in error.

John, knowing the Bible’s contents and believing it are two different things. Many unbelieving theologians familiar with hermeneutic principles have tried to deconstruct the Bible, but the Word of God stands despite those attempts.

I mentioned several believing apostles and theologians and could quote many more; no doubt you could quote some unbelieving ones who agree with you, but you’d rather cast doubt than be specific.

I can easily defend the Bible and the historic Christian faith; apparently you have a different belief system. We can agree to disagree; I’m tired of arguing.

Wait, what?

What you said about evolution is about the most illogical and irrational thing you have ever written and that is saying a lot.

Um...evolution and the birth of the universe are quite different topics. Because one particular aspect of the natural world is not fully explained by science due to a dearth of evidence at this moment in time, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that those aspects of the natural world for which there is abundant and overwhelming evidence (you know, like evolution or the Big Bang model) are any less valid.
The reason creationism isn't taught in SCIENCE class in public schools, is because it is not SCIENCE. It is theology that has been dressed up.

Your 'criticisms' are attacks, call them whatever you like. Potato, po-tah-toe.

I'm not commenting on your ideas, and I really am not concerned about what you or anyone else thinks of mine. I am not expressing ideas and am prefectly comfortable with my beliefs. I'm commenting on your use of false information, which you use to criticize/attack people who don't share your beliefs. If you are looking to persuade anyone like me, I would suggest getting your facts straight. Scientific illiteracy is a problem in this country.

BTW, the Big Bang model wasn't widely accepted until 1964 when scientists at Bell Labs measured the cosmic microwave background radiation. Until that time there was not overwhelming evidence for the theory. You see, that's how science works. When the Steady State model (a competing theory) was shown to not be correct it was discarded.

By 1964, the idea of evolution of life by natural selection had been long accepted. Science has not discarded the theory of evolution because there is no contradictory evidence. In fact, there is an enormous amount of corroborating evidence, that continues to accrue as time goes on.

Lots of people of many fiaths don't find scientific evidence threatening to their faith. I am confused by those that do.

One of the four statements in your first paragraph is true: gay people have a right to love whomever they want. The first is doubtful but irrelevant on a horizontal level. On a vertical level it’s pretty serious, though. A “private conversation” with the Creator of the universe that didn’t really happen mocks Him and breaks one of His commandments.

The other two are false and can be proven from the American Declaration of Independence, natural law and the Bible. To do the latter I need to know who “some guy living 2000 years ago” was: Jesus, the apostle Paul, or someone else?

Also mocking, but maybe you don’t really understand why, so I’ll explain it if you’d like. If you ignore this question, we’ll just assume you realize that both the incarnate Son of God who proved it with dozens of miracles and someone who planted dozens of churches that transformed the world 2000 years ago have more credibility than someone who uses a cartoon character pseudonym on the Internet.

A better question to ask would be what right do gays have to redefine the institution of marriage? Traditional marriage and gay sex have both been around as long as civilization has been.

Gay sex has never been accepted as normal behavior until the recent effort of the last few years. Gay “marriage” is not and never will be true marriage, whether our government legalizes it or not. We as creatures do not have the right to redefine something instituted by our Creator.

Dale, where did Jesus condemn gays? What gospel should I turn to for reference? Please point that out to everyone, because I've never found it.

A better question is why society must accept Dale Murrish's definition of 'traditional' marriage based on what he thinks the Creator would like? There is the separation of church and state in our wonderful country which means government should not be beholden to such justification.

Why the fixation on sex? Who cares what adults who love each other do behind closed doors. It's none of my business (or Dale's although he does seem fascinated).

There is an enormous amount of discrimination against gay families and if civil marriage can remove some of it at law, then I'm all for it. All sorts of injustices that had been previously accepted have been removed as society becomes more just. I for one find this a good thing.

Btw gay sex and gay marriage is as perfectly normal for gay people as my relationship is with my wife. This statement of Dales' (about gay not being 'normal') is one of his most antigay and offensive. How awful.

Interracial marriage was illegal not that long ago in many if not all states, and some justified that law based on religious beliefs. Some still believe it is wrong, but the law does not. We are a nation of laws, not a theocracy. Marriage is governed by state laws, and some individual states have provided for gay marriage. If laws against gay marriage are found unconstitutional, all states will need to allow gay marriage. Religions do not have to perform gay marriages, but since marriage is a legal institution in the US I don 't see why if the people and our laws recognize the right of gays to marry, any religion should stand in the government's way. Devoted gay partners are denied many rights and protections that are provided by law to heterosexual couples, which many of us see as unjust under the law. Despite any religious beliefs, this should be only a matter of civil law.

If a majority of Americans and/or their representatives vote for it, gay "marriage" will become the law of the land. I oppose this for many reasons, and if it happens I'll accept it as a civil arrangement.

I'll then defend the right of the minority to practice their religious beliefs in continuing to speak against it, which causes no actual harm to anyone. Watch for a blog post which will elaborate on this further before wasting ink and your stomach lining attacking me, since I haven't expressed my views fully on this yet. Fully expressed, you might not find my position so unreasonable.

Dale,
Take a peek at this.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/traveling-culture/chau1/pdf/donaldwc/3/brochure.pdf
This is my Grandfather. A well known Pastor, Doctor and Theologian.So, I will ask once again. What Gospel did you read that Jesus hates and condemns gay people? Why do you hate them?
Further, have you ever been physically attached for being straight? Spit on? Kicked? Chastised in social media?,well , yes on that one. Denied visitation to your lifes partner?
I will stick with a well known theologian that made the Bible and mental wellness his job over a lay person with defined prejudice not supported by the Gosples.

If you aren't going to fully express something then you shouldn't say offensive unreasonable things like gay people aren't normal and putting "marriage" in quotes because you don't like it. People aren't going to let that sort of garbage slide, and they shouldn't. It is intolerant and obnoxious.

The equal protection for gay families under the law that marriage equality would provide has nothing to do with religion. Nobody has ever suggested forcing a house of worship to conduct gay marriages. It has never occured in any of the increasing number of places where marriage equality is the law of the land.

If your motivation for denying equal protection under the law for an oppressed minority is religion, then save it. You attempting to force your religious views on society by withholding legal protections from other citizens has no place in this country.

My stomach lining is fine, thanks for your concern

In you very first sentence you contradicted yourself, I don't hate gay people, they just suck, right? Like I said, you have not been attacked because of who you are, so your idea that laws protect these people is laughable and ignorant as well.
I will stick with experts who actually study the Bible and make it their lifes work. You still have not told me where Jesus says gays are less then human, as you view them.

Save the sad violin. It's never civil to refer to group of people who are socially marginalized as not normal. That's what you did. It was pretty lousy of you. The kind of attitudes you help propagate encourage gay bashing.

So you say, gay sex is bad because its extramarital, but you would deny these people the right to be married. That is completely unreasonable and illogical.

I could not possibly care less what you think the Bibles teaching on gay marriage is. If that is how you choose to live your life that is your business. You have no right to impose what you think the Bible means upon civil law. If you think the Bible tells you not to do something go ahead and don't do it. Don't have it your church. That would be another reason I would never show up there. You have no right impose your religious views on anyone else.

Hey Daffy, no worries, Dale has no intention of finding the meaning of the Bible. He's one of the people that uses the Bible for convenience sake, to support hate and in the process pushes people away from Christ. It's sad, really.

Llane: I am not worried. We are all protected by the constitutuion. My only concern is that people may think antigay nonsense, or antiscience nonsense is representative of Troy, where I choose to raise my children and have a substantial investment.

Parts of the Mosaic ceremonial Law were abrogated. Read the book of Hebrews.

So you vote for pro-life people on the Susan B. Anthony List? I feel certain you have quoted her out of context, if a "paternalistic" female Notre Dame law professor thinks she would be rolling over in her grave.

Abraham Lincoln said we need to make sure we are on God's side; that's likely what Susan B. Anthony meant. I base my views on the Bible - God's instruction book for life.

I don't vote for anyone on any list but my own.

If you are so certain I misquoted, show me where.

You base your life on your interpretation of the Bible, it doesn't make you right about anything.

President Lincoln was not particularly devout, by the way. That's kind of how people spoke back then.

She said that at the 28th annual convention of the National Womans Suffrage Association January 23-28 1896 in Washington D.C. Check HIstory of Woman Suffrage, Volume 4, Chapter 16.

Ms. Anthony, by the way, was a well known agnostic.