User Profile: Alex


Member Since: May 11, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [3] January 22, 2015 at 10:44am

    I wholeheartedly stand with this baker who refuses to make the cake. The Christian who wants to force the baker to put “God hates gays” on the cake is threatening the free exercise of religion of the baker. The same freedom that allows you to put “God hates gays” on a cake is the same freedom that allows the baker to refuse to do that for you. That is the natural check and balance on religious freedom. You can’t force others to act for the benefit of your own conscience.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 20, 2015 at 1:16pm


    Actually there are, among some native groups, certain markers of Middle Eastern origin. Of course, that doesn’t prove anything, because it could be someone else. The studies you speak of, however, examine mitochondrial DNA which, while they can confirm certain Asian genetic markers in the current population of Native Americans compared with Asians living today, are not able to tell us the full genetic makeup of the population living anciently. We do not have DNA samples from the period for either Native America, or Asia for that matter.

    Mitochondrial DNA studies can be misleading if you don’t know what you’re looking at. For example, in studies of a fairly closed Icelandic population, of which a full genealogical record is known, mitochondrial DNA studies of today’s population weren’t able to relate the current population to known ancestors living in the 1800’s, even though the lineage is known with absolute certainty. Whole genetic markers were gone. Now if we are able to lose genetic information with comparing mitochondrial DNA of known ancestors separated by only 100-200 years on a closed island, it stands to reason that we don’t know squat about 1000-2600 years ago. Look, if someone came along on this thread and told me that mitochondrial DNA studies proved the Book of Mormon story, I wouldn’t believe it either. The bottom line is, the hypothesis can’t be proven or disproven by the methods used.

  • [1] January 20, 2015 at 12:24pm

    And that, my friend, is the right answer! Archaeology has no power to make anything real. It can only sift through clues and give us bits of information, and on occasion, corroborate certain details. 99.99999…% of everything that has ever happened in the world cannot be archaeologically confirmed or refuted.

    You have hit on the key to it though. There are other ways that we can know that the teachings of the Bible are true, but that requires us to commune with God or live it. Like you, my historical credibility is in Jesus Christ and His teachings. Jesus says Moses exists and that is good enough for me.

  • January 20, 2015 at 11:47am

    That archaeology cannot prove or disprove the existence of Moses doesn’t mean that Moses doesn’t exist, or that he does. We do have an account that says he lived, which is more than we have for most people. Whether you choose to believe that record is up to you. While I would urge them to continue to search for clues, people should be careful about making their judgment solely on what archaeology can or can’t prove. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Archaeology can only test what it can find and what is available, which is very little, especially for someone who has been dead for roughly 3500 years. It isn’t a lie detector test. People may say, “If they had lived they would have left behind such and such.” Again, you’re assuming you know what archaeological remains would have to remain for him to have existed. You can’t do that. I have a twelfth great grandfather for which there is absolutely no archaeological proof that he ever existed, which means he doesn’t exist, because the archaeology doesn’t lie, right?

    As a Mormon, I must admit to being a bit amused at this debate. I’m often derided for believing the account of the Book of Mormon, which I’m well aware cannot currently be proven or disproven by archaeological evidence. Most often, those that deride that belief are evangelicals who, nearly without fail, boast about how wonderfully archaeology proves the Bible, as if confirming place names can confirm everything that happened there.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] January 16, 2015 at 12:31pm

    I don’t always agree with Lesbian Packing Hollow Points, but she said something important that I think bears repeating. She said, “Nothing gives Christianity a black eye quite like the actions of Christians.” It’s true. No outside influence can quite do the damage an insider can do. The actions of 1 can cancel out the 9 in the eyes of the non-believers. Now, you may respond and say, “Well, he’s not really Christian then.” Well that’s nice and all, but the damage is still done and the credibility of the brand is hurt. Remember, the boy claimed he saw Jesus when he lied, and then when he recanted, he said all we needed was the Bible.

    Look, I’m not bringing this up for any other reason than to affirm belief in Jesus Christ, and the basic teachings of the Bible. I believe it. You believe it. The problem is, they don’t believe it yet, and this doesn’t help. All followers of Christ need to be honest in all their dealings. We should never lie about or fudge our spiritual experiences. Experiences with God are very real, but they are called into question whenever we lie, embellish, or exaggerate a claim. Do not try to improve on the truth, because it will seem more sensational or faith promoting. Don’t ever fake a spiritual gift, because you think it will make you look more spiritually advanced. Those who really had experiences with God get the black eye, and sure enough, the atheists come out saying, “There there!”

  • [1] January 16, 2015 at 11:42am

    So was he lying then. or now?

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] January 15, 2015 at 10:59am

    Pope: “You cannot insult the faith of others.”

    Uh, you wanna bet? Look, I don’t believe in denigrating the faith of others to promote your own. I have experienced enough in life to know that a person cornered in their faith will not be converted in any meaningful way. However, the Pope used the word “cannot”, and that is a completely different animal. Just because you shouldn’t insult the faith of others doesn’t mean you should not be allowed to. Big difference.

    Take the Paris Terror incident. My religion and sense of common courtesy compel me to not depict images of Muhammad. It is an unenforceable courtesy that I have always afforded Muslims. That said, as soon as those Muslims begin to threaten the life of someone who does insult Muhammad or Islam, that is when I stand with those issuing the insults, be they Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Atheist. The point of having the freedom to blaspheme someone else’s religion is precisely to counter threats of different religions and philosophies against each other. It’s religious self-defense. Under the law, there are no sacred cows, not even for atheists. It’s funny. One day, I had no intention of posting any provocative picture of Muhammad. The very next day, I wanted to blaspheme and insult Muhammad to high heaven, as well as shock everyone that thought killing for insulting Muhammad was ok. We don’t need to insult the faith of others, but we need to be able to do so.

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] January 14, 2015 at 11:55am

    If I post something that offends someone, if that person comes up to me privately and in a friendly and nonthreatening manner explains it to me, and my deepest principles aren’t offended thereby, there is a good chance I might just apologize and take it down. I’m not a bomb thrower, and don’t believe we should be unnecessarily provocative in what we communicate. We can be kind.

    That said, if someone comes to me and threatens my life on account of what I have posted, there is not a chance in Hades it will come down. You can be absolutely certain that I will double down on that post with a smirk and an upraised finger. It never pays to be belligerent with me…ever!

    There should NEVER be a payoff for people who issue death threats on account of free speech. Only the polite and the gentile should ever get consideration. When people give in to violent threats, they validate the modus operandi of these miserable children of Hell. Screw ‘em.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 13, 2015 at 11:13am

    I love it that they’re not backing down. Good on ya, Charlie!

  • January 8, 2015 at 5:24pm

    This is encouraging.

  • [4] January 8, 2015 at 3:54pm

    If they have to give the death penalty to prevent prophet worship, then it is hard to conclude anything but that they worship Muhammad already.

  • [1] January 8, 2015 at 11:08am

    If images of Muhammad are banned out of fear of inciting worship, then why is photography permissible in Islam? Perhaps it is because he really is worshipped, and out of feigned humility and lip service to bans on idolatry, they ban his image. The problem is, this prohibition enforces a reverence he does not deserve, being a man. I don’t know about you, but you only ban the images of those things or people who are considered gods to begin with. Otherwise, what is the difference between an image of Muhammad and me? Why can’t I issue a fatwa on your life if you depict my image in a less than flattering way?

    Responses (1) +
  • [9] January 8, 2015 at 10:24am

    That’s true. They might as well worship him. For heaven’s sake, if Muhammad’s actions are worthy of emulation as Islam clearly teaches, and if it is against Muslim law to criticize the prophet (death penalty), how can I conclude anything but that they do worship him? What difference does it make showing an image of Muhammad, if he is treated like God anyway? What makes them think they don’t worship him just because they hyperventilate over not making an image of him?

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] January 6, 2015 at 10:19am


    Exhibit A: the Jewish Historian Josephus.

  • [1] January 5, 2015 at 1:06pm

    Were you raised by atheists?

  • [9] January 5, 2015 at 12:48pm


    It ends up being that far underground because there has been a lot destruction, building, and rebuilding on that site. Remember, Jerusalem has been continuously occupied for thousands of years. With our modern machinery, we are able to rip out foundations when we build something new. We often take it for granted that that is how it is done. Through much of history, when they weren’t able to excavate and get down to bedrock, they would often just build on top of the remains of the previous structure. After 2000 years, there is going to be some digging to do!

  • [8] January 5, 2015 at 12:15pm

    Why? Perhaps to keep your interest, barber2. It’s obviously attracted enough interest for you to comment.

  • [1] December 30, 2014 at 5:43pm

    The problem with “feminism” is that it IS treated like a monolithic entity by most people. The idea that there is this collective imaginary friend that is responsible for all advances for women to which I must curtsy to avoid being called a woman hater is a joke. Too many people who believe in “feminism” want to claim that everything that is good for women came from this nonexistent collective consciousness. Never mind that “feminism” is a moving target that becomes whatever you want it to be, to advance whatever agenda you want it to fit. As for me, I choose to blaspheme all of it. I don’t owe “feminism” a thing, because it doesn’t exist. Those suffragettes of the 1800’s trying to get woman the vote had nothing in common with those of today who go by the name of “feminist”, no matter how much they want to claim solidarity with them. In fact, I’m sure they would be horrified. As for me, I learned how to treat women from my Dad, not Gloria Steinem, and he taught me well.

  • [1] December 30, 2014 at 12:04pm

    That’s actually not a joke. A few years ago, instruments were indicating that Mars was indeed experiencing global warming. I saw an article on it. Those darn Bushes and Halliburton! :)

  • [4] December 30, 2014 at 10:40am

    It’s the long lost grave of Marvin the Martian. His PQ36 Explosive Space Modulator backfired on him.

123 To page: Go