Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit King Dave's column >>

KING DAVE

King Dave "An atheist is something I am, not something I do" ~ Christopher Hitchens
Articles Posted: 77  Links Seeded: 292
Member Since: 2/2010  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Sam Harris ~ "Yahweh Belongs in the Mass Grave of Mythology."... Why Are Atheists So Angry?

Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:48 PM EDT
religion, islam, christianity, atheism, free-thinking
By King Dave
Advertise | AdChoices

 

 “Atheist” is a term that should not even exist. We do not, after all, have a name for a person who does not believe in Zeus or Thor. In fact, we are all “atheists” with respect to Zeus and Thor and the thousands of other dead gods that now lie upon the scrapheap of mythology.

A politician who seriously invokes Poseidon in a campaign speech will have thereby announced the end of his political career. Why is this so? Did someone around the time of Constantine discover that the pagan gods do not actually exist, while the biblical God does?  Of course not. There are thousands of gods that were once worshipped with absolute conviction by men and women like ourselves, and yet we all now agree that they are rightly dead. An “atheist” is simply someone who thinks that the God of Abraham should be buried with the rest of these imaginary friends. I am quite sure that we need only use words like “reason,” “common sense,” “evidence,” and “intellectual honesty” to do the job.

So many Gods have passed into oblivion, yet the sky-god of Abraham demands fresh sacrifices. Wars are still waged, crimes committed, and science undone out of deference to an invisible being who is believed to have created the entire cosmos, fine-tuned the constants of nature, blanketed the earth with 20,000 distinct species of grasshopper, and yet still remains so provincial a creature as to concern himself with what consenting adults do for pleasure in the privacy of their bedrooms. Incompatible beliefs about this God long ago shattered our world into separate moral communities—Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.—and these divisions remain a continuous source of human violence.

And yet, while the religious divisions in our world are self-evident, many people still imagine that religious conflict is always caused by a lack of education, by poverty, or by politics. Yet the September 11th hijackers were college-educated, middle-class, and had no discernible experience of political oppression. They did, however, spend a remarkable amount of time at their local mosques talking about the depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise.

How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that jihadist violence is not merely a matter of education, poverty, or politics? The truth, astonishingly enough, is that in the year 2006 a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: They don’t know what it is like to really believe in God.

The United States now stands alone in the developed world as a country that conducts its national discourse under the shadow of religious literalism. Eighty-three percent of the U.S. population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead; 53% believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. This is embarrassing. Add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44% of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking.

Nearly half of the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. This dewy-eyed nihilism provides absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization. Many of these people are lunatics, but they are not the lunatic fringe. Some of them can actually get Karl Rove on the phone whenever they want.

While Muslim extremists now fly planes into our buildings, saw the heads off journalists and aid-workers, and riot by the tens of thousands over cartoons, several recent polls reveal that atheists are now the most reviled minority in the United States. A majority of Americans say they would refuse to vote for an atheist even if he were a “well-qualified candidate” from their own political party. Atheism, therefore, is a perfect impediment to holding elected office in this country (while being a woman, black, Muslim, Jewish, or gay is not). Most Americans also say that of all the unsavory alternatives on offer, they would be least likely to allow their child to marry an atheist. These declarations of prejudice might be enough to make some atheists angry. But they are not what makes me angry.

As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population. The plain truth is this: There is no good reason to believe in a personal God; there is no good reason to believe that the Bible, the Koran, or any other book was dictated by an omniscient being; we do not, in any important sense, get our morality from religion; the Bible and the Koran are not, even remotely, the best sources of guidance we have for living in the 21st century; and the belief in God and in the divine provenance of scripture is getting a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

Against these plain truths religious people have erected a grotesque edifice of myths, obfuscations, half-truths, and wishful thinking. 

 ****By  Sam Harris (born 1967) is an American neuroscientist and best-selling author. He is the author of The Moral Landscape, and The End of Faith which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction****

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • King Dave's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Free Thinkers, Heated Debate
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (21)
King Dave

With little popular support, I sincerely thank everyone who reads, votes for, and contributes their thoughts.

  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:00 PM EDT
Chickenmann

Thanks King Dave!

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 12:29 AM EDT
King Dave

You are welcome Chickenmann!

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 12:51 AM EDT
Reply
Dave-1970278

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:07 PM EDT
AK Luahiwa

Does Sam really think if religion was absent war would fade away with it? Ridiculous! Religion has been used as a tool over the years by greedy individuals for their own pleasure. Take religion away and these greedy people will find something else to use as a tool for war.

    Reply#3 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:15 PM EDT
    King Dave

    Does Sam really think if religion was absent war would fade away with it?

    No. He answers this question in all his debates. They can be found on youtube.

    It is no surprise the poorest, most violent places on earth, are also theocracies., such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan. Afghanistan has the lowest infant mortality rate, and the lowest life expectancy for women on Earth.

    Religion is not the cure for poverty, starvation, repression and violence, it is the cause.

    • 4 votes
    #3.1 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:55 PM EDT
    AK Luahiwa

    Religion is not the cure for poverty, starvation, repression and violence, it is the cause.

    I disagree, take religion away and you'll still have these problems, greed, famine, disease and violence, they are inevitable. Religion itself isn't a cure, it is a tool used by man, some use it for good reasons and some use it for bad, what it comes down to is the individual and what they choose to do with it.

      #3.2 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:28 PM EDT
      King Dave

      Religion is not the cure...

      I disagree, take religion away and you'll still have these problems, greed, famine, disease and violence,...Religion itself isn't a cure

      ?

      Please watch this 1 minute video: Christopher Hitchens Lessons: Cure For Poverty http://youtu.be/EZ0K0rEsR0M and tell me what you think. Thanks.

      • 3 votes
      #3.3 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 11:09 PM EDT
      Chickenmann

      I'd like to put my two cents in for what it's worth (whaddaya know- it's worth 2 cents!). I personally feel that religion has been the most convenient method for controlling populations, but I don't think it's the only one. And although religion may cause some- even much of the poverty in the world, I'd argue that the same poverty would exist with or without religion. People will always seek to take advantage of their fellow man- sadly I think this is an intringent part of human nature. I don't mean each and every individual, mind you, but if you get a large enough group together, group psychology says it's going to happen.

      The problem, I think, lies in the same shadowy place where "God" hides in our minds. In that place where we are ignorant, where we are unsure, where we don't have answers, we seek the counsel of others and depend on their advice. One on one this is great, but when groups of people seek that, not having any desire to actually learn, but rather desiring to just have somebody else have the answers, this is where a "religion" is born. Note, I said religion, not god. That's because the religion can be based on almost anything- a single personality (as in fascism (sp)), or the "will of the masses"(as in communism). When the people of Russia revolted and took over the country in the Bolshevik Revolution, the people who took over abolished religion, but underhandedly inserted a new one- the religion of "THE PEOPLE". An individuals rights, freedoms, well being, happiness did not matter unless "THE PEOPLE" willed it.

      Doesn't that sound just like religion?

      Just a thought...

      • 4 votes
      #3.4 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 1:02 AM EDT
      Future History

      I don't understand the apathy in your view AK. Fine - should religion go away, something else may fill the void of greed and power. Is that any reason to keep nuturing a known purveyor of greed and power? That's like saying "why fight terrorism, when for each terror mastermind killed there is another to take its place". It still needs to be viewed as the threat that it is - and religion has proven itself over the centuries to be a threat because of its power to manipulate. It's not necessarilly the subjects that are the threat, it's the ideology and its leaders that are driving the bus that is the threat.

      • 3 votes
      #3.5 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 10:43 AM EDT
      JackOL-1666973

      take religion away and you'll still have these problems,

      True, but is that any reason to maintain ignorance. Belief in witches went away and civilization still has problems, but I hardly think that is an argument for believing in witches.

      • 3 votes
      #3.6 - Sun Aug 7, 2011 2:00 PM EDT
      Reply
      Live and let live please

      I will preface this post with the warning that I myself am an atheist.

      I find myself agreeing with some of the things stated here, while vehemently disagreeing with many of them. The idea that people truly believe that the world is 6000 years old? Okay, yes that is somewhat embarrassing. The fact that atheists are the most reviled minority in the US? A sad thing that I find not all that hard to believe. The fact that religious intolerance fuels a great deal of violence? A sad, true fact.

      The idea that we should write off god as some sort of imaginary friend? Hell no! I do not believe in god, but does that give me the right to dismiss those who do as delusional? No! That's showing the very same intolerance that fuels these wars in the first place! Religion is not the source of violence, intolerance is. If all people, regardless of religion or lack thereof, were completely content to allow others to believe whatever they like, then religion would never become a source of violence in the first place.

      Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean that there are not people out there who's lives are improved by their faith, regardless of what they believe. And there are some people out there, not many I admit, that still believe in Zeus or Thor. And you have no more right to mock their beliefs than anyone else. And if they do believe in Zeus or Thor, why do you care? What possible harm does that do to you, so long as they respect your beliefs and don't try to impose their views on you, what is wrong with believing the god of thunder or the king of mount olympus?

      Sorry Sam, but your intolerance is not helping, it is just making you part of the problem. If you were merely advocating for the tolerance of atheism and fighting against the unfair demonization of atheists, I would be behind you all the way. But you aren't ending hate, you are just spreading it around.

      • 3 votes
      Reply#4 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:27 PM EDT
      Future History

      No! That's showing the very same intolerance that fuels these wars in the first place! Religion is not the source of violence, intolerance is.

      You are ignoring the fact that it is the religious dogma itself that instructs the believer to not tolerate others outside that religion. Why do you think the radical Islamists are so intent on killing infidels? If you are embracing the ideology the way it was intended for you to embrace, then tolerance isn't an option, and your argument falls apart. If there is a religion whose dogma claims to be the one true relgion, but has no problem with your fellow man engaging in other false religions instead, I am not aware of it.

      Atheism, on the other hand, does not inherit this trait. The only reason Sam Harris is intollerant of religion is because religion has proven itself to be extremely detrimental to humanity over the centuries, because of its intollerance and ignorance. However, it is ridiculous to imagine an army of atheists seeking to kill non-atheists simply because they are non-atheists. We atheists most certainly do go on the attack when religious politicians push for our freedoms to be infringed upon, or for our children's education to be dumbed down with intelligent design nonsense, or our public spaces to be desecrated with religious dogma - but our attack is never violent or intended to physically hurt or control our fellow man. That is a world of difference from the history of religion and how it has advanced its agenda.

      • 4 votes
      #4.1 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 3:02 PM EDT
      Live and let live please

      If there is a religion whose dogma claims to be the one true relgion, but has no problem with your fellow man engaging in other false religions instead, I am not aware of it.

      Yes, I think Buddism and Shintoism both feel this way, but I could be wrong on that.

      I can sort of see where you are coming from, and I admit that I take issue with any religion that espouses that all non-believers burn in hell, or anything to that effect, but again, that is a subset of religions. I'm not saying how large or small that subset is, but it certainly does not encompass all religions. One can not speak of Islam or Christianity as if they are a single religion. There are plenty of tolerant muslims and christians. I don't think it is fair to claim that religion as a whole is a problem.

      And yes, Atheists very seldom try to use violence to physically hurt or control our fellow man, but then, it is very hard for a minority to do that anyway. But regardless, there are atheists out there who show just as much intolerance as followers of religion. They tend to display this intolerance verbally, through mockery, implying that religious people are somehow delusional or the like. I strongly disagree with the use of religion as a motive for violence, but that doesn't excuse intolerance.

      • 4 votes
      #4.2 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 3:15 PM EDT
      Future History

      There are plenty of tolerant muslims and christians. I don't think it is fair to claim that religion as a whole is a problem.

      I know many of them myself. My guess is that if they had their druthers, they would rewrite the dogma to elimate the hateful parts that they are not embracing. However, can you imagine what the outcome of that move would be for those devout Christians and Muslims who would consider that to be the most unholy of sins? That is a situation that simply has no possibility of succeeding. So, a better question is why would anyone want to adopt the label of Christian or Muslim, if they have to rewrite the dogma to suit them? Why not just love your God, continue treating your fellow man with respect, and brand yourself a humanist instead of joining ranks where you truly do not belong.

      • 4 votes
      #4.3 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 3:32 PM EDT
      Live and let live please

      So, a better question is why would anyone want to adopt the label of Christian or Muslim, if they have to rewrite the dogma to suit them? Why not just love your God, continue treating your fellow man with respect, and brand yourself a humanist instead of joining ranks where you truly do not belong.

      I can see where you are coming from here, but I think there are plenty of Christians who feel that it is the ones who show intolerance who are misinterpreting and misusing the dogma to suit their intolerance. Perhaps they want to call themselves Christian because they believe in the teachings of Jesus, but disagree with several other Christians who feel differently about tolerating other beliefs.

      They shouldn't be stripped of their identity as Christians if they identify as such simply because they wish to be tolerant of other religions, that's punishing good behavior. Let's face it, many of the central tenants of Christianity are pretty good ideas: 'love thy neighbor', 'though shalt not kill', these sort of things are really good principles. Most of the problem comes from small details, people so focused on the tiny points of contention that they miss the big picture.

      What I'm trying to get at is that religion as a whole is not the problem here. I think there are very few people in the world who completely obey 100% of what is written in the bible, so why should being tolerant of other religions automatically disqualify one from being Christian?

      • 3 votes
      #4.4 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 3:42 PM EDT
      Future History

      The bible is such an ambiguous document that it has resulted in the formation of hundreds or thousands of splinter groups. Even within the individual splinter groups there remains controversy of the interpretation of the bible, and people frequently will move on to other groups because of it. It is packed full of stories that involve everything from love and devotion to rape and slavery - all condonned by God himself, if you believe what is written.

      People need to think critically about what they are signing up for by embracing any mainstream religion. If there is a God, it is certainly not the least bit concerned about any one particular person more than any other person that has been born in the history of earth, living or dead. Assuming such is ludicrous, but one thing that all Christians are in agreement with is that the most important thing in your life should be God - even more important than your husband/wife, children, family, friends, etc. - those who have actively participated in shaping who you are and have helped you get where you are today, and are literally responsible for your being here period - as opposed to the entity that will not show itself, and will not speak to you no matter how much you try and speak to it. Evidence of its shameless disregard for humanity is seen every day in the form of human suffering. There are thousands of kids in Afirca dying as we speak from malnutrition - and I guarantee you that they are praying for a miracle for them and their families to stay alive - but they will perish nonetheless.

      More importantly, instead of blindly accepting the afterlife in heaven as eternal bliss, people need to really think about whether eternity is something worth looking forward to under any circumstance. It is ETERNITY - nothing eternal could possibly remain blissful. Yet "eternal bliss" is the carrot guiding the relationship with an Abrahamic religion. Would it not be far more satisfying to know that there is an end to your consciousness, and that your matter and energy will recycle and go on to fuel more life of different forms?

      • 2 votes
      #4.5 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 4:46 PM EDT
      Live and let live please

      I understand where you are coming from, and I agree to an extent. Your reasoning is part of the reason that I am an atheist in the first place. But what I don't feel the need to try and convince others that their belief is wrong. If the prospect of an afterlife and heaven is of some comfort to those kids in Africa dying of malnutrition, something to comfort them in their final hours, then who am I to tell them that no, there is no happy ending waiting for you, just the end of life. I don't believe in heaven or hell, but I can certainly understand the appeal, and I see nothing wrong with one wanting to believe that there is something more after you die. I'm not saying ignorance is bliss, but if a person's faith helps comfort them, and helps them to come to terms with the terrible things that happen in life, then I say more power to them.

      • 1 vote
      #4.6 - Thu Aug 4, 2011 5:00 PM EDT
      Reply
      frenchjr56

      I have found over time that many of those who do not believe in the scriptures have reason and many are based on misinformation or presumption of false knowledge thought to be taught in the Bible but on an in-depth study what was once fabled or hearsay is found to be the 'truth'. The person named Saul in the Bible had a zeal, being schooled as a Pharisee and wanted to remove the believers of the new faith called 'The Way' from off the face of the earth. He took part in raids and persecutions of the first-century Christians, whole-heartedly doing so thinking he was doing a righteous deed for God as he had been taught, having been schooled in the teachings of the Law. But as the Bible account shows Saul was in for quite an awakening. The account written in Acts 9: 1-30 tells of the conversion of Saul to Christianity, a vessel chosen by Christ Jesus himself to go unto the nations and to kings and the sons of Israel( verse15).

      The things I read here are the same. Religion has abused the Bible and the anger felt by atheists is sound. I agree with it. But then the other is not of Bible truths. not what Jesus taught his followers while he was here. You have lumped everyone into ONE group when you say 'Christian'. It is said there are thousand of differnt sects but none are teaching the same thing. Then people claim that the Bible must have several different ways to learn about God. But think about this for a moment; Jesus taught ONE WAY, while he was here. God chose one nation and gave them a set of laws. He did not go choosing many nations with different laws. Remember the God of the Bible is one Jehovah/Yahweh. He sent his son to earth for a work that was taught to his followers. When the last of those close apostles died (John) a apostasy set in and all types of different teachings came in. Split from one, to many.All claiming to be 'CHRISTIAN'. But veering away from the truth of the Bible, teaching the tormenting of the dead in hell, a heavenly reward for all at death, the rapture, the immortality of the soul, the trinity; teachings that are not found in the bible and were not taught by Christ Jesus nor his apostles. Churches and religion teach these thing and forment them from pulpits for the centuries not giving anyone a choice, just as the Pharisees and Saduccees in Jesus' day. and yes, even violence, which the Bible is truly against. We as true Christians are taught to 'love' our neighbors, we would not go to war against them. See the truth about that scripture is shown. How could a 'christian in one part of the world pray to God and go to war to kill another person of the same faith who prayed to the same God? That makes no sense. but this went on and goes on during wars. Catholic priests pray for soldiers before they go into battle on either side; praying to the same God for safety and victory. False religion has abused this book and many people have turned there backs on God due to it. But God has not turn his on them. The Bible is not the culprit, those who have misled the 'flock' are. The scriptures are for teaching and setting things straight, Apostle paul said this at 2 Timothy 3:16,17. After what happened to him he was ready to go and preach to the nations and suffer the things he had brought upon these same Christians. He was now in their shoes. Read the Bible for yourself. Not because of what you think you know. SELAH!

        Reply#5 - Fri Aug 5, 2011 1:56 AM EDT
        Chickenmann

        frenchjr, let me start off with a single biblical verse, and then we'll get into some more stuff.

        (John 10:30) 30I and my Father are one.

        That's one of the basic, fundamental bases of Christianity, isn't it? Of the bible for that matter? God's will is Jesus's will. Once you accept that, you must accept every bloody old testament murder, torture and and slaughter of men, women and children (all the way to infants!) was done, or at the very least condoned, by Jesus's will. To quote Mark Twain:

        It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies

        Maybe it's time you start questioning this bible? Maybe it's time you start asking the questions that matter- like how a book so full of god sponsored murder, rape and slavery is in any way a good moral compass for your life.

        • 5 votes
        #5.1 - Fri Aug 5, 2011 2:49 AM EDT
        Reply
        frenchjr56

        Yes, I agree with that scripture. The murder and torture and other things you have listed were not sanctioned or done by God. Have you done as have many others, taken a verse out of context and run with it trying to view it with 20th century eyes? Read Isaiah 55:8,9. and do just as you have told me to do. Ask why these things have been done? I have been told that rape has been one of the things in the Bible that has people riled up. There are accounts; two that come to mind: Dinah; daughter of Jacob by Leah. She may have been six years old when Jacob returned to Canaan and settled at Succoth, she having been born at Haran. Young Dinah unwisely made it a practice to visit the Canaanite girls at Shechem. On one of these visits she was violated by Shechem the son of the Hivite chieftain Hamor. Shechem fell in love with her, and Dinah remained in his home until avenged by her full brothers Simeon and Levi. (Genesis 34:1-31) Some contend that Dinah must have been just a child when she was violated. However, it must be borne in mind that before coming to Shechem, Jacob built a house and booths at Succoth, indicating that he resided there for some time. (Genesis 33:17) At Shechem he bought a tract of land and apparently became established there for awhile. All of this, together with the fact that Shechem fell in love with Dinah, "the young woman," would argue that Dinah, though still young, was not a mere child at the time of her association with Shechem.-Gen. 33:18,19 ; 34:12. Years later, Dinah, with the rest of Jacob's household, came into Egypt at the invitation of Joseph.-Gen.46:7,15.

        The other incident recorded in the Bible was Tamar, the beautiful daughter of King David and full sister sister of Absalom. (2 Chronicles 3:9) Her oldest half-brother Amnon became infatuated with her and through craftiness succeeded in violating her, though she resisted him. Absalom consoled her, kept her in his house, and two years later avenged Tamar by having Amnon murdered.-2 Samuel 13:1-33.

        Both of these particular accounts; there are more, if read as many do, without any background 'reasoning' it will not sit well with the reader. Remember the words that Christ Jesus spoke at John 6:41-71. While speaking those words he stumbled many who did not understand him and those who didn't, stopped following him. Their 'reasoning' would not allow them to stay and learn what the truth of his sayings were. Many things he said the apostles did not understand at first but they stayed and wanted to know. They asked as you mentioned the questions about what was being taught them. The Bible itself says at 2 Timothy 3:16,17: "All scripture is. . .beneficial for teaching and setting things straight"...OK so why were these incidents recorded? This is my question. The apostle Paul helped at Romans 15:4: "For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope."

        Jehovah God had throughout all the dealings with his people warned them about fraternizing with 'the nation' round about. They were not to form any type of covenant with them or marry into or give anyone of their children in marriage to foriegn nations. Dinah knew she was not to become friendly with the Canaanites, Her choice against good council ( 1 Cor. 15:33), we today have an example of the results of a bad choice. In Tama'sr case, it all came as the result of what the Bible calls consequences. King David and Bath-Sheba sinned and the turmoil that followed was called by God ( 2 Samuel 12:9,11) Jehovah God caused turmoil for David the rest of his natural life for what he and Bath-sheba did. The result of their sinning. SELAH!

        Just as we are paying the price of our parents who did not listen and not eat off the tree in the garden. We have been "growing old and dying " ever since. SELAH!

          Reply#6 - Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:07 AM EDT
          Leave a Comment:
          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
          Newsvine Privacy Statement
          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
          FUN STUFF:
          • Leaderboard |
          • E-Mail Alerts |
          • Top of the Vine |
          • Newsvine Live |
          • Newsvine Archives |
          • The Greenhouse |
          COMPANY STUFF:
          • Code of Honor |
          • Company Info |
          • Contact Us |
          • Jobs |
          • User Agreement |
          • Privacy Policy |
          • About our ads
          LEGAL STUFF:
          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com