Stephanie Holland
May 19 at 5:11pm ·
  • I find AngeloandJennifer Parisi to be offensive, suppressive, close-minded, ignorant, disrespectful, hypocritical, and childish. For these and many other reasons I am deleting them as a friend and blocking them. In my opinion, it is individuals such as them that give Christianity such a negative image and one of many factors why I myself denounced Christianity.

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Oh darlin, you dont know me at all... in fact the last time you saw me wa, 7
        May 19 at 5:31pm via mobile · · 1

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi was like, 7 years ago??
        May 19 at 5:31pm via mobile · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland No it was more like 4 years I go. However, in my opinion, sometimes it's strangers who notice the most truth in an individual. That's just a thought. Furthermore, based on the evidence I've seen from communicating with you, that does indeed seem to be the case. Perhaps you are just too ignorant and close-minded to see that. After all, I still remember what it was like believing in Christianity and believing that it was the truth.
        May 19 at 5:35pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi oh and btw, thank you for challenging me with your questions and in turn strengthening my faith. All of your questions have caused me to look at what I believe and I know for sure after researching again that it is in fact true. Ill be praying for you. And God loves you whether you like it or not. :)
        May 19 at 5:40pm via mobile · · 4

      • Jim Babb Jr The original post and aforementioned reply wrapped up in an all-encompassing, overly-generalized venting session, based on pre-supposed, non-objective, un-defendible opinions
        May 19 at 6:06pm via mobile · · 4

      • Jim Babb Jr Uber long reply outlining complaints and issues to which there is really no debatable point
        May 19 at 6:11pm via mobile · · 4

      • Sarah Walker Your deleting someone just because their beliefs differ from yours? You and Jenny used to be such close friends. What happened?
        May 19 at 7:22pm via mobile · · 4

      • Stephanie Holland No, I am not deleting someone because of her different beliefs. I would never judge someone based on their beliefs alone. It would be out of character and hypocritical for me to do so. I am deleting them because they do not have the same respect for my freedom of speech as I have for theirs. I do not like people who bring up a controversial topic but are not willing to be considerate of the other side and be open to other ideas. Instead of being simply told that it was not desired to continue the conversation, my comments were deleted and I was ignored. That's not very friendly if you ask me.
        May 19 at 7:28pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland ‎AngeloandJennifer Parisi: I would double check your research. Chances are it was from biased sources that weren't credible or supported by evidence. At least, that's my experience with such research. If you can provided your sources though, I will gladly take a look at all of it and provide feedback. Nothing is more exciting to me than being proven wrong and learning something new so that I can be aware of what is true and correct.

        If that is what you want to believe and if it makes you happy then that is perfectly fine. However, there is a different between a belief and truth. If you're going to claim something is true then you better be prepared to face the facts and look at them honestly and openly.
        May 19 at 7:35pm ·

      • Sarah Walker Okay normally I don't get involved in religious debates because I don't judge and I feel believe what you want because my beliefs aren't changing. But you have presented me with a challenge to prove Atheism to be wrong and Christianity to be correct and I love challenges. Before I begin please do not be mad or see this as me attacking you. I love you dearly as a sister and I will never judge you. ♥
        May 19 at 9:12pm · · 5

      • Sarah Walker Atheism has three major flaws:

        Atheist Statement No. 1 - "Atheism declares it does not believe in faith, that science is the way to truth because it does not rely on faith unlike religion. Science does not rely on faith and therefore cannot be biased."

        Christian answer: Even in science, we still need a certain degree of faith in scientists and researchers since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they are saying is true.

        Unless you can verify scientists' findings one by one for yourself, you will have to accept their "word" at face value. You will have to believe that what they're saying is true. You will have to have "faith" in their words.

        Look. In the past, we've had "scientific errors" committed by scientists. Errors such as scientific facts that were declared as truth but were later found out to be false or in doubt.

        Among numerous examples, one example is found in medical science. For many years, scientists/researchers have always declared that damage to the human spinal cord was permanent and irreversible. This was a scientific fact, established as the truth before.

        However, only recently, this previous scientific fact was proven to be, well, untrue. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate, albeit, in a very slow manner. A lot of people with damaged spinal cords have been able to walk, much against the declaration of their doctors that all hope was lost.

        That science is not based on faith is totally false. Therefore, this refutes the first statement of atheism.

        As St. Francis of Assisi wisely said "Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless.... unless you believe."

        Atheist Statement No. 2 - "Science is based only on purely objective facts, while religion is partially subjective and therefore cannot be purely objective. "

        Christian answer: Science relies on objectivity, and needs to utilize a method called the "scientific method". The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, data-gathering, etc.

        Once science loses its objectivity, or becomes partially subjective, it loses its credibility as a discipline.

        Therein lies the problem. The scientific method does provide purely objective data, BUT scientists still have to "interpret them. Since scientists are only human, the interpretation of the data becomes mixed with personal opinions and become "partially subjective". This cannot be avoided.

        Scientists are human beings with different beliefs, religions, philosophies, and come from various countries and cultures throughout the globe.

        Take for example the debate on the origin of the universe. This major debate has been going on for centuries, and has divided the scientific community into "creationist scientists" and "evolutionist scientists".

        The creationist scientists believe that the universe has order, design, and was created by an intelligent, omnpiotent being, a god. God is the creator of the universe.

        The evolutionist scientists believe otherwise. They state that the universe has no design, has no order and is random. They reject the idea of a god, a creator of our universe.

        And it doesn't even matter who has more numbers on either side. The truth is never based on "majority wins".

        Say for example, my friend and I hid a silver coin inside a box. Now, we make a survey and ask all people around the world if they believe a coin exists in the box or not.

        Even if all people around the world said they don't believe a coin exists in the box, the truth is not affected by their numbers. My friend and I know the truth that a coin does exist because we hid it ourselves! So truth is not based on majority opinion.

        Atheist statement number 2 is therefore false.

        Atheist Statement No. 3) "Science is better than religion because it relies on an objective method - the scientific method. This method produces truth because it is based on objective data, experimentations, logic, etc. Religion does not use an objective method and is based on opinion, speculation, etc. It lacks "scientific proof", on "miracles" in the Holy Bible."

        Christian answer: Science does rely on an objective method, but by what authority does the "scientific method" produce truth? By what authority does science possess when it says we must believe science because it utilizes the "scientific method"?

        I mean you cannot state that science is an authority of truth simpy because it uses the scientific method. It's like saying "I therefore conclude that science produces truth because it uses the scientific method."

        By what authority?

        How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it's "scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"?

        The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.

        "We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."

        Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)."

        Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.

        I would have to do all the experiments to come to that conclusion. Other than that, I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them and tested them are not lying to me. That is my point.

        You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of truth, simply because the only way to prove science as the truth is to use the "scientific method"! The logic is circular.

        And yes, the miracles in the Bible have been verified by both atheist (for objectivity) and theist (God-believing) scientists as true historical events. Events such as the Exodus from Egypt, David slaying Goliath, parting of the Red Sea, etc. were tested and researched using modern scientific methods. Watch "Secrets of the Bible" at Cable TV's "Discovery Channel".

        At a different cable channel, underwater cameras showed pictures of ancient relics -particularly a large "chariot wheel" deep beneath the Red Sea. When traced back, the design of the wheel was identical to the chariots used in Egypt at around the time Moses' parting of the Red Sea occurred!

        God has been so gracious as to provide solid, irrefutable evidence to believers and non-believers alike.

        Atheist statement number 3 is therefore false.
        May 19 at 9:12pm · · 6

      • Sarah Walker Once again I am not trying to attack you or push you away and I hold nothing against you. I love you dearly. So please don't hold this against me. I simply enjoy debate. :)
        May 19 at 9:17pm · · 3

      • Vicki LShark Can I join in here please? As a human being with all kinds of flaws, I have had so many scientific miracles happen to me that I could only attribute to the one above and I am no scientific college major. I put all my beliefs in God's hands and was able to look on the otherside by praying that the doctors with all their science and knowledge will give me a better chance at life, how he (God) sees fit. Challege God right now that he give you the answers you are looking for. He will not fool you. No matter how long we have on this earth, he will not fool you.
        May 20 at 7:53am · · 1

      • Vicki LShark And please Stephanie, knowing you, most of your life, I love you too! As with love, whether it be tough love, gentle love, love takes giving with the heart. I have that for you.
        May 20 at 8:26am ·

      • Stephanie Holland I feel similarly (that people have the freedom to believe what they want) and am unsure why you feel like I presented you with this challenge since this is fairly off topic from my original status. I’m sorry that you misunderstood my status and thought I was deleting someone because of their beliefs even though I clearly stated that I deleted that individual because they censored what I said and acted in passive aggressive behavior towards me rather than just saying that they didn’t want to discuss that topic with me. Personally, I do not want to be friends with people who behave in this childish mannerism, especially when it was they themselves who brought up the initial comment that sparked a debate. I feel that, if someone is going to make a statement and claim it as fact, then they have to support that with proof. Furthermore, why would I be mad at you when I also clearly stated that I encourage freedom of speech and discussing things openly? I do not see it as you attacking me whatsoever and I love you too very much and nothing will ever change that.

        I read your arguments and have explanations for each point you bring up. There are many logical fallacies that you bring up though that will take me time to explain to you so I will write up a more thorough answer after I finish my errands for today and can dedicate enough time to answer all of your questions.

        I encourage debate so why would I hold this against you? If anything, your willingness to be open to discussion just makes me love you more ♥

        While I’m out running errands and such, I suggest watching this video and thinking about what it’s saying. I will still answer all of your answers and respond to your statements, but just be aware that the burden of proof is on you since I am the one skeptical of your claim that God exists.

        Again, I love you very much and am troubled by the fact that you fear I would feel that you’re attacking me and that I would get mad at you or judge you for bringing this discussion up. Even dad has stated that I am the least judgmental person he has ever met :P More importantly, you’re my sister and I love you for who you are, nothing will ever change that.

        Vicki: I will answer your question after I’m finished with my errands as well. I will raise the point however that, when I was a Christian, I did ask God to provide the answers that I was looking for and the answers I found concluded that there was much to be skeptical about Christianity. According to your statement, if God will not fool me then I did find the answers I’m looking for already.

        I love you too Vicki. You are a very dear family friend and my childhood would not have been the same without you.
        May 20 at 9:10am ·

      • Stephanie Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
        May 20 at 9:23am ·

      • Sarah Walker Ok when I'm fully awake I'll watch it. Love you too
        May 20 at 10:08am via mobile · · 2

      • Dallas Hamm I wish there was a dislike button. ...
        May 20 at 11:18am via mobile · · 2

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi What I posted was not a topic of debate, it was simply stating my gratefulness for Gods protection over me. You were the one who found offense and decided to turn it into a topic of debate, which I did not appeciate you talking that way about my God on my post so I deleted it. Like you said we have freedom right? So therefore I had the freedom to delete just as you had freedom to speak.
        May 20 at 11:32am via mobile · · 3

      • Stephanie Holland ‎AngeloandJennifer Parisi: Technically you may be correct. However, ethically you are incorrect. I would refer Condon's Interpersonal Ethic. According to Condon, you reacted very unethically. Furthermore, it was not I who took offense to what you had posted as a status. I was simply pointing out the fallacy in your statement and you chose to take offense to me pointing that out. What I did take offense to was your passive aggressive and unethical behavior, which I found to be quite immature.
        May 20 at 11:52am ·

      • Stephanie Holland ‎Dallas Hamm: I wish there was a dislike button too. I guess that's one thing we can agree on then :)
        May 20 at 11:56am ·

      • Dallas Hamm What I found to be immature was this status to begin with. Why would you post that you were going to delete someone because of faults that you think they possess? You want more attention? You wanted to argue more? Grow up.
        May 20 at 11:58am via mobile · · 4

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi I don't think I was very passive...
        May 20 at 12:06pm via mobile · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland ‎AngeloandJennifer Parisi: Deleting my comments and ignoring me rather than directly telling me that you did not appreciate them and did not want to discuss the topic was passive aggressive. Look up the definition if you would like and I can explain it to you if you are still confused.
        May 20 at 12:09pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland ‎Dallas Hamm: My freedom of speech was being denied. I have a right to speak out against how I was unethically treated. I'm just the type of person who prefers to be direct and get the truth of the matter out rather than beating around the bush and just avoiding something completely. It is not that I wanted more attention. I am generally a more introverted type of person and don't like having a whole lot of attention. I have been through many situations where I have just kept my mouth shut and that made matters worse because others would twist the truth and make me seem like someone that I'm not. I'm tired of being treated that way so I grew the nerve to stand up for myself. In my opinion, being able to stand up for myself, being direct, honest, and considerate of other opinions is very mature.
        May 20 at 12:17pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Deleting the comments was me actively making a statement if you ask me. If it didnt do anything than this post wouldn't exist. Seems like you got my point.
        May 20 at 12:18pm via mobile · · 2

      • Dallas Hamm Your not standing up for yourself. Your just causing unnecessary drama. Your like a 16 year old high school girl. Make sure to get your last word in...
        May 20 at 12:22pm via mobile · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland You would be correct if I had posted this immediately after you deleted my comments, but that wasn't the case. I posted this after your comments following that. Honestly, I thought that I had accidentally not posted what I had commented on your page and was quite surprised by their absence. More importantly, even if I did get your point immediately after you deleted my comments, the act of just deleting rather than saying something is still indirect, passive aggressive, unethical communication.
        May 20 at 12:22pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Dallas Hamm: I feel that you are trying to get a reaction from me. The fact of the matter is that I am defending myself from the injustice that occurred and I am still defending myself for the accusations that are following including the opinions you stated.
        May 20 at 12:28pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Wait... I would be correct if you had posted that directly after I deleted the comments. Haha that's funny cause that's totally what happened so you just said I was right... you commented, I deleted, que post about deleting me. That's how the story went. Thanks for confirming what I just said.
        May 20 at 12:31pm via mobile · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm And I get a reaction every time... Injustices? Haha! Wow.. And I'm pretty sure no one accused you of anything everyone is just expressing their opinions.
        May 20 at 12:33pm via mobile · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland ‎AngeloandJennifer Parisi: Ummm....you misunderstood what I said entirely. Either that, or I misunderstood you somewhere.. From what I recall the order of events were: 1. I commented on your status 2. You deleted my posts. 3. I was confused and posted more comments which were also deleted. 4. You then directly stated what was happening and it was your reaction afterwards that compelled me to post this status. I don't see how I confirmed what you just said at all.
        May 20 at 12:37pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm its sure an injustice when people delete comments.... What has this world come to?!
        May 20 at 12:42pm · · 2

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi So what part made you more upset, the part where I said there's a delete button for a reason or the part where I said stop bashing my best friend on my status... cause I'm pretty sure that I didn't delete you, you deleted me.. so technically you aren't allowing my freedom of speech by not letting me comment on your page. Hmmm... just a thought. Cause what you're saying to me is that I denied your freedom by deleting individual comments when you hypocritically deleted and blocked me from my freedom of speech on your page...
        May 20 at 12:47pm via mobile · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland ‎Dallas Hamm: If you're going to make fallacious statements then of course you are going to get a response. You are accusing me of not standing up for myself, causing unnecessary drama, and being like a 16 year old girl. Your statements are just helping my point that I am trying to stand up for myself and speak up against injustices. Politely, I request that you be more mature and actually consider what it is I'm saying if you are going to continue in this discussion. I really do not appreciate your condescending tone and bullying. Furthermore, I just don't want to be friends with her because she acted so unethically towards me. She expressed a characteristic that I found to be very unfavorable and a type of behavior that I don't want to expose myself to or associate with.
        May 20 at 12:47pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland ‎AngeloandJennifer Parisi: I deleted you, yes. I do not want to be friends with people who act so unethically. I did not censor you whatsoever. I have not deleted any of your comments whatsoever. So, no, I am not acting hypocritically.
        May 20 at 12:51pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm Another reaction....

        Just delete her then. Don't say something that would cause more drama.

        Here's an idea. Call her and talk to her. Sit down for coffee and discuss the problems. Instead of posting here for the intention of gaining attention.
        May 20 at 12:51pm via mobile · · 4

      • Stephanie Holland I did delete her. I tried talking to her before. If she wants to talk then I would be open to that as long as she acted more maturely. Again, I did not intend on getting attention.
        May 20 at 12:54pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi So Dallas Hamm, remember in kindergarden when one of our friends made us mad and we would yell across the schoolyard that they weren't our friend anymore?
        May 20 at 12:54pm via mobile · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland Again, I request for the bullying to stop.
        May 20 at 12:55pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Its called freedom of speech...
        May 20 at 12:56pm via mobile · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm were not bullying.... just remembering past times
        May 20 at 12:56pm · · 2

      • Dallas Hamm you post a status that does nothing but bash on a person and you want to tell us to quit bullying?
        May 20 at 12:57pm · · 3

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Seriously right?
        May 20 at 12:59pm via mobile · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland The difference is that you are trying to say what my intentions are, who I am, etc and trying to make it seem like what you're saying is true. What I stated was my own opinion and I am not trying to force others to agree with me and it was in direct response to her unethical actions. These are just consequences for how she behaved. All that I am saying seems to just be falling on deaf ears though and I am utterly confused as to why you say that you're Christian when your actions don't match what you preach. I don't find continuing this discussion with either of you (Dallas Hamm or AngeloandJennifer Parisi) to be worth my time anymore. Sarah Walker and Vicki LShark: I will just respond to you in private messages and I am eager to have a more healthy and mature debate with you. I love you both very much ♥
        May 20 at 1:08pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm so what was the point of stating your own opinion on a public form if you were trying to get others to agree with you? If you weren't trying to do that then you would have addressed this issue in a private manner.
        May 20 at 1:14pm · · 2

      • Dallas Hamm so what was the point of stating your own opinion on a public form if you weren't trying to get others to agree with you?***
        May 20 at 1:15pm · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm And Im sorry just because Im a christian doesnt mean I should sit here and let someone say negative and hurtful things about them.
        May 20 at 1:16pm · · 3

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi My intention was to post about how grateful I am for a wonderful God who protects me. Steph, you were the on trying to force your opinion so I deleted it. I have yet to try to "force" my opinion on you. So far all I've done was not discuss a topic because clearly I am happy with believing that it was in fact God who protected me.
        May 20 at 1:18pm via mobile · · 3

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi And thank you Dallas. :)
        May 20 at 1:19pm via mobile · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm Please tell me how we aren't acting what we preach? I have a feeling you have no idea what Christianity is. We aren't even arguing about what's ethical and whats unethical. What this has turned into is an argument about what the definition of ethical is. Our definition is based on the truth of God's word and your definition is based some guy named Condon. And because we fail to except your ideas we are unchristian? You don't even know me so quit bashing on my character because Im standing up for my friends.
        May 20 at 1:26pm · · 3

      • Dallas Hamm accept**
        May 20 at 1:29pm · · 1

      • Matthew Holland ‎"so what was the point of stating your own opinion on a public form if you weren't trying to get others to agree with you /accept you ?" to be heard.
        May 20 at 5:10pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"just because I'm a christian doesnt mean I should sit here and let someone say negative and hurtful things about them." -- No one said that you did; however please be mindful that it is YOU that CHOOSES to be offended by what others say when criticizing your religion.
        May 20 at 5:13pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi What??
        May 20 at 5:26pm via mobile ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"My intention was to post about how grateful I am for a wonderful God who protects me. Steph, you were the on trying to force your opinion so I deleted it." negative, Stephanie pointed out something that she though you may want to look into. By no obligation were you forced into accepting her claims what so ever. As budding scientist, we know that expecting ANYONE to accept something without evidence uncritically is unreasonable. I suspect that the real reason that you deleted that post was because you assumed that it was an 'attack' on your beliefs because it was something that you disagreed with; in reality it was just Stephanie voicing here 'beliefs' much in the same mannerisms that you did. I.E. saying "I don't believe in X" is not that same as saying that" X can NOT be true." The major difference is while you can tell us what it is that you believe you will be most unable to tell us WHY you believe them without relying on flawed logic for the basis of you arguments for your beliefs. In other words your using a logical fallacy.
        May 20 at 5:28pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"I have a feeling you have no idea what Christianity is." -- she was a full christian, Logical fallacy 'no true Scotts man argument' "We aren't even arguing about what's ethical and whats unethical." because engaging in unethical communications tactics is wrong. please read ethics in human communication ISBN 13:978-1-57766-555-7; its a great book that I recommend to everyone. it has help me in many situations to defuse negative energy in an argument or heated discussion.
        May 20 at 5:35pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi well I believe that truth is objective and Gods not afraid of the truth since he's the one who created it so I encourage you to keep searching my friend.
        May 20 at 5:40pm via mobile · · 1

      • Matthew Holland ‎"Our definition is based on the truth of God's word and your definition is based some guy named Condon." -- actually ALL of our ethics are based on society as a whole, yours included; and, no, you don't get to exclude yourself from the rest of the world because of your beliefs.
        May 20 at 5:41pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎" And because we fail to except your ideas we are unchristian? You don't even know me so quit bashing on my character because Im standing up for my friends." -- I assume you mean 'accept' , not except. 1) You dont get to act unethical and then turn around and claim the 'moral high ground' and pretend that your shit don't smell. criticism you of you actions and behaviors is just that, criticism. Rather than attacking the person that points out things to criticize you for, perhaps you could look into why you are being criticized in the first place. Is it that I am in the wrong? was there a misunderstanding? was it that i was being inconsiderate of the others feelings? these are just a few questions to ask yourself when you come under fire for an action that you are now being criticized for. That is the Christin thing to do, "take out the plank from you own eye before removing the twig from others" ... or something close to that 2) attacking someone else and tearing them down by insulting them or is NOT defending your friend. Its just being prideful, hateful, revengeful and spiteful. If I am not mistaken those are other qualities that are un-Christin like are they not? Isn't Christianity a peaceful and forgiving religion? So far from what I have read its not looking like it is; and if this is the behavior that ALL Christians hold to then I am glad that I am no longer one.
        May 20 at 6:02pm ·

      • Matthew Holland another thing that i have noticed is that you have not really addressed ANY of Stephanie arguments but rather went straight to attacking her character. Logical fallacy Ad-hominem. In other words Stephanie made some arguments, that you apparently REALLY didn't like, then you started bashing her character instead of giving a counter argument. It also seems like your not really reading whats shes saying and certainly not getting to know who she is, what she believes and why she believes them at all. That is the very thing that you claimed "You don't even know me so quit bashing on my character... " Luke 6:42 much?
        May 20 at 6:15pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm I don't understand what's going on. Stephanie bashes on Jenn on a fb status and somehow we turn into the bad people?
        May 20 at 6:20pm via mobile · · 3

      • Devin Maxon U holland people r a sad sad bunch.....good thing Jesus loves u ....guess u will c.....when u die
        May 20 at 6:20pm via mobile · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm The things she said had nothing to do with her faith but rather her as a person and anyone would find that hurtful weather they were a Christian or not.
        May 20 at 6:21pm via mobile · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm You guys keep talking about this fallacy and true scotts whatever and it does nothin for your argument it just helps fill space for your novel comments. It's more distracting then anything.

        The idea of pluralism is a fairly new idea so if anyone is excluding themselves from ethics is you guys not us. We just have the same beliefs that we've always had but because the world tells us we should have a different ethical standards we should change?
        May 20 at 6:22pm via mobile · · 2

      • Dallas Hamm Your accusing me of insulting her? The only thing that was insulting was saying that she is acting like a 16 year old girl causing drama. How are you going to call me insulting after her 10 insults in a single status.
        May 20 at 6:25pm via mobile · · 3

      • Dallas Hamm Im over this. Your two obviously just enjoy arguing and you are only repeating yourself over and over about how we are bad Christians. Sorry i don't live up to the worlds standard of a christian. Good thing I dot have to answer to you.
        May 20 at 6:28pm via mobile · · 3

      • Matthew Holland ‎"I don't understand what's going on." -- then you should STOP talking in-till you do, or ask for clarification. "Stephanie bashes on Jenn on a fb status and somehow we turn into the bad people?" -- No, Stephanie listed some facts and statistics that are true, factual and verifiable. Jenn apparently chose to be offended by that. "U holland people r a sad sad bunch..." My grammatical & spelling issues aside, No we are rather happy and full of life. nothing could be further from the truth. perhaps you could come over for a visit and see for yourself sometime. " You guys keep talking about this fallacy and true scotts whatever and it does nothin for your argument it just helps fill space for your novel comments. It's more distracting then anything. "-- you've just committed a logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. (not making that up, its an actual fallacy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies before you can even comment on a subject you should first seek to educate yourself before you say something from ignorance. "Your accusing me of insulting her?" -- yes and i can prove that you have because you going to admit that you have right not. "The only thing that was insulting was saying that she is acting like a 16 year old girl causing drama. "-- quod erat demonstrandum "Im over this. " ----that's a relief "Your two obviously just enjoy arguing and you are only repeating yourself over and over about how we are bad Christians." logicaly fallacy , straw-man argument. we never made that claim that you were bad Christians, just that your behavior and actions need to be looked at and reflected upon. Luke 6:42. I did however say that I am glad that I'm not a Christian if this is how they now act in public. This behavior is not what I remember the religion was about; and for the record we don't like to argue. "Sorry i don't live up to the worlds standard of a christian"-- Its not the worlds standards that your not living up to, ITS YOUR OWN FUCKING RELIGIONS STANDARDS! If i worked at Starbucks and didn't live up to the company standards or act an ass in front of my customers am i being a good representative of my work place? NO, and the same holds true for Christianity. "Good thing I dot (don't) have to answer to you. "-- indeed you don't, but that doesn't excuse you from your actions and behaviors with others or your responsibilities.
        May 20 at 7:00pm · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm Whoa man get angry. That helps.

        So her insults were okay to make because you can some how prove they are actually true statements?
        May 20 at 7:08pm via mobile · · 2

      • Dallas Hamm But because they are true I can't defend them. Get over yourself.
        May 20 at 7:08pm via mobile · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm Christ isn't Starbucks. We live by grace not by standards.
        May 20 at 7:09pm via mobile · · 2

      • Matthew Holland I'm sorry but I thought you said that you were "over this"? "Whoa man get angry. That helps. "-- not angered at all, my apologies if it seemed that way. "So her insults were okay to make because you can some how prove they are actually true statements? " Stephanie has made no insults against anyone, again Stephanie listed some facts and statistics that are true, factual and verifiable. You can look them up for yourself if you take the time and see that its true. "Christ isn't Starbucks. "-- Logical fallacy , straw-man argument. I didn't say that it was, I was using what is called an 'analogy' do demonstrate my argument in different terms to you so as to bring better understanding of what it was I am presenting. I think that you misunderstood what i was saying in my Analogy because you didn't seem to respond to my argument I made with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy "We live by grace not by standards. " Funny, i remember something in the bible saying that in order to live in gods grace you had to live by a set of standards listed in the bible. The 'ten commandments', for example, is a set of standards that all Christians are to uphold at all times. According to most Christians, in the bible Deuteronomy list several acts and behaviors that are to be avoided least you commit a sin against god. there are other such chapters in the bible that make up YOUR religions standards for how to interact with others. In short, you can't be graceful if you don't know what the standards of what is and in not graceful.

        Analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org
        Analogy (from Greek αναλογία – analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive proc...See More

        May 20 at 8:04pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm Your right the law was rules that were meant to be followed however because of Christ's death on the cross we have his grace and no longer live according to the law.

        Just because you feel it's a fact doesn't mean it wasn't an insult.
        May 20 at 8:26pm via mobile ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"well I believe that truth is objective and Gods not afraid of the truth since he's the one who created it..." -- Thats a bold claim you made there 'god created it'. Can you prove that god exist by showing any empirical evidence that such a being exist and is real?; can you list all of the properties of this being? what are its limits and what are the extent of its powers? and can you prove then that this being made 'truth' ? "so I encourage you to keep searching my friend." -- He ( or in you case Jenn, She) that make the claim is also burdened with providing the proof. While you can tell me what it is that you believe but you won't be able to show me WHY you believe them without being dishonest to yourself.
        May 20 at 8:35pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"Your right the law was rules that were meant to be followed however because of Christ's death on the cross we have his grace and no longer live according to the law. "-- Negative. the old testaments still apply. IN JESUS' OWN WORDS Mathew 5:17-19. "Just because you feel it's a fact doesn't mean it wasn't an insult."--Stephanie was not talking about something that is subjective like 'feelings'. ONCE MORE AGAIN, Stephanie listed some facts and statistics that are true, factual and verifiable.
        May 20 at 8:46pm ·

      • Matthew Holland dude i really did think that you were 'over this' . that is what you said, right? why are you still here then? By your own ad·mis·sion you "don't know what going on" so please, just stop talking in-till you do know what is going on. You haven't as of yet addressed ANY of my points that I have made. You don't even know what the basic debating skills are else you would exercise them. You already admitted that you don't know what a logical fallacy is and mocked me for having point out that your arguments that you making are all based on them, which is ironically a logic fallacy; Nor do you seem to understand what an analogy is else you wouldn't have confuse my analogy with saying that Christianity is a Starbucks. I even list several links for you to read and you don't seem to have read ANY OF THEM AT ALL. you have no valid arguments left to make on ANY of the subjects before mention.
        May 20 at 8:51pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. So now you just changed everything to argue whether God exist or not? I assume your a fairly inteligent person so you know that we could argue creation/evolution until we are blue in the face and really all it comes down to is faith because at some point in each of the arguements there is a level of faith that one must have
        May 20 at 8:52pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm its still insulting no matter how you word it
        May 20 at 8:53pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"So now you just changed everything to argue whether God exist or not?" that is a separate point that I made to another person comment
        May 20 at 8:53pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"Its still insulting no matter how you word it" if telling you the the truth is insulting to you it is because YOU CHOSE TO BE OFFENDED BY IT. the fact are still just that FACTS .
        May 20 at 8:55pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm now your arguing about how i have weak debating skills?
        May 20 at 8:56pm · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm I didnt confuse your analogy. I simply told you that the analogy doesnt fit because working at starbucks is nothing like being a Christian.
        May 20 at 8:57pm · · 2

      • Matthew Holland ‎"now your arguing about how i have weak debating skills?" --no to be perfectly clear i am saying YOU HAVE NO DEBATING SKILLS.
        May 20 at 8:57pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm You might have been confused because I was able to say that in one sentence
        May 20 at 8:57pm · · 1

      • Matthew Holland ‎"I didnt confuse your analogy. I simply told you that the analogy doesnt fit because working at starbucks is nothing like being a Christian." -- please then tell me what i was pointing out with my analogy. If you understand it then this will be no problem for you. demonstrate to me that you understand my analogy.
        May 20 at 8:59pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm I have no debating skills to debate what? There is nothing here we are debating. Your doing the same thing for your wife as I am doing for my friend. Sticking up for them for something that I found insulting. We really have nothing to debate because there is not single topic to this discussion. We are just creating the longest comment conversation of a fb status to no end
        May 20 at 9:00pm · · 1

      • Matthew Holland ‎"You might have been confused because I was able to say that in one sentence" weak =/= NONE
        May 20 at 9:00pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"I have no debating skills to debate what? There is nothing here we are debating. " -- again if you had the debating skills you would recognize that you ARE in a debate, and losing quite badly I mite add too. Either Romans 6:14 doesn't refute Matthew 5:17-19 and Matthews still apply or Romans 6:14 does refute it and you found the first ever bible contradiction of Jesus himself. Your choice. Just so you know, because you won't recognize this unless i point this out , you just back yourself into a corner and its pretty ironclad too. The absolute best thing for you to do now is not to say anything and be "over this".
        May 20 at 9:06pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm do you want me to copy and paste? I got it. I'm just not understanding why that has become the basis of your argument. Lets bash his religion because he is being a horrible representation of Christ. I just dont feel the status was necessary. You truly feel like that status needed to be posted? It couldn't be a simple message telling her why she was deleting her?
        May 20 at 9:07pm · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm youve created a debate. It was never a debate until you started going off on a totally different topic then this started out as. You could just read all of Romans 6. It spells it out quite clearly.
        May 20 at 9:11pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"do you want me to copy and paste?"--NO, you will need to paraphrase, using your own words, withing the context of the argument chain that it was in, in order to demonstrate to me that you understood the analogy and its meaning; nothing less will do. "I got it." -- clearly not, in fact you going to admit it to me now -----> "I'm just not understanding why that has become the basis of your argument." --quod erat demonstrandum. "Lets bash his religion because he is being a horrible representation of Christ."-- logical fallacy, straw-man argument. I didn't make that claim. I was criticizing your behavior that you displayed earlier and now your playing the victim card because of it while also claiming the moral high ground by stating "that i was just defending my friend". you action speak for them selves and I pointed that out to you SEVERAL TIMES by criticizing your behavior. criticism =/= bashing. " I just don't feel the status was necessary."-- its Stephanie way to getting her voice heard, on her own page, where upon she may say anything that she wishes. Jenn made that same argument and both Stephanie and I agreed, what we didn't agree with is the actions that followed . Again, Nothing more need be said about it really in order to justify Stephanie's post. "You truly feel like that status needed to be posted?"-- need has NOTHING to do with it. the face of the matter is SHE CAN and HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO. again JENN MADE THIS SAME ARGUMENT. If you don't like it and are offended by it, again ITS BECAUSE YOU CHOSE TO BE OFFENDED BY IT. "It couldn't be a simple message telling her why she was deleting her?"-- Stephanie could have chosen an number of way to respond to Jenn actions. Stephine just chose to respond to Jenn passive aggressiveness directly by bring it into an open forum, where Jenn can't hide from criticism behind a vale of secrecy and anonymity. if you study psychology at a college level almost every text will point to Stephanie's action being the correct action to take when dealing with passive aggressiveness. "youve created a debate. It was never a debate until you started going off on a totally different topic then this started out as." again, you have no debating skill else you would know that you were in a debate LONG before I started typing on here. "You could just read all of Romans 6. It spells it out quite clearly."-- I have read Romans and much of the rest of the bible as well. IF Romans 6:14 is right, then Matthew 5:17-19 is wrong, which implies that the word of Jesus is wrong, which implies that a part of god's is wrong which implies that GOD IS WRONG. this is an "IF/ THEN" statement and no, both CAN NOT be correct. You must chose. Whats that change you mind! well then IF Matthew 5:17-19 is right, then Romans 6:14 is wrong, which implies that the word of Jesus aptly applies and therefore that implies that the old testament DOES apply as to how christian should act. Oh but you think that both can be right? well then you have what is call a contradiction which implies that both are false. its ironclad and you can't give a proper explanation without being either dishonest or relying on a logical fallacy as a bases for your argument. hers a link showing you what a contradiction is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction

        Contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org
        In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility betwee...See More

        May 20 at 9:50pm ·

      • Matthew Holland time and time again your arguments have been ripped in half. just give up and be "over this" like you said that you were hours ago. you have lost on all fronts.
        May 20 at 9:51pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm Thanks for the novel I'm clearly not going to read from my phone because like i said i was never here to debate. Way to make this all about you. Your just creating arguments for the joy of debating, which can be enjoyable but not so much through Facebook. I have better things to do with my life then sit and read your super longs comments and continuing to create new arguments with every comment. It's tiring.
        May 20 at 9:58pm via mobile · · 1

      • Dallas Hamm just to clarify real quick though.. When Jesus said that in Matthew He hadn't been crucified yet. Therefore the law was still in practice. It wasn't until after His death that we were given God's gift of grace.
        May 20 at 10:07pm ·

      • Matthew Holland when i said that 'its ironclad and you can't give a proper explanation without being either dishonest or relying on a logical fallacy as a bases for your argument' , I meant that its ironclad and you can't give a proper explanation without being either dishonest or relying on a logical fallacy as a bases for your argument. case in point "When Jesus said that in Matthew He hadn't been crucified yet. Therefore the law was still in practice. It wasn't until after His death that we were given God's gift of grace"-- Your argument is based on a breech of logic; in other words a logical fallacy. "Way to make this all about you. "-- logical fallacy, Red herring "Your just creating arguments for the joy of debating"-- logical fallacy, Mind projection fallacy "I have better things to do with my life then sit and read your super longs comments and continuing to create new arguments with every comment. It's tiring."-- logical fallacy(s), Appeal to ridicule , argumentum ad nauseam and argumentum ad ignorantiam
        May 20 at 10:50pm ·

      • Matthew Holland you can't debate, just be "over this" and go away.
        May 20 at 10:50pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Sure he can. Ever heard of the saying "agree to disagree"?
        May 20 at 11:45pm via mobile · · 2

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Or wait, are you going to tell me thats a logical fallacy too...
        May 20 at 11:54pm via mobile · · 1

      • Matthew Holland do you understand what a logical fallacy is and what it implies?
        Monday at 12:11am · · 1

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi And btw you haven't really given proof for why you believe what you believe either. You say we can't prove there is a God, but let's see you try to prove that there isnt. Cause I'm pretty sure that you can try as hard as you want but you nor anybody else can prove that matter came from nothing. Even science will tell you that.. Then id say, look at even the tiniest cells in the human body, even the tiniest cells are so complex that the chances of them just "happening" by chance are so incredibly rare not to mention all the other cells in humans, plants,animals etc... That'd be like saying a tornado went through a junkyard and suddenly there were a million perfectly built cars that are fully perfectly 100% functional a million times.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMlde9akBk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
        So then there in lies faith. I believe and have faith in a devine creator who made all the matter, plants, animals, humans, (and yes truth) and what have you. When you look at a piano you don't think "wow how crazy that all the parts fell into place just right!" you would think, "wow who made this piano?" And while to you, none of this may prove that God exists, the point is it seems like you'd have to have a heck of a lot more faith to believe that everything came about by chance and that he doesnt. Hence the reason why the more I look at science the more I see God. And again why I tell you to keep searching. In the end, sure the big bang happened, I just know who banged it.

        The wonders of a tiny cell

        a brief animation of one of the few things that happend in a cell. Thats when we...See More

        Monday at 1:18am · · 2 ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi And again, I agree to disagree. You're probably not going to change your mind, so I guess I'll just say my hats off to ya for having more "faith" than I, and leave it at that. Goodnight.
        Monday at 1:21am · · 2

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi The above vid was just a snippet. Here's the full vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_gM&sns=em
        Monday at 1:32am via mobile · · 1

      • Matthew Holland ‎"You say we can't prove there is a God, but let's see you try to prove that there isnt." --(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false "Even science will tell you that.. "-- no, it wont and doesn't. science does not deal in matters of faith, or belief. "Then id say, look at even the tiniest cells in the human body ... have you. When you look at a piano you don't think "wow how crazy that all the parts fell into place just right!" you would think, "wow who made this piano?"" -- the watchmaker argument has been refuted many times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy // http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 "In the end, sure the big bang happened, I just know who banged it." logical fallacy, False attribution . there is no way that you could possibly know that without either being dishonest or basing your arguments on a logical fallacy. before you make more fail arguments ( which are really non-arguments) plese try to understand what a logical fallacy is. In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

        Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org
        The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for t...See More

        Monday at 9:04am ·

      • Matthew Holland faith can never be a part of the scientific process because the very definition of faith is "belief that is not based on proof". This flies into the face of what is science. So by you saying that "the more you look at science the more you see god", I am naturally skeptical of your conclusion. I am willing to be bet that you don't know dick about how science works or what science is what so ever. Your quote "my hats off to ya for having more "faith" " can be rewritten to "my hats off to ya for having more "belief without evidence" . Do you NOW see how stupid that is to say to a science major? If you want to talk about the science, that's fine, but you have better have empirical evidence for you claims and you evidence have better factual and correct; because if its not I will make you look like a buffoon.
        Monday at 9:17am ·

      • Stephanie Holland You are claiming God exists. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that supports your claim. We are skeptical of your belief in God because you have not provided any proof to support your claim, but the burden of proof is still not on us. After all, hypothetically I could believe in unicorns and insist that the burden of proof is on others to show that unicorns don't exist. However, that would be ridiculous of me to do since it can't be proven that unicorns don't exist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

        P.S. You might want to check up on what logical fallacies are because your "arguments" are absolutely riddled with them despite the fact that we state exactly what logical fallacies you are making and have tried explaining them to you already. Having so many logical fallacies is a HUGE weakness in your claim.
        Monday at 9:19am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi I love how all your proof is from wikipedia... probably the least credible site ever.... people can add whatever they want. Sounds like a credible source to me..... hmmmm... and all you just did was say in your opinion you think I'm wrong and once again gave no proof. Try again buddy. At least I gave you my reason for my belief. You have yet to do so.
        Monday at 10:12am via mobile · · 3

      • Matthew Holland ‎"once again gave no proof." logical fallacy , shifting the Burden of proof or onus probandi
        Monday at 10:24am ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"I love how all your proof is from wikipedia." negative, not proofs, but definitions of terms that you don't understand. like what a logical fallacy is or what it implies.
        Monday at 10:26am ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"and all you just did was say in your opinion you think I'm wrong and once again gave no proof." -- negative, i have REPEATEDLY showed that your arguments are fallacious thus proving that your premise is incorrect, by which I need not bring further arguments in-till you provide an argument that holds water.
        Monday at 10:29am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi ‎"I need not bring further arguments in-till you provide an argument that holds water." - logical fallacy , shifting the Burden of proof or onus probandi
        Monday at 10:33am · · 1

      • Matthew Holland ‎"At least I gave you my reason for my belief. You have yet to do so." the reason i do not accept any supernatural deities is because i have as of yet be presented with a convincing argument that has changed my convictions.
        Monday at 10:34am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Hi Matt and Stephanie nice to meet u over Facebook I'm Angelo. Simply put Science seeks to understand the universe through observation. So u asking for me to "prove God exists scientifically," is rather hard since we don't have the equipment to directly observe God. However we do see evidence He is there for instance the background radiation in the "dark spots of space" and the God particle. Two thing I have studied very briefly point to a spiritual being. But the biggest proof to me is Jesus Christ. A man who claimed to be God. If u haven't read the Gospel of luke (the author was a doctor) check it out then tell me who Jesus was? Cause He says he's God which is a huge claim to make and if its true (which I believe it is) then there r consequences for now u have to handle that new data. At one point science thought the world was flat and then discovered it was an imperfect sphere because of new data.
        Monday at 10:36am via mobile · · 2

      • Matthew Holland your the one that is making the claim that there is a god. the burden of proof is on you. I have addressed ALL of your arguments by showing that they are fallacious. again I need not bring further arguments in-till you provide an argument that holds water.
        Monday at 10:36am ·

      • Stephanie Holland Clearly you don't know what a logical fallacy is since you used it incorrectly. Again, the burden of proof is on YOU.
        Monday at 10:37am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Youre the one claiming that their isnt a God so the burden of proof is on you... cause so far im the only one whos given reason for my belief. you just keep avoiding the subject cause obviously you have nothing...
        Monday at 10:38am ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"So u asking for me to "prove God exists scientifically," is rather hard since we don't have the equipment to directly observe God. However we do see evidence He is there for instance the background radiation in the "dark spots of space" and the God particle" so we can't observe God, therefore we can ? background radiation does not implies god
        Monday at 10:38am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi or maybe you just dont want to face that you are full of locical fallacys too... hmmm... cmon people. so far you just keep avoiding the subject which frankly just makes us seem more correct.
        Monday at 10:40am · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland As I said before..."You are claiming God exists. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that supports your claim. We are skeptical of your belief in God because you have not provided any proof to support your claim, but the burden of proof is still not on us. After all, hypothetically I could believe in unicorns and insist that the burden of proof is on others to show that unicorns don't exist. However, that would be ridiculous of me to do since it can't be proven that unicorns don't exist." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
        Monday at 10:41am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi again... avoiding the subject
        Monday at 10:42am ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"Youre the one claiming that their isnt a God so the burden of proof is on you" negative the default for anything is the null hypothesis in-till an alternative hypothesis is proven and replaces the hull. if you know anything about science you would understand the premise that something exist in-till it can be show that it doesn't is flawed logic .
        Monday at 10:42am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi avoiding the subject....
        Monday at 10:42am · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland Also you have not shown us to have provided any logical fallacies whatsoever. You on the other hand have practically only provided logical fallacies. We're not trying to avoid the subject, we're waiting for you to provide proof to support your claim since the burden of proof is on you.
        Monday at 10:43am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi um, what about your claim that there is no God.... you were the first to make the claim so therefore "THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU" If i remember right, the entire reasont this started was because you posted a comment that claimed there was not god... so go for it. you're up to bat
        Monday at 10:44am ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"avoiding the subject" negative, we have time and time again that your arguments contain a breach in logic and therefore can NOT be correct in there premise. We have told you that the burden is on you to prove that there is in fact a god. The default position for anything is the realm of science and logic is that null hypothesis is true in-till an alternative hypothesis is proven and replaces the null.
        Monday at 10:46am ·

      • Stephanie Holland I didn't post claims though. I posted statistical evidence and facts that showed that countries that were secular are more peaceful than religious countries, thus it wouldn't make sense that "God" is protecting you. What is actually protecting you are the security guards and video cameras. That was all I said. Again, you claim that God exists and we are skeptical of that. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is support for your claim.
        Monday at 10:47am ·

      • Matthew Holland look up"Scientific burden of evidence" and "Legal burden of proof"
        Monday at 10:48am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi avoiding the subject... if youre not going to give proof. I'm done.
        Monday at 10:48am ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi k bye
        Monday at 10:48am ·

      • Stephanie Holland Again, we're not trying to avoid the subject, we're waiting for you to provide proof to support your claim since the burden of proof is on you. As I said before a couple of times, "You are claiming God exists. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that supports your claim. We are skeptical of your belief in God because you have not provided any proof to support your claim, but the burden of proof is still not on us. After all, hypothetically I could believe in unicorns and insist that the burden of proof is on others to show that unicorns don't exist. However, that would be ridiculous of me to do since it can't be proven that unicorns don't exist." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
        Monday at 10:51am ·

      • Dallas Hamm wow.... I've been missing out!
        Monday at 11:40am · · 2

      • Dallas Hamm It's truly unfair to ask us to prove that God exist through science because that's what your asking us to do. Science can neither deny or confirm the existence of God so to be able to prove God exist to you isn't possible and any claim we can make you only right it off as a logical fallacy because we can't prove our claim. We can sit here and argue all day but all it has been up to this point is us sharing why we believe God exist and you guys quoting every sentence and calling it a logical fallacy. Of course its a logical fallacy.... It's faith. God's not exactly logical and you asking us to prove that God is logical is impossible. Can we have a real discussion about this or do you have to make every claim invalid because their is no scientific proof? That makes you the close-minded ones.
        Monday at 11:47am · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
        Monday at 11:52am ·

      • Matthew Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a65acW1qbIQ

        Jar Fallacy Model Experiment - A.E. #593

        The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas...See More

        Monday at 11:57am ·

      • Dallas Hamm Thanks I had no idea what open-mindedness was.... What are you asking me to be open minded about? That my friend is ignorant, disrespectful, and childish? The only thing that you keep saying to me is my claims are logical fallacies, you really haven't argued anything except for the fact that my claims are invalid. So i have nothing to be open-minded about...
        Monday at 11:58am ·

      • Stephanie Holland Well it doesn't sound like you know what open mindedness is since you made the claim that we are the ones being close minded. Hence why I posted the video which you clearly didn't watch otherwise you would understand that.
        Monday at 12:03pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland If you want us to stop saying that you are making logical fallacies and that your claims are invalid then stop presenting logical fallacies haha
        Monday at 12:06pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm i did watch it actually.... that's why i then asked what it was that you wanted me to be open-minded about...
        Monday at 12:08pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm See your just being impossible
        Monday at 12:08pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Yet you are the one who still fails in showing that you actually know what it means to be open minded. If you did then you would understand why it is that you are the one being close minded.
        Monday at 12:15pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland I'm not being impossible. I'm being open-minded. I'm willing to consider your claims and arguments but I just need the proof and evidence.
        Monday at 12:17pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm which of course you know that we can't prove it using scientific evidence and because you know that and continue to ask us for it you are being impossible
        Monday at 12:20pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland No, I am being open-minded. It's not my fault that you cannot prove your claims. All I need is valid, persuasive evidence. It would be idiotic and gullible of me to just accept claims that are not supported by evidence and I would be more likely to believe in other supernatural things such as unicorns, ghosts, etc.
        Monday at 12:22pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm just because I'm religious doesn't make me close-minded. Im assuming that's what your trying to get at just like being non-religious doesn't automatically make your open-minded.
        Monday at 12:22pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland I'm not saying that being religious makes you close-minded at all. Open-mindedness is based on the individual and it would be close-minded of me to assume that a particular group of people are all close-minded.
        Monday at 12:23pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson just curious... do you think that people are going to respect you more for posting your own opinions about someone who is very highly respected? Stephanie, you must know that these people are very loved by many people. perhaps next time before you jump off a bridge with your emotions, control yourself better. in the long run it can only help. who cares how they respond to people? you have just proved that you are in fact guilty of nothing more than childish behavior. i'm sure there are many people on your friends list who may rub you the wrong way. don't take your frustrations out on them. you're not going to get anything accomplished this way. act like an adult, and let them know how it bothers you. that doesn't entail bashing someone on a stupid social networking tool. don't reply to this; i'm sort of appalled at this whole thing.
        Monday at 12:28pm · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland She acted passively aggressively against me and in a very unethical mannerism. My actions were an appropriate response to her unethical actions against me. If you study passive aggressive behavior and how one is to respond to an individual who exhibits such behavior then you would understand.
        Monday at 12:33pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson Stephanie you are nothing more than a fool. you have such anger towards people that clearly have done NOTHING wrong to you. all you want to do is fight, argue, debate when there isn't anything to debate about. i find you right now to be difficult, and for that very reason, i'm not going to let you PULL me into this. I read this whole post (a waste of 20 minutes of my life) and I think that you better check what you're saying to me- i have gone to school just as much IF NOT MORE than you, and know what words mean. you do not have to define them for me, thank you. YOU are passive aggressive by calling silly names to a woman who is very very understanding, and i think YOU are the aggressor here. my opinion. I'm allowed to have it, although others surely agree.
        Monday at 12:35pm · · 2

      • Brittany Thompson if someone posts something on THEIR page, and YOU don't like it, leave it alone. LEAVE IT ALONE. it's not that hard. I really thought you were better than this, I'm so disappointed that this is the latest memory i have of you.
        Monday at 12:37pm · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland That is your opinion but it's not supported at all. They DID do something wrong to me. They did not act in a mannerism that I expect friends to act. They acted with unethical passive aggressiveness and they will be held accountable for this immature behavior. It's not that I didn't like what she posted. I just pointed out the fallacy in her status that she may not have been aware of. She was the one who reacted emotionally which was displayed through unethical passive aggressive behavior.
        Monday at 12:39pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson lol stephanie. you're funny, and stop trying to use huge words in this. its FACEBOOK. you don't sound smart, you look stupid. no offense, but you need to grow up here. you can think whatever you want- i understand some people feel the need to be the victim all the time, i get that. but nobody is agreeing with you here. maybe you should think about that you're rude, and what you just did was so high school.
        Monday at 12:41pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland ‎"if someone posts something on THEIR page, and YOU don't like it, leave it alone. LEAVE IT ALONE. it's not that hard." I find it ironic that you state this.
        Monday at 12:41pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland I don't find these to be huge words at all. I'm utilizing my typical day-to-day vocabulary.
        Monday at 12:42pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson ehh, i like this, i like that you think you're right. sorry though, it's not offending me so i don't need to leave it alone. you're the one that wanted to go public with it, now you're probably wishing you didn't. i don't know angelo and jenn other than the fact they went to wildwood with us, but i do know that i want you to stop acting like a fool. you're just making yourself look so bad here. i want you to stop. i wish i could stop FOR you and save you some pride.
        Monday at 12:42pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland You're making a lot of big assumptions.
        Monday at 12:44pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Also if it wasn't offending you then why are you reacting so emotionally?
        Monday at 12:47pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland I suppose I could clarify my original status to instead state: "I find AngeloandJennifer Parisi to be passive aggressive and unable to participate in ethical communication. For these and many other reasons I am deleting them as a friend and blocking them."
        Monday at 12:51pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson uhh i'm not being emotional. trust me, thats not what i'm doing here. i really really reallllly just don't understand how you could be so easily offended? nobody has hurt you. it almost seems like you're a bit jealous of what they have? it's easy to hate the ones you're envious of, but trust me that never works. love what YOU have in life, don't bash others, and hate others for being happy.
        Monday at 12:51pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland You are still coming up with a LOT of assumptions and are showing quite a bit of misunderstanding.
        Monday at 12:53pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson how am i assuming? clearly you are being difficut. CLEARLY you are being a child. CLEARLY you are upset. CLEARLY you are being argumentative. what assumptions have i made? i have eyes, i can read, and sorry i also know some math. and 1 plus 1 = 2. but you truly exude such omnipotence....that you are the only ones opinion that should be heard and followed and or believed??? oh the irony.....
        Monday at 12:55pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland I'm not jealous of them, envious of them, or hate them. I was just holding her accountable for her actions.
        Monday at 12:57pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Again with the assumptions. You keep assuming what we feel, think, and what our intentions are.
        Monday at 12:58pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson there are no assumptions. i'm telling you how you are looking to everyone else right here.
        Monday at 12:58pm · · 4

      • Stephanie Holland You're assuming that everyone else sees it the way you see it.
        Monday at 12:59pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland ‎"CLEARLY you are upset" sounds like you're assuming I'm upset
        Monday at 1:00pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson did you ever stop to think that perhaps she was doing you a FAVOR by deleting your post? if you were arguing with what SHE had to say, perhaps she was saving you from the judgements of her friends. you really really need to settle down here. trust me, everyone sees it like i see it.
        Monday at 1:00pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland All she needed to do was communicate something back to convey that message to me. I even pointed that out and gave her the chance.
        Monday at 1:01pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson honestly stephanie, i can do this all day. you can't see how you are acting, and looking becasue you are your own person. maybe she didn't want to communicate with someone who would get THIS argumentative. there is no winning wiith you. you are going in circles. honestly. complete circles.
        Monday at 1:02pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Again, assumption especially since I know for a FACT that EVERYONE does NOT see it like you see it.
        Monday at 1:02pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson oh trust me hun- we all see it.
        Monday at 1:03pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland And I know that that's not true because not everyone feels the same way you do about this.
        Monday at 1:04pm ·

      • Dallas Hamm I see it the way she does. Haha
        Monday at 1:04pm via mobile · · 2

      • Brittany Thompson then why isn't anyone coming to your defense here??????
        Monday at 1:04pm · · 1

      • Brittany Thompson clearly you are driven by drama. instead of acting on your words, you wanted to make it very public, for a reason i'm still not sure of. not sure HOW this helped you to feel better, but why not just delete them in private? who cares what they did to you? i'm still trying to understand how people CANT see that you're being a bully.
        Monday at 1:07pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Others have shown support and have defended me. We're just tired of having to explain it over and over again. The way one is supposed to react to passive aggressive people is by holding them directly accountable for their unethical behavior more publicly.
        Monday at 1:09pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson where? i see nobody coming to your defense and honestly, they are probably scared you'll attack them, too. it is so sad to see you in this light stephanie. SO SAD. you need to do some real soul-searching. this should not have upset you so much. we all still care about you, and wish you the best. we just don't get it, and you're not making your reasoning clear.
        Monday at 1:13pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland Again, assumptions. I'm not the type that is driven by drama. If you knew me then you would understand. Also, I did act on my words.
        Monday at 1:13pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland I don't know how the reasoning can be any more clear.
        Monday at 1:14pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson i'm glad you think they are clear. if i don't know you now, i really don't ever want to know this side of you, you have filled my heart with grief over the friend i must have lost.
        Monday at 1:15pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland Like I said. We are all tired of having to state the same things over and over again just because you have failed to show that you understand what it is we're even saying.
        Monday at 1:15pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson why don't you just acknowledge you were acting in a rash manner? nobody hates you for this. i promise it's not too late.
        Monday at 1:15pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland If this were the first time this happened with her then I would agree that it's rash, but the fact is that this is not the first time she has acted passive aggressively.
        Monday at 1:17pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson you still have not told me another time. i want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but i can't stephanie. you are looking so outrageous right now it kills me inside.
        Monday at 1:18pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Furthermore, as I stated before, when dealing with someone who is acting passive aggressively one is supposed to hold them accountable for their unethical actions more publicly.
        Monday at 1:18pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson i want to understand- how is her DELETING your comment being passive aggressive?
        Monday at 1:18pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland You didn't ask for me to provide you with another time though.
        Monday at 1:19pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson i would appreciate you answering the question. the main point you have. "how is her DELETING your comment being passive aggressive?"
        Monday at 1:20pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland Really? Deleting my comment and deliberately ignoring me without communicating to me at all that she didn't want me to communicate with her is passive aggressive behavior. Not only that but it is unethical communication.
        Monday at 1:22pm ·

      • Becky Babb I am so thankful for AngeloandJennifer Parisi for their pleasing, tolerant, open-minded, respectful, genuine maturity. For these and many other reasons they will always be a part of my life. In my opinion, it is individuals such as they that give Christianity such a positive image and one of many factors why I myself support Christianity.
        Monday at 1:23pm · · 2

      • Brittany Thompson i still don't understand how that is passive agressive behavior. there was no bait to an argument, there were no words with underlying meaning, there was absolutely nothing other than the fact that she tried to save you from what you are now doing to yourself. making you look bad. you need to chill out. i still don't see passive aggressive behavior in deleting a comment.
        Monday at 1:24pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland It is nice to hear that they treated you in such a respectful mannerism. It is unfortunate that I did not experience observing these traits.
        Monday at 1:25pm ·

      • Becky Babb And they were exercising their right to choose.
        Monday at 1:25pm · · 2

      • Brittany Thompson how so? how were they disrespectful, stephanie? please advise.
        Monday at 1:25pm · · 1

      • Becky Babb It's interesting how that one first doing the attacking claims to be the attacked. They were exercising their freedom of choice.
        Monday at 1:30pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson seeing as how you have yet to persuade me with your side of the argument, i am tired. tired of going in circles with you. i don't want to do this anymore, it hurts me to know that something so trivial would turn you into a monster of sorts. control your emotions better, life is good, love what YOU have and leave others alone who have not personally attacked you. i really don't think deleting a comment is passive aggressive, so that leads me to believe that perhaps you don't really know what that means. i think them deleting what you had to say was really just a huge favor they were doing, not only for you, but for themselves as well. who would want to communicate with someone that clearly has some sort of vendetta against them. when you look back on this, i hope you can see where we were all coming from. it'll save you so much time, and energy in the future.
        Monday at 1:40pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland I've taken some time to dedicate more focus and thought to what you've said. I think that posting this status was not the best decision I could have made. Personally, I don't find it trivial when a friend treats me in such an unethical mannerism and refuses to acknowledge that their actions were indeed unethical. However, that is still no excuse for me to have just shot off a list of negative names that can be attributed to such behaviors that that individual displayed. Instead, I could've just stated in my status that I did not appreciate her unethical behavior and that that was why I was deleting her or sent a private message explaining that. Jenn, I am sorry to have hurt you in any way by what I said and it was an inappropriate way of trying to get my point across. I will learn from this experience so as to not repeat this mistake again. Is there anything else I can do to make up for this? Also, thank you Brittany Thompson for trying your best to help me and act as an observing third party in attempts to resolve the conflict.
        Monday at 4:56pm · · 1

      • Brittany Thompson I think this was very nice. I took some time, too to reflect and I think we all learned a little!
        Monday at 4:59pm via mobile · · 1

      • Jim Babb Jr I am wondering why we have yet to address what @Matthew Holland brought up a while back. Why, Stephanine, do you feel that Jennifer is "offensive, suppressive, close-minded, ignorant, disrespectful, hypocritical, and childish?"

        Please state the answer for each alleged characteristic separately and in the appropriate respective order, so that we may be able to see what you real basis behind the original post was. From there, we can continue with a discussion pointed toward the original subject.

        This should allow for a reasonable moderation of the subject matter and no one will be able to say that anyone else is not addressing the right subject, unless they actually try to change the subject.
        Monday at 5:15pm ·

      • Becky Babb Stephanie it was very mature of you to apologize to Jennifer. However, not that I am trying to fan the flames, but if you are offended because of Jennifer deleting your comments, then consider that your comments were hostile to begin with. I personally have deleted comments from my posts where people who are far removed from the situation commented and really had no idea what they were talking about. They did not get angry with me or accuse me of being unethical. And I also have deleted comments I made on other people's posts where after I thought about it, I should have just not said anything, even if it was just silly simple things.
        Monday at 5:18pm · · 1

      • Jim Babb Jr I apologize, I did not see Stephanie's final reply. I'll leave my comment up for a while so everyone can at least get a chance to see what their notification was...
        Monday at 5:21pm ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi I appreciate the apology and am very glad that you have thought about it :) That was a very mature (and probably not easy) thing for you to do. So thank you.
        Monday at 5:22pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland I had no intention for my comments to be hostile though. I simply was pointing out a fallacy and supported that with facts and evidence. How are facts and evidence hostile? Just because others did not point out that unethical communication occurred does not mean that it didn't occur. Read up on ethical communication. I had referenced one book earlier.
        Monday at 6:14pm ·

      • Jim Babb Jr Whether unethical communication did or did not occur, I will not debate. Each and every one of us have flaws and make mistakes, usually on a daily basis. We, as Christians, are called to have grace and forgiveness towards the mistakes and wrongdoings of others. Now, before anyone has a chance to say it, a LOT of Christians are very bad at doing what I've just described. That is an unfortunate reality of our own human mortality. I know that I, personally, struggle with having grace towards peoples' shortcomings q
        Monday at 6:37pm via mobile · · 1

      • Jim Babb Jr …quite often. Therein lies what makes our faith so unlike that of any other religious group. Whether we are good at doing what we are supposed to do or not, none of it matters in eternity. The only thing that matters is whether we have chosen to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He loved us (humanity) so much that He came to Earth in the form of a human man, lived through the hard human life, and died, crucified on a cross, for my sin and the sin of everyone who has or ever will live. No string attached. I can sit here and say, in no uncertain terms that, when I die, I WILL find myself in Heaven with the Creator of the universe.

        Let us say, for the sake of argument that every Christian is wrong, that there is no God. I for one am happier with the idea that I live to serve a God that doesn't exist than to live life believing that there is no God and that I am on this planet or no intended purpose.

        Conversely, let's say atheism is wrong. Under that argument, when the atheist dies, he or she will be met with great torment at the reality that their life has not been redeemed because they chose not to believe on Jesus, and that they must spend eternity in the punishment of Hell.

        Just some food for thought. I have not said that any of you are wrong or right, correct?
        Monday at 6:44pm via mobile · · 3

      • Becky Babb I believe Jennifer has tried to reason with you in the past with your comments on her posts, obviously getting nowhere. So for you to constantly hijack her posts with your opposing ideology, how is that not hostile?
        Monday at 8:48pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU&feature=plcp
        Monday at 8:49pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Again, how is pointing out fallacies and presenting facts and evidence hostile?
        Monday at 8:50pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland I didn't feel like our discussions were getting nowhere though. We were learning about each other and what we thought about a topic. Why is it so wrong to learn more about a friend and also be open about my own thoughts? If she felt like I was becoming hostile towards her then she could have maturely communicated how she was was feeling and requested for there to be an end to the discussion.
        Monday at 8:55pm ·

      • Becky Babb Because our beliefs are not fallacies, they are truth. And you oppose them and are hostile to the truth. How about you respond to Jim Babb Jr.'s comments. Those are the ones that involve your eternal soul.
        Monday at 9:00pm via mobile · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland The fact is that fallacies have been presented. You can even look up and learn about the fallacies yourself. I'm not hostile towards your beliefs though. I'm just being inquisitive of proof that is supported by evidence. I'm skeptical of the claim that your making since no valid proof has been provided, thus these beliefs cannot be claimed as being true. Jim Babb Jr's comments are so commonly made that I just posted a video in response. If he wants more explanation from me, then he may request it if he chooses to.
        Monday at 9:06pm · · 1

      • Becky Babb They may be fallacies to you, but one day you'll have to stand before God on your Judgment Day, and I really and truly pity you. So let us go on believing our "fallacies" in ignorant bliss. Now I'll let you have the last word. Have a nice day.
        Monday at 9:19pm via mobile · · 2

      • Jim Babb Jr The quotes from Pascal in the video you posted are conveniently left without citation for the viewer to be able to follow up with their own research. It also leaves the viewer unable to find any context for the quotes. Assuming the quotes actually are from Pascal, he sometimes directly contradicts what the Bible, God's direct, spoken word, transcribed through chosen men, tells us about God. God never claims to be completely unknowable. In fact He wishes for us to get to know Him more and more throughout our life on Earth and into eternity (Deuteronomy 29:6, Jeremiah 24:7, John 10:38, John 17:3, John 14:7, 1 John 5:20, Colossians 1:9-10 {More passages about knowing God personally at http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=1387}). Certain parts of His character will always be beyond our understanding, because we are not gods, and our human minds do not operate in the same realm.

        The premise of the video is that we as humans are left to a gamble to pick the one true God. It claims that this gamble has odds that are stacked so high against us we'd have a better chance of winning the lottery than picking the right "god." The truth is that there is no gamble. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) I have found 28 verses that tell us that our God is the only true God: Deuteronomy 4:35&39, Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy32:39, 2 Samuel 7:22, 1 Kings 8:60, 2 Kings 5:15, 2 Kings 19:15, 1 Chronicles 17:20, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 18:31, Psalm 86:10, Isaiah 37:16&20, Isaiah43:10&11, Isaiah44:6&8, Isaiah 45:21, Isaiah 46:9, Hosea 13:4, Joel 2:27, Zechariah 14:9, Mark 12:29-34, John 17:3, Romans 3:30, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Galatians 3:20, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 2:5 and James 2:19.

        Please note that, as far as I have been able to tell, I am the first person to completey cite my sources. I can use the Bible as a reliable source because not only are we told in that Bible that it's contents are irrefutable, but no one in history has been able to disprove any of it's claims. (I am not citing this claim for the sake of space and time, but if pressed to do so, I will.)

        Should you choose to read any of the verses I have cited, I would recommend two things: 1. Do not use a translation such as the King James or New King James versions. The truth in the text is no different from any other translation, but we as a culture and society are so far removed from the medieval language that it becomes very difficult to understand. I would suggest a translation like the ESV (English Standard Version) or the NIV (New International Version). These translations use language that is much more common to our vernacular. 2. I'm sure you understand the concept of reading for context, but I'm going to say it anyway. Read the paragraphs surrounding the cited verses, so that you may have a chance to understand the context of the citation.

        I will close with these two passages:
        "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 8:38-39

        "Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Joshua 24:14-15

        Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs
        www.blueletterbible.org
        Is knowledge of God something that is possible? The Bible speaks loud and clear....See More

        Tuesday at 10:15am · · 2

      • Matthew Holland I an speaking to Jim Babb Jr ONLY. he is correct in the fact that he is alone in attempting to provide evidence and even gos so far as to try to list a few sources

        "...left without citation for the viewer to be able to follow up with their own research"-- I'll help you get started.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager .
        at the bottom of most Wikipedia pages are a number of sources listed for you to use. Wikipedia by it self does give you a good understanding of the flaws in Pascal's Wager, but if you want to look further, look at the sources for that wiki page.

        " I can use the Bible as a reliable source "-- No, you can not. logical fallacy,Circular cause and consequence. Your bible 'IS' your claim, it can NOT stand as evidence for itself. To claim that the bible is evidence for god is absurd, considering that one would first have to presuppose that god exists in order for the bible to be valid evidence. this in more common terms is also called to be circular logic.

        Now the burden is on you to prove that there is in fact a god and that the bible is factual. The default position for anything, especially in the realm of science and logic, is that the null hypothesis (I.E. 'X' does NOT exist) is true in-till the alternative hypothesis being tested (I.E. 'X' does exist) is proven and replaces the null. You are going to find that you are going to have a very, VERY, hard time proving that because science does not and can not deal with the supernatural. Essentially you are going to have to separate and distinguish 'non-existence' from a 'god'.

        here is a video that analogizes what I'm talking about fairly clearly

        Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org
        Pascal’s Wager (also known as Pascal’s Gambit) is an argument in apologetic phil...See More

        Tuesday at 12:36pm ·

      • Matthew Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a65acW1qbIQ

        Jar Fallacy Model Experiment - A.E. #593

        The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas...See More

        Tuesday at 12:36pm ·

      • Devin Maxon Prove the wind exists without using its effects and affects as evidence "presupposing it exists.......circular blah blah blah "...(gag me)...good thing God gave us a FAITH to lean entirely upon....just sayin.....
        Tuesday at 3:09pm via mobile · · 2

      • Matthew Holland ‎"Prove the wind exists without using its effects and affects as evidence"-- logical fallacy, straw-man argument. that is completely different from ANYTHING that I said.

        Evidence is used to determine and demonstrate the truth of an assertion; however Your assertions IS that the bible is true. Therefore logically the bible is not valid to submit as evidence for the bible being true because its your assertions . Its just being stupid to say other wise.

        Further more, many of the stories in the bible are not verifiable, credible or testable. Many of them have been demonstrated to be false and are known to be wrong and have mountains of evidence against them, all of which CAN tested and all of which CAN and HAS been verified.
        Tuesday at 4:11pm ·

      • Devin Maxon But c the point im making blind man is that "I" have no burden to prove that God exists......I fully believe that God does not only exist but that He is very real and active in my life......the "burden" it sounds like is way totally on u calvary, "Golgatha", is all the more proof that I need.....straw man nothin that was solid wood steel nails and very very very real red blood.....and that is evident and truth....asssert nothin my bud.....Faith is real Faith is verifiable ur causation for contestation otherwise yea I bet thats a real burden no doubt
        Tuesday at 4:45pm via mobile · · 1

      • Jim Babb Jr Please cite your references that disprove the Bible.
        Tuesday at 4:48pm via mobile · · 3

      • Matthew Holland the definition for faith is 'belief without evidence' . so saying that" belief without evidence is real belief without evidence"
        Tuesday at 4:59pm · · 1

      • Devin Maxon Huh ya know I really think u just hit the nail on the head perfectly now ur gettin the idea bud.....
        Tuesday at 5:03pm via mobile · · 2

      • Jim Babb Jr Please cite your references that disprove the Bible.
        Tuesday at 5:10pm ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"Please cite your references that disprove the Bible. "

        the biblical story of Noah's flood is something that we know never happened, no one has ever been able to provide any verifiable evidence to replace the null hypothesis that it didn't happen. ALL of the evidence that has ever been collected by geology, plate tectonics, paleontology, biology, evolution, chemistry, physics, or any applicable discipline of science points to a different conclusion than that of the bible.

        simply put its not possible
        Tuesday at 5:11pm ·

      • Devin Maxon Huh....didnt catch n e actual references in that "strAw mAn" arguement just sayin
        Tuesday at 5:17pm via mobile · · 1

      • Jim Babb Jr Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History
        by Independent researchers Steven Austin, ICR, John Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory, D. Russell Humphreys, Sandia National Laboratories; Andrew Snelling, Answers in Genesis (USA); Larry Vardiman, ICR; Kurt Wise, Truett-McConnell College
        October 27, 2010

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

        "simply put its not possible," huh?

        Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History - Answers in Genesis
        www.answersingenesis.org
        Because of the enormous explanatory and predictive success of the plate tectonic...See More

        Tuesday at 5:21pm · · 1

      • Jim Babb Jr http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/oect/defense-local-flood

        Defense—A Local Flood? - Answers in Genesis
        www.answersingenesis.org
        If they are to be consistent, old-earth creationists are forced to believe in a ...See More

        Tuesday at 5:22pm · · 1

      • Jim Babb Jr http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/chalk-and-upper-cretaceous-deposits

        Chalk and “Upper Cretaceous” Deposits are Part of the Noachian Flood - Answers in Genesis
        www.answersingenesis.org
        Certain features of the “Upper Cretaceous” period correspond closely with the bi...See More

        Tuesday at 5:23pm · · 1

      • Matthew Holland ‎"Huh....didnt catch n e actual references in that "strAw mAn" arguement just sayin"-- not a straw man argument ass.
        Tuesday at 5:32pm · · 1

      • Matthew Holland www.answersingenesis.org isn't peer reviewed nor are any of the books that you listed. they are not credible source and not accepted as evidence in the scientific community.

        Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
        www.answersingenesis.org
        Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, de...See More

        Tuesday at 5:34pm ·

      • Matthew Holland try Google scholar
        Tuesday at 5:35pm ·

      • Jim Babb Jr I'll assume by your response and quick answer that you didn't read any of the articles I posted. Therefore, at this point we no longer have a valid debate, since I am the only one actually giving the opposing viewpoint the respect of reading/hearing/viewing and considering the argumentation.

        It is clear that no amount of scientific data will be able to enter your mind since your eyes and ears are tightly sealed shut.

        I will not waste any more of my time on this thread until you can show that you are prepared to reasonably and rationally debate.
        Tuesday at 5:51pm · · 2

      • Devin Maxon Well well well ......wheres ur actual references ......from post grad scientific studies....multiple labs.....multiple profesional phd scientists......multiples colleges .......tryin to simply understand ur definition of "peer reviewed".....and "scientiffic community".....and yes I definitely am aself proclaimed "ASS".....MR ASS if u will.....but that not our subject at hand straw man Holland.....a foundation built on the sand is easily washed away .......but dont worry Jesus WILL catch u when u least expect HIM to show.......oh and btw HE even loves u more than u or your "scientific community" will ever have evidence to define.....just sayin.....
        Tuesday at 5:56pm via mobile · · 2

      • Devin Maxon Huh......i sure hope u dontexpect us to believe everuthing we read on the all knowing internet
        Tuesday at 5:57pm via mobile ·

      • Matthew Holland ‎"you didn't read any of the articles I posted."-- no didn't, i checked to see if they were scientifically credible and previewed first and found that they were not.

        ", since I am the only one actually giving the opposing viewpoint the respect of reading/hearing/viewing and considering the argumentation."-- negative, i gave you more a very clear outline as to why your bible 'IS' your claim and why it can NOT stand as evidence for itself.

        again, the burden is on you to prove that there is in fact a god and that the bible is factual (specifically the flood of Noah ) . The default position for anything, especially in the realm of science and logic, is that the null hypothesis (I.E. 'X' does NOT exist) is true until the alternative hypothesis being tested (I.E. 'X' does exist) is proven and replaces the null. Again, you are going to have to separate and distinguish 'non-existence' from a 'god'.

        "It is clear that no amount of scientific data will be able to enter your mind since your eyes and ears are tightly sealed shut."-- negative, you as of yet provided any credible, verifiable, peer reviewed scientific evidence yourself. you have to look at the authors and at the sources that they list and determent if the text in question is a credible source. again, I did look up your texts and found that none of your text were credible. USE GOOGLE SCHOLAR at the least.

        ""peer reviewed"" ---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
        "scientiffic community"--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community

        ".i sure hope u dontexpect us to believe everuthing we read on the all knowing internet" --No, i do not. try college level classes from a credible school.

        this is just a few things taht i have in the house

        isbn 0-7645-5433-6
        isbn 0-13-147058-2
        isbn 978-0-13-100065-0
        isbn-13: 978-0-321-51695-4
        isbn-10: 0-321-51695-8

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po&feature=fvwrel

        Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org
        Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of eval...See More

        Tuesday at 6:18pm ·

      • Devin Maxon Google and wikipedia......hmmm....what do the all mighty google scholar and wikipedia say about faith.....ur logic and science simply are to closed to the concept......sad all that higher education didnt show u how much u dont know......seriously what a limited narrow mind one must posses to so limit his understading.....real shame.....and a real shame u discredit and disrespect scientists and their...."peer reviewed scientific communities" simply because u dont agree .......just like u said "straw man"at his finest narrow and shallow.....what a beautiful world you will not c with that view....
        Tuesday at 6:34pm via mobile · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=plcp
        Tuesday at 6:47pm ·

      • Devin Maxon Oh and btw absolutely.....(yes by definition absolutely)......no burden here......I am more than confident and comfortable with my beliefs....and find ur findings interesting......to say the least.....even amusing.....ur burdens is yours to carry and I assure it will grow heavy and you will grow weary of carrying it .....and when u do if ur not dead first straw man Holland.....(hopefully)....He will b their to catch you.....waiting with open arms.....broken and beaten you will find the better than n e evidence warmer than and scientist.....more loving than any peers and the best part He will b begging for the oppertunity to was away any burden u carry.....just sayin.....a closed mind is foolishand frought with dangers.....but whatev not my problem bud.....
        Tuesday at 6:50pm via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland Also, Matthew didn't "discredit and disrespect scientists and their..."peer reviewed scientific communities" simply because u dont agree." He even stated that the proposed "credible" sources are not credible because the authors themselves are not credible and they're not peer-reviewed. At least Google Scholar has an option to only look at peer-reviewed sources. With wikipedia, you just take a bit of extra time to research the resources provided at the bottom of the wiki to verify the whether or not the information is indeed credible.
        Tuesday at 6:52pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland ‎Devin Maxon. It doesn't sound like you understand what the burden of proof means..
        Tuesday at 6:54pm ·

      • Devin Maxon Haha .....no ya'lls closed minds r simply missing the point I am very plainly choosing not to accept it....my "burden" is not to prove anything becaue thats not my objective ....I am describing a completely different type of burden which it obviously is present....your objective is to disprove the existance of God.....if I understand u correctly....trouble is thats a long long terrible road.....especially if u have a strong familiarity with the bible.......
        Tuesday at 7:06pm via mobile ·

      • Devin Maxon And moreover ya ll are frustrated by this little debacle because it is directly calling u out on it and no matter ur response it will not illicit that burden because it does notexist within us...again im calling your burden and it obviously stings
        Tuesday at 7:12pm via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland We're not close minded. We just only accept claims that are backed by valid evidence. It's not our objective to disprove the existence of "God." All we are doing is pointing out that you cannot state your beliefs as being the truth if you do not have evidence to support your claims. If you provide valid proof though to support your claim, then we will be more than happy to take the information you provide into consideration.
        Tuesday at 7:13pm ·

      • Devin Maxon I have all the "credible evidence" I need I state it as truth because I believe that it is and have faith that it is.....and all the logic in the world and science cannot define the faith or belief im speaking of......yes' thats what your narrow closed mind is refusing to openly explore.....savvy?
        Tuesday at 7:17pm via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland The only thing that is frustrating us is your idiocy and incapability to comprehend what we are saying. We are having to repeat ourselves over and over because you keep misunderstanding. You still have not shown to even comprehend what burden of proof means otherwise you would understand why it is that the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that there is a "God' and I am skeptical of your claim. Prove that there is a God. I am NOT trying to prove that there is no God or disprove the existence of God. I am waiting for valid evidence that supports your claim.
        Tuesday at 7:18pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland You do realize that I'm an ex-Christian right? I'm VERY familiar with the faith you have and I understand the comfort that it brings you. However, that still does not mean that you can insist to everybody else that what you say is true on the grounds that you just believe it is. I can believe that unicorns exist, but that doesn't make their existence more or less true or real.
        Tuesday at 7:21pm · · 1

      • Devin Maxon And my peer Jimmy has provided such evidence as your definition has prescribed.....i cannot believe u find yourselves to be the authority on credible and discredible scientific peer reviewed evidence and to so quickly throw out somebodies years of research hardwork and scientific study....yes applying all the necessary methodology to qualify it as such....that I would find insulting if I.were them
        Tuesday at 7:23pm via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland Again, no it did NOT abide by our definition of evidence because it wasn't valid, credible, or peer-reviewed. It's not us who are the authority on what is or isn't credible. There are basic guidelines to what makes evidence credible and I'm quite surprised that you don't recall learning about that in high school.
        Tuesday at 7:26pm ·

      • Devin Maxon Not once have I insisted n e thing to anyone simply stating my belief as the truth I believe it is....sure I can state that I believe it is truth....betcause I do....and beyond such is beyond contestation for me.....indeed I am refusing to take your burden of proof.....i spent my time in college and in court I know all to well precisely what your lookingh for me to do......simply put yet again (haha talk about repitition) I do not have to and will not assume that burden not interested in doing so....your judgements God are very saddening....however not my problem and not
        Worth mytime.....just sayin I wish u tge worst of like inurquest to walkaway from God and moreover like I said yesterday ya ll Holland people r a sad sad bunch d day is gonna suck for u.....
        Tuesday at 7:51pm via mobile · · 1

      • Matthew Holland ‎"Not once have I insisted n e thing to anyone simply stating my belief as the truth I believe it is....sure I can state that I believe it is truth....betcause I do....and beyond such is beyond contestation for me.....indeed I am refusing to take your burden of proof.....i spent my time in college and in court I know all to well precisely what your lookingh for me to do......simply put yet again (haha talk about repitition) I do not have to and will not assume that burden not interested in doing so....your judgements God are very saddening....however not my problem and not
        Worth mytime.....just sayin I wish u tge worst of like inurquest to walkaway from God and moreover like I said yesterday ya ll Holland people r a sad sad bunch d day is gonna suck for u....."

        -- you are an idiot, nuff said.
        Tuesday at 7:57pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson Stephanie, what made your heart turn away from what you used to believe? I don't want to know who turned you away, if anyone, but what was it about a personal relationship with God, the God you used to pray to, that turned you off? I'm just curious to better understand why you are so adamant about there being not being proof of God? What do you believe is proof that there is NO God?
        Tuesday at 8:12pm via mobile · · 1

      • Brittany Thompson ‎*about there not being proof
        Tuesday at 8:14pm via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland I read the Bible.
        Tuesday at 8:14pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson Ok that's a good start- what about the bible don't you like?
        Tuesday at 8:16pm via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland The contradictions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE4Lbrik_eU
        Tuesday at 8:26pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
        Tuesday at 8:26pm ·

      • Devin Maxon Hmmm.....disapointing .......good thing Jesus loves ya ll.....go on then .....fall hard hope he breaks u wide open straw man Holland......and mark my words HE WILL...... Jerimiah 29:11.......
        Tuesday at 8:34pm via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland Why are you full of such anger and malice?
        Tuesday at 8:35pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson I don't like to watch videos like that. I was more just curious as to what the bible did or did not mean to you, and specifically where you personally found fault.
        Tuesday at 8:38pm via mobile · · 1

      • Devin Maxon No anger tough love perhaps no malice.....saddenned for u......very very sad for u
        Tuesday at 8:38pm via mobile ·

      • Brittany Thompson Devin- please stop using the bible to tell Stephanie the bible is real. If she doesnt believe it's truth, you can't use it's content to validate its points.
        Tuesday at 8:40pm via mobile · · 2

      • Brittany Thompson Is it the old testament or the new testament you have a bigger issue with ?
        Tuesday at 8:41pm via mobile · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland It's the blatant contradictions in general that are scattered throughout the Bible.
        Tuesday at 8:44pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland It wasn't anything that was said in it that affected me personally, it just was not adding up logically at all.
        Tuesday at 8:45pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Honestly, I was in denial for a very, very long time about the idea that my beliefs were fallacious claims supported by a contradictory text. However, what it came down to was that facts are facts.
        Tuesday at 8:53pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson Can you give me your own examples of what you believe to be contradictory?
        Tuesday at 9:14pm via mobile · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland I have a notebook that has them listed out. Would you mind if I provide the examples tomorrow so that I may have time to dig the notebook out and type up my notes?
        Tuesday at 9:19pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson Of course. I would love that!
        Tuesday at 9:24pm via mobile · · 2

      • Stephanie Holland Thank you :)
        Tuesday at 9:24pm ·

      • Becky Babb How about a nice game of chess? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo

        That scene from War Games

        This is the "lesson" scene from the movie War Games. Where we learn that the only way to win in Nuclear War is not to play. www.miabifilms.com

        Tuesday at 9:55pm · · 1

      • Brittany Thompson To anyone following this post: we are going to have an open, honest discussion. There will be no debating, name calling, assumptions, or ranting. If you can't respect Stephanie and her ideas, please please to not disrespect her. I really want to make it clear that we all disagree, and nobody is being forced to switch sides. Let's be accepting, as our minds carry complex histories which lead us to certain points in our lives.
        Stephanie- when you find your notebook you have the floor.
        Yesterday at 8:43am via mobile · · 5

      • Stephanie Holland Thank you Brittany. To start, I want to state that when I was a Christian I believed the Bible to be the Word of God and that God's Word was perfect with no mistakes.

        I don't want to overwhelm you with my entire list so I'll just start with a few from Genesis since it's the first book. My notes are mostly separated by books so we can either go through the list chronologically or jump between different books depending on the flow of the conversation.

        1. Two different creation stories?
        a. Genesis 1:25-27 states that man was created after animals and that man and woman were created simultaneously

        “25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

        but Genesis 2:18-22 states that man was created before animals and that the order they were created in was man, then animals, and then woman.

        “18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into woman, and He brought her to the man.”

        b. Genesis 1:11-13, 27-31 states that plants were created before humans

        “Then God said, “Let earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.”… “27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 “Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then “God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

        but Genesis 2:4-9 states that plants were created after humans.

        “4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant in sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

        c. Genesis 1:20-21 states that animals, particularly birds, were created from the waters

        “20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”

        but Genesis 2:19 states that they were created from the ground.

        “19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.”
        Yesterday at 1:29pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson btw i got some help with this explanation. from an apologetics government site.
        Yesterday at 1:49pm · · 1

      • Brittany Thompson wait why did my comment get deleted?
        Yesterday at 1:59pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Which comment?
        Yesterday at 2:11pm ·

      • Vicki LShark C. Dennis McKinsey should be in this debate also. Why do we have the new and old testament? We are not being treated by what Adam did. If you want to take the Bible word for word, then when you get to a stop sign, when do you go? I believe all in all, the Bible teaches faith, long-suffering, patience, love, hope, how to deal with evilness. Nothing scientific about it. You will never get that from trying to prove who got here first, the chicken or the egg stuff.
        Yesterday at 2:24pm · · 1

      • Brittany Thompson i'm just going to copy and paste. i summarized before, but can't do it all again :( lol
        Yesterday at 2:26pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorship. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to these variations? Indeed there is. Furthermore, there are a number of factors that militate against the notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent and contradictory accounts of the creation.

        First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:

        There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).
        This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]

        Second, there is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the Sun, Moon, and stars, etc. Archer has pointed out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the Sun, Moon, seas, etc. (1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.

        Even Howard Johnston, who was (at least in part) sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis, conceded:

        The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man (1902, p. 90).
        The following summary statement by Kenneth Kitchen is worthy of notice:

        It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism
        Yesterday at 2:27pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson am i going in the right direction here? someone feel free to join!
        Yesterday at 2:36pm ·

      • Stephanie Holland Well first let me ask you a question. Do you feel that the Bible is meant to be read literally and that the events are factual or do you feel that it is a literary piece that is open to interpretation?
        Yesterday at 3:04pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson
        Thats a really good question.
        I believe the Bible to hold the truth, and that whatever the bible says happened, really happened.
        The old testament is harder to grasp; it came under different sorts of laws.


        I think that nobody now can eve...See More

        Yesterday at 3:23pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson with that being said, I think that minor things, such as wording, can be open to translation. that is, after all, why we have different denominations within the "Church". Christians are called to be one body, but instead we have formed branches. It's open to interpretation up to the point that we are supposed to know that Jesus came, Jesus loved, and Jesus died for us. that's really all that matters.
        Yesterday at 3:25pm · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland
        It must be one OR the other. Not both. If it's verifiably factual then it shouldn't be up to interpretation and if it can be open to interpretation then it cannot be considered true and factual. We don't interpret historic records; the fact...See More

        Yesterday at 3:42pm ·

      • Brittany Thompson
        We know the bible happened. For instance, Jesus is a very historical figure. Nobody argues that he didn't exist; some just argue that he wasn't God. How we interpret the bible, we aren't debating facts, we are applying it's law to our live...See More

        Yesterday at 3:55pm via mobile ·

      • Brittany Thompson The old testament was written by many different authors in many different places; and yet they all fit and all seem to line up. I think the issue of wording shouldn't stop you from looking further at the big picture.
        Yesterday at 3:57pm via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland
        People do argue whether or not Jesus existed though since there is no evidence of his existence. What historians have used the Bible as if it were filled with thorough and complete facts? How do you know the stories are true? How do they "m...See More

        23 hours ago ·

      • Brittany Thompson the things you think are not "factual" or "true" can be FELT. I guess maybe this is something you want to find fault with, and I can't be you to feel this for you. There is no corpse because Jesus ascended to Heaven. He did not stay because he was not of this earth.
        23 hours ago via mobile · · 1

      • Brittany Thompson if someone else would like to step in I need to look a few more things up before I go any more into this.
        23 hours ago via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland Just because you feel that it's true still makes it unreasonable for you to state that it is indeed true without evidence to support this and expect others to just go along with what you feel to be true without inquiring about evidence or being skeptical when no valid, verifiable evidence is provided.
        23 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland I'm not trying to say that there is no God or that Jesus didn't exist or that the Bible isn't factual. I'm just saying that I lack the belief in them since I am skeptical due to the fact that there is no valid, verifiable evidence to support these beliefs. Thus, since there is no valid, verifiable evidence, they cannot be claimed as actually being true and factual.
        23 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland I apologize if I had said anything to cause you to misunderstand my intentions at all.
        23 hours ago ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

        Can We Trust the New Testament as a Historical Document?
        carm.org
        Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?

        23 hours ago · ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi
        You might be interested in taking a look at this. They compare the number of copys of other historical documents that most people don't even question to the number of copys of the Bible and how closely that number of copys are to eachother....See More

        23 hours ago ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi I'll admit I havent been able to follow quite as closely since I've been at work today, so this may be random and if so I apologize. I just thought it was cool haha :)
        23 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland
        Norman Geisler - not credible and very biased source
        Richard M. Fales, Ph.D - not credible, having difficulty finding any sort of credentials at all, also very biased source
        Josh Mcdowell - definitely not a credible source and very biased s...See More

        23 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland Oops, didn't see Ray Comfort as one of the sources for the article. He is definitely not credible by any means. His explanation of the banana is one of many reasons why he is probably just about the furthest thing from being credible you can get.
        23 hours ago ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Dont look at the writers of the article. The point was the statistical chart of the number of copies of historical documents in comparison to the Bible. Honestly I didnt even read the article myself, I just wanted to point out the chart, which sadly I couldnt copy and paste onto facebook so thats why i posted a link.
        22 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland If the writers themselves who created the chart are not credible than the chart that these writers created is not credible either.
        22 hours ago ·

      • Brittany Thompson In my opinion; anyone with a PhD is more credible than any of us lol jk
        22 hours ago via mobile ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi While the chart may have been compiled by these sources, the numbers that they are coming up with are verifiable. Type "how many copies of iliad by homer" into google, and you get the same number on the chart.. I'm sure its the same for the others
        22 hours ago · · 1

      • Becky Babb
        Quote from Marilyn Adamson: "I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting somethi...See More

        22 hours ago · · 1

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi I understand that you do not find those sources credible, so I encourage you to use a source you do find credible to check the numbers. If the numbers come back different let me know, but I'd be surprised if they don't vary very much at all. However, I'd be interested to see what you'd find if you're interested.
        22 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland
        ‎"What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?" Interesting to point this out. I guess this is a waste of my time. As long as my rights and freedoms ...See More

        22 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland ‎*ignorant, not ignorance
        22 hours ago ·

      • Becky Babb There is a universe full of the evidence of God by those who WANT to find Him and countless numbers of changed lives.
        22 hours ago · · 1

      • Becky Babb How about a nice game of chess?
        22 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland Furthermore, I am not going to do the research for you. You are the one making the claim and provided insufficient evidence. Thus it is up to you to find valid, verifiable evidence to support your claim and present it. If you cannot do so then your claim is invalid.
        22 hours ago ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Stephanie, how can I do research for you if every source I use you claim is "not credible" by your opinion? What sources DO you find credible?
        22 hours ago · · 1

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Because to me, these sources ARE credible so how am I supposed to know what is credible to you?
        22 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland It is not by my opinion that makes it not credible. It is using tips and guidelines that I've learned in high school and college. It is not my fault that you are ignorant to what is or isn't credible.
        22 hours ago ·

      • AngeloandJennifer Parisi Well that was rude. And once again... I'm out
        22 hours ago · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland It's just true.
        22 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland
        Since Becky Babb enlightened me to what a "waste of time" this was for me since it doesn't matter to me what you believe and she said you all want to live in your "ignorant bliss" I'm done with this. "However, if my rights and freedoms are ...See More

        22 hours ago ·

      • Becky Babb I didn't say it was a waste of time, you did. I quoted an ex-atheist.
        22 hours ago via mobile ·

      • Stephanie Holland Whether or not something is credible depends on whether or not it's verifiable and peer-reviewed. These expectations are not just expectations that I learned in school, they are expectations that are commonly known in levels of higher education and used when conducting research. Those who do not follow such guidelines when conducting research lose their credibility.
        22 hours ago ·

      • Stephanie Holland I didn't say that you said that. I said that you had enlightened me to the idea.
        22 hours ago ·

      • Jennifer Razzouk sorry I deleted my post. dunno why, so THX for acknowledging it
        22 hours ago ·

      • Jennifer Razzouk I have a degree from UCDavis, so I'm a "credible" source, I think. Except that my emphasis was in English Lit and Jewish Studies. so, not having a Scientific background, is that the kind of research y'all have been referring to? 312 comments have been a bit daunting to follow, although my Degree would make you think otherwise...
        22 hours ago ·

      • Becky Babb ‎^Jennifer, remember Jesus' words that said- they will not be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead.
        21 hours ago via mobile · · 1

      • Brittany Thompson I think I'm going to be done with this. I really hope you consider what we've said, because all any of us want is to love you, and all of us have come to you with wonderful sources, but yet they are not good enough. Stephanie, when you are ready to have more of an open mind, the gift of everlasting love will be here for you. trust me, it'll always be here for you :)
        21 hours ago via mobile · · 1

      • Stephanie Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
        21 hours ago ·

      • Brittany Thompson I don't watch movies like that. But I appreciate the effort!
        21 hours ago via mobile · · 4

      • Jennifer Razzouk had to step away from the conversation for a bit. watching the youtube. hold on.....
        8 hours ago ·

      • Brittany Thompson again, in response to Jenn's chart..."this entire website is not a credible source to look for evidence at."
        i would like to know how a .org website is less reliable than wikipedia and youtube?
        8 hours ago · · 2

      • Matthew Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

        The burden of proof

        Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.

        7 hours ago ·

      • Matthew Holland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWsH6GO6PIA

        Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438

        Refusing to accept simple rules of logic seems to be a favorite past time for so...See More

        7 hours ago ·

      • Brittany Thompson Lol again. Why should anyone believe YouTube over .org?
        6 hours ago via mobile · · 1

      • Jim Babb Jr Let's just see what happens when I say this....

        TheraminTrees: biased, not credible, doesn't even show up on Google Scholar, not a valid source
        QualiaSoup: biased, not credible, barely shows up on Google Scholar, not source
        Atheist Community of Austin: biased, it's right in their name, not a valid source

        I guess none of us have credible arguments.
        3 hours ago · · 4

      • Becky Babb We're all incredible!
        2 hours ago via mobile · · 1
      • Jim Babb Jr
        Oh, and just for the record:

        answersingenesis.org - Over 1,000 entries on Google Scholar
        carm.org - 179 entries on Google Scholar
        Kenneth Kitchen - Over 700 entries on Google Scholar
        Marilyn Adamson - 20 entries on Google Scholar
        blueletterbible.org - 250 entries on Google Scholar
        Norman Giesler - Over 1,500 entries on Google Scholar
        Ray Comfort - 246 entries on Google Scholar
        Josh McDowell - Over 2,000 entries on Google Scholar
        Gary R Habermas - 471 entries on Google Scholar
        12 minutes ago · · 2