The article A Quick Glance at the Foolishness in the Bible at Free Thinking Atheist (does that imply I'm not "free thinking" because I'm not an atheist, or just that not all atheists are "free thinking"? -Edit: I was being factitious here. Of course the author of the article intends neither-) discusses to the following passage from Genesis:

Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. (Gen 30:37-39, NIV)

Of course, we know that putting branches in front of mating animals won't naturally affect how their offspring look. But is the author of the "foolishness" article above correct when he says "We now know this is physically, biologically, and genetically impossible. Placing striped branches near mating animals isn’t going to do anything to them, yet the Bible is saying their offspring came out striped, and dotted." I'd say yes. But his conclusion that the credibility of the Bible is hurt by this passage is incorrect. Here's why:

First, note what the passage does not say. It does not say that placing the branches in the water caused the animals to become streaked. Jacob may have believed that at the time; but as always, we have to study verses in context. Just shortly before this event, we see that Jacob was being cheated by Laban. Laban purposefully removed all speckled, spotted, etc animals to prevent Jacob from getting them, since it was their agreement that Jacob could take all of the "speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat" as Jacob's wages for tending the flocks. In Gen 31:10-13, God reveals Laban's deception to Jacob, and notes that "I [God] have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee". Jacob interprets the event this way: "God has not allowed him to harm me", and "God has taken away your father's livestock and has given them to me" (Gen 31:8,9). Jacob doesn't say "I foiled Laban's plan by using the branches", he credits God for acting to prevent Laban's trickery. This shows that in this case God intervened to produce the appropriate results, not because of Jacob's actions with the branches but perhaps despite them, to prevent Jacob from being unfairly cheated.

The author of the "foolishness" article also comments that "it looks like it [Gen 30:37-39] has already been edited and obscured so the actual message of the passage is vague and meaningless: King James Version – Genesis 30:37-39. Hell, the trees don’t even match up in each passage." I should note here that the King James Version is not the easiest translation for modern people to use, especially those who have no training in biblical exegesis, and that the King James translation was done hundreds of years before the NIV translation that the author uses in his own article. So if anything, modern translations have "edited" the text to be more accurate to the original text. However, even the claim that the message has been "obscured" in the KJV passage is totally untrue; compare the KJV for yourself to the NIV above:

And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. (Gen 30:37-39, KJV)

As you can see, the meaning of the passage hasn't been "edited" or "obscured", even in the King James Version. As I noted in my article Bible "contradictions": A Real Example, "if I was reading Shakespeare and found what I thought was a contradiction, I wouldn’t think “Hmmm I guess I proved that this Shakespeare guy didn’t know what he was doing.” I’d probably assume that my naive interpretation was wrong; I’d need to do some more reading and thinking about the supposed problem, or consult an expert." The same applies to biblical interpretation. I encourage everyone to learn about biblical exegesis in order to better understand the Bible.

"Jesus versus who?" you're probably rightly asking. Here's some info about Adi Da (real name Franklin Albert Jones, aka Da Free John, Bubba Free John, Da Loveananda, etc):

Adi Da is the charismatic and controversial leader of the Adidam movement. … His original community was known as the Dawn Horse Communion, then the Crazy Wisdom Fellowship, and it has had several other titles … Adi Da claims to be God incarnate and says he was born into a fully enlightened state … [He] pursued Eastern religions [after college] … His followers believe he dwells in a state known as "Bright" [and that he] "is the only complete Incarnation of the Divine" … Ex-members have accused Adi Da of drunkenness, sexually abusing others, and living a life of splendor. … Funds are often raised through auctioning of Adi Da's possessions among his followers. In one auction the starting price for a Q-tip used by Adi Da was $108. (From the book Religions A-Z, James A Beverley)

Both Jesus and Adi Da claim to be God incarnate. Let's look briefly at just a few of the differences:

• Jesus performed public miracles. Jesus peformed many public healings, feeding of the 5,000, etc. Adi Da's "miracles", such as a "brilliant corona that stood around the sun for a full day", were not even observed at the time by his own followers.
• Jesus was not a hypocrite. Jesus practiced what he preached, and was considered sinless (1 Peter 2:22). Adi Da, however, has a very different interpretation of how he should act. Here's what Adi Da has to say about his behavior (which includes numerous sexual abuses, etc): "The way that I teach is not the way I am, but the way I teach. What I speak is not a reflection of me, but of you. … All that I do and speak only reveals men to themselves. Those who remain confounded by me, critical of me, have yet to see themselves." Sounds like hypocracy to me. Here's a transcript of an NBC report on Abi Da's lifestyle. As above, Adi Da has also been described by many ex-members as engaging in many immoral practices.
• Jesus fulfilled prophecies written hundreds of years earlier. Jesus was prophesied about in many passages such as Isaiah 53. No prophecies speak of Adi Da.
• Jesus lived an unselfish life. Jesus came from a poor family, had "no place to lay his head", and did not take special privileges above His disciples. Adi Da on the other hand lives a life of luxury in lavish mansions with fancy cars, while doling out only paltry sums to his followers who live with him. (See the previously linked NBC report.)
• Jesus died and lived again. The evidence for Jesus' resurrection is compelling. Jesus willingly gave up His life. As Paul says, "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

This is only a small sampling of the vast gulf that differentiates the two. All this said, we must be careful to note that Jesus was not "just a good man". As C.S.Lewis said, He did not leave that option open to us. Adi Da thinks (or at least tries to convince other people) that he is God incarnate … Jesus said the same, and backed up His claim.

More info on Adidam:
Official Adi Da Website
– Criticism: The Daism Seminar
– Criticism: Rick Ross Adi Da Page

A bold statement is made in the title of this blog entry. Here's why I think it's true.

Let's first consider the antithesis to the title of this blog, that is, the following common idea: "Even if God exists, we can't really know anything about God. So therefore faith is a matter of personal opinion on which there is no objective basis."

Now, it's impossible to prove that "we can't really know anything about God". But what reasons would someone have for believing that? The reason might be something like this: "If God exists, He would be infinite in every sense, and therefore entirely beyond our ability to comprehend as mere finite beings." That God is "infinite" makes sense, since God is the greatest which can be thought, and therefore nothing can be greater in any way. But notice that this underlying idea is making an assumption regarding what God is like … ie, "infinite". So the original (expanded) argument that "we can't know what God is like because He is infinite" is self-refuting because the argument is based on an assumption about what God is like!

But let's take this a step further. Let's say for the sake of argument that God exists. If He is infinite (as the argument above seems to be postulating) it would be logical to argue that God would be, at very least, intelligent and powerful. (If God were not intelligent and/or powerful, then each of us finite beings would in a sense be greater than God, meaning whatever conception we might be discussing, it would not really be like God at all.) God is not intelligent and powerful in the sense that WE are intelligent or powerful. He is so in a similar sense, but at the same time so much more. And if God is intelligent and powerful, he must be able to communicate to us about Himself. If he could not he would either not be intelligent or powerful (or both). So what we can conclude from all of this is that IF God exists, He would be able to tell us about Himself. Of course an infinite God cannot not tell finite beings everything about Himself, but He certainly can reveal as much as our finite brains can handle.

The questions that remain are, firstly, does God exist? I think there are good reasons for this. For some in-depth, philosophical & scholarly articles see William Lane Craig, for more generally-accessable argument, the Kalam argument is a good place to start. The other question is how we can know about God. Some may point to "natural revelation". We may learn something about God from nature, but ultimately we will find contradicting messages: "If we look at a beautiful sunrise, we decide god is 'good'; if we look at a hurricane, we decide god is 'cruel'" (Matthew Slick) So exploring our natural variable surroundings and philosophizing about life will only take us so far; not far enough to reveal real truth or be useful.

Thus, the only real way to know about God is for Him to tell us about Himself; for God to enter into history and make Himself known. This is exactly what Christians believe happened, at exactly the right time and place. The Christian story is, I think, if you compare the gospel with all other faiths, very different in both plot, person (of Jesus) and significance. But hey, don't take my word for it, try investigating yourself like I did.

Did you know that bread is dangerous? I don't mean like "I'm on the Atkins diet I can't eat bread", I mean that bread can seriously kill you! Don't believe me? Check out this site: Bread is Dangerous! Of course, that link is satire. There IS a point to this however: Just because A and B are correlated doesn't mean that A necessarily causes B, or that B causes A. Both A and B may have a common cause, or it may simply be a coincidence. It's certainly possible that A causes B, but you need to explain why in order to have a persuasive argument.

(This post gave me a chance to do something I've never done before: Draw an angry face on a loaf of bread. Huzzah! I deem it a success.)