“Human” or “person”? Why our wording is crucial in human value conversat...

Peter Singer on Human Dignity and Infanticide: Part One | MandM

English: Peter Albert David Singer at The College of New Jersey (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dr Matthew Flannagan has posted the first part of an paper critiquing the philosophy of Dr Peter Singer.

Christian theism has traditionally taught that human beings have equal dignity and worth, a moral status that separates them from non-human animals. Peter Singer has famously rejected this teaching, holding that human beings are not any more special than animals and doctrines of human dignity are indefensible.  He contends that killing a new-born infant is, in and of itself, no more problematic than killing a non-human animal such as a cow or a pig and defends the permissibly of infanticide under certain conditions

Peter Singer is the poster child of an atheist who advocates terrible moral values that come from an abandonment of Godly moral principles. Answering minds like Singer's is very important. 

Peter Singer on Human Dignity and Infanticide: Part One | MandM

And Man Created God | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini has posted an article about Robert Banks' interesting book, And Man Created God: Is God a Human Invention? (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2011). I'm highly interested in the article because today we have so many attacks on Christianity alleging that the God revealed to us in Scripture is nothing more than a product of human imagination and wishes. It's nice that there is a book out there that goes up against such lies. On the article Mariano posted:

People need God, but only the true God will satisfy the basic needs of humanity. The prophets of the Old Testament recognized that man-made gods have no power to transform the life of an individual. Jeremiah said those who went after worthless things became worthless themselves (Jeremiah 2:5).
Secular people and those who have created their own gods need to learn that the worship of man-made gods leads to “loss of sanity and humanity.”

And Man Created God | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

FacePalm of the Day #100 - Debunking Christianity: The Implications of Evolution are Enormous

John Loftus posted a short paragraph that never ceases to amaze me

I've previously quoted from Jerry Coyne where he tells us evolution is a fact. Here are a few of the implications: The God-hypothesis for the creation of human beings is unnecessary at best; the Adam & Eve story is a myth; human beings are not special nor even the highest creation; when we die we cease to exist just like every other species does. There are many others. Religion itself becomes an unnecessary hypothesis.

It seems that it doesn't matter what anyone says, he doesn't listen. Think about it. He protests too much. Micro Evolution is a fact. Small incremental changes caused by environment and mutation from within a species is indeed a fact. However, those changes explaining how a whale and a horse can have common ancestor as a land dwelling mammal....not so much.

Debunking Christianity: The Implications of Evolution are Enormous

Related articles

• David Marshall and My Refutation of His Work (arizonaatheist.blogspot.com)
• Intelligent Design vs. Evolution (campbellzc.wordpress.com)
• science and the evolution of the science of evolution (paulburkhart.wordpress.com)

What Will Happen If Gay Marriage Is Legalized?… | The Angry Black Woman

This argument for same-sex always amazes me. The argument makes no sense because no one rational thinks that it has anything to do with teaching children how to have gay sex in schools because how to have heterosexual sex is not taught in schools (nor should it be). It has nothing to do with terrorism. It has nothing to do with a world war. However the logical consequence is ignored! The argument is based on the idea that gay people should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couple in traditional marriage to the point that they want their legal social covenant to have the same weight as a man and woman. They want legitimacy. Thirty years ago it would have been an absurd thought to redefine "marriage" as anything different than what it has always been since the beginning. Here is the consequence we must consider. If its okay for two men or two women to get married, why is it not okay for one man and multiple women? What about one woman and multiple men? What about an adult and child  (as long as the child wants to)? What about a human and his pet? If "marriage" is fluid and whatever we agree that it is, how can we deny anyone the right to be with the one they love the way they want to be? Egalitarian as we are, how can we deny marriage  to include anyone's desires and predilections? Perverts and pedophiles are already making such arguments.  It's a slippery slope - one that our descendants will be paying for if we continue down this road to oblivion. Hell in a handbasket.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
 ²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
 ²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
 ²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
 ²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.- Romans 1:18-32

America, we deserve what is coming.

What Will Happen If Gay Marriage Is Legalized?… | The Angry Black Woman

Related articles

• Gay Divorce (themoderatevoice.com)
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Signs Marriage Equality Act into Law - Asking Obama to go Cuomo on DOMA! (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)
• Heterosexual questionnaire, aka Worst. Homework assignment. Ever. (4simpsons.wordpress.com)
• What are some opinions as to the meaning of Romans chapter 1 verse 26 (wiki.answers.com)

Responding to "Gandalf's" Comments on "Debunking Christianity"

Recently I wrote a post about a post John Loftus wrote responding to a comments I left on Friday. You can read my comments on it here. One of the commentators that I have interacted with in the past has posted his own comments regarding me and my actions on the Debunking Christianity blog. His comments are in italics and mine are normal font.

Marcus McElhaney said..."Those "minister" and "prophets" who are doing that will face judgement."

Howdy Marcus.

This is something simply being assumed by you Marcus .You have no such proof to even suggest such a thing "will" happen.Its all about your faith, nothing more.
From the time that I have been reading comments by you, you have whined and cried about the abuses by Christianity and other religions. I still agree there has been much evil done in the name of God and attempts to use the Bible to legitimate those sins. My bone of contention is that it is unfair to blame the Bible for things that people do who are acting contrary to what it says. This underscores things that keep getting confused on the Debunking Christianity blog: The difference between the Bible's content a being true representation of reality and just understanding what the Bible says. How can you meaningfully understand if the Bible is true if you don't understand what it says?
I have already pointed out i dont feel any hate for you Marcus,and i was also being very honest.
But please try to understand pointing straight back to things written in faith books all the time, just isnt good enough for many folks around here, just because it happens to be your personal faith.And you tend to make many folks get a little or even sometimes a lot pissed off about it , when you keep on purposely doing it.
I'm convinced that the majority of the people I have interacted with on the Debunking Christianity blog don't understand what the Bible says, including Gandalf and John Loftus himself. They argue that they do but if they did they wouldn't mishandle and distort what the text says. Again you have to understand what the text is saying before you can evaluate if the text is true. I realize that they hate this point. Thinking that it's being argued that they are not intelligent enough to understand the Bible. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that they are blatantly misunderstanding what the Bible says on many points and if there is disagreement on drawing out the meaning of passages from the Bible we should be able to discuss them and see what the Bible is really saying. Instead most of the time people on that blog just get angry and I get accused of trying to prove the Bible with the Bible.
They purposely point out to you that this is all you do , and even ask you for something better .But then most often all you simply do is exactly the same thing again and again and again , making discussion with you seem so circular and endless.
This statement shows me that Gandalf and perhaps most others don't really read what I write. More than once I have offered to go through scriptures that I know they are mishandling and I've challenged them to show me why my understanding is wrong. And yet very few have even tried to engaged such a thing. Most of the time they throw up their hands as if it would be pointless because I am closed-minded. It seems circular because they refuse to engage what the text is truly saying. For example many say they disagree with the Bible because it says the earth is 6000 years old and the Bible says no such thing.
Im only bothering to be saying what im saying here in this comment now,because i dont feel hatered towards you, and even realize yes your heart is most likely very much in the right place.And you most likely care about people.
Gandalf has most often been the most hate-filled person I've talked to Debunking Christianity. By that I mean he's been the meanest. To be fair he has already stated that his words and attitude has been born of frustration. That is a lack of maturity. You ought to be able to disagree with someone and articulate why without name-calling and arrogance. Passionate emotion is one thing. But we ought to be better than that. At one point Gandalf was doing nothing but calling me names everytime I wrote anything and I started ribbing him back. Since then he has stopped and so have I.
Im just trying to explain what it might be that helps get some peoples attempts at discussion with you, a little heated at times.And then you can choose to think about it a little or not.Specially if you like to believe you do honestly care about people!
I disagree that telling people that I think they are wrong in how they understand the Bible is not being unloving or uncaring. I do it because I do care. IT seems like to me like Gandalf and several other would rather just believe what they want to believe without being challenged. I expect it to get heated. The Bible says it is supposed to get heated. I am telling people what they don't want to hear. Duh!!!

Maybe you will be using your faith to translate these "heated comments" as maybe being forfilling of bible prophesy etc ,and yes it might even give you a bit of a faith buzz.
This statement shows exactly what I'm talking about it. Either Bible says that people are going to behave like these people are responding on Debunking Christianity or it doesn't. If it does...that's evidence of the Bible's truthfulness. They just confirm what the text says. I'm not saying that this is enough to prove everything in the Bible but I think it should be enought to make person dig further.

But the real truth is peoples comments only get heated towards you ,simply because its not really any honest discussion thats happening here at all.Its only blatant use of your faith indoctrination you attempt! time and time again ,over and over .Like its a stuck record.

The discussion is honest from my side. It's not my fault that people keep saying stuff that the Bible does not say and passign it off as if most scholars agree with them and none do.

And then thats what causes the heated comments !.And no! , we honestly dont need any ancient prophesy to be able to understand there is plenty of good natural reasons for that.No superstitious prophesys needed !!

The problem is that the Bible agrees with you as the reasons for the heated comments. You are fulfilling prophecy.

I simply dont really much enjoy seeing this keep happening to you Marcus.Yes i might be atheist, but that dont simply mean it make me not care about anybody.Just trying to point a few things out and explain how maybe? you might be bringing much of it on yourself. 

That's the main point that keeps being made. No honest Christian thinks that all atheists are blood-thirsty, selfish, mean, stupid individuals - Stalins and Maos waiting to happen. Why should Gandalf think bad of all Christians? He has said that he blames all Christians for what his family did to him and for the evils of this world.

Gandalf also made a comment from antother comment made by keith (his words in bold.

keith said... "Gandolf.


Marcus likes to assert things that he has no proof for.

He actually asserted that 2nd Peter 3:8 has no precedent in Psalms 90:4.

He's funny that way..."

Hi Keith.

I have to say in my opinion i think underneath everything Marcus is very intelligent in many ways.But sadly devotion on things of charisma can make even the most intelligent of us humans, become a little thick about some things.

Its not our intelligence that causes this problem though , its more about the "charisma" and "devotion" that then simply tells parts of our brains to simply shut down.Parts of our brains that usually do deal with scepticism and making calculated decisions that have been properly thought through and so have taken account of matters from looking from "every single" angle.
It's real interesting that Gandalf thinks he can psychoanalyze me but then become offended when I merely point out what the Bible says about the conclusions he says he believes. Funny. It's alright to be skeptical about the Bible and Christianity but not okay to be skeptical about the conclusions Gandalf thinks. It's not offensive to think that Christians have a mental problem but offensive to suggest that many of the world's most famous atheists had horrible relationships with their fathers. Double-standard? You betcha!

While Marcus is very intelligent it seems he cant see its obvious the bible is honestly obviously a terrible manual ! if its supposed said to be devine manual to help us humans.And so Marcus cannot even allow himself to see scripture is obviously honestly not easy to understand at all.
Let's see. So is understanding the Bible like say understanding....Quantum Mechanics? No? Why? I know what Gandalf would say. It's apples and oranges because Quantum Mechanics is true. Well Einstein would have disagreed. He didn't think it was true. And I would say that we don't really understand Quantum Mechanics. Not fully. Not completely. Therefore, just becasue you don't understand something does not mean that it's not true. That is why I end up quoting scripture so much. We have to deal with Gandalf's misunderstanding of scripture before we can even begin to discuss if its true or not. I think a great deal of the Bible is clear. To be fair I've been studying it for years. It was written in a language you do not speak in a cultural and temporal context you can't possibly think you can identify with without putting some time in studying it.
Marcus may very well have some specialist type of magical translation of these scriptures, and even be able to connect them in some majical way , kind of like somebody having a go at deciphering the Da Vinci Code.
Again this why I have to spend the time on what the text says before we can discuss if it's true. Gandalf does not understand it. He just said so.

But then what Marcus fails to understand is this does little to help the average Joe blogs human do the same .Neither does it do much at all to help suggest maybe this bible manual honestly looks like its actually anything that can be said as so very devine.
I've offered to discuss that. And I've had very few takers. The fact that the Bible is of divine origin is testable. This is something we can examine. We can reason this out. Again the challenge is out there.

Because the fact still remains its been a curse on earth thats a right mess and has honestly been the cause of many problems and lots of extreme pain heartbreak and even lots of death.
Is that truly a fact of history? Gandalf and others often assert this idea but there is no proof. I'd be happy to look at the proof. A lot of passion. A lot of emotion, No proof. Give me some numbers and where you have found them.
And so even that fact alone! says this bible is not honestly so very devine , doesnt it Keith.

No it doesn't. Keith is another person that I don't think Keith understands what the Bible means. For example he made the following assertion (again in bold).

@Marcus. In another thread you said that a day to God is like 1000 years.

Isn't it true that God says no such thing anywhere in the bible?

Isn't it true that the quote from peter comes from a mis-interpretation of Psalms 90:4?

That verse reads...

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

This in no way means that a day to God is 1000 years.

A watch in the night is a 3 hour period so why don't christians say that a day to God is 3 hrs?

I have to call bullshit on ya my dude...@ 

Notice Keith's logic. God didn't write the Bible therefore neither Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:7-9

7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Look at the context. When I brought the scripture up, I could have been clearer and I did not think I would have to be this clear. Peter is making the point that God is not bound of time and that he is not bound to our timetable. "Soon" is relative. If God does not measure time as we do...and He does not...then it's a silly argument to assume you know what soom should be. If it takes 20,000 years for Jesus' return then that would still be soon relative to God. Keith then tries to say that Peter misunderstood Psalm 90:4

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

I quoted the NIV. Keith quoted the KJV. While Peter is making ths same point as the Psalmist about God's timelessness. the conext is different. He accuses Peter of misunderstanding Psalms 90:4.However this shows that Keith understands neither passage.

Truthbomb Apologetics: A Quotable Quote Regarding DNA

Thanks to Chad for this awesome quote:

"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."

- George Sim Johnson

Truthbomb Apologetics: A Quotable Quote Regarding DNA

Dan Barker affirms intelligent design | True Freethinker

Truth is I don't think any rational human being could really come to any other conclusion after looking at the evidence. I mean does it really make sense that all of reality came into existence undirected? If you believe that, I think you can believe anything anyone tells you no matter how silly. I suppose I have to give Dan Barker more credit than I have.





Dan Barker affirms intelligent design | True Freethinker

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

I was sent the following article rebutting my contention that all living people have mitochondrial DNA from one woman. The article begins as follows

n 1987, three scientists announced in the journal Nature that they had found a common ancestor to us all, a woman who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago. She was given the name "Eve," which was great for capturing attention, though somewhat misleading, as the name at once brought to mind the biblical Eve, and with it the mistaken notion that the ancestor was the first of our species—the woman from whom all humankind descended.

The "Eve" in question was actually the most recent common ancestor through matrilineal descent of all humans living today. That is, all people alive today can trace some of their genetic heritage through their mothers back to this one woman. The scientists hypothesized this ancient woman's existence by looking within the cells of living people and analyzing short loops of genetic code known as mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA for short. In recent years, scientists have used mtDNA to trace the evolution and migration of human species, including when the common ancestor to modern humans and Neanderthals lived—though there has been considerable debate over the validity and value of the findings.

Th article then spends time on explaining the difference between mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA (the DNA from both parents in the nucleus of our cells). Then the article tries to explain why the Bible is wrong if we are all truly descended from a single woman.

Let's get back to "Eve." The ancestor referred to in the 1987 Nature article can be more precisely stated as "the most recent common ancestor through matrilineal descent of all humans living today." In other words, she is the most recent person from whom everyone now living on Earth has inherited his or her mtDNA. This certainly does not mean that she is the ancestral mother of all who came after her; during her time and even before her time there were many women and men who contributed to the nuclear genes we now carry. (To see how this can be, check out Tracing Ancestry.) It also does not mean that the mtDNA originated with this "Eve"; she and her contemporaries also had their own "most recent common ancestor though matrilineal descent," a woman who lived even further into the past who passed on her mtDNA to everyone living during "Eve's" time. (We get our mtDNA from that same, older ancestor. She's just not, to us, the most recent common ancestor.)

So what about all of the mtDNA of the other women who lived during "Eve's" time? What happened to it? Simply this: Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted.

Okay, let me get this straight: This one woman we are all descended from had other people with her  and they had ancestors and the reason why there are no other people with different mitochondrial DNA because every single contemporaneous woman either had all male offspring or no children at all! That makes about as much sense as pulling a pinto out of my.....but I digress. I am amazed at the contortions people will go to even remotely entertain that the Bible is right.

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

Interactive Documentary | Becoming Human

Image via Wikipedia

Here is an interesting article about human evolution. A lot of information is presented but there is not a single example of explaining why their conclusions are valid. How do we know that they are their ancestors? How do we even know that these bones are what we are being told that they are? I mean why is it that when I say that the Bible is true some immediately conclude that I blindly believe that and it couldn't possibly be true, yet another person tells them that the bones of a living thing is an ancestor proving that our ancestors closely resembled apes without explaining why they came to that conclusion - that they believe!?! Talk about blind faith!




Interactive Documentary | Becoming Human

Human Evolution? - Exploding The 99% Similar Myth - posted by bornagain 7777777 (bornagain7777777) - tangle.com

Image via Wikipedia

I found this video monsths ago, but I'm not sure if i ever got around to blogging it. It addresses the question as to how similar really are apes and humanity. I also like the description that goes with the video so i have included it.

Chimpanzee?
10-10-2008 17:12 | Dr Richard Buggs

http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html

From 1964 to 2004, it was believed that humans are almost identical to apes at the genetic level. Ten years ago, we thought that the information coded in our DNA is 98.5% the same as that coded in chimpanzee DNA. This led some scientists to claim that humans are simply another species of chimpanzee. They argued that humans did not have a special place in the world, and that chimpanzees should have the same 'rights' as humans.

Other scientists took a different view. They said that it is obvious that we are very different from chimpanzees in our appearance and way of life: if we are almost the same as chimpanzees in our DNA sequence, this simply means that DNA sequence is the wrong place to look in trying to understand what makes humans different. By this view, the 98.5% figure does not undermine the special place of humans. Instead it undermines the importance of genetics in thinking about what it means to be a human.

Fortunately (for both the status of human beings and the status of genetics) we now know that the 98.5% figure is very misleading. In 2005 scientists published a draft reading of the complete DNA sequence (genome) of a chimpanzee. When this is compared with the genome of a human, we find major differences.

To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless 'junk DNA'. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This 'copy number variation' causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

This figure does not take include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or 'scaffold') when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled.

Our new knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes contradicts the idea that humans are 98% chimpanzee, and undermines the implications that have been drawn from this figure. It suggests that there is a huge amount exciting research still to be done in human genetics.

The author is a research geneticist at the University of Florida.

======================================================

Human and chimp genomes differ by more than one percent

http://www.creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Human_and_chimp_genomes_differ_by_more_than_one_percent

excerpt:

If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are (only) 29 percent identical.

=======================================================================

Chimp genome sequence very different from man

by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp

excerpt:

However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations' a problem referred to as 'Haldane's dilemma.' This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

========================================================

To dramatically underscore the fantasy land Darwinists live in, even evolutionists agree that the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial (They say that most mutations are neutral, which is of no use to a Natural selection scenario, whereas Sanford, Spetner, Behe and others hold that all mutations studies at least have a "slightly negative effect)!!! (Genetic Entropy; Sanford 2005). Thus how in the world can you get from ape to man if you have no scientific demonstrated mechanism in which to do so? It is incredible that crushing facts as these are simply brushed aside as if they do not matter by evolutionists. To put it mildly this is not rigorous science, but rampant psuedo-science supported by your tax dollars!

Genesis 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Human Evolution? - Exploding The 99% Similar Myth - posted by bornagain 7777777 (bornagain7777777) - tangle.com

What Hollywood Believes - Laurence Fishburne

"I have this unshakable faith. I believe in myself, I believe in God. I had two times in my life where I wanted to give up everything I worked for, but God gave me a job. I believe in my children. I believe in human beings. I believe in the goodness that is in human beings. I believe in many, many things I cannot prove. I believe that there's the world of the seen and world of the unseen."

I got to wonder what Fishburne really means. Do any of the things he believe in conflict with one another? Do they coincide with the Bible. One thing he said that definitely conflicts is the thought that people are inherently good. It is one of those things that I wish was true but is not. The Bible expressly contradicts this thought.