Atheist Central -- Ray Comfort's Blog: It Will Take More Than an Old Book

Monday, May 19, 2008

It Will Take More Than an Old Book

“I don't understand at all how Christian doctrine is proof that Christianity and the Christian God is the ‘right’ one. It will take a lot more than an old book to convince me that the God of Christianity is the one true God. In order for one to use or trust the Bible as evidence of anything, belief that the Bible is the word of God is necessary. Using the Bible as evidence when trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in it...well, it's not exactly compelling.”

Set aside your thoughts of "an old book" for a moment, and listen to the claims of the gospel.

I have four gifts for you: 1) The original Mona Lisa. 2) Ten million dollars. 3) The keys to a brand new Lamborghini. 4) A parachute. You may only choose one gift. Before you choose, here’s some extra information. You have to jump 10,000 feet out of a plane at any moment. Obviously, that immediately changes things. If you have a brain, the parachute is the one you would choose.

Think of the four great religions: 1) Islam. 2) Buddhism. 3) Hinduism. 4) Christianity. Which one should you choose? Before you make a decision, here’s some extra information. You are going to pass through the door of death and face a Law that is far harsher than the law of gravity. It says that hatred is murder, lust is adultery, and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.

So which one will you choose? Obviously the one that deals with your greatest problem. Islam can’t help you. It’s based on good works and doesn’t offer forgiveness of sins. Muslims can only “hope” that Allah will be merciful and not send them to Hell. But they don’t know what will happen until after they pass through death.

Hinduism can’t help. All it offers is the hopelessness of possible reincarnation. It doesn’t address the issue of sin. Neither does atheistic Buddhism.

However, Christianity offers a parachute. It says to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” It promises to save you from the Law of sin and death.

That’s how you know which one to choose--the one that offers the compete solution to your greatest problem.

205 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 205 Newer› Newest»

Tinina Marie said...: Awesome Mr. Comfort!; May 19, 2008 3:23 PM
Terry said...: Truly inspired by GOD.; May 19, 2008 3:35 PM
Andrew Douglas said...: Except that to accept your threat as an actual threat, we must first accept hell, God, The Bible's stories, etc. as true.
To have proof for beleif we must first believe?
Yeah. That's good logic.

As for your gift question though, here's what I'd do: Take the ten million, then give the pilot 10,000 to return to the ground.; May 19, 2008 3:40 PM
LivingAsOneFreed said...: I wonder how many 'jumpers' there'll be commenting on this post?; May 19, 2008 3:41 PM
JesusRulzMe said...: AMEN brother! I just read that actually in Kirk's new autobiography "Still Growing." It's a well written book and does a great job proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So proud to call you brother! And so thankful to God for you and how you encourage the rest of us to continue to fight the good fight!

Eyes only for Jesus,
Your sister,
Sunny; May 19, 2008 3:41 PM
Chris said...: Ray,

The problem as you stated it was "Using the Bible as evidence when trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in it...well, it's not exactly compelling.”

And your answer to that problem was bringing up sin. Sin, which you believe in because of the bible!!

Your posting here is pretty much a text book definition of a circular argument. I'm frankly astonished.

You didn't answer the question at all. You answered a different question. Did you mix up your quotes?; May 19, 2008 3:42 PM
David said...: This is a joke, right? As I understand it, in this post you were trying to prove the validity of the Bible or the validity of Christianity, without using the Bible. In either case, you failed.
You need to show that that is what happens after one dies, and, furthermore, that the only way to escape this fate is through faith, not good works. You really can't do that without the Bible, and you certainly can't do it to prove the Bible.; May 19, 2008 3:51 PM
Lance Christian Johnson said...: Wow...that's so illogical that I don't even know where to begin!

For starters, you don't really address the quote that you started out with, but that's pretty typical.

Secondly, even if you've convinced me that Christianity offers a better promise than the other religions (you haven't, by the way), you still haven't done anything to prove that it's real! So, I should choose the best false hope out of all the false hopes? How about none of them?

Shoot, if I had to choose, I'd choose Buddhism - at least that's concerned with being happy in a life that I actually know exists.; May 19, 2008 3:53 PM
Susan said...: Ray,

Aren't you going to put the link to your website where they can read the entire booklet? I got some of the "Why Christianity" booklet. It's really fantastic. All the other Christians that I showed it to say it is the best tract they have ever seen.; May 19, 2008 4:30 PM
Susan said...: Ray,

Aren't you going to put the link to your website where they can read the entire booklet? I got some of the "Why Christianity" booklet. It's really fantastic. All the other Christians that I showed it to say it is the best tract they have ever seen. I taught the BTC at my mom's church and the pastor likes the tract so much that he is going to buy some for the church to give away. He also likes the "How to Live Forever without being Religious" booklet.; May 19, 2008 4:33 PM
captain howdy said...: Ray says--

I have four gifts for you: 1) The original Mona Lisa. 2) Ten million dollars. 3) The keys to a brand new Lamborghini. 4) A parachute. You may only choose one gift. Before you choose, here’s some extra information. You have to jump 10,000 feet out of a plane at any moment. Obviously, that immediately changes things. If you have a brain, the parachute is the one you would choose.

OK, since you asked, I'll take the Mona Lisa.

Oh--Why didn't I take the parachute, even tho Ray warned me
I might have to jump out of a plane at any moment? Because I'm standing on the ground, and have no intention of getting in any airplane with Ray Comfort. His planes tend to crash.; May 19, 2008 4:33 PM
Irukandji said...: Ray, do you honestly believe that practicing Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists would agree with your assessment of their respective religions? If you do, you're dimmer than I ever suspected.

As an ill-informed* outsider to these faiths, you naturally find it easy to point and laugh. But you never seem to turn that cynical gaze inward, do you?

* I'm in no position to assess your understanding of Islam and Hinduism, not knowing very much about those faiths myself. But based on this and other posts, it seems fairly obvious that you don't know the first darn thing about Buddhism; for one thing, while Theravada Buddhism might be described as "atheistic," this label really doesn't apply to Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism. And your statement that Buddhism has no concept of sin is patently absurd. Are you even aware that most sects of Buddhism believe in some sort of Hell?

It says that hatred is murder, lust is adultery, and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.

Okay, Ray. I'll bite. I'm generally a pretty laid-back person, but I did have one boss whom I absolutely could not stand. (He wasn't my boss for long.) To this day, I still entertain the occasional malicious fantasy involving this man - nothing violent, of course, but I'm not above imagining that he desperately needs my help in some professional capacity, and I coolly refuse. So tell me - if you were Grand High Judge of Everything for a day, would you sentence me for murder?

Simply put, do you honestly believe that thoughtcrime is effectively interchangeable with actual crime? And if you do, in what way does that make any sort of sense to you? I'm honestly baffled.; May 19, 2008 4:40 PM
Geoff said...: Ray wrote:

"Muslims...don’t know what will happen until after they pass through death."

There's a common belief among Muslims that if you commit an act of martyrdom, you'll get 72 virgins in heaven. But they are sure that if you don't follow the practices of Islam, you'll suffer for eternity. So you and Muslims are both making a version of Pascal's wager, just within a different belief system.; May 19, 2008 4:41 PM
dale said...: Another bunch of Red Herrings.
Wanna debate with a Hindi? He will screw you into the ground.
You don't stand a chance, Ray.; May 19, 2008 4:43 PM
Nick said...: Ray,

Do you realize how viciously circular that argument is?

Your picture of what happens after death is based on Christian doctrine, as is you understanding of the concept of sin. But you use those concepts in an attempt to prove Christianity's truth by saying that it is the only religion that offers a path to heaven, which is also a concept directly from Christianity.

I don't watch NASCAR because I can't stand to watch cars going around in hundreds of circles. Your post puts you in the pole position.; May 19, 2008 4:45 PM
Pvblivs said...: Two problems. First, the parachute looks like a fake -- sort of, anvil shaped. Second, it is simply you telling me there will be a jump. You are not trustworthy.; May 19, 2008 5:00 PM
Ray Comfort said...: "Nick said... Ray, Do you realize how viciously circular that argument is? I don't watch NASCAR because I can't stand to watch cars going around in hundreds of circles. Your post puts you in the pole position."

Nick...then deal with the problem in the same way you deal with NASCAR. Simple.; May 19, 2008 5:05 PM
get_education said...: Oh come on! That does not even make the slightest sense! What kind of reasoning is that?! It calls to your fears, not to your intelligence! Fear that there will be a harsh judge over there, and then only Jesus will be able to save you. How will that convince anyone who does not even believe there is an afterlife, let alone a Judge?!

This is nuts, obviously circular again. Unless you are already convinced of an afterlife punishment and Judge there is no reason to choose Jesus. So, if I do not buy on the "extra information", how would I be likely to choose Jesus?

Of course you can say that then I am toast, but that is not the point, the point is that this argument lacks on every side of logical and critical thinking. I know what your followers will say. Something in the Bible this, something in the Bible that, pure circularity fellow, no point made whatsoever on your side so far. Truly, learn about propaganda, then imagine for a second that propaganda might be just what you are doing ... you should be able to see it, if you are sincere and truthful.; May 19, 2008 5:12 PM
ShiVeR said...: True Objectivity
May 13th, 2008

(By John MacArthur)

Biblical truth is objective. It is true by itself. It is true whether or not we feel it’s true. It is true whether or not it has been validated by someone’s experience. It is true because God says it is true. It is wholly true, and it is true down to the smallest jot and tittle. Psalm 119:160 says, “The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.”

That is the very starting point and the necessary foundation for a truly Christian world-view. Give up the ground of biblical truth, and whatever belief-system you have left is not worthy to be labeled Christian, even if it retains vestiges of Christian symbolism and terminology.

Many who would call themselves Christians today are in precisely that situation. They use the language and symbolism of Christianity, but their real source of authority is something besides Scripture. Some simply live by their feelings and shape their beliefs in accord with their own personal preferences. Others actually claim God speaks directly to them through voices, strong impressions, or vague feelings which they interpret as direct revelations from the Holy Spirit. Still others think of the Scriptures as an improvisational script, which they can modify or interpret any way they please. In any case, their lives and beliefs are ordered in accord with their own personal preferences.

But historic Christianity is based on the objective revelation of Scripture. That is why our first key word for describing the Christian world view is objectivity. Our faith is grounded in the conviction that God has spoken, and His Word is objective truth. What He has given us is absolute and unshakable — and it is the truth by which all other truth-claims are measured.; May 19, 2008 5:16 PM
Paul Brown said...: This is the problem with comparison shopping, Ray; most people just look at the big names and then pick whichever sounds best.
"Sould I buy a Mac or a PC?"
"Do I buy Ford or GM?"
"Shall I become a Muslim or a Christian?"
If only people would realise what is on offer from some of the smaller players - you can get some much better deals. For example, did you look into the Norse religion? All you have to do is die with honour and you get Valhalla - the best party in the next world; no shirt, no shoes - no problem! There's all you can drink, games, food and no nasty judgements to pass.
Or the Wiccan Summerland - basically a sunny afternoon in Somerset, although be warned - there's no eternal torture, but there is a strong chance of juggling.; May 19, 2008 5:22 PM
Nick said...: “I have four gifts for you: 1) The original Mona Lisa. 2) Ten million dollars. 3) The keys to a brand new Lamborghini. 4) A parachute. You may only choose one gift. Before you choose, here’s some extra information. You have to jump 10,000 feet out of a plane at any moment. Obviously, that immediately changes things. If you have a brain, the parachute is the one you would choose.

Or maybe it happens like this...

Here's even more information. The person who is forcing you to jump out of the plane wants to retire. You can take the $10 million and give him $1 million so that you don't have to jump. You live and keep $9 million.

The good karma you earn from helping the other man benefits you greatly in the next life.

What you have to prove is that life is like your analogy.; May 19, 2008 5:22 PM
Rufus said...: Ray Comfort said:

"Nick...then deal with the problem in the same way you deal with NASCAR. Simple."

Do you mean he should not read your blog and reply to it? Something like that?

What would you do if atheists and other non-believers ignored your blog and ignored you when you did your street preaching?; May 19, 2008 5:39 PM
Paul Brown said...: Ray Comfort said...
""Nick said... Ray, Do you realize how viciously circular that argument is? I don't watch NASCAR because I can't stand to watch cars going around in hundreds of circles. Your post puts you in the pole position."

Nick...then deal with the problem in the same way you deal with NASCAR. Simple."

Wow, Ray - now that's how you convert people. Of course we would use "the NASCAR solution" of just ignoring Christians, but you guys just want to get your agenda in everywhere you can, don't you?
If you could keep you opinions to yourselves instead of trying to force them onto everyone else then we could all just live and let live, but as long as you try to indoctrinate my children in their school, as long as you stand in the street yelling insults at passers by from your assumed moral highground and as long as I live in a country that is still held back so far as to have a blasphemy law I will oppose you.

Now, do you have any real arguments to use, or are you just going to prove your point of view by assuming that your point of view is true and then thinking that you've acheived something?; May 19, 2008 5:57 PM
captain howdy said...: @ Ray--

"Nick said... Ray, Do you realize how viciously circular that argument is? I don't watch NASCAR because I can't stand to watch cars going around in hundreds of circles. Your post puts you in the pole position."

Nick...then deal with the problem in the same way you deal with NASCAR. Simple.

Yeah. Just change the channel.; May 19, 2008 6:06 PM
get_education said...: The other thing that is puzzling is: we will burn in Hell no matter how well we conduct our lives, no matter how good we do for humanity, no matter anything, because nothing counts, and nothing counts because we have sinned in our minds even if slightly. So, incredibly good deeds do not counteract sinful thoughts ... let us ponder that ... Unless of course we believe that Jesus will save us. What a just and merciful God!

What if we come up with a new religion that states that another contemporary of Jesus decided to pay for everyone, that, you know, the whole paraphernalia, but this was was so filled with warmth and love for us, decided to pay for those who do not believe in Jesus, yet conducted good lives; against some horrible thoughts, they always new better, they knew to be responsible and do the right thing; they acknowledged their human defects, yet learned to master themselves. Also, this saviour was a woman (to fend that masculine God stereotype), and was The Daughter of God. I would rather take this one. Sounds much fairer to me.

I mean, if choosing a religion depends on offerings that solve a situation that is also part of the religion, then this is perfectly valid, right?; May 19, 2008 6:52 PM
get_education said...: You are absolutely right Paul, we are here to stop the ID and similar propaganda from reaching schools and unaware minds.

This is our learning exercise. For that I thank you Ray. This allows us to listen to the fallacies in many forms, and be better prepared when we have to face these arguments in our everyday life. In the process we might gain points when, even if once in a while, one or two of your followers get the point and admit that there is intelligence in science, not the blind acceptance of prefabricated beliefs you want everyone to think it is (while you well know it is not).; May 19, 2008 7:12 PM
Susan said...: Oops, sorry Ray, I just realized that you already posted the link to the Why Christianity PDF in another post.; May 19, 2008 7:29 PM
ex-atheist said...: Irukandji said...
”Simply put, do you honestly believe that thoughtcrime is effectively interchangeable with actual crime? And if you do, in what way does that make any sort of sense to you? I'm honestly baffled.”

This is good question and here’s my answer if it helps.

Think about how you would feel about a neighbor who told you that he fantasies only an hour a day about doing something horrible to you and/or your children (think the worst things possible). He tells you all about it but he also promises never to act on his desires – he says that it’s only a fantasy in his mind. Are you still OK with him as your neighbor? Will you say “That’s alright, you're free to think what you want, it doesn’t bother me.”? I bet it would bother you – and it should. But all sin, even of the heart and mind, bothers a Holy God. God goes right to the heart of who we are – the essence of our soul.

All sin begins in the heart. A murderer, rapist, thief, liar, adulterer… do not commit the outward act of sin until they first think about it. Since we cannot as humans truly read peoples mind we have very few “thought crimes.” And if we made them as strict as God’s standard, well, then everyone would be in jail – might as well make the earth our jail cell. In a sense that’s what God has done – we’re in this “confinement” called earth awaiting our death sentence. Only one way out alive - be pardoned by Jesus Christ.; May 19, 2008 7:36 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

I would only be concerned in that he might change his mind and carry out those fantasies.; May 19, 2008 7:52 PM
ex-atheist said...: @ get_education

You said...
“Unless you are already convinced of an afterlife punishment and Judge there is no reason to choose Jesus. So, if I do not buy on the "extra information", how would I be likely to choose Jesus?”

Tell me what would convince you, that’s is, what is acceptable evidence if the eyewitness of over 40 men, historically preserved for 2000 years isn’t good enough, what would you accept? – Is there anything besides actually dying and standing before God? Do you need a video of heaven, of hell, of God? Better books of the accounts of the afterlife? More books? Must God stand before your face? And what would help make you know it’s God? Give me your criteria.

My guess is that nothing will suffice. But you tell me how closed or open minded you are.; May 19, 2008 7:54 PM
SCH20 said...: It's puzzling to me how obsessed some God-haters are with this blog. Most troubling is the fact that each time they read it, they hear the Gospel, only to apparently reject it.

They don't realize that each exposure to this information only adds to the severity of the punishment they will receive if they fail to submit to it. (Luke12:48)

"Lord, save us from the dark of our striving, faithless, and troubled hearts--weighed down..."; May 19, 2008 8:24 PM
ex-atheist said...: Paul Brown said...
“If only people would realise what is on offer from some of the smaller players - you can get some much better deals. For example, did you look into the Norse religion? ….Or the Wiccan Summerland…"

I don’t get this line of arguing for atheism… You mention different religions (ones that are on the fringe) and make the point that there cannot be just ONE Devine revelation to explain life, so it's best to choose none.

It’s like saying, “I know you believe 2+3=5 but why can’t it equal 8, it’s a better answer because it’s a bigger number. Personally, I’m just going to stick with ‘0’ because no one really knows the answer and numbers are even real anyways – show me a ‘7’ then maybe I’ll be convinced.”

Or here’s another analogy using your logic. When you go to a doctor (or maybe in the future if you need to go the doctor) and he writes out a prescription for something that NEEDS the cure, you shouldn’t to go to the pharmacist, after all there a thousands of pills to choose from and no one pill is better than another – Nope, you’re better off taking nothing. That would be foolish.

Life is short, death is sure, sin’s the curse, Christ’s the cure.; May 19, 2008 8:26 PM
Garret said...: "
As for your gift question though, here's what I'd do: Take the ten million, then give the pilot 10,000 to return to the ground."

I like that!; May 19, 2008 8:32 PM
ex-atheist said...: Nick said...
“What you have to prove is that life is like your analogy.”

Your plane (life) is going to crash (die) someday.; May 19, 2008 8:33 PM
KuliKen said...: towards skeptics,

Ultimately, you know that Christianity is the right religion because you personally encounter a God who begins to change your life in radical ways just as the Bible says. As Ray stated many times before, it's an experential faith not a blind one.

how many of you skeptics would die an agnonizing death for Christ if I could logically show you why Christianity is the right religion? Not many i would suppose...
however, when God reveals Himself to a person and changes that person by giving him a new nature, that person would even give his life for God.

btw, serious question (although random) towards skeptics... how many of you have tried to "pray" to God about the possibility of His existence and whether Christianity was true or not? just curious...; May 19, 2008 8:34 PM
erikloza said...: Ex-atheist,

"Irukandji said...
”Simply put, do you honestly believe that thoughtcrime is effectively interchangeable with actual crime? And if you do, in what way does that make any sort of sense to you? I'm honestly baffled.”

"This is good question and here’s my answer if it helps.

"Think about how you would feel about a neighbor who told you that he fantasies only an hour a day about doing something horrible to you and/or your children (think the worst things possible). He tells you all about it but he also promises never to act on his desires – he says that it’s only a fantasy in his mind. Are you still OK with him as your neighbor? Will you say “That’s alright, you're free to think what you want, it doesn’t bother me.”? I bet it would bother you – and it should. But all sin, even of the heart and mind, bothers a Holy God. God goes right to the heart of who we are – the essence of our soul.

"All sin begins in the heart. A murderer, rapist, thief, liar, adulterer… do not commit the outward act of sin until they first think about it. Since we cannot as humans truly read peoples mind we have very few “thought crimes.” And if we made them as strict as God’s standard, well, then everyone would be in jail – might as well make the earth our jail cell. In a sense that’s what God has done – we’re in this “confinement” called earth awaiting our death sentence. Only one way out alive - be pardoned by Jesus Christ."

That was very well put. Thank you.; May 19, 2008 9:04 PM
ex-atheist said...: Paul Brown said...
“If you could keep you opinions to yourselves instead of trying to force them onto everyone else then we could all just live and let live, but as long as you try to indoctrinate my children in their school, as long as you stand in the street yelling insults at passers by from your assumed moral highground and as long as I live in a country that is still held back so far as to have a blasphemy law I will oppose you.

Now, are you sharing your opinion here or forcing it upon us?

When I see immoral acts done in public, is that how you see someone preaching gospel on the street corner? Should we BOTH have the right to censor what offends us?

Do you feel that when the public schools teach our kids sex without parameters, bad science, and extreme liberal propaganda are examples of indoctrination?

“Live and let live” – You understand, that Christians believe that people “live and die” – and we believe that there is a God who we are all accountable to. Christians are allowed to share their opinion about the things that matter to them, just like you’re allowed to share your opinions as well. Aren’t you glad about that?; May 19, 2008 9:24 PM
forgiven37 said...: Stop judging yourself by man's standards and try it by God's morale law. How does your "goodness" stack up to it ? Until you understand that you need a savior you will not look for Him.; May 19, 2008 9:29 PM
Paul Brown said...: ex-atheist said...
"Think about how you would feel about a neighbor who told you that he fantasies only an hour a day about doing something horrible to you and/or your children (think the worst things possible). He tells you all about it but he also promises never to act on his desires – he says that it’s only a fantasy in his mind. Are you still OK with him as your neighbor?"

No, but my first question would be, "what on earth have I done to you to make you think like that?" If the answer is "nothing" and the neighbour just likes to fantasize about killing people then this is not a normal, healthy mindset and he needs to seek help.

However, we weren't talking about murder, we were talking about lust and if my neighbour says that every time he sees my wife (or me, for that matter) he feels lustful then I would think:
1) Hmm. Slightly innapropriate. Don't mind you thinking it, but keep it to yourself.
2) Quite complimentary, really (particularly if it's me he's fantasing about).
3) How much money do you have on you?

At no point am I going to demand that my neighbour be jailed for thought crimes and the authorities, quite reasonably, would not oblige me if I did.

"But all sin, even of the heart and mind, bothers a Holy God. God goes right to the heart of who we are – the essence of our soul.

All sin begins in the heart. A murderer, rapist, thief, liar, adulterer… do not commit the outward act of sin until they first think about it."

Deed requires thought, but thought does not necessarliy lead to deed. Just because A infers B does not guarantee that B infers A. You need a little logic lesson, my friend.

"Since we cannot as humans truly read peoples mind we have very few “thought crimes.”"

None, if you live in a civilised country, although theocracies are rather keen on them and often have very harsh punishments, including death, for thinking (or at least, appearing to think since, as you said, the religious courts cannot possibly know what people are thinking) the wrong things.

"And if we made them as strict as God’s standard, well, then everyone would be in jail – might as well make the earth our jail cell. In a sense that’s what God has done – we’re in this “confinement” called earth awaiting our death sentence. Only one way out alive - be pardoned by Jesus Christ."

Locked in a jail cell for a crime you may or may not have thought about committing and the only way out is to confess to the crime that you may or may not have committed or else be tortured. And we wondered how a conservative Christian government came up with the idea of "Camp X-Ray" in Guantanamo Bay - looks like they were divinely inspired. Nice.; May 19, 2008 10:19 PM
ShiVeR said...: Paul Brown said... "Shall I become a Muslim or a Christian?"

Only problem with your diatribe is that people don't "choose" to become a Christian, God chooses whom He will save. It's all based on God's grace, not human works, as is ALL man made religion.

The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin--spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.

The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him."

This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. Consider these passages:

In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

Acts 16:14 tells us that Lydia was saved when, "... the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."

Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will ... also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."

Ephesians 2:8 says even our faith is a gift from God.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."

Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity."

If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.

The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).

In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.

Selections from Grace to You by John MacArthur Issues & Answers

This is a hard truth, but it is what the bible teaches.; May 19, 2008 10:34 PM
Dennis said...: So who put me up in the plane in the first place?; May 20, 2008 12:12 AM
Brendon Schafer said...: Geoff said, "There's a common belief among Muslims that if you commit an act of martyrdom, you'll get 72 virgins in heaven."

You don't seem to know much about Islam yourself. Whereas what you say is true, it is only partially true - therefore false.

Fact is in Islam, they can never be 100% certain of heaven (with or without virgins) because their destiny is more determined on Allah's mood on the day.

On the other hand, as a Christian, I can be absolutely 100% certain, because God is my Father and He wants me to know that I'm going to heaven. 1 John 5:13 for example.; May 20, 2008 12:23 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: Yawn, same old story (I was going to use another word think 'male cow excrement', but have to be careful with the censors ). Again, with your example, you 'presume' your God is real. If he's not, then your supposed concept of Sin and Hell also goes down the drain. Again you attempt to make a balanced argument, but demolish up by presupposing your believe is real, and all the other religions are false. How about some proof? No the Bible doesn't count since it's just an ancient book written by men.

Since there is no evidence at all for any of these religions, they are all equally improbable.; May 20, 2008 12:44 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: KuliKen said...

"btw, serious question (although random) towards skeptics... how many of you have tried to "pray" to God about the possibility of His existence and whether Christianity was true or not? just curious..."
Why should I pray to something I don't believe exists? I don't pray to Thor, Wotan the Flying spaghetti Monster, or the Pink Invisible Unicorn. Why should I pray to your God and Not Allah or any of the Hindu gods?
When you know why you deny all those other possible Gods, you'll know why I also deny your God. We're all atheists when it comes to the thousands of Gods in the mass grave called Mythology, some of us just go one god further.
The evidence for all those gods is the same, none. That's why it's called faith, not science.

I hope I answered your question.; May 20, 2008 3:13 AM
forgiven37 said...: Have you ever seen the wind ? How about history ? No ? We can see the effects,but the wind is invisible.We have records of history but you have to take it on faith that the books are accurate. Correct ? Now if you can believe your history books why is it beyond comprehension that the Bible could be accurate ? Yet you want proof, seeing is believing right ? If you want proof of God's existence just look around. Can you really believe that all of this happened by chance ? A big bang, then everything ? That takes more faith than believing in God.; May 20, 2008 3:17 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: SCH20 said...

It's puzzling to me how obsessed some God-haters are with this blog. Most troubling is the fact that each time they read it, they hear the Gospel, only to apparently reject it.
Firstly we don't hate God. We don't think he exists. That's a big difference. It's kind of hard to hate something that doesn't exist.
As for your Gospel, the reason why we reject it, is simply because there is no prove whatsoever that it's true. Plain and Simple.
whether I read the Qoran or the Bible or the Torah, they are just (ancient) books to me. They may contain some nice stories, but that doesn't make them truthful or divinely inspired.
Until it is proven beyond any doubt that one of these books is divinely inspired, they are just books.; May 20, 2008 3:25 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 20, 2008 3:43 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 20, 2008 3:51 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 20, 2008 4:01 AM
dale said...: Erikloza,
You said,
"Think about how you would feel about a neighbor who told you that he fantasies only an hour a day about doing something horrible to you and/or your children (think the worst things possible). He tells you all about it but he also promises never to act on his desires – he says that it’s only a fantasy in his mind.

This man is mentally ill.
If you are going to try to compare this to me noticing an attractive woman walking by, you may be mentally ill also.; May 20, 2008 6:20 AM
Nick said...: Many believers on this site have wondered why non-believers come here and post. I'd like to give my reasons:

My concern is not primarily over a belief in God, even though I think the belief is wrong. My concern is over fundementalism--the concept that the universe is about 6,000 years old, that evolution doesn't happen, and that the moral views expressed in an ancient book are perfect. I would usually not bother to engage in a debate with someone like scientist Ken Miller, a Christian who believes in evolution and an old earth and who does not interpret the Bible literally.

So what's my beef with fundementalism?

The belief that the universe is 6,000 years old is a wholesale rejection of science and empiricism. It conflicts with mountains of data in a diverse range of disciplines--geology, biology, genetics, physics, and astronomy, to name a few. If one believes that the universe is 6,000years old, the only logical conclusion is that all these disciplines are failures at their core. For instance, you cannot take away evolution and still have a systematic, empirically-based biology or genetics. Likewise, there's little left of geology if you insist that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Undermining interest in science, particularly among kids, will lead to fewer people entering these fields, and it will make it harder to muster the funding and political will needed to support research projects that can benefit society and improve the quality of our lives.

Fundementalist beliefs have other consequences as well. For instance, if you believe that demons can possess a person's mind, your views on public policies covering mental illness, homelessness, drug addiction, and punishing criminals will likely be very different from the public policies supported by someone with a scientific, empirical view of the mind/brain. These policies have a great impact on society, so I cannot just ignore them.

Another consideration is that genetics is becoming a big part of medicine, including both physical and mental health. The study of genetics and the study of evolution are closely intertwined. In many senses, to study one is to study the other. So rejecting evolution spawns distrust and misunderstanding of genetic science, which could in the near future impair a person's ability to make good, informed choices about their health or the health of their children.

That's why I'm here.; May 20, 2008 6:31 AM
erikloza said...: c3por2d2,

"Since there is no evidence at all for any of these religions, they are all equally improbable."

Are you omniscient? Then how can you say there is no evidence?

Actually, the evidence surrounds you. The world is too complex, beautiful, and purpose-filled to be an accident. If you do not agree, please explain to me how order originates from chaos.; May 20, 2008 6:33 AM
The Celtic Chimp said...: c3por2d2,

Actually, the evidence surrounds you. The world is too complex, beautiful, and purpose-filled to be an accident. If you do not agree, please explain to me how order originates from chaos.

Ah this tried old non-point. Allow me to rephrase it in a more appropriate manner.

I do not understand how the world came about. I have no knowledge of cosmology, evolution or the foundational laws of physics. Therefore God did it!!

What exactly is this chaos you refer to? As far as I know the laws of physics where in effect from pretty much the beginning of the universe.; May 20, 2008 6:44 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: erikloza said...

Actually, the evidence surrounds you. The world is too complex, beautiful, and purpose-filled to be an accident. If you do not agree, please explain to me how order originates from chaos.

How very true, it's no accident.
Unfortunately you throw lots of different things on 1 great heap. If you want to know about the origin on the universe, try reeding up about the Big Bang theory.
For the diversity of all living things, you can start by reading the Origin of Species. As for the order from Chaos, who says things are ordered? Just look at the universe, planets all over the place, comets, asteroids dust clouds, seems terribly chaotic to me.
But feel free to explain where your God did come from. If you need him to explain the universe, I'm looking forward to your explanation how He(she) came about. Who designed and made your God? You can't use him as an argument till you've explained his history and creation. Oh, and spare me the 'Gos is eternal' and 'Outside of time' dogmas, those are not explanations, they are excuses to make up for the fact that you don't have a clue. Of course you can't have a clue, since there is no proof he even exists.; May 20, 2008 6:56 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: The Celtic Chimp said...
c3por2d2,

Actually, the evidence surrounds you. The world is too complex, beautiful, and purpose-filled to be an accident. If you do not agree, please explain to me how order originates from chaos.

Hold on Chimp buddy, that was not my point, that's from Erikloza. I'm on your side remember :-); May 20, 2008 7:36 AM
Nick said...: How complexity comes about

Here's a summary (with a reference to the full article) on one recent study about complexity and evolution:

No 'Cost Of Complexity' In Evolution, Says Study

Submitted by News Account on 1 April 2008 - 1:22am. Evolution
Higher organisms do not have a “cost of complexity” — or slowdown in the evolution of complex traits — according to a report by researchers at Yale and Washington University in Nature.

Biologists have long puzzled over the relationship between evolution of complex traits and the randomness of mutations in genes. Some have proposed that a “cost of complexity” makes it more difficult to evolve a complicated trait by random mutations, because effects of beneficial mutations are diluted.

“While a mutation in a single gene can have effects on multiple traits, even as diverse as the structures of brain, kneecap and genitalia, we wondered how often random mutation would affect many traits” said lead author Gunter Wagner, professor and chair of ecology and evolutionary biology at Yale. The phenomenon wherein mutation in a single gene can have effects on multiple traits is known as pleiotropy.

This study showed that most mutations only do affect few traits. Further, the effect of an individual mutation is not dampened because of its effects on other traits.

Observing 70 skeletal characteristics in the mouse, the researchers identified total of 102 genomic regions that affect the skeleton. They concluded that substitution in each genome segment affected a relatively small subset of characteristics and that the effect on each characteristic increased with the total number of traits affected.

“You wouldn’t expect to make a lot of random adjustments — at the same time — to tune up a car,” said Wagner. “Similarly, it appears that tuning up a complex trait in a living organism is well coordinated and the effects of pleiotropy are more focused than we thought.”

Citation: Günter P. Wagner, Jane P. Kenney-Hunt, Mihaela Pavlicev, Joel R. Peck, David Waxman & James M. Cheverud, 'Pleiotropic scaling of gene effects and the 'cost of complexity'', Nature 452: (March 27, 2008) doi:10.1038/nature06756; May 20, 2008 7:42 AM
Nick said...: Complexity, a little more...

The parts in italics are questions or objections that creationists have raised about complexity, and below the italicized text are the responses.

Life is too complex to have happened by chance.

Another is the "randomness argument". What is "random", anyway? We are never told. It says that self organization cannot occur because the process is "blind" and "random" that is supposed to drive it. Never mind that the system has a finite number of states it can occupy and its history can constrain its future states. This borrows from the thermodynamic argument the confusion over entropy and open system states.

The theory of evolution doesn't say it did happen by chance. This argument completely ignores natural selection. Please read:

Life in Darwin's Universe
G. Bylinsky, Omni Sept 79
The Evolution of Ecological Systems
May, Scientific American, Sept 1978
Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life
Dickerson, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of the Earliest Cells
Schopf, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of Multicellular Plants and Animals
Valentine, Scientific American, Sept 1978

Complexity from simplicity

``There was no primordial chaos before the big bang - not really. Instead, everything was neatly concentrated in one location. Then it scattered, and is still scattering, a disorderliness far exceeding the structural order of galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms which have appeared in the course of the process.'' [Poul Anderson "Science & Creation" Analog, Sept 1983]

Ref the information example. It is easy to get VERY complicated systems containing a tremendous amount of information starting from very simple, low information systems. Two methods:

fractal structures - start with a very simple rule and repeat it over and over and over. The resulting structure can be (usually is) VERY complicated, but the formation equations can be very, very simple. And the universe has had a long time to do so. Example: Look at a snowflake.
chaos - You can get very, very complicated systems if you use nonlinearities in the progression. That is why weather forecasting doesn't work.
Complexity does not imply design. Recursion or nonlinearity work quite well. And the world is recursive and very non-linear.
I went and got "Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata" by Von Neumann. You know that it was done in 1966 before most of the chaos & fractal work?
As an initial look, I see how this is NOT applicable to life as Micha tried to do in…"Self-Reproducing automata" we find that, under his constraints, the secondary (initially quiescent) automaton is identical to the parent, except that the constructing automaton is larger, and in a sense more complex, because the construction automaton contains the complete plan and a unit which interprets and executes this plan. This should NOT apply to biological forms as discussed here because:

The plan IS the unit that executes itself. In Mary's term, the life is the language. and, what I consider more relevant The constructed automaton IS NOT A DUPLICATE of the constructing automaton. No parent unit that I am aware of (excluding fission reproduction, in which the parent unit cannot be identified afterwards) is the child a duplication of the parent. In every case that I am aware of the constructed unit is a simpler and much smaller unit, which grows OF ITSELF into a near-copy of the original. Since the complexity is added AFTER the reproduction process, the reproduction process should not be a limiting factor. Proof: watch almost ANYTHING grow up.

Therefore, while the descent is INITIALLY simpler than the parent, its final state can be more complex. Therefore, the argument that information theory proves that life could not have come from non-life is invalid.
BTW: New systems of cooperating parts have evolved, and they are not even biological. See "The Evolution of Cooperation", in particular the computer simulations in which the routines "decide" ON THEIR OWN that cooperation is "better".
Mathematical probability: "it is so improbable that one and only one species out of 3,0000,000 should develop into man, that it certainly was not the case".
Whence the 3,000,000 number, and how is the "improbability" assigned? Some say inevitable... If 500 developed into man, how would you tell? Besides, given the way evolution works, one would dominate and 499 would have (while developing) be suppressed, quite likely into extinction. The "less successful" are extinct or in zoos.
We have never seen any natural processes which result in a complexity increase.
This is easy. Are you familiar with a small creature called a "Volvox"? This is a small spherical animal that lives in the water and is made up of individual cells of algae.
Separate algae cells have been observed organizing into a Volvox, with the advantage of being able to propel itself in a way similar to an octopus, and capture food inside the sphere. The algae cells operate in a unified manner, just as the cells in a larger organism do.
Here is a clear example of increased complexity for the sake of survival. Since mutation is factual (i.e. we have observed mutation, so it is not conjecture), why do you find it so hard to believe that increasingly complex organizations of cells, combined with favorable mutations, can result in a higher form of life?
I have a biological example. The cat in my house has a pair of extra toes growing inward on both of its forepaws. This is not unknown, and I have seen it before. Even more interesting, I have seen the cat use those extra toes as a human would use a thumb to grip small objects, such as a penny, in a manner that a cat with ordinary forepaws could not. A new part, adapted from an old part that all others of the species has. A new ability that others of the species doesn't have. An increase in complexity in a biological context.

The great complexity of nature shows it was designed. Laws require a lawmaker; organization requires an organizer.
No, it doesn't. The patterns within a kaleidoscope are very complex, and extremely organized (in the sense of symmetrical patterning) but are not designed.
(Source: "Chaos and Complexity" by Jim Meritt); May 20, 2008 7:54 AM
dale said...: Erikloza
You ask,
"please explain to me how order originates from chaos."

One good example is the snowflake.
If you could be inside the cloud where the snowflake was formed you would see plenty of chaos. The out falls this beautiful work of art of infinite design.
Gotcha.

Now, if God created the universe, did he have any matter to start with?

And what were the mechanics of this creation?
Did he create the subatomic particles one by one? or did he compress a bunch of matter into a tight ball and go boomy?

I think you have somne explaining to do, lil buddy. Your God explains nothing.; May 20, 2008 7:57 AM
dale said...: "Actually, the evidence surrounds you. The world is too complex, beautiful, and purpose-filled to be an accident."

That is merely an opinion, not even a hypothesis.

Opinions are just that, and everybody has one.; May 20, 2008 7:59 AM
dale said...: Nick said...
"Many believers on this site have wondered why non-believers come here and post. I'd like to give my reasons:....."

Nick, very well stated and thank you.
My purpose is the same as yours except that I stress that we cannot let fundamentalists get control of government and secular institutions...for the very reasons that you mentioned.
It is good to note that this bunch doesn't seem to be too politically motivated.; May 20, 2008 8:03 AM
dale said...: Forgiven37,
You said,
"Now if you can believe your history books why is it beyond comprehension that the Bible could be accurate ?"

NO CORROBORATION!

How many times do we have to tell you. That is how all history books are rated.; May 20, 2008 8:10 AM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

It doesn't matter how many "eye-witnesses" you claim, if you don't bring any forward for cross-examination. The witnesses may be "tainted." Similarly a claim that a survey of 1000 people showed that they extolled the virtues of a product can become far less impressive should we discover that they all worked for the company.
I don't need an old book by a "witness" claiming this deity called fire out of the sky. If your deity has that ability, a demonstration would go a long way toward convincing me he exists. Perhaps, you could invite James Randi. I understand he still offers a $10,000 prize.; May 20, 2008 8:42 AM
Irukandji said...: btw, serious question (although random) towards skeptics... how many of you have tried to "pray" to God about the possibility of His existence and whether Christianity was true or not? just curious...

I was raised Christian, so believe me, I've done my share of praying. I used to pray every night before I went to bed, in fact. At some point during my mid-teens, it became fairly obvious that I was talking to myself. "God" never said anything I didn't know and couldn't have thought of myself.

My dissatisfaction with Christianity led to a brief period of religious experimentation; for a while, I had a statue of a generic mother goddess in my room, and I prayed to Her. She was exactly as communicative as the Christian God had been, while the Christian god, for His part, neglected to strike me down for idolatry or otherwise indicate that I had strayed from the correct path.

Ultimately, it became apparent to me that while the mother goddess of paganism was a rather more appealing character than the temperamental, borderline-psychotic God of the Bible, She was just as much a construct of the human imagination. Looking inward for proof of the supernatural had only shown me that I could train myself to deceive myself, if not very well or for very long. (I'm sure the Ray Comforts of the world are far more talented at self-deception than I.) Looking outward showed me a world governed by the blind dictates of nature, not shaped by the hand of some transcendental intelligence.

If such a transcendental intelligence does exist - be it the God of the Bible or something else - and is merely in very, very thorough hiding, then I would be more than willing to have a discussion with Him/Her/It. But It is going to have to come to me, as my best efforts to locate It have come up empty-handed.; May 20, 2008 8:57 AM
get_education said...: Dale, careful, we cannot assume they are not politically motivated. That would be a very dangerous assumption. My reasons to post here? Well, only truly one, I could not stand the plain misrepresentation of science by this bunch. I could not stand the lying. This is so blatant in-your-face lying that I cannot stand it. Even if there were a way of converting me into religion, I would still be against this bunch. Why? Because of the plain lies, and then also because of the plain lack of logic, that is why.

For those who think I should give you the convincing situation to "convince me", there is none, zero, no convincing possible, because you will never ever find a reasonable argument for blind faith. That cannot make sense no matter how much you read the Bible, while learning and reading authentic science (not Ray's nor ID propagandistic versions) DOES give you reasonable answers. The deeper you go, the more convinced you will be. And guess what! Science is not static, meaning that evidences just multiply and give it more rational power. The more you wait to take a look, the more evidence you will find.; May 20, 2008 9:12 AM
ex-atheist said...: Paul Brown said...

“Deed requires thought, but thought does not necessarliy lead to deed. Just because A infers B does not guarantee that B infers A. You need a little logic lesson, my friend.”

I never said that every sin you think about you’ll act on – but that almost every sin you act on you first must think about. I was being very logical – you just miss read what I was saying.

[I said]"Since we cannot as humans truly read peoples mind we have very few “thought crimes.”" [You said] "None, if you live in a civilised country…"

What’s the difference between murder and man-slaughter? The motive. If the killing was “intentional,” which has to do with what the person was “thinking” then their sentence is greater. So thoughts do play a role in justice. Someone who thinks about killing the president can get arrested. We need to have proof like the person saying he’ll kill the president or writing out plans, but that’s because we cannot read their mind. The crime is still because of what he thought. Those are the examples I was thinking of.; May 20, 2008 9:55 AM
Parts Man said...: @dale:

I used to think that better politics would change things for the better. I used to complain whenever I heard that the government allowed some kind of new atrocity to be done. But after reading Tony Miano's blog about what happened in California, and how he said that no matter what our government does, that he would continue to preach the gospel, and he would continue to obey the commands of the Lord, my mind is changed. No matter how bad this society gets, no matter what they say is legal or not, as long as what they say lines up with the Word of God, Lord willing, I will obey Him - but if whatever they say is legal or illegal doesn't align with the Word of God, then I will be obedient to the Word because when I die and face the Lord God, our creator, judge and savior, I will be judged by His mercy and His laws; not the laws of this world. That is why Jesus said, "I pray that you not take them out of this world, but that you would keep them from the evil one," and that though we are in the world, we are not of it (we do not belong to it),and He has overcome the world. The line is drawn, the die is cast, and the end is sure. You see the truth preached every day, dale, and I pray that you repent soon.; May 20, 2008 9:57 AM
Linda said...: dale,

I need to disagree with you on the political motivations!

I write my congressman and senator almost every month about proposed legislation.

Christians need to get more involved with government matters.

If we allow non-believers to take control we will no longer be able to do the following:

Attend worship services

Prayer in public

Open Air preach

Read our Bibles

Publish our Bibles

Distribute our Bibles

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Speech

History shows us in Stalin's time, Hitler's time, and in Red China today that our Liberties are controlled.

We need to Fight with our Brothers & Sisters in the World that believe in God !

FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT !
NEVER GIVE UP ! PRESS ON to the GOAL!

Is Jesus A Genius Prophet, Crazy Lunatic, or the Son of God?

In His adult life five thousand people followed Jesus Christ and listened to His ministry when he was alive. Five thousand people witnessed his miracles. Later that number would grow into the tens of thousands, and everyone would be aware of His claims. Nearly three thousand years after His death Jesus Christ’s teachings are still highly controversial, His claims radical, and His skeptics many. Even so, many still fall into the fold as Christians as they look more closely at the ministry and life of Jesus Christ. Unbelievers turn into devout followers of a faith they can believe in with all their hearts. I am one of them.

Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of the Living God. Many people say, “No, this is not true. Jesus was only a prophet. He was only a wise man and messenger of God.”

I know that certain theologies claim that Christ was no deity, but rather, just a genius teacher, merely a sagacious and wise man, who could motivate thousands of people to come listen to what He had to say. But I rather agree with C.S. Lewis who observed that it is strange for a Jew –someone who is monotheistic and believes in ONE God outside of ourselves; in turn suddenly makes the claim that he himself, a man, is the begotten Son of this almighty God.

For a Pantheist, a person who believes they can obtain oneness with God or that they can become a God, the claim of deity is not so strange. But for a Jew to say this, well, this must be the most shocking thing ever to be uttered by human lips! It would be the same controversial claim as if a Muslim said that he was Allah. Now do you understand the controversy in what Jesus said? A Muslim cannot be Allah any more so than a Jew can be Jehovah God. But this is what Jesus said. He said that he was the Son of God.

Was Jesus crazy? Well, if you don’t believe he was the Son of God, you HAVE to believe he was crazy. This is the only conclusion you can make when a Jew makes the claim to be God. Now isn’t it strange that so many people, even unbelievers, consider Jesus to be an important holy man, and important messenger of God? How can a crazy man be these things? We must be cautious not to presume a lunatic can be a great moral advisor, this would be senseless of us. And so we must think about Jesus’ declaration very carefully.

It is insane for any human being to call himself the son of God. Yet Jesus did! If Jesus is crazy, then how can we consider him an important messenger of God? Crazy people can’t tell what is real and what is not. Crazy people don’t know right from wrong. Crazy people think they are eggs or cabbages. Crazy people are loony, and so they lack sense, and believe they can communicate with aliens, or fly off rooftops of skyscrapers like birds, or talk coherently to fish. But we know that none of the things Jesus did or said sounded crazy. Jesus was quite sane, and Jesus still said that HE was the Son of God. Think about it.

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

“He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.”

“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.”

Do these words sound like the teachings of a crazy man, a rambling lunatic, to you? No, I should think not. So how do we know if Jesus was trying to trick us into thinking he was God? What does Jesus tell us about the things we say? How do we know for sure if the intentions of others who speak to us are just or not?

Knowing Ourselves by the fruit we bare.

“How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the Day of Judgment. For you words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

“Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

So according to the teachings of Jesus is it by our actions, our fruit also known as our deeds, the things we do along with our words will determine if we are truly good or truly evil? This makes wonderful sense to me. But why is Jesus concerned with this subject? Why doesn’t Jesus just say something like, ‘don’t do bad things’? Because he’s not giving us commands to follow. Jesus is not saying these are God’s rules so you must obey them. Jesus isn’t demanding we be obedient to God through our rigid adherence to religion, but he is saying that we should live a life of goodness from the heart. What’s more, Jesus is teaching us that it is our actions and our words which alert us to whether or not we are on the right track. Moreover, Jesus is simultaneously teaching us how to live good Godly lives in the hope that we will choose Him and reach spiritual salvation.

Every word spoken by Jesus Christ drips with meaning and contains valuable insight into the type of lives God wants us to lead. Every word if filled with wisdom and thought that goes beyond what a man could say. How could a man know how a man should live according to God? I think even if God spoke directly to that man and said, “Write this down… this is my law…” that, perhaps, if we were told to ‘do these things’ according to God, many of us would gladly do so just to appease our fears. However, many people wouldn’t.

Yet Jesus isn’t only saying ‘do these things’ according to God because God is real and so you should fear Him and do what He says. Jesus is also saying, “I am the Son of God, this is the will of my Father, and, this is how to be faithful and loving. Now let me explain to you the life of My Kingdom, the Kingdom of My Father who art in Heaven, let me teach you these things through My living testimony. All you have to do is choose Me, and you will inherit eternal life and gain spiritual salvation.”

Can you honestly say that Jesus is a wise prophet and nothing more? If so, can you tell me how you can say this without having Jesus sound like a crazy lunatic? Can you tell me how this makes sense for a Jew coming from the Judaic faith which can say these things and not be crazy? And if so, who is equal to Jesus in ministry? Who else has made these claims? There is none. We must then stop to think, and I mean seriously think, what is it Jesus is trying to say?

We have to think carefully about it, because Jesus says so much using so few words, and all of it concerns us. He is precise, He speaks in parables, He uses analogy, He references scripture, He uses the wisdom of the world, and He speaks as a God would. A God who knows everything before Him and everything yet to come after Him; for Jesus said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.” Because of the complexity of everything Jesus Christ teaches or says we cannot afford to disregard him as a mere loon. But more importantly, we cannot honestly claim that Jesus was not who he said he was. We must believe Jesus spoke the truth, because we know of no instance or example in which Jesus lied. He was infallible, free from sin, and so could never lie. So when Jesus claims “I am the begotten Son of God,” we have no reason to doubt Him.

God’s Law is a Book. In this Book is a belief. This belief is in the Word. The Word of God is Truth. Jesus Christ brings the Word of God. Christ’s Words are that He is God and so He is Truth. This Truth spawns a great Faith. Christ instructs us in the Ways of this Truth. Christ dies for us out of Love and forgiveness. Those who believe this Truth then follow Him. We are called Christians.

So what is God’s law? What then is the Word of God? Is it the Bible? Perhaps the Qur’an? Let us examine what Jesus says.

Jesus states, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” He means EVERY word in the Bible, but more specifically, His own ministry. For is not Christ called the ‘Living Word of God’?

“Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk”? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins.”

We are told to forgive. More importantly we are told to love, and forgive those who do wrongs against us. When I look at other theologies I suddenly become depressed. When I see other religions, I admire their cultural traditions and ancient customs, but what I cannot admire is their lack of a Jesus. Oh you philosophers, philanthropists, and skeptics, where is your faith? In yourself only? If so, I pity you. For whom will you rely on when you shall face adversity greater than the sum of all fears, greater than yourselves? You will be bent and broken. Yet we are not without hope, for there is the living Word of God!

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?”

How difficult is this for us? It is very hard for many people to get past what Jesus is teaching here. In Islam there is the idea of Jihad, or ‘holy war’ in the name of God. Yet would this not contradict what Jesus is saying? Muslims say they believe that Jesus is a prophet of God, but when it comes to radical extremist’s actions, everyone must question very seriously –would God permit these types of actions? The answer is NO. God sees any Jihad as evil.

Despotism is not the Way: Why I think Islam is the Wrong Path.

I do not mean to pick on Muslims here, but this is one of the contradictions in what we are told. We can see how important Jesus’ ministry is in this example. Jesus claims God judges us by our fruits, our actions, and our words. If you see a *radical extremist Muslim killing a Christian and do nothing, then God will judge you equally. For you who intentionally did nothing and sat back and watched the Christian be slaughtered are just as guilty in God’s eyes, both are guilty for NOT loving their neighbor. God wants us to love one another, and so we must extend our love and charity whenever we see others suffer. This is the Christian way, and so, there cannot be Jihad and killing in the name of God. God won’t condone it. Not under any circumstances.

Jesus, even in Islam, is believed to be a prophet and messenger of God. If this is true, then even Muslims must take seriously what Jesus says when he tells us to love our enemy. How can we hate evil and love our enemies who practice evil? Ah, see how spectacularly complex Jesus teaching is? Jesus knows exactly how to do this. We are urged to hate all evil, not do evil things, and try to always do good. By practicing what Jesus taught we can gain righteousness, be saved from sin, and learn to love our enemy through the greatest act of love –forgiveness. We are not being asked to love evil, no, this would be silly. We are told evil will afflict our every day lives, the evil is all around us, that unless we accept Christ we will be more inclined to do evil than good, and so we must take up the Word of God, and learn to hate the sin but love the sinner. In fact, that we should love each other as brothers and sisters, stand united, and throw evil asunder, and through our love emulate the love of Christ, and teach others to do the same. This is why the teachings of Jesus Christ are so vitally important.

Take up your Cross!

Doubt in Gods among Men.

You may doubt Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, but what you cannot doubt is how important His message, teachings, and ministry was. I highly doubt a human would have taken offense by sin, but Jesus took offense by every cruel word, action, and thought of all mankind. His entire ministry was devoted to trying to teach us how to love and act according to His Father’s law, and so we cannot deny that Jesus took offense by our sins. Since sin is opposed to God’s law only a loving God, I think, would take offense by our sins. A loving God would forgive all our sins as Christ did. A cruel god would condemn us for our actions without the hope of salvation. A false god would demand our loyalty without retribution. A man made god might even ask us to declare Jihad in his name. This latter god would be the spread of hate, destruction, lies, and disunity. This latter god would sponsor a divided world with only the promise of his laws; laws which have no meaning without mercy; laws which are without forgiveness. Finally, this type of corrupt god would surely want us to worship him alone, and love him and him only, and he would deny us if we didn’t choose him on his erroneous terms. There is no freedom in a god like this. We cannot expect to love the one true God with all of our hearts if we can’t first love each other.

The Great Illusion in Islam.

The great illusion of Despotism is the promise for freedom, but without the free choice. You can live well and love Allah with all your might, but it was never your choice, not really. You may believe it was your choice, because you chose Allah, but Allah never gave you the option in the first place. Every Muslim in my eyes is perishing in a great see of false security in the trust of a fatalistic god which cast a great shadow of doubt over the certainty of the universe.

Men like Mohammad were not concerned with the offense toward love; they were only concerned with the action of obedience to his god, because Allah commanded it. It is a noble sentiment, one that a warrior would have, but it does not lead to salvation nor does it exhibit Godly love. In order to repent from sin, you must first believe in sin. Those of lesser metal, men like Joseph Smith, never cared to stop sinning and start loving. Instead, he was more concerned with making a statement that he personally thought reflected what God wanted him to say. He conjectured, and designed a false religion in his own image, not God’s. We know these things to be true by the fruits born of each man. Great thinkers like Aristotle and Buddha only wanted us to live better more moral lives, but only to the extent of their reasoning in the knowledge of the world around them. Yet it was only Jesus who wanted us to learn to live for each other out of love so that we would become children in the eyes of God. So that men may become the Son’s of God and live Godly lives so that we may eventually inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

If you take the time to think about it, these red words are not something a human would try to teach another human. Or for that matter, why should an unbeliever take offense if another unbeliever does not follow God’s law? Only Jesus took offense by our sins.

Allah is Not my God: And Never will Be, So sorry.

What about the other great religion of the world? What about the teachings of Islam? Well, I’m afraid that Mohammad only took offense against himself by those who would not take up Allah’s way, and so, Mohammad demanded retribution for those who disobeyed Allah. Infidels must take Mohammad’s word without question because Mohammad said Allah spoke to him direct, yet only Mohammad could hear god’s voice. In Islam there were no other great disciples to share in the witness of the Kingdom of God, but only those who witnessed Mohammad who believed so with no questions asked. We are told to accept Allah or else perish, and if Islam is the one true religion, then we have no choice but to accept Islam as our way of life because Allah demands it. Allah demands it by the threat of our spritual salvation; and without so much as a lesson to why.

The one man who claimed he was the Son of God, we are told by Allah to deny. We are told to deny Christ, but Christ says all those who deny Him will not enter the Kingdom of God.

In Islam we are specifically forbidden to accept Christ at His word. Therefore we are expected to throw away our only real known chance of true salvation and trade it in for a life of chance and pure happenstance. The gamble that I may be granted mercy if I put myself at the whim of a jealous god is too great for the soul to bare, and no promise by Allah can convince me otherwise. Why? Because Allah has not given me that option.

Jesus reminds us,

“But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

How can I have faith in a god who gives the stipulation that there is nothing to have by faith but his “feasible” good will? In order to gain Allah's faith you must devote yourself to ritual, sacrifice your soul for obedience in the hope that Allah's mood will be merciful on the day of judgement. However, I say to you, true faith takes the personal devotion by an act of our free will to choose to believe in God. We must be allowed to choose God on our own terms without the threat of condemnation. We cannot be dictated to believe the impossible and forfit our very salvation without so much as a question as to why? In Christ we find a Godly life through adoration of God’s love in us all. We cannot be demanded loyalty without the allowance of our free choice and desire to serve God by giving ourselves up to him through love and obediance. Love, not duty, that we may not have to unwillingly suffer the unrequited love of a controlling god for no other purpose than to gratify his monstrous need for hedonistic worship -but at the cost of our very souls. Love will be lost if is is not true, and we cannot love any god who dictates our love greedily and selfishly. If we are denied the truth of love in Jesus Christ we are denied love all together.

I’m afraid Islam makes no sense to me because I can find no real hope in it. I may be told that Allah is all loving, but I do not know it in my heart. I look at the lives of both Jesus and Mohammad, and I question Allah’s intent by placing authority in a man who denied the face of love. I am sure Mohammad’s actions show the fruit of his tree. And so everyone who is not a Muslim is condemned, because Allah demands it. I wonder where is Allah’s love and mercy here? The agony of having to wait out Allah's temperamental change of mood is not soup for the soul, not when the stakes are so high. For these reasons there will never be a sovereignty or deliverance from sin found in teachings of Islam or the belief in Allah.

Indeed this is the great crux of Islamic faith, and this is why I can never have faith in Allah. This is also why I love my Muslim brothers and sisters. I love them because Jesus loves them. I love them because I can partake in God’s love for them. I love them because my faith in my God overwhelms me with the desire to be a devout Christian. I love them although I disagree with them. And this is okay.

Challenged but not Condemned.

And the disciples of Jesus came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”

He answered and said to them,

“Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.”

“But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”

Getting Over ‘Allah’s Way or the Highway’.

Jesus asked,

“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”

For this reason I know that Jihad is senseless and spiritually reckless in the eyes of the Christian God. We cannot practice Jihad, or any form of murder, and expect to be free of sin. We cannot believe a god would cleanse our sins for sinning in his name. We cannot go against the great love of God by abandoning our love he wants us to demonstrate toward each other. I find Allah’s way hypocritical, and there is no Kingdom of Heaven waiting for me in this type of god.

Jesus teaches the real way to Heaven and the Kingdom of God.

“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Only Jesus taught us a ministry of how to love unbiased, learn to forgive, be just and righteous, and enter the kingdom of heaven. Only Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Only Jesus put his life on the line for our salvation. Only Jesus died out of love for us so that we may be forgiven for our sins. But I say to you, only a God can forgive us for our sins. Only the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rocks: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house: and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.”

“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

Believe me or not, Christ is the key to all our salvation.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”; May 20, 2008 10:03 AM
ex-atheist said...: Nick said...
”Many believers on this site have wondered why non-believers come here and post. I'd like to give my reasons: Undermining interest in science, particularly among kids, will lead to fewer people entering these fields, and it will make it harder to muster the funding and political will needed to support research projects that can benefit society and improve the quality of our lives.”

So it’s about my tax money doing your dirty work. Your “savior” is the government and science; “Save us politicians and technology” is what I’m hearing from you.

”…your views on public policies covering mental illness, homelessness, drug addiction, and punishing criminals will likely be very different from the public policies supported by someone with a scientific, empirical view of the mind/brain. These policies have a great impact on society, so I cannot just ignore them.

And how often to you visit prisoners, feed the homeless, provided free services to the poor and addicted and outcastes of society? Guess who does the most charitable work in this country and the world? Guess who has provided more aid and humanitarian relief for the people you’ve mentioned? Guess who shows up at the seen of a major crisis first, who treats these people as people, and opens up their church doors? (I just give away the answer)

”Another consideration is that genetics is becoming a big part of medicine, including both physical and mental health. “

So you’re here to help humanity to live an extra 10 – 20 year life span? That's good, but the Christians are here to tell you how to live forever and have the joy of the Lord while living an upright and moral life for the glory of God. We are hear to see each other as people in the image of God, not just those who are productive members of society, nor are they just a body of genetic material that can be reprogrammed, decoded, and manipulated to the standards of the day – we know that you also have a soul. I am all for good genetic and scientific research, but there are many ethical and moral implications to consider along the way. I've said it before, True Christians love science because the longer we live the longer we get to share the gospel with a lost and dying world.; May 20, 2008 10:09 AM
The Celtic Chimp said...: c3por2d2,

Very True. My apologies. Forgive brother for I have truly sinned...

***Warning Christians - Humour alert! The following is not meant to be taken literally :)***

I have never wrongly accused someone of being a christian fundamentalist before.....hey I think I'm beginning to feel this 'guilt' thing Ray keeps banging on about :>

I think thats the worst thing I've ever accused someone of. I just charged you with having no sense, of being judgemental and of having a crippled sense of morality at the same time. My sincere apologies.

Blessed be our lord Darwin, son of satan! :); May 20, 2008 10:12 AM
The Celtic Chimp said...: Dale,

Silly boy. Read genesis. He SPOKE the universe into existance. Spending 4 days on earth and a part of a day on the entire rest of the universe. Ah these crazy fundies really crack me up!!! :); May 20, 2008 10:18 AM
get_education said...: "Biblical truth is objective. It is true by itself. It is true whether or not we feel it’s true. It is true whether or not it has been validated by someone’s experience. It is true because God says it is true. It is wholly true, and it is true down to the smallest jot and tittle."

Well, if we take a look at a definition of objective:

"expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

For your paragraph to be acceptable, you need to back it up with "distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." Thus, it is not objective. It is rather subjective. You can only perceive it to be true by distortion by personal feeling, prejudices, or interpretations. If you are free from those (personal feelings ...) you can easily call it into question.; May 20, 2008 10:19 AM
The Celtic Chimp said...: Ray,

How about this one.

You are on a plane which is about to explode. You are at 10 thousand feet and need to jump out.

You have two choices.

1) you can have a parachute that has a 10% change of actually opening when the cord is pulled

2) you can have every single Christian on earth praying to God that when you jump you are miraculously ok

Which one would you take? Would anyone take the prayer?; May 20, 2008 10:24 AM
david_crichton said...: C3P0R2D2 said...

KuliKen said...

"btw, serious question (although random) towards skeptics... how many of you have tried to "pray" to God about the possibility of His existence and whether Christianity was true or not? just curious..."
Why should I pray to something I don't believe exists? I don't pray to Thor, Wotan the Flying spaghetti Monster, or the Pink Invisible Unicorn. Why should I pray to your God and Not Allah or any of the Hindu gods?
When you know why you deny all those other possible Gods, you'll know why I also deny your God. We're all atheists when it comes to the thousands of Gods in the mass grave called Mythology, some of us just go one god further.
The evidence for all those gods is the same, none. That's why it's called faith, not science.

I hope I answered your question.

==> If you want to put belief in Thor, Wotan the Flying spaghetti Monster, or the Pink Invisible Unicorn on the same level as belief in the God of the Bible, that's certainly up to you. However, let us know when you come across anyone who's ever given up their life for refusing to renounce their belief in those other "gods". Better yet, let me know when someone takes a bullet for refusing to renounce their belief in evolution.

For the last 2,000 years belief in Jesus Christ has carried with it a price tag of one's own life for hundreds of thousands of people. Just see Foxe's book of Martyrs, or check out the Voice of the Martyr's web site.; May 20, 2008 11:13 AM
dale said...: Uh oh, Terry Burton is up to his old tricks again in the form of this Linda.
Linda/ Terry, by the way, there is no way I am going to read a comment that long on a blog, especially from you.
Ray has said he wouldn't even post comments that blog, but I guess that only pertains to the non-believers.; May 20, 2008 11:19 AM
Nick said...: Linda wrote:

"Christians need to get more involved with government matters."

Controlling the White House, Supreme Court, most of Congress, the vast majority of state and local offices, and most school boards is not enough?; May 20, 2008 11:28 AM
dale said...: Irukandji,
RE: Your May 20, 2008 8:57 AM Comment

That is very similar to my own experience except that I was becoming quite skeptical by age twelve.

If I would try to pray at this point I would end up laughing at myself.

Thanks for sharing your story.; May 20, 2008 11:29 AM
Nick said...: Ex-Atheist wrote:

"So it’s about my tax money doing your dirty work."

Nope, it's about aggressively pursuing empirical research to understand, and thus to treat and prevent, genetic diseases such as:

Achromatopsia
Aicardi Syndrome
Albinism
Alexander Disease
Alpers’ Disease
Alzheimer’s Disease
Angelman Syndrome
Autism
Bardet-Biedl Syndrome
Barth Syndrome
Best’s Disease
Bipolar Disorder
Bloom Syndrome
Canavan Syndrome
Cancer Genetics
Carnitine Deficiencies
Cerebral Palsy
Cleft Lip/Cleft Palate
Coffin Lowry Syndrome
Color Blindness
Heart Defects
Hip Dysplasia
Cooley’s Anemia
Corneal Dystrophy
Cystic Fibrosis
Cystinosis
Diabetes
Down Syndrome
Epidermolysis Bullosa
Familial Dysautonomia
Fibrodysplasia
Fragile X Syndrome
Deficiency Anemia
Galactosemia
Gaucher Disease
Gilbert’s Syndrome
Glaucoma
Hemochromatosis
Hemoglobin C Disease
Hemophilia/Bleeding Disorders
Hirschsprung’s Disease
Homocystinuria
Huntington’s Disease
Hurler Syndrome
Klinefelter Syndrome
Macular Degeneration
Marshall Syndrome
Menkes Disease
Metabolic Disorders
Microphthalmus
Mitochondrial Disease
Mucolipidoses
Muscular Dystrophy
Neonatal Onset Multisystem Inflammatory Disease
Neural Tube Defects
Noonan Syndrome
Optic Atrophy
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome
Phenylketonuria (PKU)
Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum
Progeria
Scheie Syndrome
Schizophrenia
Sickle Cell Anemia
Skeletal Dysplasias
Spherocytosis
Spina Bifida
Spinocerebellar Ataxia
Stargardt Disease (Macular Degeneration)
Stickler Syndrome
Tay-Sachs Disease
Thalassemia
Treacher Collins Syndrome
Tuberous Sclerosis
Turner’s Syndrome
Urea Cycle Disorder
Usher’s Syndrome
Werner Syndrome
XXX Syndrome
XYY Syndrome

You say you love science, but then you call medical research "dirty work."; May 20, 2008 11:36 AM
get_education said...: How on earth does the death of thousands of Christians prove anything about them being right about religion?

How many times do I have to say that evolution is not a belief, but a phenomenon of nature that once understood is amazing in its power to explain, reasonably, the diversity of life? I would not take a bullet for gravity, nor for photosynthesis, nor for ... you got the idea, why would I do that for evolution?

Again, I am not against you fellows having a religion, I am against the spreading of lies and distorted versions about science and specifically about what evolution is all about, and about the spreading of the propaganda that says creationism is scientific (disguised as intelligent design).

Aside from that, again, we do not do any worshipping, nor do we derive our senses of justice from our understanding of evolution (a few might, but that is another story). Evolution is not something ethereal that dictates us a set of rules, it just explains the diversity of life (to put it simple). One thing is a rational explanation of the natural world, another very different thing is the sense of justice that society needs to work and prosper properly.; May 20, 2008 11:44 AM
Emily said...: @Dale & Nick: So you both believe that you will impart your excessive wisdom to enlighten fundamentalists that their beliefs are meaningless and archaic, so that all of mankind will benefit from the complete elimination of "fundamentalist" Christianity? How philanthropic of you. I'm sure your benevolence and generosity will be remembered for generations. Everyone will have a moment of silence and light a candle 100 years from now remembering how Nick and Dale visited a Christian blog, and how their posts changed the world.

lol

Give me a break. You guys are obsessed with Ray's blog because it sheds a light on your guilty conscience, and every Christian here knows it. You're not fooling anyone but yourselves with this "I'm here to change the world" nonsense.

*laugh* You guys are funny. =); May 20, 2008 12:02 PM
dale said...: C. Chimp,
You said,
"Which one would you take? Would anyone take the prayer?"

That reminds me of a couple years ago when my son and I were shoveling snow for an elderly lady down the road from me. We have done this for her for several years when her son can't make it over.

On returning home, my nosey Christian neighbor says, "I see you were shoveling out Mrs Jones again." "yes," says I. He then says, "We pray for her every day."
I looked at my son and the instant I saw the look on his face I burst into laughter. When I got over my hilarity I merely said to him, "too bad your prayers won't move that snow!"
After a few episodes like that he doesn't speak of prayer or his religion any more, but, he continues to be very nosey! Luckily I have a large and secluded property so he has to go out of his way to snoop around.

I've got some hilarious stories about him.

See ya. /d; May 20, 2008 12:02 PM
C3P0R2D2 said...: @ Linda,

Sorry, I'm not going to read a 4000+ word diatribe. Try posting something a bit shorter if you want us to read it.
I did read the first bit, until the claim that 'Freedom of speech would disappear', and for all those points till then I can tell you you are dead wrong as far as I'm concerned. You can read, print, preach the bible all you want, just keep it out of school and the government. If you want to believe in the tooth fairy, Fine, just don't try to teach it in schools as the truth or try to get laws that make toothfairism mandatory for everyone.
How about an new commandment 'Thy will keep thy religion to thyself'

@ Ray Comfort, I thought you were going to keep an eye on these enormous posts. Guess this one also slipped by the censors; May 20, 2008 12:06 PM
get_education said...: Linda,

It is not non-believers who you have to fear, but absolutists who can use their religions/or those of the majorities as excuses to close down your liberties. I would never ever try to take away your rights to:

Attend worship services
Prayer in public
Open Air preach
Read your Bibles
Publish your Bibles
Distribute your Bibles
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Speech

I might even fight side-by-side with you to defend your rights (otherwise my rights to freely pursue knowledge and to question the irrational --in public-- would be next in the list of prohibitions). What I do not want to happen whatsoever, is the taking of plain lies into science curriculums, the expansion of irrational claims into the classroom, the disguising of religion to pose as science, the contamination of critical thinking with prefabricated propaganda (and circular arguments) ... I hope you got it.; May 20, 2008 12:10 PM
PhatPhil said...: SCH20 said...

"It's puzzling to me how obsessed some God-haters are with this blog."

I'm not a God-hater. As one of my favorite authors, Christopher Hitchens, said in his cute British accent "that would be absurd! How could I hate something that doesn't exist?"

So, why do I, an Athiest, read this column? I read it to get a good laugh and to feel superior to Ray and people like him who are so "simplistic" that they need to reduce the incomprehensible enormity of the Universe and the unfathomable vastness of time into a single book.

No - into a single phrase "for God so loved the world...yada...yada..

No - into a single word -Believe!"

Don't learn. Don't study. Don't question. Don't doubt. And, most importantly of all, DON'T THINK!

What a pathetic religion Christianity is. So much talk about Knowledge and LOVE but truly it's ALL ABOUT IGNORANCE AND FEAR!

And, Brother Ray has the spiel down to (if you'll excuse the un-Christian expression) a "Science."

Blind Belief = Eternal Bliss/Informed Doubt = Everlasting Torment!

In closing, please join me in a chorus of that famous Christian hymn "(Don't) Give me that old time religion. It's (Not) good enough for ME!"

PhatPhil (The sadder - but
much wiser - Atheist); May 20, 2008 12:13 PM
David W. Irish said...: That is arguably one of the poorest arguments constructed.

In the case of the major religions of the world, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUR FUTURE IS. If we were "about to jump out of an airplane", that sort of assumes that we're either on the plane already, or that we're planning this in advance.

In the case of "what happens after death", we have nothing but speculation. We have science, which tells us that once we die, that's it, and we are buried. We have buddhism, which tells us that we are reincarnated and start over again. We have hinduism which says we are reincarnated based on whether we were good people or bad -- good people get reincarnated as better people, and bad people get reincarnated as bugs or sheep. Then we have Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, which has us all get judged by some high standard, and sent to heaven or hell accordingly. Then there is Catholocism, which says if you weren't that bad, that you go to purgatory for a few thousand years until you learn your lesson, then you go to heaven.

Then we have all the weird new-age ideas about the afterlife that I won't even bother with, because I know we both think they're a load of dingo's kidneys.

None of these theories about what happens when you die is known for sure -- they are all accepted on faith. Nobody has ever come back to confirm heaven and hell. All we have are dreams and dream interpretations, and religious dogma.

If we knew for sure that we were going to need a parachute in the recent future, it stands to reason that what happens after death SHOULD BE KNOWN in order for your analogy to be correct. But it isn't. It's illogical.

If I were presented all of the religious views of the after life, I would chose the Buddhist one over and over again, because it's the most pleasant of all of them. But I know it's just as unlikely as Christianity's afterlife.; May 20, 2008 12:19 PM
Stacy said...: I find it amusing when Weemaryanne pokes fun at Ray's belief in an "imaginary friend," as if he's somehow crazy and delusional for believing in God. Yet statistics plainly show that the majority of the population does believe in God. Believe it or not, there are a number of sane, educated, and (lo and behold) intelligent people out there who believe like we do!; May 20, 2008 12:22 PM
Paul Brown said...: ex-atheist said...
"Paul Brown said...
“If only people would realise what is on offer from some of the smaller players - you can get some much better deals. For example, did you look into the Norse religion? ….Or the Wiccan Summerland…"

I don’t get this line of arguing for atheism…"

That's because I wasn't arguing for atheism - i was being facetious about Ray's "comparison shopping" idea of religions and what you get out of them when you die. Obviously I overestimated my audience.

"You mention different religions (ones that are on the fringe) and make the point that there cannot be just ONE Devine revelation to explain life, so it's best to choose none.

It’s like saying, “I know you believe 2+3=5 but why can’t it equal 8, it’s a better answer because it’s a bigger number. Personally, I’m just going to stick with ‘0’ because no one really knows the answer and numbers are even real anyways – show me a ‘7’ then maybe I’ll be convinced.”"

Actually, no - you missed the point quite spectacularly there; the point is that Ray was claiming (to use your analogy) that 2 + 2 = 5 because, effectively, that's his favourite answer. I then suggested, with my tongue very firmly in my cheek, that you should try 8 because it's a bigger number, or perhaps even consider 2 because it's cheaper. The idea is that the humour of the situation causes you to realise that 2 + 2 = 4 and debating over potential answers and their various merits is just being silly.

(Cue some Christian claiming that their God is four.); May 20, 2008 12:45 PM
Rufus said...: All right, Terry Burton! A quadruple post of the same comment. You've just thrown the meds away, haven't you?; May 20, 2008 12:54 PM
get_education said...: Oh, I forgot an explanation. Some have taken my "get_education" as an insult of sorts to the Christians, and as an assumption about their education levels. That was not the purpose, I choose this nickname, because education is important to me.

In any event, there is a difference between being educated and being indoctrinated.

Degrees do not impress me, and should not impress you. Despite I am a scientist, I wold never say something like:

"Since I have a PhD I am right and you are wrong!"

That would be faulty reasoning, just exactly as faulty as:

"Because the Bible says so, it is true"

So, by education I mean learning to think properly, which is actually missing from the curriculum (darn, I just gave you guys another weapon!). It is missing, not because we do not want ID to be taught within science, but because we have not made the thinking process much more explicit within the science curriculum.

That is it. I am an educator (but a scientist first!), and I am worried about the degradation of education as the student population increases. We have enough problems and we should not compound them by adding pseudo-science and creationism (which is NOT science) to the science curriculum.; May 20, 2008 1:27 PM
Irukandji said...: @ David:

Pink Invisible Unicorn

It's the Invisible Pink Unicorn, you blasphemer!

However, let us know when you come across anyone who's ever given up their life for refusing to renounce their belief in those other "gods".

Well, seeing as the IPU and the FSM were created for the sole purpose of highlighting the implausibility of more established members of the global pantheon, they haven't generated too many martyrs. But surely you don't believe that Christians are the only ones who have ever laid down their lives for the sake of their faith?

Better yet, let me know when someone takes a bullet for refusing to renounce their belief in evolution.

Let me know when we start shooting people for rejecting superstition in favor of science, and I'll be right there in front of the firing squad.

Oh, one further thought on martyrdom: to quote Oscar Wilde on the subject of Jesus Christ, "a thing is not necessarily true because a man died for it."; May 20, 2008 1:28 PM
Izovaprophet said...: @ Linda

Your critical thinking skills are on par with those of a nine-year-old. It saddens me.

The only way to hold on to our freedom of/from religion is to keep theology out of the hands of our government. THAT is what history has taught us.

And I believe that I can speak for most atheists/secularists/agnostics/etc. when I say that we have no desire to outlaw religion. We may not believe in it. We may not respect it (I certainly don't). But we do respect everyone's right to practice their own religion. It seems your entire argument is built to disprove your own point.

I don't intend to come across as another angry atheist. But I am angry. I'm angry about the current state of our government. I'm angry about our educational system. And I'm angry that Christian dogma has infiltrated both. Again, it saddens me.; May 20, 2008 1:54 PM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs said...
"I don't need an old book by a "witness" claiming this deity called fire out of the sky. If your deity has that ability, a demonstration would go a long way toward convincing me he exists."

Really? How would such a demonstration help? What would it tell you about God, about life, about salvation, about anything? Do you see where I’m going – what I’m trying to help you and atheists understand?

What good is it for you to see a miracle, a vision, a supernatural demonstration of God – how would or should it change you life or your eternity? Imagine if someone prayed to God, “Send fire down.” And it happens before your eyes. What then? Would you believe the Bible? Would you expect it to happen when you pray? Should God just capitulate to everyone’s requests? What would be a fair and equal way of God communicating to man so that we could all investigate the same objective external source?; May 20, 2008 2:03 PM
Nick said...: Yet statistics plainly show that the majority of the population does believe in God. Believe it or not, there are a number of sane, educated, and (lo and behold) intelligent people out there who believe like we do!

People who believe in God don't necessarily believe the universe is 6,000 years old. It's Biblical literalism that is so off-base.; May 20, 2008 2:07 PM
ex-atheist said...: ”I used to pray every night before I went to bed, in fact. At some point during my mid-teens, it became fairly obvious that I was talking to myself.”

I’m glad this person recognized that they were praying to a god of their own imagination – for some this leads them to repentance and faith in Christ and to the true and living God – for others like this person it leads them farther away from the truth and the God they never truly knew.

We should never mistake our wrong assumptions and conclusions about God as the truth about God.; May 20, 2008 2:07 PM
ex-atheist said...: Get education said…
”For those who think I should give you the convincing situation to "convince me", there is none, zero, no convincing possible, because you will never ever find a reasonable argument for blind faith.”

I agree.

I wouldn’t want to convince you that God is real, the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who He said He was – because if I could convince you, then someone else might convince you of something completely different. I’d much rather you be convinced by God Himself.

That’s what it took for me. Once I allowed God to speak, opened my mind, softened my heart, and was utterly honest with myself and my sinful nature, God made Himself known plan as day.

After that, it wasn’t a blind faith at all to trust in the Creator and sustainer of this universe. It takes way more “blind” faith to trust in teachers, politicians, the media, the experts, and religious leaders. But the most blind faith that I had was believing that existence was a pointless accident without meaning, purpose, or direction - that there was no God.

I was blind, but now I see.; May 20, 2008 2:16 PM
Nick said...: Emily wrote:

"@Dale & Nick: So you both believe that you will impart your excessive wisdom to enlighten fundamentalists that their beliefs are meaningless and archaic."

That would be nice.

But more realistically, something like this might happen...non-fundamentalists reading this site won't be fooled into believing creationist, young-earth nonsense when they see the other side. When someone on this site says "there's no evidence for evolution," they'll get pointed to the easily findable evidence that's just a Google search away (try "talk origins," to cite just one example).

Learning about the way fundamentalists think is also interesting. (There are a lot of you in America, after all.) For instance, it has been eye-opening to read about the attitude that Ray has toward Catholicism, which is a view that is apparently shared by many others.; May 20, 2008 2:21 PM
BrianB. said...: The Bible is the most translated book in the world. It has been translated into more different languages and dialects than any other book that has been written.

The Bible continues to be the best seller in the world.

It is the only book that reveals the origin, mission, and destiny of man.

It is the textbook on salvation.

The question we should be asking is not whether Mr. Comfort’s logic is flawed but how reason and logic is going to keep us out of the grave? We are all going to die some day. That’s truth. There will be another reality beyond what we can know here.

So it seems that the reasonable and logical thing is search for the answers of life and death. Search the other religions and see if they explain the origins of humankind, the mission and destiny of men (women) and life and death (afterlife). Not believing is having belief in something. We know God is there even if we can not see Him in a telescope, just like we know our mind is there even though we can not see it in a telescope.

To me the Bible better explains all the answers we have compared to Science or other religions. Only the God of the Bible, the great I AM can give us the truth that exceeds our understanding. He says to earnestly seek Him and we shall find Him. He has not hidden Himself but lives within all we know. Humans have always and will always search for the meaning of life.

Please know that it is not God’s will that any should perish without knowing Him. Today is the day of salvation. Humble yourself before it’s too late. We beg you please……; May 20, 2008 2:21 PM
ex-atheist said...: The celtic chimp asked…

“You have two choices.
1) you can have a parachute that has a 10% change of actually opening when the cord is pulled
2) you can have every single Christian on earth praying to God that when you jump you are miraculously ok
Which one would you take? Would anyone take the prayer?”

Satan tried to trick Jesus to fall off the Temple, quoting how God would save Him, but Jesus replied “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”

The Christians would be praying that the parachute would open, but if not that God would still be glorified.; May 20, 2008 2:31 PM
ex-atheist said...: @ Nick

I don’t know any Christians that are against fighting those diseases you listed.

Now if the debate is about good scientific research that doesn’t compromise human life that actually has potential for helping verses Embryonic Stem Cell research then I don’t believe that the “ends justify the means.” There are ethics in science. agree / disagree?

And Scientists do not need to bow to the dogma of evolution to practice good science and research.

You live in a paranoid fantasy world if you think that the majority of the fundamental Christians are against science. I probably know more Christians then you – and nothing is farther from the truth.

The dirty work I was referring to was government grants to push things like,
Evolution indoctrination
Embryonic Stem Cell research
Planed Unparenthood
Uncensored and unethical sex education in public schools; May 20, 2008 2:47 PM
ex-atheist said...: David W. said…
”In the case of "what happens after death", we have nothing but speculation. We have science, which tells us that once we die, that's it, and we are buried.”

Don’t try to make atheism = science. How underhanded is that. “Atheism” says once you die and that’s it. Science only deals with the here and now.

“Then we have Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, which has us all get judged by some high standard, and sent to heaven or hell accordingly.”

Christianity is still unique even from Judaism because the “standard” doesn’t determine eternity – but Jesus Christ offers heaven as a free gift.

“None of these theories about what happens when you die is known for sure -- they are all accepted on faith.”

Are you admitting your worldview is also accepted on faith? That would be impressive.

”Nobody has ever come back to confirm heaven and hell.”
How do you know? Would you believe them if they did? What’s the point of a comment like this if you are unwilling to affirm that someone “could” come back… like Jesus?”; May 20, 2008 3:02 PM
Rebecca in TX said...: Atheists,
Why can't you use the Bible to prove the validity of the claims of Christianity? Does this mean that you cannot use science books to prove the claims of science?; May 20, 2008 3:39 PM
dale said...: Emily said...
@Dale & Nick: So you both believe......

I can't speak for Nick, but I have no pretentions whatsoever how long or for what, exactly, I will be "remembered." And I don't care.

I am imparting as much love and support to the people that come into my sphere of influence as I can.

I find that by helping people reach their potential as humans, I can look back and see the successes. Some of them become part of a heritage that is only appreciated while I am alive.

Even at my "tender" age, there are more positive experiences that I can never remember them all.

Just for example, My younger sister died of cancer at 43 years old (with much dignity, I might add) and at her funeral this "kid" walks up and gives me his condolences. He says, "you don't remember me, do you?" Of course I started remembering and he broke out laughing, "You taught me how to drive!" ! Ayeee!

Here he is, a physician's assistant, and much desired to doctors in this area and he's telling me he may have never drove a car if it hadn't have been for me risking my neck every Saturday morning for almost a year! His mother just couldn't do it and his Dad had died the year before.

How could I have forgotten him?

I filled my life with helping others. No, not butting in to people's lives, but recognizing when a person is receptive and is asking for some help.

I kinda wonder how many other lives I have had positive influence on, and don't even remember, yet, it doesn't matter. I know I did it. And not Ray, or Allfiredup,or Choco, or any other of you will ever be able to take any of that away from me (Ahlsheimers, maybe. death for sure.)

Even your God cannot take it away from me. And so resides within me a contentment that nothing outside me can ever produce. I have something that your God cannot touch. There is no way that he can take away the satisfaction that I have made out of the life that I have had. You do it, or you don't.

I see some "kids" here. I like you. Some of you want to embrace your spiritual values first and foremost, but you may take people down the wrong path with your youthful exuberance. People need to get educated, and know how to take care of themselves before they just give up on a life of hard work and imagine that if they pray enough, Jesus will take care of them.

So, you guys take care of the spiritual needs of those who come to you looking for them, and I will take care of the educational needs of the people that come to me looking for that kind of guidance. K? Hmmmmmmmm? Deal?

Respectfully submitted, /d; May 20, 2008 3:49 PM
LivingAsOneFreed said...: To 'get_education':

Of your post dated May 20, 2008 1:27 PM - I understand where you are coming from. Far be it from me personally to prevent someone from thinking of their own accord.

But (and I ask this honestly), of your statements:

"... by education I mean learning to think properly, which is actually missing from the curriculum..."

"I am an educator (but a scientist first!), and I am worried about the degradation of education as the student population increases. We have enough problems and we should not compound them by adding pseudo-science and creationism (which is NOT science) to the science curriculum."

Do you believe that creationism (or 'ID') should be allowed to be taught as a non-science in public schools?

For instance - I believe there is as much to enjoy from a 'literature' or 'history' point of view as there is otherwise. And those two fields are not usually considered a science.

And, I would post an analogy to further this discussion... but I'll hold off depending on your response - or, that of anyone else who would like to honestly, civilly post a response to that question.

Thank you for your time.

-LAOF; May 20, 2008 3:59 PM
Emily said...: @ all Christians ... Reading all the recent comments, all I can say is, Wow! I'm speechless! (Momentarily. *Ahem* Okay, I've regained my composure.) ;) I think our tireless preaching to the lost has certainly pinched some sensitive nerves, judging by the extreme contempt for Christ's love being posted here.

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

I'm certainly feeling VERY blessed. =) Hee.

"Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

When I think about what Jesus Christ endured for our salvation, and how despite the cruelty and torture He still cried out for God the Father to forgive those who tortured and humiliated Him; I can't help but look at myself and my inability to do the same. =( Also thank you to Sunny who sent those piercing arrows to me in another blog reply. =) THEY'RE DIGGING IN TO MY FLESH, SUNNY. ;) Seriously, thank you sis, I welcome the conviction. =)

I'm just stunned by the venom in this particular blog's replies. I'm new here and its ... alarming. I'm reminded of that song: "I can't make it clearer, put it any other way, if you can't see the simple truth I do. Then there's nothing in this world left to say, but JESUS LOVES YOU!!!" =D

Jesus loves you atheists =) He's so awesome!! Even through all of your hatred and blasphemy He loves you so much. And when you're done fighting the Truth, He will be there to welcome you as His child with open arms. Just as He has done for me and so many other former non-believers all over the world. What an amazing testimony to the INCREDIBLE Love, Grace and Mercy of Jesus Christ!! =); May 20, 2008 4:02 PM
Lauren said...: @irukanji

And the reason I want creation science in schools is so that the ridiculous theory of evolution is not presented as fact. Children deserve the right to both sides of the creation theories, your side is not necessarily the correct one.

And don't sit there and make the claim that evolution has all the answers when it's perfectly clear to those who aren't brainwashed by evolutionary theories that it doesn't. Not by a long shot.; May 20, 2008 4:11 PM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 20, 2008 4:12 PM
Terry said...: dale,

Linda Wood is a friend of mine from Austin, Texas. She is quite an IRON LADY of sorts.

I told her about the egotistical atheists here, and she wanted let her little light shine! Help you guys towards the Cross.

She is a real go getter. I wish you would stop being so paranoid about Christians posting what they think!

We have been over this ground before on the founding of this Great Nation, and still you don't believe that the majority of the signers on the Declaration of Independence were MASONs!

Masons are God fearing men, just like the Knights Templar. They have been around for centuries.

Tell me, do you know what caused that "Big Bang" ? Linda and I can't seem to find any atheists that know.

I understand Ben has the same problem in EXPELLED the Movie! :)

You need to take the time and watch the movie: National Treasure
starring: Nicholas Cage

The sequel is out as well. Praying for you brother, I don't want to be one of the people who say to you on Judgement Day .....

I TOLD YOU SO DALE !!!

I mean that, my concern is for your Eternal Soul! You told me you have no idea what waits for you beyond DEATH. It comes to every human.

We do know! Right Ray ?

God Bless Ya! Your always in my prayers.; May 20, 2008 4:15 PM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 20, 2008 4:26 PM
John Doyle said...: The argument as David points out quite eloquently, is that we do not know that there is an afterlife.

Biologically speaking it is impossible that life can continue after death. Our consciousness dies with our brain. Everything that defined us as a person lies within that organ and ends with it.

We have seen what happens to people who have taken the jump, with or without the Jesus parachute, they are all dead.; May 20, 2008 4:29 PM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 20, 2008 4:33 PM
Michelle said...: @ Emily and Ex-Atheist....great posts!! :); May 20, 2008 4:55 PM
Michelle said...: @
Emily

You said:
"I think our tireless preaching to the lost has certainly pinched some sensitive nerves, judging by the extreme contempt for Christ's love being posted here."

This kind of back and forth has been going on for a long time on this blog. Some, not all, of the atheists are just trying to antagonize us. Some are very prideful, listing their "good works" and such.

When you are cut to the quick by their remarks, just turn your cheek, and know that the same people that are giving you a hard time have done the same thing to the rest of us and those who will post in the future. Keep on praying, posting and growing in your love walk with God.

Peace & Blessings,
Michelle :); May 20, 2008 5:04 PM
Lauren said...: Flat earth.

Wasn't it scientists who believed the earth was flat?

They soon found the truth out didn't they? Screwed that theory. Evolution is next.; May 20, 2008 5:10 PM
get_education said...: Well LAOF,

The traditional target of the ID propaganda is the science curriculum because they fear that knowledge of evolution will damage their kids beliefs (incidentally meaning they do not trust their beliefs that much, since the teaching of evolution never mentions anything about God existing or not, the implication is yours to make). I can anticipate they will try other parts of the curriculum, but I doubt there is an excuse to teach such thing anywhere.

Now, I would not even agree with creationism nor ID to be "taught" anywhere in school. Why? Because it is not even a serious subject of study, except as a sociological demonstration of twisting of reality to carry on the agenda of infiltrating religion into schools. In that sense it would be interesting, but we would have to wait until proper critical thinking skills has been attained. Indoctrination belongs to the churchs (whichever they are). There is a separation of state and religion, and for good reasons, one is because there is freedom of religion (or to not have any), so imposing any religion in the classroom would go against this very basic liberty. The acknowledgement that there are several religions, and that the fight for imposing any of them on other peoples never ends well is what inspires this basic freedom. That is but one little step towards tolerance.

In short, ID presented a serious reasonable stuff anywhere in schools would be detrimental to the mission of education, to the spirit behind the separation of religion and state (tolerance and respect), and to everything freedom means.; May 20, 2008 5:15 PM
ex-atheist said...: weemaryanne said...
”A survey of my classmates would have shown (probably) that most of them firmly believed that their parents had never had sex more often than was necessary to produce them and their siblings.
*Flat earth.
*Heliocentrism.
*Phlogiston.
*The "bodily humors" theory of disease.
The "tulip mania" that was gonna make the whole world stinkin' rich in the 1630s.”

*Your examples of “majorities” were basically “scientific” issues that were foolish. Your just helping make the case that it’s the scientific majority that is often in error.

Don’t forget to add these things to your list that you were probably taught as facts in your day.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
Spontaneous regeneration
Lamarckism
Piltdown man

Imagine what the majority of scientists are wrong about today.; May 20, 2008 5:34 PM
get_education said...: Lauren,

Creation is not science! Science is about reasoning and understanding, not about blind faith (or even revelation if you prefer that term)! When will you guys understand!

Of course evolution does not have the answers for everything, just for the diversity of life and our own origins. Not for the expansion of the universe, time, gravity, vulcanism, ideologies, sociological problems, and so many other things. We already know that! Evolution is not a religion! Will you please listen! It is like saying "gravity does not have the answers for everything." Then expect us to go down to our knees and say, oh yes, then Jesus is my saviour. Come on! If you do not get to understand this very basic item (evolution is not a religion), you have your little battle for authoritarian imposition of beliefs lost. Remember "Know thy enemy." (I think this is Machiavelli, not the Bible, but who cares.) So, if you want to fight a good battle, first get well informed (Do I have to repeat? Here it goes: somewhere other than the ID propaganda, other than Ray, other than similars. Distorted versions will not work well for your cause)... and "With all thy getting get understanding." (Thanks weemaryanne! This reminded me of a friend of mine who has such amazing talent at using Biblical passages to make the point [against religion]. A true master.); May 20, 2008 5:44 PM
ex-atheist said...: Izovaprophet said...

“But I am angry. I'm angry about the current state of our government. I'm angry about our educational system. And I'm angry that Christian dogma has infiltrated both. Again, it saddens me.”

I’m confused by your statements.
Our government and education system were built on a Christian foundation which has been strong in the past but is being removed from our society day by day. This “infiltration” you talk of… could it be an irrational paranoia?

I used to an angry man myself – especially at Christians. I thank God that He saved me and changed my heart. Don’t be sad, He could do the same for you.; May 20, 2008 5:53 PM
SteveMudSkipper said...: Rebeca in TX,

"Atheists,
Why can't you use the Bible to prove the validity of the claims of Christianity? Does this mean that you cannot use science books to prove the claims of science?

May 20, 2008 3:39 PM"

It's called "empiricism". One does not use a book to "prove" anything. BTW, scientists never claim to "prove" anything.; May 20, 2008 6:06 PM
get_education said...: Rebecca,
The problem of using the Bible to prove the validity of the claims of Christianity compared to using scientific reports to prove the claims of Science is that scientific reports have to contain verifiable information. Actually, it is not that using the Bible is wrong, what is wrong is to take spectacular, improbable, non-verifiable, claims as true and then conclude, oh, since those guys got toasted, Jesus is the true Lord. That lacks any logic.

As of why (someone else) do we care if Ray's claims have proper logic, well, because this is what we are talking about! This post was presented as an answer to a very reasonable point. Yet the answer had flawed logic. If your reasoning is faulty, no convincing happens. Of course, I cannot deny the talent to disguise the post as a reasonable explanation. This is why we need training in proper thinking and logic, so we can spot the fallacies when we see them.; May 20, 2008 6:10 PM
Pvblivs said...: Rebecca in TX:

     Science books do not prove the claims of science. They declare the claims of science. Experiments prove the claims of science. That is the point of the "labs."

Ex-atheist:
     "Do you see where I’m going – what I’m trying to help you and atheists understand?"
     You are not trying to get atheists to understand anything. You are trying to get people to "believe the lie."
     As for a "fair way" to demonstrate his existance to everyone, he would need to show up for everyone. He never did that. Even if we were to assume the bible true (which I don't) he only revealed himself to a small number of people apparently wanting most people to be unaware. The "commission" did not begin until he was gone.; May 20, 2008 6:38 PM
John Willis said...: John Doyle,

You make an excellent point. The preponderence of the evidence reasonably leads us to believe that upon biological death there is nothing more. Paraphrasing one of Ray's favorites...the statistics are incredible, 10 in 10 people who are born, die.

We would have no good reason to believe in an afterlife, unless of course if someone who died came back to tell us that there was one. This would be the kind of evidence that would count towards answering our question.

In fact we have exactly just that kind of evidence in the most reliable historical documents of ancient human history - the New Testament. Jesus Christ died and came back from the dead and invites us to follow Him. He has been seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses and his followers are still murdered today for their testimony.

Would you not agree that this is incredible evidence? Have you considered it?...and if you have, did you reject it?....and if so - why?

I look forward to your reply.

John; May 20, 2008 6:46 PM
Terry said...: Amen Emily! AMEN !

Its like Ray said one time how we need to position a 'Battleship' between the non-believers and Hell.

Keep blasting out the Gospel to them! JESUS SAVES! Darwin is DEAD.

We have responsibility with the Great Commission. We must preach the Gospel.

Praying for you non-believers! The day of salvation is today! Don't until its too late! There are no second chances after death, as per the Bible. In His Love, Terry; May 20, 2008 7:04 PM
Michelle said...: Fabulous Post Lauren!!! :); May 20, 2008 7:35 PM
Irukandji said...: Children deserve the right to both sides of the creation theories, your side is not necessarily the correct one.

Just because there are two sides to a debate, it doesn't necessarily follow that both sides are equally valid and deserve equal coverage in the classroom. Take, for instance, the Raelians. (I've used this example here before, but I'm rather fond of it, so you'll pardon me for repeating myself.) Now the Raelians, bless their crazy little hearts, believe that humans were created 25,000 years ago by a super-advanced race of extraterrestrials called the Elohim. Needless to say, actual scientists and historians don't buy this for a single solitary second - but from the Raelian point of view, there's a real debate about the issue. Now how would you feel if the Raelians lobbied to have their version of events granted equal time in the science classroom? If they demanded that we "teach the controversy?"

Presumably you'd want to laugh until you broke a rib, or bang your head against a wall until you passed out, or maybe do a little of both. "Where's the hard physical evidence?" you'd most likely ask the Raelian lobbyists. "All you've got to support your crackpot stories are your own personal convictions. Ask any biologist, geologist, paleontologist, or archaeologist, and they'll tell you in no uncertain terms that you're absolutely daft, and then show you the evidence to prove it. What makes you think that you know more than the entire scientific establishment, which - while admittedly not perfect - clearly commands more brainpower than you do by several orders of magnitude?"

And then, of course, the Raelians would whinge on about the anti-extraterrestrial bias of the scientific establishment. They'd tell you that they had loads of evidence - reams of it - but it didn't look like evidence unless you had opened your heart to Rael, which you were clearly too prideful and sinful to do. They'd accuse you of trying to corrupt that nation's youth. And at this point, you'd probably want to lean up reeeaalllly close into their zealous little faces and shout "DON'T YOU GET IT? YOU ARE A BUNCH OF DRIBBLING FRINGE LUNATICS, AND YOUR CRAZINESS HAS NO PLACE IN THE CLASSROOM!"

Happily, the Raelians aren't trying to insert their doctrine into public school curricula - however wacky their beliefs are, they at least have the courtesy not to demand that the rest of us accept them as fact. Congratulations, Lauren, you're less in touch with reality than a bunch of people who believe that a French race-car driver is the chosen prophet of the alien overlords!

(Yes, the Raelians are a real group. And they illustrate another significant point: there are more than two sides to this particular "debate." Even if we slam back a dozen shots of vodka and accept your ignorance as a legitimate argument against the theory of evolution, it doesn't follow that the Biblical version of events is therefore accurate. Yours is only one of dozens - no, hundreds, maybe thousands - of competing creation stories. If we're going to adopt "here's a story my parents told me, and I really, really believe it's true" as the sole benchmark for classroom-worthy science, then you better be prepared for your kids to study everything from aliens to Zeus. But hey, they deserve to hear both sides of the story, don't they?); May 20, 2008 7:49 PM
Irukandji said...: @ Ex-Atheist:

Don’t forget to add these things to your list that you were probably taught as facts in your day.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
Spontaneous regeneration
Lamarckism
Piltdown man

By "spontaneous regeneration," I assume you mean "spontaneous generation," a theory that was discredited in the 17th century. I don't know about you, Ex-Atheist, but I went to school in a bus, not a time machine.

(The rest of these are pretty darn dated, too - the Piltdown man was shown to be a hoax in 1953, and Lamarckism fell out of favor with the advent of Mendelian genetics in the late 19th/early 20th century (plus a few decades in Soviet Russia, which nobody hails as a model of good science). I suppose it's possible that some of the people posting here were taught these things in school, but I certainly wasn't. As for "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," well, that's not entirely false: ontogeny may not recapitulate phylogeny, but it does tell us something about an organism's evolution. The Haeckelian formulation of this principle is, of course, absolutely over the top, but I don't think that's been taken seriously for decades now.)

In other news, yes, the claims of science are provisional; that's why science works. This is basic problem solving, people - you experiment to see if the evidence fits your hypothesis, discard your hypothesis if it doesn't, and accept your hypothesis as provisionally valid if it does. Thousands of years ago, a bunch of illiterate nomads wondered how everything got to be the way it was and came up with the hypothesis "magic man done it." They didn't get it right the first time around. Some of us have since had the good sense to acknowledge this and move on. Others, it would seem, want their truth to be unchanging more than they want it to be actually true.; May 20, 2008 8:38 PM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs said...

”As for a "fair way" to demonstrate his existance to everyone, he would need to show up for everyone. He never did that.”

Thank you very much for answering my question. I hope you’ll follow were I take this discussion and reply back.

If God revealed Himself to everyone, How exactly should He do it – so that you know it’s Him? Couldn’t people still find excuses to dismiss the experience? A hallucination, food poisoning, a bad dream, concussion, an elaborate magic trick. And if He did reveal Himself to everyone, then what? Would He have to answer every question that everyone asks, at every moment of their lives on earth? Would He have to change the world to your liking and everyone elses liking? How involved would He need to be? If He revealed Himself to everyone would you then follow Him, live for Him, worship Him just because He made Himself known? What would it take for you to bow at His feet and worship Him as God?

Do you see why I’m asking a lot of questions?

I think that your answer is typical of many atheists. But it’s shallow. Are you thinking it through in how you would react, change, and live after that scenario? How would God appearing to everyone make a real difference? Would everyone be moral? out of love? fear? what’s the motive?

You said “He never did that” but what’s interesting is that God did appeared in many amazing, miraculous ways, leaving no doubt that it was God to the people of Israel. Read Exodus. But what’s the theme of the OT? Once the “extraordinary” external, objective, experiences of God were over the people always complained, doubted, questioned what they saw, forgot, and when right back to their sin. You see, there was no change of heart. Would your heart change if God revealed Himself to you physically before your eyes?

Would you then love Him?; May 20, 2008 8:38 PM
Terry said...: @pvblivus, the "Marching Orders"
came while he was alive. Do you need Bible? I have several I can mail to you.

Matthew 10: 1-42

Jesus Sends Out the Twelve

1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil[a] spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.

2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

7 As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'

8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

9 Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts;

10 take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

11 "Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave.

12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting.

13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.

14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

15 I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

17 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues.

18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.

19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,

20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24 "A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.

25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub,[c] how much more the members of his household!

26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[d]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.

30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31 So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.

33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -

36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

40 "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.

41 Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward.

42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."; May 20, 2008 8:51 PM
Irukandji said...: The Christians would be praying that the parachute would open, but if not that God would still be glorified.

And therein lies the problem. God is glorified if the parachute opens. God is glorified if the parachute doesn't open. God is always glorified: earthquake or no earthquake, famine or no famine, human suffering or no human suffering, miracles or no miracles. (It's funny how He always seems to say "yes" to everything but the miracles, isn't it?)

You have no concrete this-worldly expectations of your God, because with concrete expectations comes falsifiability. Oh, sure, you know exactly what He's going to do in the afterlife - righteously barbecue all but a tiny fraction of the human population - but in this life, you hedge your bets. God works in mysterious ways, you say, and carefully ignore the fact that nine times out of ten, prayer or no prayer, God chooses not to open the parachute with a 90% fail rate.; May 20, 2008 9:05 PM
Atomic Chimp said...: get_education said,"...a religion depends on offerings that solve a situation that is also part of the religion..."

Excellent point! Christianity purposes an easy solution for a horrible problem that is born out of Christianity and its God. No matter how good of a person you are, unless you worship said God and blindly follow everything that is claimed to be his laws, he will send you to hell to suffer for eternity. Just scare the people into submission.

Its like those protection rackets run by the mob except, you pay up your protection money, they'll make sure you don't get any trouble from anyone... >> Wink!<< And here we see Ray working the neighborhood for Mr. Big.

Word is Bond!
Atomic Chimp; May 20, 2008 9:10 PM
KiwiInOz said...: ex atheist - you said to Weemaryanne

Don’t forget to add these things to your list that you were probably taught as facts in your day.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
Spontaneous regeneration
Lamarckism
Piltdown man

Now, I am nearly as old as Wee is confessing to (41 in my case) and I was never taught these as facts. this was for a number of reasons, including:

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was proposed as a law by Haeckel, who claimed that an individual organism's biological development, or ontogeny, parallels and summarizes its species' entire evolutionary development, or phylogeny. This was discredited at the beginning of the 20th C by scientists conducting research.

Spontaneous regeneration. I think that you mean spontaneous generation, or the idea that organisms arise spontaneously, e.g. mice, from hay. This was discredited following an experiment in 1668, when Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, did an experiment with flies and wide-mouth jars containing meat.

Lamarckism was the idea that organisms passed on traits that they had picked up from the environment to their offspring. The work of Darwin on natural selection and Mendel, on genetics, started the death knell for this idea. It was not included in the modern evolutionary synthesis of the 20th C.

Piltdown man was confirmed by scientists as a hoax in 1953. Many scientists were suspicious of its nature, since its discovery in 1912.

So, you are wrong in suggesting that these were taught as facts to us (out by several centuries on some of those ideas!).

The scientific arena is as brutal as any that a Gladiator faced. Anyone can put up new ideas or hypotheses, but they are expected to put up the evidence for scrutiny as well. Scientists make their stock in trade by experimentation, testing, and tearing down incorrect hypotheses and theories.

While our knowledge of evolution and the mechanisms behind it are likely to expand, and many proposed mechanisms will be discarded along the way, the fact that organisms evolve, are related to historic organisms, and have common ancestors is unlikely to.

So, scientists might be wrong, but the machine of science is brutally self-correcting and wrong ideas are quickly corrected.; May 20, 2008 9:23 PM
forgiven37 said...: dale said...

NO CORROBORATION!

How many times do we have to tell you. That is how all history books are rated.

Dale to corroborate means to support a position or statement with evidence.
Here are just a few corroborative writings for you about Jesus. Writings confirming his birth,ministry,death,and resurrection include Flavius Josephus (AD 93),the Babylonian Talmud (AD 70-200),Pliny the Younger's letter to the Emperor Trajan (approx AD 100 ). These are just a few to get you started.

One final thing, no one can force you to believe that God is real. That is a choice that you alone have to make. But if you have a open mind when it comes to science,why is it so hard when it comes to God and the Bible? Jesus Christ is very real and he will forgive you if you open your heart,repent, and turn from your old ways.; May 21, 2008 12:12 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: Irukandji said...

Yes, the Raelians are a real group.
Never heard of them before, sounds terribly interesting.
Thank you for filling this area of ignorance on my part. Always love to find new examples of human ingenuity when it comes to making up stuff.; May 21, 2008 1:56 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: Ex-Atheist said...

Would your heart change if God revealed Himself to you physically before your eyes?
That would be a good start, Providing he can proof that he is God. (should be easy for an omnipotent being).
At the very least it would end the discussion of whether he exists or not.
But I do think He should show himself to EVERYBODY, not just you or me in a physical form.

As for the loving part, I really doubt it. If this world, with all his suffering, wars and imperfections is the best He can do, I doubt if I could ever worship him. I don't think He'd deserve it. If this is His creation, the He's an incompetent bungler, not an omnipotent, omniscient being worthy of worship..; May 21, 2008 2:06 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: I've just been reading up on those Raelians (very interesting group, a must read). They have more in common with Ray and his followers than you might think. The book describing the meetings between Rael and the aliens is called 'Intelligent Design', and the head alien is called ... Yahweh, sound familiar?
Could it be it is the one(?) and only(?) Yahweh of the old testament...
Perhaps you Christians should be careful when discarding the teachings of Rael.; May 21, 2008 2:53 AM
The Celtic Chimp said...: david_cricton,

See Giordano Bruno. He had an iron spike driven through his tongue and was burned at the stake for refusing to recant his ideas about the plurality of worlds. Just one person amoungst many who dies in christ's name so ignorence and censorship sould reign; May 21, 2008 3:32 AM
The Celtic Chimp said...: I think the parachute question was mis-interpreted a little. You can have the 9 times out 10 useless parachute and no prayers OR all the prayers of all the Christians on earth and no parachute.

Very few folk even answered (Ray didn't either - do I sense a lack of conviction). If prayer works at all, then surely the sincere prayers of every christian on earth should be able to invoke one small miracle?

How many Christians would choose the prayer and take that leap of faith?

Ex-Atheist,

What would it take for you to bow at His feet and worship Him as God?

Presumabley God knowing me, would know exactly what to do to convince me of who he is. As to the bowing at his feet and worshipping, why would I do that? Why would God want anyone to do that?
I would rather sit with God and have a great conversation. Find out what he is really like. How much of the gibberish spouted in his name is actually true and so on.

Would your heart change if God
revealed Himself to you physically before your eyes?

Would you then love Him?

No, I don't spontaneously love someone I have never met, especially somone with so dodgy a reputation. His genocidal tendancies alone make him worthy of hate more than love. Still, all that stuff might be lies, I would have to get to know him. If he was as benevolent as you guys claim (even though he couldn't be and still be the psycopath described in the bible) then I might well grow to love God. Hangin with with the big G might be cool...assuming it wasn't just a load of sitting around staring at God and being a mindless worship-bot for eternity.; May 21, 2008 4:06 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 21, 2008 4:35 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 21, 2008 4:36 AM
weemaryanne said...: This post has been removed by the author.; May 21, 2008 4:49 AM
ex-atheist said...: Irukandji said...
"And therein lies the problem. God is glorified if the parachute opens. God is glorified if the parachute doesn't open. God is always glorified:"

Amen!

It’s not a “problem” if you know the LORD? God should always be glorified. Our greatest joy is when He is praised. Christians know that death only brings us into the immediate presence of God. Even life’s tragedies, sicknesses, sufferings, and struggles are opportunities to glorify God because our trust is in His strength and not our own.

God wins no matter what happens.

And the atheists loose no matter what happens.
(They can only hope in eternal death, but also may face a Holy God in judgment. It's loose/loose)

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39); May 21, 2008 8:04 AM
get_education said...: Hi weemaryanne,

I was about to completely agree with you that their target was more specifically evolution and stand corrected, but then I thought... they put everything into the category of evolution: physics: Big Bang; geology: the Earth is only 6,000 years old; chemistry or physical-chemistry: the earth is only 6,000 years old (radioisotope decay rates) ... All depending on the sub-sect of Christianity they adhere to. So we better be careful not to assume they do not mind other areas where reasoning might prevail. Otherwise we might let them get in through the back-door.

Happy vacation.; May 21, 2008 8:33 AM
dale said...: Forgiven37,
you said,
"Here are just a few corroborative writings for you about Jesus. Writings confirming his birth,ministry,death,and resurrection include Flavius Josephus (AD 93),the Babylonian Talmud (AD 70-200),Pliny the Younger's letter to the Emperor Trajan (approx AD 100 ). These are just a few to get you started."

No, these aren't "just a few." This is all you got. Even if they were valid, these three vague references are corroboration of nothing whatsoever.

But they are not valid.
The Flavius quote has long ago been shown to be a forgery.

In the Babylonion Talmude the reference to Jeshu could have been anyone.

Pliny was merely relating to Trajan what the Christians told him. He definitely was not an eyewitness.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
For example, if we find an ancient writing describing how to make beer, and we can repeat the recipe, we take it as valid. It wuill have no real historical significance anyway.

But when you want to start taking ancient writings by superstitious
bronze age people claiming miracles and fantastical claims, you are going to need more corroboration than three vague references.

I am sure you wouldn't place any credibility in the writings of the Aztecs. Same goes here.; May 21, 2008 8:54 AM
ex-atheist said...: The Celtic Chimp said...
"As to the bowing at his feet and worshipping, why would I do that? Why would God want anyone to do that? I would rather sit with God and have a great conversation."

The God that you’re imagining in this scenario is too small. You’ve made Him like a man, and treat Him like a man. You’re imagining a God who is less than God. According to you He would either be a tyrant or incompetent. You haven’t imagined a God who is Holy, benevolent, one worthy of worship. What if He had problems with your sins, would you still judge Him? Would you say “Who made you God?”

God is the most benevolent of all beings. That means He is so wonderful, so awesome, so lovely that you would want to bow to Him. He gave you your eyes to see beauty, ears to hear harmony, taste buds, and touch. He gave you life and eternal life in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on your behalf. He gives of you Himself. All the other things that you’ve ever experienced in life are baby-rattles compared to what is found in God. You many be happy rattling your life away but you’ve giving up the Creator. The end of creation is to come back to Him. Your greatest joy would be found in God but you’re choosing things that are infinitely less then Him. And in order to avoid Him you’ve made Him into a man you don’t like – don’t you see the danger of what you’re doing, what you’re giving up.

Please think about it without the defense mechanisms. Your right, love takes time as you get to know someone. Get to know the true and living God with a fresh start.; May 21, 2008 9:30 AM
John Doyle said...: @ex atheist
The God that you’re imagining in this scenario is too small.

If God created a universe many billions of light years across, then the God that any religion imagines is too small. When we first imagined God, the Earth was the center of a very small universe. Even their world was a smaller place than we know it now. The sun was a small ball of fire.

But the universe is nothing like that.

We live on a small rock spinning around a medium sized star which is one of 200-400 billion stars in a galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies. In the grand scheme of things, we are beyond insignificant.; May 21, 2008 10:27 AM
C3P0R2D2 said...: ex-atheist said...

God is the most benevolent of all beings. That means He is so wonderful, so awesome, so lovely that you would want to bow to Him. He gave you your eyes to see beauty, ears to hear harmony, taste buds, and touch.

Doest the term groveling drone mean anything to you? Perhaps you should take a look outside, in the real world, to see what religion is doing all over the world. Time to wake up and open your eyes!; May 21, 2008 10:54 AM
Emily said...: Hey Dale, thanks for the long and thoughtful reply.

"I kinda wonder how many other lives I have had positive influence on, and don't even remember, yet, it doesn't matter. I know I did it. And not Ray, or Allfiredup,or Choco, or any other of you will ever be able to take any of that away from me (Ahlsheimers, maybe. death for sure.)" Hey Dale, no one wants to take anything away from you. I know a lot of non-believers who, perhaps like you, are kind, generous, patient, wonderful people. That's just who they are. Unfortunately, if Jesus isn't your Lord and Savior, it doesn't matter what a wonderful person you are because on your own, you can't merit heaven. That's why Jesus offered up His life: because He is perfect and blameless, by simply believing in Him and that He died for your sins, you can be in paradise forever when you die. Nothing is taken away from you by believing in Jesus, it just adds to your life.

"People need to get educated, and know how to take care of themselves before they just give up on a life of hard work and imagine that if they pray enough, Jesus will take care of them."

I think this statement comes from not knowing Christians as real people. Do you sincerely believe that Christians are uneducated, don't take care of themselves, don't work hard and just sit around waiting for Jesus will take care of them? Christians are just people like you or anyone else, with their dreams and goals in life. I'm a Christian and I'm educated, I have a great job, I'm going back to school because I have different goals I've decided to pursue. I know many born again Christians that are college-educated, in successful careers, home owners, own businesses, etc. I don't know or understand how you came to the conclusion that Christians have "given up on a life of hard work".; May 21, 2008 11:46 AM
John Willis said...: Dale,

You said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree with that premise.

I also think the claim that Jesus rose from the dead fits in this category.

My question for you is this:
What would you consider extraordinary evidence?

Thanks,
John; May 21, 2008 12:21 PM
John Doyle said...: @John Willis
In fact we have exactly just that kind of evidence in the most reliable historical documents of ancient human history - the New Testament. Jesus Christ died and came back from the dead and invites us to follow Him. He has been seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses and his followers are still murdered today for their testimony.

How can the New Testament be considered a reliable historical document? It contains many remarkable claims

The earliest gospel just states that the tomb was empty. The later ones recount Jesus meeting a variable number of people. Paul (who only saw Jesus as a vision) wrote a letter to the Greeks saying that 500 people had seen him. He dose not say where, when nor who these 500 people were.

Were any of the people who saw him after his death murdered for their testimony? How many people were murdered for not following him? How many people are murdered for following other faiths?; May 21, 2008 1:41 PM
ex-atheist said...: C3P0R2D2 said...

”Doest the term groveling drone mean anything to you? Perhaps you should take a look outside, in the real world, to see what religion is doing all over the world. Time to wake up and open your eyes!”

Does a reprobate mind mean anything you?
I hate religion. God hates religion. True Christianity is not religion, but a relationship with a person who died for our sins, to bring us to God by grace alone. Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. Religion is a means to control the masses. Religion is faith in the doctrine and teachings of other men. The word “religious” can be used universally to describe faith, so I will use it time to time, but I’d never call myself religious. I am no more religious than you – your religion (beliefs) are naturalism, materialism, evolution, atheism. None of it’s provable but you trust (put your faith) in those philosophies. Heed your own advice “wake up and open your eyes!”; May 21, 2008 3:21 PM
ex-atheist said...: John Doyle said...
”If God created a universe many billions of light years across, then the God that any religion imagines is too small. When we first imagined God, the Earth was the center of a very small universe. Even their world was a smaller place than we know it now. The sun was a small ball of fire.

But the universe is nothing like that.

We live on a small rock spinning around a medium sized star which is one of 200-400 billion stars in a galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies. In the grand scheme of things, we are beyond insignificant.”

The God that man imagines is always too small and flawed. The True God is infinite and perfect.

You could have just quoted Psalm 19

or

Isa 48:13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens;

And
Psalms 8:4 What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?

The fact that God does care and has visited creatures as insignificant as us is awesome.; May 21, 2008 3:34 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

Even if the bible were true, it would still mean that your deity revealed himself only to small select groups. However, you are quite correct in your assessment that I still would not worship the evil being, even if he were to show he exists. The bible describes a deity that would compare unfavorably with Time magazine's "Man of the Year 1938." I am about as likely to bow down and worship your deity as you are to bow down and worship that man.
You try to claim that the biblical deity is benevolent. In what way do you think him benevolent? Because he gives people the "opportunity" to fall at his feet and worship him? Was the supposed flood an act of benevolence? He supposedly consigned millions of people over history to suffer agonizing deaths of one form or another. And the only justification given is "I can do whatever I want. Who do you think you are to judge me?" No, I could love a benevolent creator. But if there is one, the bible in no way describes him.; May 21, 2008 6:03 PM
dale said...: John Willis,
You asked,
"What would you consider extraordinary evidence?"

Corroborated accounts, for one.

An example:
Cameras were not invented in George Washington's day. But, we have paintings of him from many different artists and they match up.
We have his writings about what he did and we have other un biased witnesses writing that he did these things.

One fatal flaw of the Gospels is that none of them even try to describe the physical Jesus. That does not make sense. We know the gospels were copied from some original document that no longer even exists.

Ancient books of myths are ubiquitous yet there is no corroboration for any of them because there is none.

In the first century it would not have been newsworthy to write about an itinerant preacher roaming around claiming to perform miracles because the first century mid east was teeming with those type of people, including oracles and etc.

There is not even enough evidence to show that Jesus was an actual person, let alone evidence to show he was a diety.

Also suspicious is that Paul, who never met Jesus, teaches far more than Jesus did. He writes almost one half of the New Testament.

Scholars refer to Pual's writings as the Pauline Doctrine and many scholars think that Paul hijacked Christianity from the supposed Jesus. Paul even went to Jerusalem and ARGUED with Peter, who supposedly spent much time with Jesus. Paul saw Peter one time in fourteen years.

None of it adds up. Had a diety wanted the respect he felt he deserved, he could have done something to leave his fingerprint on the events outlined and not just a few obscure verses in the New Testament.; May 21, 2008 6:56 PM
dale said...: Emily,
Ray Comfort and his cronies are prime examples of Christians that hate science or anything empirical.
They are totally stuck in their spiritual world and refuse to learn anything of the natural world.

However, thank you for the response because, yes, I have been tending to generalize a bit too much lately, probably due to some frustration with having to refute hundreds of the same inane statements that I see here.

What I mean here sometimes has nothing to do with the bible, per se. When yet another Christian pipes up and says, "Evolution is only a hunch," while they have not a clue what a scientific theory actually is, and it happens all the time, it is easy to see that they have never studied Anything that they argue against.

Respectfully submitted, /d; May 21, 2008 7:05 PM
ex-atheist said...: @ Pvblivs said...
In what way do you think him[God] benevolent?

You’re still alive aren’t you?

After reading your comments I am absolutely certain that you have never read the Bible. You can claim you have but if you’ve read anything it was out of context passages with the most skewed bias possible. I’d answer the issues you brought up but I honesty do not think you have a normal capacity for being reasonable nor the capability of a civil and rational discussion. It’s impossible to discuss truth to people who cannot recognize the truth when they see it. I cannot discuss the benevolence of God when you have no faculty in your mind for such a concept. Trying to explain God’s goodness with you is like trying to tell a blind man about the beauty of a rainbow. I don’t mean to be so insensitive with this reply but I honesty believe you have issues of anger and hatred towards someone or life itself and really care nothing about knowing the truth. This place is simple a forum for you to vent.; May 21, 2008 7:17 PM
forgiven37 said...: dale said
No, these aren't "just a few." This is all you got.

Not so Dale, but I won't bore you with them. You have made up your mind and that is a sad thing indeed. I hope that one day you will find that God is real before it is to late.; May 21, 2008 7:30 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

     "After reading your comments I am absolutely certain that you have never read the Bible. You can claim you have but if you’ve read anything it was out of context passages with the most skewed bias possible."
     Incorrect. Mind, I do read quotes by both believers and unbelievers. But I check them against the actual text.
     "I’d answer the issues you brought up but I honesty do not think you have a normal capacity for being reasonable nor the capability of a civil and rational discussion."
     I don't believe you. I have been both civil and rational here. You, on the other hand have only sought to find a way to get me to bow down and worship.
     "I cannot discuss the benevolence of God when you have no faculty in your mind for such a concept. Trying to explain God’s goodness with you is like trying to tell a blind man about the beauty of a rainbow."
     Benevolence is not a foreign concept to me. I also understand the idea of a deity. It's just that I look at the biblical description and I do not see benevolence. To use your analogy, it is like you showing me a dumpster filled with refuse and calling me blind when I say I see nothing beautiful about it.
     My own assessment of the matter is that you know your deity is unworthy. You know your deity is wicked, spiteful, and malevolent. You are completely incapable of answering my challenge. But you are concerned with your image. If you openly admit that you cannot justify a claim of benevolence for the biblical deity, you lose face. So, you insist that I am unreasonable, irrational, and just unwilling to discuss honestly. But the fact is, I am not closing discussion. Should you actually have evidence of benevolence, I will listen. And no, not having killed me is not evidence of benevolence, particularly if it is only to give me the "opportunity" to bow down and worship. When someone is on trial for murder do you count as acts of kindness all the people he didn't kill?
     So, one more try. All of your "I honestly believe"s have been false; and I suspect you already knew. If you have any evidence that your deity is good, please present it. I have a concept of good; but your deity fits my concept of evil.; May 21, 2008 8:36 PM
jeff said...: I am a Christian and I love science. The foundation of science is based on discovering the truth of how things are made and/or work. True science will not discount all possibilities. If you start off with the assumption that there is nothing spiritual, then there can only be the material. There are many scientists who examine what the bible says about creation and compare it to what evolution reports to have happened. Creation matches the evidence. Darwin himself said the evolution could not account for the eye. If fact, recent discoveries of how complex a single cell is and the amount of DNA information it contains has convinced many scientist that this theory is not supportable.; May 21, 2008 9:05 PM
KiwiInOz said...: Jeff said:

Darwin himself said the evolution could not account for the eye.

But Jeff is wrong. What Darwin said in the Origin of Species (1859) was:

To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

It was a rhetorical question, which he then went on to answer. Evolution most definitely does account for eyes (human or otherwise). Answers in Genesis is not your friend when you are talking science, particularly with scientists.; May 21, 2008 10:01 PM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs

You've made up your mind about God. You're not open to see things any other way. You know it, and I know it.

And God's knows it.; May 21, 2008 10:19 PM
C3P0R2D2 said...: Ex-Atheist said...

Isa 48:13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,

Excuse me? What foundation? The earth is a free floating sphere, doesn't need a foundation. Guess you mean those Hindu tortoise , swimming on that eternal of milk.; May 21, 2008 11:24 PM
C3P0R2D2 said...: Ex-Atheist said ...

True Christianity is not religion, but a relationship with a person who died for our sins, to bring us to God by grace alone.
Not by my definition.

Christianity

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.; May 21, 2008 11:29 PM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs said...
"If you have any evidence that your deity is good, please present it. I have a concept of good; but your deity fits my concept of evil."

There in lies the problem. You’re a victim of relativism.

You live in a purely subjective universe – an illusion of reality seen only through your eyes.

You’re an ego. The god of your own small world.

"I have a concept of good; but your deity fits my concept of evil."

This really says it all. This is core of atheism.

I’m speaking in English and you’re speaking in Pvlbivsese – how do you expect an intelligent conversation?

How is anyone suppose to present any rational argument about God to you when you based all the information on your own standard of good and evil?

Up is down, black is white, God is bad, you are good… you cannot be reasoned with objectively so why do you pretend that you’re open to evidence? It doesn’t mater what I say because the words only mean what you want them to mean.

You know I can’t make you worship God, but I know personally that He is worthy of worship. I know that I used to think like you and now I don’t. God changed me, changed my mind and my desires, and flipped my entire worldview upside down. I don’t have to prove how awesome He is to you – I just want to proclaim it. That’s all that Christians can do and are called to do – and we do it with joy. There is a great joy in just lifting up the name of Jesus Christ.; May 21, 2008 11:41 PM
C3P0R2D2 said...: jeff said...

Darwin himself said the evolution could not account for the eye.

Excuse me? Perhaps you should try reading The origin of species, instead of just quotes mined by the creationist.
What you are most likely referring to is this quote:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
Origin of species, chapter VI, Page 186 (1st edition)

However, the creationists always leave out the next part. Darwin continues as follows...

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

So Darwin saw no problem with the evolution of the eye, even in the very first print of his book.

This is of course called quote mining, a specialty of the host of this blog.

Needless to say, that those gradual stages have all been identified in the natural world.
Google 'evolution of the eye' for more info on this.; May 21, 2008 11:48 PM
dale said...: Jeff,
You said,
"Creation matches the evidence."
You must be kidding. Where in the bible does it say the eye could not have evolved?

And Who are the scientists who are now opposed to evolution?
It appears you are learning your science from low brow Ken Ham.; May 22, 2008 4:59 AM
dale said...: "forgiven37 said...
dale said
No, these aren't "just a few." This is all you got.

Not so Dale, but I won't bore you with them."

You just laid down the biggest cop-out ever. You are sooooo busted!; May 22, 2008 5:04 AM
John Doyle said...: @Jeff
I am a Christian and I love science. The foundation of science is based on discovering the truth of how things are made and/or work. True science will not discount all possibilities. If you start off with the assumption that there is nothing spiritual, then there can only be the material.

You were doing so well up to this point. Material science is concerned with matter.

There are many scientists who examine what the bible says about creation and compare it to what evolution reports to have happened. Creation matches the evidence.

This is just not true. Creation matches the evidence if you ignore the evidence or change creation.

Darwin himself said the evolution could not account for the eye.

Darwin wrote his books 150 years. We have learned a lot since then. Evolution does account for the evolution of the eye.

If fact, recent discoveries of how complex a single cell is and the amount of DNA information it contains has convinced many scientist that this theory is not supportable.

The irreducible complexity argument is not new. The only "scientist" convinced by Irreducible Complexity is Michael Behe and his theories have been debunked. Look for the Ken Miller video on YouTube on the bacterial flagellum. (Ken Miller is not an atheist); May 22, 2008 6:38 AM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

     "You've made up your mind about God. You're not open to see things any other way. You know it, and I know it."
     No, I recognize many possibilities. You are the one with the completely closed mind. I just assert that the description you have given your deity is evil. The standard is as close to objective as we can get. If a person were to do the things attributed to your deity, he would be recognized the world over as evil.
     "I’m speaking in English and you’re speaking in Pvlbivsese – how do you expect an intelligent conversation?"
     Let's get something straight. I am the one speaking English. Words don't simply mean what I want them to mean. They do, however, refer to shared perceptions. Even something as simple as "red" doesn't mean exactly the same thing to two different people. But the concepts are sufficiently similar that conversation is meaningful.
     As near as I can tell, you do not base your idea of "good" on actions. To you, it seems to mean "is the christian deity."
     Now, let's see how you fare in regards to a charge you levelled at me. Are you open to see things any other way? If not, then by your own judgement, you are the one incapable of intelligent conversation. But then, you worship a deity you know to be wicked. You would have presented something if that were not the case. Instead, you give excuses that I am "closed."
     So, one more time, if you have evidence that your diety is, in any way, good, present it. If you knowingly worship evil, either do not reply, or continue using excuses as to why you "cannot reason with me." Because that's all your excuses really mean.; May 22, 2008 10:44 AM
John Willis said...: Dale,

Thank you for your reply.

You made some new claims in your reply, but I'd like to first address your reply to my question regarding the nature of evidence.

You claim that corroborative accounts of Jesus' life would count as "extraordinary evidence".

1. Are you aware that the four gospels are written by different authors? By definition, this fits the category of corroborative evidence.

2. Are you aware of the seventeen (17) extra-biblical accounts of Jesus throughout ancient Roman and Jewish history?

Dale - May I suggest a new approach?

The thing about history, especially ancient history - is that you or I weren't there. The best we can do is build the most accurate forensic model of what happened some two-thousand years ago, from historical facts and then draw the most reasonable conclusion. Do you agree with this approach?

And if you do, what historical facts support your view that Jesus never existed? It seems the available evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of His existence, and the preponderance of the available evidence is in favor of His deity.

I look forward to your reply.

Thanks,
John; May 22, 2008 10:48 AM
John Willis said...: John Doyle,

I watched the Ken Miller video as referenced. I have a question for you, if Ken Miller is right, and your statement about "debunking" is correct:

How did the bacteria move and find food before it had the fully formed flagellum we have today?

Thanks,
John; May 22, 2008 11:10 AM
John Willis said...: Kiwiinoz,

The meat of the quote from Darwin reads....

"....if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist...then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection.....should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin's argument is simple right? If we find numerous gradations (evidence) that moves in the direction from simple to the complex (evolution), then my theory is still intact.

After more then 150 years after Darwin, we do not have (1) example. There is no evidence. We have not found one, let alone "numerous" gradations of the eye.

To be sure, if macro-evolutionary theory is true, we would have trillions upon trillions of small gradations of not only the eye, but of every other complex organ & system in the human body. There are none. We have gaps - huge gaps, between simple light receptors to pithole cameras to our highly complex human eye. There are some nice ideas about how we might find evidence that would bridge these huge chasms, but they are just that - ideas that are waiting on hard tangible evidence to prove them true. One hundred and fifty (150) years of silence during the explosion of the technological and information age has become deafening to these ideas. They are rabbit trails to the truth of our deepened understanding of the natural world.

Darwinian evolution is a nice philosophy, but until there is evidence to support the theory it is not science.

John; May 22, 2008 12:05 PM
dale said...: John Willis,
1. Are you aware that the four gospels are written by different authors? By definition, this fits the category of corroborative evidence.

John, three of the gospels are called the synoptic gospels because most scholars agree that because of the similarities, they were probably copied and modified slightly from and original "Q" gospel. Google it.

2. Are you aware of the seventeen (17) extra-biblical accounts of Jesus throughout ancient Roman and Jewish history?

I only know of four very vague references exrtant the bible and three of them are not valid whatsoever. Having studied this for 13 years, I doubt if any of the other fourteen you mention are valid either, but I'd be happy to do a bit of research if you reveal the sources.

"The thing about history, especially ancient history - is that you or I weren't there."

As per Ken Ham. That's his favorite. Anthropologists have cross proofs and statistics that they use to order the margin of error in these instances and statistically, it is accurate. Never 100% though, for sure.

"The best we can do is build the most accurate forensic model of what happened some two-thousand years ago, from historical facts and then draw the most reasonable conclusion. Do you agree with this approach?"

Yes I do.

"And if you do, what historical facts support your view that Jesus never existed? It seems the available evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of His existence, and the preponderance of the available evidence is in favor of His deity."

Neither of your conclusions is supported by the evidence. There is no corroboration extant the bible. That is merely your opinion. You have given no evidence. You say there is evidence but as of yet you have not coughed up any except a few verses in your ancient book of myths.; May 22, 2008 12:07 PM
ex-atheist said...: @Pvblivs said...
"If you knowingly worship evil, either do not reply, or continue using excuses..."

That is a very underhanded way to communicate.
It would be like me saying, "If you agree that you hate God, either don't reply back, or continue calling Him evil."

My evidence that God is good:

Jesus took the penalty for my sins upon Himself.

What is your evidence that God is evil?; May 22, 2008 4:20 PM
Irukandji said...: @ Ex-Atheist:

(Sorry for jumping in on your conversation with Pvblivs, but I wanted to contribute my two cents.)

What is your evidence that God is evil?

First, a subtle but crucial point: I believe that the God described in the Bible is an unpleasant fellow, but in the same way that I believe that Humbert Humbert and Lex Luthor are unpleasant fellows. I am criticizing a fictional character, not an actual being.

So, what makes me think that God is, if not pure unadulterated evil, profoundly morally flawed? Well, here are some of the highlights from a very long list: He drowned the entire world population (minus eight). He killed every firstborn son in Egypt. He ripped forty-two kids to death for making fun of a bald man. He sent his own son to be tortured to death.

("But that's what makes God GOOD!" you say, to which I reply: If I were an omniscient, omnipotent being, I'm pretty sure I could find some way to redeem the human race without nailing anyone to anything. Like - oh, I don't know - just forgiving them. I mean, what am I mad about anyway? A petty crime committed by their distant ancestors - a crime, moreover, that I set them up to commit in the first place.); May 22, 2008 5:52 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

     Underhanded? Perhaps; but I submit that your evasions actually do indicate that you knowingly worship evil. If you really believed your deity good, you would have presented evidence the first time I asked for it.
     "What is your evidence that God is evil?"
     I refer here only to the biblical deity as there may be some other creative being who is not evil. Your deity requires a tormenting punishment for being "born sinners." There is also the alleged flood, the slaughters that the biblical deity has commanded, and his insistance that he can do whatever he wants. These are all things that we agree are evil if attributed to any other being.
     Simply put, if someone imposes a fine for (say) stepping on a blue square, only telling you that it is "unlawful" after the fact, that person is wicked. It does not change the fact if he then offers to waive the fine with strings attatched. That is analogous the the claim that "Jesus paid your fine."
     A being that is good seeks to prevent harmful actions, not just to punish them. Even when a parent disciplines a child it is to prevent future repetition of the behavior. It would be pointless, cruel, and sadistic for a parent to throw a small child into a raging fire for telling a lie to his little sister. It would be even more wrong if that parent claimed that the action "meritted such a punishment" because the "crime was really against the parent" and so it did not matter whether he obtained forgiveness from his sister.; May 22, 2008 6:34 PM
John Willis said...: Dale,

You wrote:

"John, three of the gospels are called the synoptic gospels because most scholars agree that because of the similarities, they were probably copied and modified slightly from and original "Q" gospel. Google it."

Dale - Understood. Please elaborate your claim then. You stated lack of corroborative evidence as your problem with the extraordinary claims of the bible. Even if we disregard the arguments from scholars who dismiss the Q hypothesis, you still have John corroborating the Q document and the argument becomes unsound because your premise is factually inaccurate.

Further if we want to pretend that all four gospel writers are the same person (what a stretch!), then what do you do with the rest of the New Testament? What about Paul? James? Jude?

Dale also wrote:

"Neither of your conclusions is supported by the evidence".

Both conclusions are supported by the evidence (both biblical and extra-biblical sources). Now the evidence may not be compelling to you, but my conclusion(s) follow.

"There is no corroboration extant the bible. That is merely your opinion."

No. This is a historical fact. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, Clement, Ignatius & Justin Martyr are all extant of the bible and all mention Jesus.

Further, you state later in your post that you grant (1) extra-biblical source as valid, so your claim of Jesus' non-existence is confusing at best and on it's face contradictory.

Please explain.

Thanks,
John; May 22, 2008 6:43 PM
John Willis said...: Dale wrote:

"You have given no evidence. You say there is evidence but as of yet you have not coughed up any except a few verses in your ancient book of myths."

Dale - you must be thinking of some one else. I haven't quoted the bible at all. And I am assuming you have access to an online bible, or have read one in the past, when I referred to the gospels.

What's interesting to me in this discussion Dale is how we form our opinions about history. You piqued my interest by stating your standard as "corroborative evidence". As you're clearly aware there is corroborative evidence of Jesus' life death and resurrection, you must mean something else. Some other reason must explain your rational for rejecting the historical truth claims of the bible.

I don't mean any disrespect by this question, but in light of the above, is it possible that your rejection of the claims of the bible are not rational?

A rational standard for historical belief..for accepting a historical event as "true" happens at the point when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for rejecting it.

The historical event that you're rejecting is that Jesus existed. Even the most liberal, non-Christian scholars concede that Jesus existed and that he died on a cross.

Can you please explain to me how the reasons for rejecting this historical event significantly outweigh the reasons for accepting it?

Thanks,
John; May 22, 2008 6:45 PM
forgiven37 said...: dale said

You just laid down the biggest cop-out ever. You are sooooo busted!

No dale, I provided accurate information for you, but you choose to believe otherwise. Even though it was proof provided without using the Bible. And yes there are more writings and historical text about Jesus and you know it. But since you have to look until you find another atheist that agrees with your position to say "ha told you these were wrong" is sad.

You have closed your mind to the possibility of God, that is the saddest thing of all. I will pray for you.; May 22, 2008 7:58 PM
ex-atheist said...: Irukandji said...
”So, what makes me think that God is, if not pure unadulterated evil, profoundly morally flawed? Well, here are some of the highlights from a very long list: He drowned the entire world population (minus eight). He killed every firstborn son in Egypt. He ripped forty-two kids to death for making fun of a bald man. He sent his own son to be tortured to death.”

All your examples are out of context and missing very important information.

1) He drowned the entire world population of very wicked and very evil people who cared nothing about themselves and others. It would have been evil to allow them to continue to do what they were doing. Plus God showed amazing Grace by not killing Noah and family – The flood is both an example of God justice and grace – both reflections of His goodness because He had every right to destroy the whole human race but kept His promise instead.

2) After seeing the power of God in 9 plagues the hard hearted Pharaoh still wanted to enslave the people of God. The faults of leaders can effect many other people. Look at China’s earthquake (shoddy construction work, cutting corners caused even more deaths than should have.) God could force everyone’s will to do only good – make all of us robots – not allow any freedom at all – but He choose not to and so humans are responsible for their own actions, which even cause the death of others. Pharaoh could have done what was right but didn’t. The 10th plague is also unique in that it would have also effected the Hebrew firstborns as well (their instruction was to put the blood on the door posts so that the angle of death would pass over). God will do what is just and right with the souls of those firstborns He took – the biblical worldview doesn’t end with death… death isn’t the worse thing that can happen to someone, even a child. For those children to live and continue in a grossly sinful culture that hates, enslaves, worships a false God may be far worse in the long run. Only God knows. But again, death happen to everyone – God still shows His goodness just to let us live for one more day. Life is a good gift (not an accident) – but when God takes it away, that’s not evil because He is the one who gave it to start with. Now we cannot take the life of someone randomly, because their life isn’t ours in the first place. That’s why God can never be guilty of murder with sinful humans – the wages of sin is death. The fact that He didn’t kill all the Egyptians or even all the Hebrews ( everyone deserves it ) proves His goodness.

3) The context of Elisha and the bears with the mob 42+ teens, I’ve dealt with this before on this blog – the context is clear that they weren’t killed, just beaten up – which was justice according to the situation (which in three verses doesn’t tell us all the details.) This passage is way too vague to make a point – and since the kids were doing wrong and yet didn’t die it’s still an example of God giving sinners another chance.

4) Jesus’ death on the cross was done by evil men, who are responsible for His death, but yet it was all of our sin that put Him there. God took that bloody cross; a symbol of what was evil, horrible, wicked, a disgusting; a place were criminals died, where death reigned, and He did what only a truly good and awesome God could do. He made that single moment of Jesus death (the only one sinless to die) the way of forgiveness, made the cross glorious, beautiful, and the symbol of hope and of life. That’s also an example of what God can do with our dark, rebellious, wicked and self-righteous hearts – make them new, give us new desires, and eternal life – all because of the death of Jesus Christ.

So all the examples you’ve mentioned prove only the sovereign justice and grace of a very good and awesome God.

Atheists see the God of the Bible as bad and criminals (sinners) as good but that’s backwards - it’s illogical and counter intuitive. God is longsuffering, holy, righteous, so when He does bring justice it is done in His timing and His ways. Your arguments for making sinners look like victims and God the tyrant are like the arguments of a defense lawyer trying to get a psychopath off the hook and make the upright arresting officer look like the bad guy. Such a lawyer is either self-deceived, or is a criminal themselves and is always seeking was to justify their own crimes (sins).; May 22, 2008 9:35 PM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs said...
“If you really believed your deity good, you would have presented evidence the first time I asked for it.”

Are you serious? – I’ve been on this post a while – we’ve gone back a forth before – look under the "Religious Hypocrisy" post. I’ve given plenty of evidence to you and others on this blog – the arguments just go in circles because I believe in objective truth and absolutes and you believe all knowledge is relative and subjective.

I was trying to establish some grounds for the definition of evidence in the first place. If we can’t even agree what words mean, (like good and evil) what good would my evidence be to you – you’d just reinterpreted my statements and through them back all mess-up. You do that often.

Here it is again – evidence of Gods goodness and love;

Jesus took the penalty for all my sins.

I replied to Irukandji (above) why you and her are wrong about God being evil.; May 22, 2008 10:00 PM
The Celtic Chimp said...: Tut tut tut John,

You have been a bad little fundy! You've gone an upset reason again. Tsk Tsk.

what historical facts support your view that Jesus never existed?

historical facts support that something or someone didn't exist? That doesn't make any sense at all.

what historical facts support your view that Charlie the orange dragon never existed? Show me some proof :); May 23, 2008 6:39 AM
dale said...: Forgiven37,
You said,
"No dale, I provided accurate information for you, but you choose to believe otherwise. Even though it was proof provided without using the Bible. And yes there are more writings and historical text about Jesus and you know it."

Then why do you not merely provide these sources?
What kind og game are you playing here?
Are you lying?; May 23, 2008 7:03 AM
John Willis said...: The Chimp wrote:
"historical facts support that something or someone didn't exist? That doesn't make any sense at all".

You're telling me? That's why I'm asking Dale! It's his argument!

Chimp - Dale has a theory that Jesus never existed. Well OK. I can create a whole host of theories in my mind, but that doesn't make them true.

If Dale's view of history is the correct one - if it is true - there should be some widely accepted facts that support his view. I'm just waiting to hear them.

You're right in a way - clinging to a view of history in spite of the evidence is "upsetting reason."; May 23, 2008 8:58 AM
John Doyle said...: How did the bacteria move and find food before it had the fully formed flagellum we have today?

Not all bacteria are motile. Many bacteria just float in whatever medium they live. Also, not all motile bacteria use flagella.

Bacteria were the only living organisms on the planet for something like 2,5 billion years. They had already evolved in many different ways before the first multi-celled organisms formed.; May 23, 2008 12:47 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

     I am quite serious. It is no virtue for Jesus to "take a penalty" (on certain conditions) that he imposed for the "sin" of being born. Since you say you want to establish "rules of evidence for goodness," would you consider good anyone other than your deity because he conditionally waived a penalty he, himself, imposed?
     "He drowned the entire world population of very wicked and very evil people who cared nothing about themselves and others."
     I don't suppose you have anything stronger than "he said so" to establish that the people (if the events happenned) were, indeed, so wicked?
     "After seeing the power of God in 9 plagues the hard hearted Pharaoh still wanted to enslave the people of God. The faults of leaders can effect many other people."
     I have read the story, too. The biblical deity decreed, in advance, that he would harden the pharoah's heart so that he had no choice. This is strong evidence that your deity is wicked. He extracts punishments for actions he forced.
     "Pharaoh could have done what was right but didn’t."
     That is just contrary to your own bible.
     "The context of Elisha and the bears with the mob 42+ teens, I’ve dealt with this before on this blog – the context is clear that they weren’t killed, just beaten up – which was justice according to the situation (which in three verses doesn’t tell us all the details.)"
     The context is quite clear to me. According to the bible, they were slaughtered.
     "Your arguments for making sinners look like victims and God the tyrant are like the arguments of a defense lawyer trying to get a psychopath off the hook and make the upright arresting officer look like the bad guy."
     Strange, that is exactly how your defense of your deity looks to me. It's quite simple. I consider all beings to be held to the same ethics. I sometimes allow for not knowing any better; but you do not claim this for your deity. If these actions were committed by a human ruler (say, possibly a magician) would you regard them as evidence of the man's goodness? Or proof that he was wicked? Actually, your posts have already made it quite clear that you would regard it as proof of wickedness. You just assert that no rules apply to your deity.; May 23, 2008 5:26 PM
forgiven37 said...: dale said
Then why do you not merely provide these sources?
What kind og game are you playing here?
Are you lying?

no dale I wasn't lying. I tell you what I'll provide them in good faith that you will respond to john's question. here's a reminder of what John Willis said

I don't mean any disrespect by this question, but in light of the above, is it possible that your rejection of the claims of the bible are not rational?

A rational standard for historical belief..for accepting a historical event as "true" happens at the point when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for rejecting it.

The historical event that you're rejecting is that Jesus existed. Even the most liberal, non-Christian scholars concede that Jesus existed and that he died on a cross.

Can you please explain to me how the reasons for rejecting this historical event significantly outweigh the reasons for accepting it?

now back to your request for more corroborative writings

the Annals of Tacitus,Mara Bar Serapion and the Suetonius life of Claudius and Life of Nero

I have read your post some make you seem caring, but you are quick to talk about your "good" deeds.Most people think that we are naturally good, but it is the opposite. Did you ever have to teach a kid to lie ? How about steal ? That answer is clearly no. So then you do understand that we have a "sin" problem. How hard is it to look around you and find someone worse than you by your standards ? Not very hard I'd bet. But you must understand that God will not judge you by your standards but his.

I will look for your response to my post and John's if you are willing to answer him.; May 23, 2008 8:53 PM
ex-atheist said...: @ Pvblivs

You aksed…
Would you consider good anyone other than your deity because he conditionally waived a penalty he, himself, imposed?

Yes.

You asked…
He drowned the entire world population of very wicked and very evil people who cared nothing about themselves and others." I don't suppose you have anything stronger than "he said so" to establish that the people (if the events happenned) were, indeed, so wicked?

You were originally judging the character of the God of the Bible (not arguing the historicity of the event, that’s a different debate), so with the context as it is, Would such a God be evil or good for killing very wicked people? Also, I read on you’re blog under your “punishment or prevention” post and I thought it was very interesting that you were arguing against God from the other side of this issue. If the world is full of very, very wicked (free-willed) people is God evil for removing them or evil for letting them live and reproduce? You can’t have it both ways.

[The Pharaoh’s heart issue I’m putting on the shelf for now… it’s not that I don’t have an answer, but I don’t have the time tonight… not everything I write is off the top of my head, I research, so I hope you’ll understand.]

You said...
The context is quite clear to me. According to the bible, they [the kids with Elisha's bears] were slaughtered.

Nope – the word was “tare” (in King James), baqa` in Hebrew = to split, cleave, break open, divide, break through, rip up, break up, tear.
Word for death = shachat, or slaughter = makkah, could have been used but weren’t. Every commentary and Hebrew scholar that I read made this point – you cannot make a solid argument that they were killed.

You quoted me and said…
"Your arguments for making sinners look like victims and God the tyrant are like the arguments of a defense lawyer trying to get a psychopath off the hook and make the upright arresting officer look like the bad guy."
Strange, that is exactly how your defense of your deity looks to me.

That’s because He’s your arresting officer – the bad guys never like the cops.

You said.
I consider all beings to be held to the same ethics.

Same ethics, but context of the situation and authority levels make a difference. I can discipline my child – and that’s a good thing. But you couldn’t discipline my child in the same way – that would be wrong. Cops can arrest someone, a judge put them in jail, and the state execute them – and that all can be a good thing – but us regular citizen we cannot, detain and execute someone. Same ethics but different situations. God has all authority and understands the situations better than anyone. If God were evil – there would be NO such thing as good – at all.

If you were honest about how Christians live, their moral standard that they strive towards, their forgiving spirit, their love of God – you know that to say that the God they follow is evil is so backwards, it’s like saying a tail wags a dog. Before I knew God I stole a lot, loved drugs and alcohol, wrote poems of hate, murder, and suicide, I loved porn, my favorite music was NIN, Tool, and Korn, I dressed in black, I cursed all the time, my thought were very dark, very evil BUT since I’ve been saved all of that has changed, flipped around, and I serve others out of love, and desire to be holy. How is that? How did (this evil) God change me to desire to love Him, love others, and seek holiness? My Parents and bothers are still atheists today and even they couldn't say that the God I love is evil – they know that wouldn’t make any sense at all.; May 23, 2008 9:03 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

     I actually believe the flood story to be false. But I am arguing ethics, not history. So, under the assumption that the flood happened, I am considering the possibility that the people were not wicked and that your deity is simply saying they were with impunity because they are not available to defend themselves. (Incidentally, you left off my opening quote that showed I was quoting you. This makes it look like I am vouching for the people being wicked. In fact, I am challenging the claim; and you did not answer.)
     "Cops can arrest someone, a judge put them in jail, and the state execute them – and that all can be a good thing – but us regular citizen we cannot, detain and execute someone." [Emphasis added]
     It can be. It can also be a wicked thing. Corrupt official can arrest people and get them executed on false charges because they think they aren't getting the respect they want. (Gee, that sounds a lot like your deity tormenting people for failing to worship him.)
     "That’s because He’s your arresting officer – the bad guys never like the cops."
     My assertion is that he is not an "arresting officer." He is a kidnapper from a gang. You are acting like a member of the gang trying to justify the nefarious activities.
     "'Would you consider good anyone other than your deity because he conditionally waived a penalty he, himself, imposed?'
     "Yes."
     Oh, I need to see an example of this. Let's make it a good analogy to your deity. Someone forces a helpless child into a fountain, judges the child guilty of being in the fountain illegally and imposes a sentence of death for the purpose of "justice," but waives the sentence if the child will become his slave for the rest of his life. Is that what you call good? It is an effective analogy to the "goodness" of your deity. Perhaps you will think of a lesser example which is not quite as matching of the actions of your deity; but we shall see.; May 24, 2008 3:13 PM
ex-atheist said...: @ Pvblivs

You said…
I actually believe the flood story to be false. But I am arguing ethics, not history. So, under the assumption that the flood happened, I am considering the possibility that the people were not wicked and that your deity is simply saying they were with impunity because they are not available to defend themselves.

What? If you’re going to argue against the character of the God of the Bible under the “biblical” assumption that the flood happened, but then at the same time assert an additional assumption that is opposite of what the Bible teaches (that the pre-flood world wasn’t wicked) what kind of argument is that? If you’re going to make case that the God of the Bible is evil, then stick with what the Bible teaches and make your case. It’s obvious that you’re starting with a presupposing that God must be evil and then making that fit into the bible (eisegesis) rather then reading the Bible and honestly assessing all of God’s actions in the context of all that He does and teaches (exegesis).

You said…
Corrupt official can arrest people and get them executed on false charges because they think they aren't getting the respect they want. (Gee, that sounds a lot like your deity tormenting people for failing to worship him.)

Nothing like my God. Those who end up in hell won’t do so because they fail to worship God. They will end up in hell because of their lying, stealing, lust, blasphemy, hate of others, and other sins. They will also know that they deserve hell, when the see the holy light of God, plus all He’s done for them, and the darkness of their own heart, they will know that God will be just in pouring out His wrath on them. It’s a frightening thought that many people are so proud and so set in their ways that they will not soften their hearts to see themselves in truth and God in truth.

I’d still like to see you answer these questions before I answer any more of yours.

Why are true Christians the one who give the most to charitable organizations, help most in humanitarian aid, forgive, give of themselves for the good of others, love others, and seek to live a life doing good and loving God – if He’s so evil?

How did God change me from the way I was (very wicked), to desire to serve Him out of love, not out of terror, but like a child who loves His father or a husband who loves his wife, where there is a deep desire to love Him, and to love others, to love truth, and seek holiness; if He was evil?; May 24, 2008 8:04 PM
C3P0R2D2 said...: Ex-atheist said...

Why are true Christians the one who give the most to charitable organizations, help most in humanitarian aid, forgive, give of themselves for the good of others, love others, and seek to live a life doing good and loving God – if He’s so evil?
OK let's take a look at foreign aid. (figures from the CIA factbook)

USA, population 303 Million , $23.53 billion (2006) in foreign aid.

Netherlands Population 16.6 Million
, $5.452 billion (2006) in foreign aid

Wait a moment, you have 18 times our population, yet you only give 4 times our amount? Yes must be that Christian charity,

How about a secular state like Norway... $2.954 billion with a population of less than 5 million people.

Sweden, $3.955 billion (2006) with a population of just 9 million.

How about donations raised after the 2004 tsunami in Asia, (BBC figures)
USA $970 Million
Netherlands $328 Million
Norway $213 Million
Sweden $175 Million

Guess what, the USA comes out rather poor when you check how charitable they are. Guess being a Christian nation doesn't mean too much when it comes to pulling out your wallet.; May 25, 2008 10:44 AM
ex-atheist said...: C3P0R2D2 said...
"Guess being a Christian nation doesn't mean too much when it comes to pulling out your wallet."

(I wonder what we would see if we compared wallets?)

I've figured that I would receive a reply like the one you gave. But it's only info from who-knows-where, only specifically about money and purely government statistics – nothing really about individual Christians, or Christianity from an historical perspective.

Despite what the Supreme Court has said I do not believe we are a "Christian Nation." We are a Republic which was founded on Judeo-Christian values. (Google “Richard Land Christian Nation” if you wonder why I say this.)

I too could give you all sorts of data too - lists of organization like Salvation Army, Christian Children’s Fund, World Vision, etc...
Or tell you to read a book like "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur Brooks.
But I know you aren’t going to care about all the data that I could bore you with… and that wasn’t the point of my question.

The fact is Christianity as a whole over history has done way more good for civilization then any other worldview – such individuals started more hospitals, more orphanages, more relief organizations, and unrecognized missionary work (not just preaching the gospel but things that provides immediate and practical aid). You can pick out blemishes of wrong acts done in the name of “Christianity” to make it look bad – but compared to every other worldview, those living consistent with the Bible have done way more good for the world – but why is that, if the God they were following is as evil as Pvblivs and others claim? That was my question. If God is so evil – then Christians would be striving to be evil like God. Do you believe that?; May 25, 2008 4:33 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

     The answer to both of your claims is that the supposition is false. "True christians" are not more generous. They are also not well-defined because you (collectively) have this nasty habit of declaring "not a true christian." I can assure you that if your "desire to serve" were out of love and not terror, you would not be trying to terrorize me into serving. People preach "hell" because that is what they see as a motivator. I, therefore, conclude that it is the motivator in their own lives.
     "Nothing like my God. Those who end up in hell won’t do so because they fail to worship God."
     Let's look at what distinguished who (according to your beliefs) goes to hell and who doesn't. Is having told a lie a predictor? No, they are represented in the same manner. You only assert that those going to "heaven" have been forgiven. The same goes for the other "reasons" that you listed.
     Now, let's look at my postulated reason. Is it a predictor? Why, yes. In fact, it is a perfect predictor. According to you, everyone who fails to worship your deity will go to "hell." No one who does worship your deity will. Either that is the real criterion, or it is a remarkable coincidence.
     In judging the character of your deity, I am only admitting -- for the sake of argument -- that the flood happenned. The claim that the people were wicked is to be judged as exactly that -- a claim. Imagine a defendant saying he gunned down your children because they were turning into demons. I do not need to presuppose the biblical deity evil. It is a conclusion based on the supposed events and the justifications given.
     Although you are accusing me of presupposing your deity evil, it is clear that you are trying to enforce a presupposition that he is good and to twist all events to fit that.
     My claim is that a being who would flood the world killing thousands of people and simply say "trust me; they were wicked" is evil. If there should be evidence of actual wickedness (rather than just the deity's say-so) I will revisit my judgement.; May 25, 2008 5:19 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

"[B]ut why is that, if the God they were following is as evil as Pvblivs and others claim? That was my question. If God is so evil – then Christians would be striving to be evil like God. Do you believe that?"
The ones who do good would probably fit your "not a true christian" claim. You are deliberately skewing the statistics by deciding whether to call someone "christian" based on the convenience to your claim. In short, you are engaging in fraud.; May 25, 2008 6:35 PM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs said...
”People preach "hell" because that is what they see as a motivator. I, therefore, conclude that it is the motivator in their own lives.”

Healthy fear is sometimes good. A healthy fear of Almighty God is smart. I am motivated to warn others of hell because I really do not want them to end up there, but I do not fear going to hell myself – my motivation to live for God is out of gratitude and the joy of knowing that He is real and His Spirit is within me.

On the issue of non-worship leading to someone to hell…
If a man jumps off a building and has the opportunity to grab the hand of someone who could pull him to safety – but he ignores the hand, what kills him?
• Gravity (Jumping off a building in the first place).
• The Ground.
• Or rejecting the offer of salvation.

All are true answer depending on the point of view. So, the failure to worship the Lord (which in the Bible is sin, because it’s unbelief, and means their worshiping something else, like themselves) adds to the list. But the answer of “Why does someone end up in hell?”
• Because of their Sin.
• Because of God’s justice (infinite punishment for the infinite offense of sin).
• Because they reject the offer of complete salvation in Christ.

All are true – but just like the man – if he didn’t jump, there wouldn’t be an issue. If you and I were innocent, sinless, holy we wouldn’t need a savior. We’d be like the angles – we wouldn’t love God out of choice. We wouldn’t have free will. In my simple illustration the man jumped (it is choice) because all our sin is by choice. You can also choose to agree with God about yourself and His salvation – repent and trust Christ and reach out your hand to Him.; May 25, 2008 8:41 PM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs said...
”Although you are accusing me of presupposing your deity evil, it is clear that you are trying to enforce a presupposition that he is good and to twist all events to fit that.”

The Bible does presuppose that God is good – And I am a presuppositionist. I think every human is at some level. But I don’t need to do any twisting with the Bible to see that it teaches that God is good. I gave the Bible the benefit of the doubt and read it as I would read the letter of a stranger – I didn’t know the author if he’s good, bad, wrong, right... If the authors really heard from God, I’ll hear them out. I figured if they’re lying or something is way off it will be obvious. If the Bible is only man made – the errors should be plain, the contradictions without explanation – that wasn’t the case. It is wonderful and amazing how little atheists and skeptics have against the Bible. They rant and rave about things being errors and contradictions but an honest understanding of context shows the consistency of Scripture over and over.

Now I don’t know how to explain all of the Bible (there are some tough passages) – but 99% of it is simple and plain and God made it so it could communicate for these 2000 yrs, to every culture, every generation, every age of life – so a child could grasp its main points and so a genius could study it for a life time. I trust God – He hasn’t failed me – and my greatest proof is really what He’s done in my own heart and my own life. The other proof I have is in the lives of hundreds of people I’ve met who share a similar experience. No other religion has the experience of complete salvation (complete forgiveness) – it’s only in Christ.; May 25, 2008 8:46 PM
C3P0R2D2 said...: Ex-Atheist said...

but why is that, if the God they were following is as evil as Pvblivs and others claim? That was my question. If God is so evil – then Christians would be striving to be evil like God. Do you believe that?

First of all I don't think God exists, so it's hard to say that something that doesn't exist is evil. As for the God of the Bible, yeah evil is probably to kind a term.
As for the Christians, I do believe that they try to do good. I won't hold the history with things like the inquisition, conquest of South America etc. against you. It's the past, I'll let it be, just like you won't claim it's always the atheist like Stalin and Pol Pot who cause the trouble ;-) (yeah I forgot Hitler, since his atheism is rather disputed).
But saying that Christians try to do the right doesn't say a thing. I believe that just about everybody, whatever there (lack of) religion will try to do the right thing most of the time. Sure there are a few psychopaths. But overall everybody will try to do the best he can.

As for your Judeo-Christian values, you are aware of the treaty with Tripoli (1796), just read article 11
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen[...]
Now this is one of the first treaties, read aloud, and accepted unanimously by congress, and John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
So guess what, according to the guy's who wrote your constitution, you are living in a secular nation. Perhaps that explains the "freedom of religion" bit in your constitution.; May 25, 2008 10:36 PM
The Celtic Chimp said...: John,

The burden of proof is yours. You must prove that Jesus did exist. You are the one asserting a positive claim.; May 26, 2008 2:43 AM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

     The errors are plain. You just close your eyes to them. And anyone sufficiently motivated can "explain away" the contradictions in any text. For example, I have heard about a group called the "Baker Street Irregulars." One of the things they do is "reconcile the contradictions" in the Sherlock Holmes books. The main difference is that they do not take it so seriously. Now, you say that you give the bible "the benefit of the doubt." It looks to me like you are willing to deny reality in order to believe in the bible. That is rather a bit more than the benefit of the doubt.
     The bible asserts that its deity is good. The koran asserts its deity is good. I conclude that the deities are, in fact, evil.
     An honest reading of the context shows that the errors and contradictions are quite real. When one looks at the text willing to accept whatever outcome is found (be it error free or riddled with contradictions) one finds that the errors are blatent and the explanations weak. Christians are not honest about this. They go in committed to believing the bible true. As a result of their conviction, they are willing to ignore discrepencies. They will accept flimsy excuses for the deity's behavior (excuses that they would not accept for anyone else.)
     Your claim that "sin is a choice" falls completely flat. Remember, in order to make sure that they can apply the terror to everyone, christians say we are "born sinners." That means no choice. In your analogy, it would mean that your deity lifted us 500 feet of the ground and dropped us -- not that we jumped. Interestingly, it looks to us that we are still walking on the ground. If you are walking down the street and someone tells you you jumped off a building and reaches out a hand to "save" you, your reaction is not likely to be positive.; May 26, 2008 9:14 AM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs said...
“The bible asserts that its deity is good. The koran asserts its deity is good. I conclude that the deities are, in fact, evil.”

The god character of the Koran or Book of Mormon or whatever else are not the main issue of our discussion – the issue we’ve been debating is the God of the Bible. Looking at all that is reveled in the Bible about God, about His mercy, His loving kindness, longsuffering, patients, forgiving spirit, His faithfulness, His Grace, His keeping of promises, His heart for sinners, His willingness to provide salvation, His coming to earth as one of His own, His willingness to die for our sins, His free gift of eternal life, His Comforter (Holy Spirit), His perfect Word given to us, His peace that passes all understanding, His joy that we can rejoice in, His plan, and His people who “love one another”: God is good. Do you really think you’ll change my mind about that?

It doesn’t matter to me how good other people have fashioned their idea of god – I know the true and living God who’s saved me.

You said...
”An honest reading of the context shows that the errors and contradictions are quite real.”

I know you'll continue to make this claim, but there is such little effort to prove it by the atheists. All the examples of supposed “contradictions” I’ve seen posted on Ray’s blog have been easily explained. I know that you have to keep making these statements, because you don’t want to believe. But I find it curious not only do you not want to believe, but you want others not to believe. I really don’t know why your so hostile about Christianity, if it’s an ego thing, an intellectual thing, a sin thing, or unresolved anger about your “christian” experience, or all of the above – I guess that’s between you and God.

You said...
“Your claim that "sin is a choice" falls completely flat. Remember, in order to make sure that they can apply the terror to everyone, christians say we are "born sinners." That means no choice."

I suppose all those who have murdered, raped, stole ought to just tell the judge, “Sorry, I was born this way, I had no choice.” I don’t believe that, do you?

I would highly recommend reading Jonathan Edwards “Freedom of the Will” if you really care to understand how the sovereignty of God and man’s free will are not at odds and that God is good and man is still morally responsible.; May 26, 2008 7:19 PM
ex-atheist said...: C3por2d2 said…
I believe that just about everybody, whatever there (lack of) religion will try to do the right thing most of the time. Sure there are a few psychopaths. But overall everybody will try to do the best he can.

I’d agree on this – most people do not act on their first impulse because that would get them into a lot of trouble. Most people act “right” in order to live free another day, in order to get what the want, find a middle ground for personal happiness. For some that still may lead them into very “wrong actions” if they can get away with it, and not feel guilt about it. But for a very very few they’re just psychopaths. But I believe in true justice – that the very concept of “justice” doesn’t only exist as an abstract term created by the mind of man – so that if a psycho gets away with their crime on earth – there is still a greater judgment. What a cruel joke the universe would be if a psychopath could win in the end.; May 26, 2008 7:40 PM
Pvblivs said...: Ex-atheist:

     "I suppose all those who have murdered, raped, stole ought to just tell the judge, 'Sorry, I was born this way, I had no choice.' I don’t believe that, do you?"
     I don't believe in the "born sinners" claim. If I did, I would have to accept the "no choice" claim. They stand or fall together. Interestingly, in your mind, they can just worship (bribe) the judge and they will get heaven while the people that they murdered, raped, etc. will get eternal torture.
     "All the examples of supposed 'contradictions' I’ve seen posted on Ray’s blog have been easily explained."
     The "explanations" are poor and I don't believe you would accept them if the tales had been found in some other book, instead.
     "The god character of the Koran or Book of Mormon or whatever else are not the main issue of our discussion"
     True enough, but my point was that any "holy book" will declare that its deity is good. The fact that the bible likewise declares its deity good is not evidence of goodness.
     "What a cruel joke the universe would be if a psychopath could win in the end."
     But that's the world in which you believe. Your "judge" takes bribes. In fact, he is not interested in anything else. No bribe? Guilty!; May 26, 2008 8:04 PM
ex-atheist said...: Pvblivs said...
“I don't believe in the "born sinners" claim. If I did, I would have to accept the "no choice" claim. They stand or fall together.”

“They stand or fall together” is just not true. Naturalism has the same problem that you claim Christianity does – If man is nothing but a physical body made up of chemicals and everything is really just complicated machinery then how can man have choice? Is man a machine?

We both believe that people “do wrong” and by choice. If all moral actions are done by creatures of free will – they could have chosen the opposite actions. I hope that we both would agree that there is free will – I believe in free will. But could someone always do what is right 100% their whole lives - I would hope that we would agree that no one is 100% perfect. Why has no-one chosen only what’s right 100% of their lives if it’s possible? Why is there morality and at the same time everyone fails? How can there be concepts of right and wrong within all of humanity, unless there’s an objective standard – but if no ones achieved that standard how do we know what to strive towards? Are morals created or discovered? I have solid answers for these things through the Word of God – God gave man free will – man uses his free will to rebel against God – we all have done it and we are accountable.

you said...
“Interestingly, in your mind, they can just worship (bribe) the judge and they will get heaven while the people that they murdered, raped, etc. will get eternal torture.”

And in your mind all who are murdered, raped, etc. not only experience horrible suffering without any meaning or purpose or hope, but also have the same reward as those who may get away with their crime.

I’m still not sure why your hung up on the “worship” issue – billions of people “worship” a god and it doesn’t help them one bit, God cannot be bribed even by worship. Worship is a voluntary response of gratitude to God saving a wretch like me. If worship has any other motive than simple adoration for the goodness of God then such worship is actually sin. If you worshiped God today, you’d be a pretender and you’d agree – you cannot force yourself to love a God you don’t believe in or think is evil. But if you repent and trust Jesus to save you, and then God gives you His Spirit then you’d desire to worship with joy (in Spirit and in Truth). Worship does not equal salvation. Jesus gives us salvation – worship is one of many signs that it’s true.

you said...
”…my point was that any "holy book" will declare that its deity is good. The fact that the bible likewise declares its deity good is not evidence of goodness.

That’s why I’ve been also sharing my testimony of what this “God” of the Bible has done in my life and in the lives of millions of others. The only “evidence” that you’ll every really accept is personal evidence – that’s going to take humility. Do you ever think that you’ll try to see things from God’s perspective, to put aside your assumptions and arguments and with fresh eyes see if you’ve “missed it” with the Bible? Do you really think life is but a dream?; May 27, 2008 8:16 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 205 Newer› Newest»