Do Christians REALLY Know Who God is?

Posted on by

I know this seems like a silly question to a Christian but I hope this post will help them to see that this is not a silly question at all. The Christian believes that it is self-evident that the Christian God is God. (singular, the one and only) I hope to show in this post that their belief about God is not self-evident at all.

Most Christians believe that God reveals himself to human beings three ways:

  • The light of nature
  • The light of conscience
  • The light of divine revelation (the Bible)

Let’s take a look at these three statements.

The Light of Nature

Christians believe their God created the universe. Regardless of what view they take on the Genesis account, every Christian believes their God created everything.

The Bible says in Romans 1:17-20

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Based on this passage of Scripture, the Christian comes to the conclusion that through nature the Christian God reveals himself to every human being. However,this belief presupposes that the person who is looking at the natural world has read the Bible. What if they have not read the Bible?

Imagine that you have never read the Bible and that you knew absolutely nothing about the Christian religion. When you looked at the natural world would you come to the conclusion that the Christian God created the universe? Of course not, and it would be silly to suggest otherwise.

Now a person uninitiated in the Christian religion might look at the natural world and conclude that a being, perhaps a deity bigger than themselves, created everything but they might also not come to that conclusion.

The history of the human race is littered with creation stories and stories about the many, and various gods. While many human beings have concluded a god created the universe, I know of no people group or individual that believed the Christian God created the universe, without FIRST being indoctrinated in the Christian religion.

Christians forget that to make the jump from A GOD created the universe to THE CHRISTIAN GOD created the universe requires the Bible. No Bible, No Christian God.

The Light of Conscience

Christians believe that God has given every human being a conscience and that through their Christian God-given conscience they have a basic understanding of right and wrong. Christians believe the conscience has been marred by our sin nature but, at some level, basic right and wrong makes itself known.

Romans 2:14-16 says:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

The passage above speaks of a law written on our hearts, our conscience. Our conscience is our accuser, and at times our excuser. (this contradictory nature, accusing and then excusing is why we need salvation. Conscience alone is not enough)

According to the Bible, the Christian God writes his law on every human being’s conscience. There is much debate over what is meant here by the word law. Many Christians believe the law spoken of here is the Ten Commandments. For the sake of not having a long, drawn out theological discussion, I will use the Law=Ten’s Commandants definition.

What are the Ten Commandments? Think you know them? Are you sure? Did you know there are two different sets of Ten Commandments? Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. There are differences between the Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 passages. Minor differences, to be sure, but one would think that on a matter so basic and important, that each passage would say exactly the same thing. (I wrote about this here)Surely, God would not want any misunderstandings about his Law?

Let’s examine the premise that every human being has a conscience given to them by the Christian God. If this is true we would expect to see a universal adherence to a basic moral code in every people group in the world. Is this the case? How many native tribes do we see. “remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy?” 

The fact is, every people group, every culture has its own moral code. Where do these moral codes come from? A God? Social contracts? Evolutionary development? I am not sure we really know. We do know this…moral beliefs vary widely from one culture to another. Even in countries heavily influenced by Christianity we find wide divergence in what is moral and what is not. If the Christian God is responsible for giving every human being a conscience that is imprinted with his Law he has done a poor job. The wide diversity of moral belief points us away from the Christian God and to some other explanation.

The Christian, once again, presupposes, based on their reading of the Bible, that the conscience God gives to every human being is imprinted with the Christian God’s Law. Their proof? The Bible. The United States, by and large, is a Christian nation. We are heavily influenced by Christianity and the Bible. So, it should come as no shock that our collective moral beliefs reflect the teachings of the Bible. However, if God gives every human being a conscience imprinted with his Law shouldn’t we see a universal moral code in every culture and people group? Why all the diversity in moral beliefs?

The Light of Divine Revelation

For the Christian to believe that God reveals himself through nature and through our conscience it requires them to accept what the Bible says on these two things. As I have shown, without being initiated into the Christian religion and being exposed to the teachings of the Bible, it is highly unlikely that a human being would naturally come to the conclusion that the Christian God created the universe and that the Christian God imprinted every human being’s conscience with his Law.

Believing that the Christian God reveals himself to human beings requires that a person accept the Bible teaching on these things. Every Christian, at some level or another is a presuppositionalist. They presuppose certain beliefs and then come to this or that conclusion.

What does the Bible say about God? Are Christians in agreement about who God is? Are they in agreement about how God is involved in the universe and how he interacts with human beings?

Any cursory reading of the history of the Christian religion will clearly reveal that there have been huge divisions over these questions about God. One would think that on such a foundational issue, God, that all Christians everywhere would believe the same things.

Most Christians are totally ignorant of the history of the Christian religion.Most Christians assume that what they now believe or what their church/pastor now says is the truth is what Christians have always believed.

If I asked 100 Christians, “did the early church believe that Jesus Christ was God”, almost all of them would shout out a resounding YES! Little do they know that 300 years after the death of Jesus the Christian church was STILL debating, arguing, and killing each other over whether of not Jesus was God. Large numbers of Christians (Arians) said he was not.  

I also doubt that 1 in 100 Christians could tell me about the influence Gnosticism had on the early Christian church. What if the wrong group won the doctrinal battle centuries ago? What if the Gnostics were the ones with God’s truth and not those who we now claim had the orthodox Christian beliefs?

Even today, Christians are divided on who God is and how God is involved in the universe and how he interacts with human beings.

Debates over Calvinism and Arminianism are really battles over God and his nature. A newcomer in the debate, open theism, the belief that God chooses NOT to know some things, makes things even more confusing and complicated. (and let’s not forget the age old belief called Pelagianism)

While Trinitarian Christianity, God is three yet one, dominates the Christian scene, there are sects who are modalists (sabellianism), sects who deny that God is a triune being.

One would think, on this basic issue, that every Christian, regardless of their denominational affiliation, would believe the exact same thing about God. Surely, the Holy Spirit that lives inside of them and teaches them truth would be very clear about the God question, yes? Evidently not.

Conclusion

The common thread that runs through the three ways that God reveals himself to human being is the Bible. Since Christianity is a text based religion, its religious text, the Bible, is the foundation of every belief.

And herein lies the problem. The Bible says many things about God and it can be quite contradictory. For example, I can make a compelling case for there being a plurality of Gods in the book of Genesis, and that the Bible shows a progression from polytheism to monotheism. For me to make this case I have to dispense with my Christian presuppositions and read the text as it stands. There is no possible way to find monotheism or trinitarianism in the book of Genesis.

Let’s look at one verse, Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

18th century Presbyterian commentator Albert Barnes writes:

The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty?…

…We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King. Was it with certain other intelligent beings in existence before man that he took counsel? This supposition cannot be admitted; because the expression “let us make” is an invitation to create, which is an incommunicable attribute of the Eternal One, and because the phrases, “our image, our likeness,” when transferred into the third person of narrative, become “his image, the image of God,” and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the plurality, then, point to a plurality of attributes in the divine nature? This cannot be, because a plurality of qualities exists in everything, without at all leading to the application of the plural number to the individual, and because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, “let us make.” Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence, we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being.

What Barnes does here is connect the dots using the Bible. That’s all well and good thousands of years after the fact, but would a person alive at the time of the writing of Genesis conclude that “let us make man in our image” referred to the triune God of the Christian New Testament? Of course not. He would have, based on the polytheistic culture of the day, concluded there were multiple Gods involved in the creation of man. (and the same argument can me made for Genesis 3:22)

The Bible is the glue that holds the Christian church together. However, if we can not trust it to get the God question right can we really trust anything else it says? If we can not trust its teaching on the light of creation or the light of conscience should we really believe that the Bible is God’s (whoever he is) divine revelation to humanity?

Related posts:

  1. What Do Christians Really Believe About God, Jesus, and the Bible
  2. Conservative Christians Whine and Complain About Most Everything Obama
  3. Are Christians Atheists?
  4. How Do Christians Explain Someone Like Me?
  5. Christians don’t need Psychiatrists because they have God
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aram-McLean/852290081 Aram McLean

    This is a very interesting post, Bruce. Plenty of new points to think about. Cheers

  • Anonymous

    This is a new response to Ftp565. Your browser can search for the quote in order to find the relevant comment. I do this because of the ever narrowing replies.

    ” I become wary when people are out to disprove Christianity only.”

    There was a process for Bruce, for me, and likely for most his online friends here. We were Christians. We observed problems in either 1) the Bible against the Bible, 2) the Bible against what we know reliably about the world through science, or 3) the Bible against what we observed in our lives.

    We were not out to disprove Christianity. We were seeking to overcome information contrary to our faiths by investigating further. So the quoted line is a mistaken take on where we came from. We sought to bolster our faith by learning more. The more which we then learned was inimical to faith, and we have abandoned it.

    If you are particular about language, nothing is either proved or disproved except for abstract mathematical propositions. All real world based knowledge is provisional (or so I believe!), and the wise seeker proportions hir (his/her) assurance in what s/he believes in accordance with the quality and quantity of the available evidence.

    Now, having once payed the price of some fractional portion of our lives in service to a mistaken God belief, we see zero evidence of any God anywhere and see no need to apportion more of our lives studying all religious beliefs to be sure they are wrong. Surely you and I agree that belief in the Greek pantheon is incorrect, no? How much study have you put into knowing that? So why are we obligated to argue against all the religions out there, when we have only studied Christianity in depth? To please you because you become wary?

    • Ftp565

      I concede to your point.  I was wrong in using the language of “prove” since there is no proof available one way or the other.  I am quite certain that this group here is most likely quite aware of this.  And I am glad that this is the source of which it led you away from your faith.  I was probably more curious then I should have been as I saw the repetition of “Christian God” and “Christian Bible”.  This sort of repetition asks two questions in my mind, “Is it being done because this is the area that the person is most knowledgeable in,” or “Is it solely based on a grudge of some sort?”  You have to admit that there are a lot of people out there that either believe or don’t believe certain things not based on anything else then a grudge.  So I was curious especially when such a statement was made that encapsulated much more than the Christian faith and was not recognized, so I proposed the question in the response in which I made.

      …Not intending to take this conversation anywhere beyond the data.

      • Anonymous

        For one who is in disagreement with us here, you have comported yourself well and, and received reprimands well, so it would be remiss of me not to say so. Having stated that I started out to bolster my faith, that was over 50 years ago, so  that now I may well seem to be starting out trying to disprove God – easing off a bit from my earlier criticism of you, as you took what I said without raising what could be legitimate counterpoints, in view of how I stand now.

        Now a bit more about Josephus which Jim Jones has not yet brought up (I don’t think – sorry if I missed it). 1) Josephus was not a contemporary to the time alleged for Jesus. The writing where the ‘testimonium’ occurs is typically dated about 90 CE. If he DID write this, it would be hearsay rather that eyewitness. It would be like someone today (born when Kennedy was elected) writing about events in the Korean war. 2) Josephus wrote page after page about various false prophets and messiahs – and a few meager sentences about Jesus? 3) Josephus hated Herod and went to great lengths to make a record of evil deeds done by him – and the slaughter of the infants gets not a word? 4) Iranaeus was well aware of Josephus and quoted him often – but never the ‘testimonium’. 5) In fact, there is no record of anyone anywhere quoting the ‘testimonium’ until Eusebius (more than a century after Iranaeus and more than two centuries of the ‘testimonium’ supposedly existing without anyone ever citing it). Eusebius is well known to have produced other fraudulent materials.                               

         

        • Ftp565

          Yes, since Josephus wrote after the fact, he would be bringing up hearsay, but hearsay doesn’t mean that it’s a lie.

          As for not quoting the slaying of the infants (innocents); odds are such an event never happened.  This story has a connection to the story of the Exodus but probably didn’t happen; so it would be reasonable that Josephus wouldn’t mention it.  Just because a legend in a story isn’t true doesn’t discredit certain things mentioned within the story.  Even though I don’t believe the legend behind the Septuagint, I don’t believe the Septuagint never really existed (I know it’s a poor example since we have Greek translations of the Hebrew text, but it was the first example that came to mind).

          A lot of the earliest church documents such as from Iranaeus quoted Josephus but never really used Josephus in terms of apologetics.  I would argue that they felt they didn’t have the need to argue through other documents outside of the Gospels to argue for Jesus being real.  The most Josephus was used for in apologetics was to use it for the non-Jewish culture to describe history not to prove Jesus was real; so there was no real need to quote the testimonium.

          You are right though, Jesus, if mentioned at all, was mentioned more in passing which shows more of Josepus’ stance on the Christian phenomenon happening during his time.  It was something that he never really concerned himself with and didn’t consider all that important.  But I think with what was going on at the time and the growth of Christianity along with the attention they were getting more and more from the Roman Empire (see the Caesar’s decrees and persecutions of the early church before Constantine) that Josephus would have mentioned the sect in passing and the source of such a sect.  That I think helps give credence to the partial credibility of the testimonium.

    • Jim Jones

      “I become wary when people are out to disprove Christianity only.”

      “We were not out to disprove Christianity.”

      If you don’t disprove Christianity first you will be assumed to be a Christian apologist. There’s no point in spraying for flies while there’s an elephant (and its crap) in the room.

      • Ftp565

        Why do you need to disprove Christianity first (if disproving can be actually accomplished)?  If you were trying to “disprove” Islam or Hindu or Xenu, why would I consider you to be a Christian apologist?  Now if you started defending what you believed in terms of Christianity through that then I would consider you a Christian apologist.

        But I love the analogy.  I got a good laugh out of it and I definitely need to find a way to use it with my friends!

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aram-McLean/852290081 Aram McLean

          I am amazed that the Christians are still hung up on this point. On and on they trumpet that they must be the true faith because they are being persecuted the most by the atheist/agnostics of their country. Why is it so hard to grasp the cultural relevance of the religion being most discussed? As has been said time and again on this site, the reason Christianity is being discussed heavily here, as opposed to Islam, Hinduism etc, is because this is the major overpowering religion we grew up with and are surrounded by. 
          I know for a fact that if we were all living in Saudi Arabia, and held our exact same views about religion (and had no interest in staying alive for much longer), it would be Islam we would be debating away about on here. Same goes for if we lived in India, we would be debunking Hinduism, and so on. Why is geography so hard for Christians to understand? We aren’t debating Christianity because its absolute trueness is a threat to our heathen souls, as much as you desperately want to believe that and as I’m sure your pastors preach. We’re debunking it because it is the major faith in our countries and life. And therefore it is doing the most harm.
          Of course, with the current rate of Islam expansion in the Western world, this debate platform could well heavily change in the next ten years. 
          (Assuming the oil and clean water don’t run out first.)

  • Jim Jones

    “Okay, so what I was more concluding was, how can you rely on anything that Josephus wrote?  If it’s writings preserved by a Christian community, how can you rely on any of it?”

    His descriptions of Jerusalem and many other things are very accurate. But when it comes to himself, not so much, and I wouldn’t take his comments on his patrons at face value either. However the TF is such a poor forgery it can be dismissed without care.

    • Ftp565

      That’s where I would disagree.  Just because there are additions when it comes to claims about Jesus doesn’t mean that Jesus and what the people believed wasn’t mentioned at all (yes there is a double negative here, I apologize).  It is most likely just additions to show claims as to what certain Christian groups believed about Jesus within the text which was more commonplace than just making it all up. (Of course, there would be the belief that Paul made up Christianity so that would most likely enter into the debate as well).  There are a lot of things historically accurate about the Gospels i.e. the reign of Herod and the destruction of the temple (used as foreshadowing in the Gospel stories) and more, but you’re going to ignore those?  Why?

      • Jim Jones

        There are a lot of accurate details in the Harry Potter novels. Does that mean it’s all true?

        • Ftp565

          Good point except for that Harry Potter doesn’t claim to be historical, nor do the authors.  We have the luxury of being alive during the time it exists, and even just a few years after the time that Harry Potter was written, I don’t see anyone claiming that it’s all real.  Wouldn’t you think also that the author at the time of the Gospel texts have come forward and said that is not what was intended when the text was written?  Plus you have four different authors that span about 30-40 years that make the same claims about this one person.  Does this make it true, no?  But based off of the history we have, it is most likely to be true (my opinion).  It’s the same with many historical figures that we have only written history about along with some accurate notions described (i.e. Cyrus of Persia, Hamorabi (sp?) of Babylon).

          • Jim Jones

            It was a cottage industry for hundreds of years making up “really true” religious books and artifacts. After all, 14 foreskins of Jesus? ‘Shroud’ of Turin? Pieces of the “True Cross”?

          • Ftp565

            The relics craze produced by the Catholic church in order to make more money is not what is being brought into question.  I feel when it comes to that, people saw an opportunity to make money and ran with it.  Could this have been the case with Christianity at its start, sure.  It is just as likely to be the case as it is likely to be the case that Christianity started from God come to earth in human form and free humanity from something that keeps humanity from seeing and knowing God by dying on the cross and then rising again.  Just like it’s possible that a goat-sheep from Carlisle which is another planet in the universe that dwells within the earth ate the second sun that we no longer have.  All of which cannot be proven; so we have to take the data that we have and come to our own conclusions.  It’s at this point that I would see in Philosophy where we have come to an impasse.  We are about to have the conversation enter into the endless circle, and with that I would like to thank you for your input.  I have increased a bit more of what I know and perceive on the subject.  Thank you for the stimulating conversation.

  • Ftp565

    Just food for thought.  Even though your perspective is from what you have seen and known from Christianity.  However, dismissing the Bible as a whole does not just get rid of the Christian God; it also gets rid of the Jewish God and the Muslim God.  I know your point here is that there is no God or that you don’t believe that any such type of deity exists, but being completely accurate would be helpful.  From a Psychological perspective one may begin to think that by focusing on eliminating the Christian God only (and not even recognizing that it constitutes eliminating the God of three religions) that you have a sore spot when it comes to Christianity; that there was a hurt or pain experienced specifically by Christianity itself.

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      Please don’t go where you are going here. It is a sure way to end up in Siberia. :) I have little tolerance for any psychoanalyzing. Leave that to the counselor I see.

      Yes, my focus is on Christianity. Why? Because it is the dominant religion of the country I live in. It is the religion I spent my life in and the religion I am most familiar with. I suspect 99% of the readers of this blog come from a Christian background or live in a place where Christianity rules the roost.

      I don’t have the time or inclination to always have to add Jew/Muslim to any statement I make about God just like I don’t have the time or inclination to use the various adjectives that are used to modify the word Christian.

      I have never said NO God exists. I have said that the Gods that man currently worships or has worshiped in the past are no Gods at all. I am certain the Christian God, as revealed in the Christian Bible, does not exist. I am quite agnostic on whether or not there might yet be a God that reveals itself to us. I highly doubt it, but I cannot be certain.

    • Anonymous

      Just food for thought. From a psychological perspective you may have been indoctrinated by brainwashing techniques (authority figures, peer pressure, emotional manipulation) to the point where something having no observable reality is very real to you. How do you like the discussion heading in this direction? Neither do we. Lets consider real reasons for belief or non belief in a doctrine, and leave the finger pointing out, OK? That’s per Bruce’s rule on Bruce’s blog, but I agree that is a good rule. The reason for this rule is twofold: you get into areas of accusation rather than discourse (which becomes increasingly hostile), and it has only been covered about 50 gazillion times before -it is a tiresomely familiar theme theists use to try to talk about something else besides the cogency of his arguments.

      • Ftp565

        After reading what I wrote I can see where it can seem that I’m trying to bring it all to a more personal nature than it should go.  Not my point at all.  From a behavioral point of view in the realm of Psychology.  Could I have been conditioned into believing what I believe, yes.  I think that how we develop is more than just CS-US pairings, but there is a lot that the behavioral view of Psychology contributed to understanding how we act and behave.  So, no, I don’t mind going there and talking about it from my perspective, but my point was trying to make sure that in such discussions, it’s much better to think about things from outside of ourselves and personal feelings.  I become wary when people are out to disprove Christianity only.  Just like I am wary when Christians do the same.  It’s at that point that listening and openness end and what we can learn from each other becomes moot and pointless.

        I can see your point Bruce that Christianity is still the dominant belief in the United States.  However, there is an increasingly growing Muslim population and there is a stronger Jewish presence in the United States as well, among many other religious types of faith.  Even a new-age belief in Spirituality is increasing.  But I too wouldn’t want to venture out and go through all of that since that would be long and drawn out more so then what this sort of discussion already does.  I’m not going to ask you to be so specific in everything.  The point that I was trying to get at was that this sort of statement about no Christian Bible = no Christian God goes further beyond Christianity here; it is also a statement that is inclusive of the three faith traditions; such a statement goes beyond just the Christian God and the Christian Bible.

        I was just wondering what was up with the language of “Christian Bible” and “Christian God” that pervades most of your ponderings.  I was wondering if it was stemming from your personal experience as in it’s what you know best (I’m not going to rant too much on Islam, Hindu, or Jewish beliefs because I don’t know it as well as I know Christianity) as you specified in your response or if there was a personal vendetta behind it.  That’s basically all I was trying to find out.

        Trust me, I don’t want to go to Siberia…it’s cold there. :D   I know that going into the personal evokes attacks either from one side or the other, and I want to avoid that.  Keep it about I’d say the facts but it’s religion we’re talking about here, but I hope you know where I’m going.

        • Discordia

          I was just wondering what was up with the language of “Christian Bible” and “Christian God” that pervades most of your ponderings.  
          I would imagine it has something to do with the fact that we are EX-Christians and not Ex Buddhists or Ex Muslims or Ex Jews and that Christianity is the prevalent religion in the USA.  And probably because Christian fundies are wanting to make federal laws supporting their belief system to force it upon other American citizens in blatant disregard for the separation of Church And State that was written INTO the Constitution.  I haven’t heard of people screaming about how America is an Islamic nation or a Buddhist nation or a Hindu nation or a Native American Spiritualism nation or a Humanistic nation. 

          • Ftp565

            I agree with you on Separation of Church and State by the way.  The church should not dictate the way in which the government and her laws are made in the same way the government should not dictate the ways in which the churches should perform (unless they are breaking said laws).  I’m sure most of us would expect those practicing child sacrifice to be arrested, tried, and sent to jail.  Other than that, the church has no business trying to convince government to put laws in place to stop such things such as “gay marriage,” and the government should have no business telling churches that they should or should not perform “gay marriages”…Wanted to use one of the more “controversial” issues that has seen the Christian Church trying to do such a thing.

          • Jim Jones

            New Zealand did it better. The state registers domestic partners, hetero or homo, and churches perform marriages and own the term.

          • Discordia

            I’ve not heard of the Feds telling churches that they HAVE to perform gay marriages… but I HAVE heard of the Feds telling churches that are receiving Federal funding that if a gay couple wants to use church grounds for their marriage then the church HAS to allow it.  In other words, if the First Self-righteous Church is getting public money by way of Federal funding then the First Self-righteous Church has absolutely NO right to exclude any members of the tax-paying public from using any structure built by those tax dollars.  I think the case in question was a church had gotten Federal dollars to build a structure OR was getting some sort of tax write off for said structure if they allowed it to be used by the public and then they refused to allow a gay couple to get married in that structure, which is quite discriminatory.  If the church had used their own money for that outbuilding (or weren’t getting a tax write-off on it) then there would have been no problem but it was PUBLIC money involved instead of private money, they didn’t have a leg to stand on.

            Remember The Citadel getting all those public tax dollars and then telling tax-paying females they couldn’t become students and THEN getting told by the courts to STFU and let the girls in because tax-dollars from those girls was supporting that college?  It’s just like that with churches getting public money.  If they don’t want the Feds in their business, then they need to keep their grubby hands out of taxpayer pockets.

          • Jim Jones

            ?? Which churches get federal subsidies? AFAIK only under Bush were they getting money and allegedly that was for some sort of “social services” – like Bachmann’s “definitely not gay” husband and his de-gaying business.

          • Ftp565

            Definitely agreed.  If a church uses federal or state funding to build or operate their facilities they are no longer agreeing to be a private, religious institution and should expect to follow federal/state guidelines.

            That being said, I don’t think that should be the case.  I am a fan of a totally separate church and state.  The state should stay out of the church affairs and the church out of the state affairs.  (Of course I’m not saying church/religious members can’t vote, but I am saying that the church itself should stay out of politics).  I will not promote/communicate my political beliefs from the pulpit nor endorse public policy as a member of the church.  There was a reason our founding fathers wanted it that way, and I agree it’s a good policy.  I know that people who are religious will vote certain ways; I just those ways would be about the issues and not the religious affiliation of the politicians.  However, THIS is a lofty dream that I am sure I will never see in my lifetime.  As I said before, I have met plenty of nontheists and people of other faith traditions that, in my opinion, make better “Christians” then some Christians I know.  Also, I have met some that would make a better politician/congressperson/president too!

    • Discordia

      One may begin to think that by your insistence of the existence of God that you are too intellectually and emotionally immature to face reality on your own. 

      Bruce is right, dude.  You don’t want to ride that train.

      • Ftp565

        You forgot to mention that I could be too scared to.  Nontheists are just as happy not believing that there is an afterlife; that this life is it.  After this there is nothing but…well…nothing.  So much, it’s even hard for me to grasp since all I know is existence in my experiences; I can’t even begin to comprehend non-existence, but of course, at that point it won’t matter.  It will just be the end.  So it may not even be intellectual or emotional immaturity; it could be just fear.  After all it’s the biggest driving force to convince us to do irrational things.  Look at the decisions Americans allowed/asked the government to make after 9/11.  The most effective ad campaigns involve fear with a way to avoid the things that we are fearful of.

        I do realize that there is the possibility that I have other rationals behind my faith and belief in the God of the Bible and the Jesus of the New Testament.  At the same time I believe that God has worked in my life and in the lives of so many other people.  And it seems that Bruce was at the place once where I’m at now.  As time progresses will I come to the same conclusions Bruce has come to in the wisdom that life can bring?  Possibly, but only time will tell on that one.  From where I am at I don’t see myself coming to that conclusion, but life happens and time changes things.

        • Discordia

          OMFG I am so NOT happy about there NOT being an afterlife.  Do you have any idea how very much I was looking forward to being able to visit all those places that Hubble has taken pictures of or being able to learn everything about the universe and everything about all the living things on Earth?  ANY clue at all?  Can you imagine how royally pissed off I am that I have just this one life to learn everything I can (which is nothing compared to what I WANT to know) and how fucking furious I am that I won’t live to see viable space travel?  While it pained me to see how humans are fucking up the entire planet, I had the belief that one day God would come and fix Earth and return it to it’s once pristine condition and people would live WITH the planet instead of against it.  Now THAT one assurance is long gone and all there is to hope for is that humanity will pull its collective head OUT of its collective ass before its too late and start fixing the planet before Earth is fucked beyond all recognition…. and I don’t have much faith in humanity any more.  I should be delighted to be proven wrong on that count but …. well…. 

          I am sure I’ve made it obvious that I don’t believe because I have not seen any logical reason to have faith.  I used to believe but it all fell apart when I started asking questions so I had no choice but to stop believing and I cannot believe in something that makes absolutely NO sense to me.  I had as well continue to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny as believe in God and Jesus.

          As long as you don’t try to stuff your beliefs down my or anyone else’s throat then your religion is your business.  While part of me thinks it is exceptionally stupid for people to believe in something that isn’t real, I can’t help but hope you never lose your faith as it is a very painful and very distressing experience and you seem too nice of a person for me to wish that experience on… except it pains me to see you living in what I think is a delusion.  Well, I hope you live in happiness with your faith and if you ever lose your faith, you know exactly where to find people who know precisely how it feels.

          xoxo

          • Ftp565

            Don’t worry about the stuffing part (unless it’s Chicken StoveTop; I love the stuff).  I don’t mind sharing my beliefs and getting a chance to examine them deeper.  Why do I believe this stuff; what are the valid arguments against it; where is my thinking at within the response?  Am I just a poster boy for Cognitive Dissonance? (Which is where we experience a crises of what we believe and we do one of two things to resolve the crises. 1) To adjust our views to make it more in line with what we were thinking to begin with or 2) to change our beliefs entirely).  The Heaven’s Gate Cult and their telescope would be an example of Cognitive Dissonance at work.  However, whatever my beliefs are, I never would want to force anyone to believe what I do.  I don’t mind debate because I honestly find it fun, but I never expect to change anyone’s minds due to debate.  One, I don’t think I have it all figured out, and I’m sure to have messed some of it up along the way, and two what you believe is what you believe.  I wouldn’t want that done to me; so why should I do it to you?

            Plus, you all are too cool to do that to :)

      • Ftp565

        You forgot to mention that I could be too scared to.  Nontheists are just as happy not believing that there is an afterlife; that this life is it.  After this there is nothing but…well…nothing.  So much, it’s even hard for me to grasp since all I know is existence in my experiences; I can’t even begin to comprehend non-existence, but of course, at that point it won’t matter.  It will just be the end.  So it may not even be intellectual or emotional immaturity; it could be just fear.  After all it’s the biggest driving force to convince us to do irrational things.  Look at the decisions Americans allowed/asked the government to make after 9/11.  The most effective ad campaigns involve fear with a way to avoid the things that we are fearful of.

        I do realize that there is the possibility that I have other rationals behind my faith and belief in the God of the Bible and the Jesus of the New Testament.  At the same time I believe that God has worked in my life and in the lives of so many other people.  And it seems that Bruce was at the place once where I’m at now.  As time progresses will I come to the same conclusions Bruce has come to in the wisdom that life can bring?  Possibly, but only time will tell on that one.  From where I am at I don’t see myself coming to that conclusion, but life happens and time changes things.

  • http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/ Rethafaurie

    Without even reading all comments, the article completely misses the point. To the Christian, God’s biggest revelation was through His son, Jesus. An article of this nature, without taking Jesus head on, is written by someone who don’t have the ability or knowledge to take Christianity head-on.

    (No, I am too lazy to argue with those who want to say He never existed. There is a reason why Simon Greenleaf, Dane professor of law at Harvard, and writer of handbooks on what constitutes evidence, found the evidence for Christ absolutely convincing. My point is not whether He lived.)

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      Really? Really? Why of course, John Boy, I am just an ignorant hick that never studied the Bible a day in my life. I just wrote article without knowing anything about Jesus.What wuz I thinking.

      Or, you are too lazy, as you have admitted, to find out anything out who wrote this.

      The BEST that history can do is tell us a man named Jesus existed. The Jesus that is God, the son of God, Son of Man, virgin born, eternally existent, creator, crucified and resurrected is revealed in the Bible. No Bible=No Jesus.

      The Bible has always been essential to the revelation of Jesus to man. God’s way, last I checked.

      • Ftp565

        Are you saying that the only evidence that Jesus ever existed is solely from biblical account?  Or are you saying that Jesus as what is portrayed as in the Bible the Jesus that never existed (i.e. Jesus as the son of God)?

        • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

          I think there is sufficient evidence to say that a man named Jesus lived in Palestine at the time of the New Testament. I know Jim Jones disagrees with me on this. But, hey…Bart Ehrman agrees with me. :)

          The Jesus of the Bible with all his attendant attributes? I don’t think that Jesus ever existed. The very fact that Christians were arguing, debating, and killing one another, 300 years after Jesus’ death, over whether of not Jesus was God, is quite telling. It seems to me that it should have been quite evident to all Christians everywhere that Jesus was God. Surely, on that one issue the evidence would not be ambiguous or lacking.Yet, they fought one another over this issue. Are we in a better position 1700 hundred years after the fact to be more precise on this issue than people who lived much closer to the actual time of the Bible accounts of Jesus?

          Christians accept as fact many things that are hardly so. They are ignorant of their religion’s history. The Arian controversy in the fourth century…..what if the Arians were right? Mormons would then be the orthodox ones, yes? What if any of the other sects declared heretical were actually true Christianity? Maybe all the books that didn’t make into the canon should have been part of the Bible. They tell us a much different story of a man named Jesus.

          So…on one hand there is all kinds of “evidence” but Christians seem to ignore a good bit of it. They embrace what is called orthodoxy without ever considering that what is called orthodoxy may actually be heresy. I am not claiming it is. I am just suggesting that there is a lot of evidence, but that only certain parts of the evidence are accepted by Christians.(those parts that fit the official storyline. And yes, atheists can do the same) :)

          Bruce

          • Jim Jones

            “I think there is sufficient evidence to say that a man named Jesus lived in Palestine at the time of the New Testament. I know Jim Jones disagrees with me on this. But, hey…Bart Ehrman agrees with me. :)  ”

            So does Michael Baigent! I’m not sure that helps! ;P

            But FWIW, I found the Gospel of Thomas more convincing than the canonical gospels. I might accept a walking Jesus based on that – but then I might have to accept Robin Hood as well.

          • Ftp565

            You would have a lot of support in that from the Jesus Seminar movement.  I don’t agree with them on that, but they agree with you in the regard that the Gospel of Thomas is the most accurate Gospel.

          • Ftp565

            Thanks for the clarification.  I have to admit that I have taken the time to read these early church authors.  For the record, the spinning around that the writings take around themselves made me dizzy after a while.  It is an interesting question whether or not the different groups that were deemed heretical by the early church were right or not.  Of course we will never really know the truth unless God comes down to clarify it all.  But how should God come down so that we will all be in agreement that it’s God?

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            I agree with what you said here Bruce. We Christians should never settle for a second hand faith. It is not for the Christian to be complacent in his/her views. We should never be afraid to look back at the ugly part of our history so that we may become more informed in our faith.

            I think its bad enough that humanity in general tends to gloss over our own ugly moments in history to suit their own needs. After all, History is written by whoever is victorious right? :-)

        • Jim Jones

          “Are you saying that the only evidence that Jesus ever existed is solely from biblical account?  Or are you saying that Jesus as what is portrayed as in the Bible the Jesus that never existed (i.e. Jesus as the son of God)?”

          Both. And I am also saying that the only evidence Harry Potter, boy wizard, ever existed is solely from the books and movies and I am saying that Harry Potter as portrayed in those novels never existed. Can you explain why I shouldn’t treat both Jesus and Harry Potter as fiction?

          • Discordia

            HEY DUDE!

            I have a real, live Harry Potter action figure with a wand and a vibrating Nimbus 2000 and even a kung-fu grip….(which may be related to that Numbuis 2000 in some way that doesn’t bear thinking about.)

            Anyway, that’s all the evidence that HP is a real boy and not a puppet made by a cobbler who made a wish after riding to a dance in a pumpkin that was parked under a giant beanstalk that… wait a minute… who stole my genie bottle???

            Drat… there goes the proof….

    • Jim Jones

      “There is a reason why Simon Greenleaf, Dane professor of law at Harvard, and writer of handbooks on what constitutes evidence, found the evidence for Christ absolutely convincing.”

      “Simon Greenleaf (December 5, 1783 – October 6, 1853), born at Newburyport, Massachusetts.”

      And you are surprised that he believed in Jesus? He lived through the times of Joseph Smith and close to the
      “Burned-over district”, hardly a skeptical time and place. You must be desperate to go to such a source!

  • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

    “The Bible is the glue that holds the Christian church together. However,
    if we can not trust it to get the God question right can we really
    trust anything else it says?”

    This is why I get so frustrated with “progressive” Christians. Like the fundamentalists they claim to be so different from, they pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to take literally and which parts are to be taken as metaphor. At least in the case of fundamentalists, an argument can be made that their belief system is more internally consistent than that of liberal-progressive Christians.

    • Ftp565

       You see, here’s the difference in my mind.  I see a view of God that is portrayed through people’s experience of God in the Bible.  I don’t pick and choose that view, it’s what I can see in the texts starting in Genesis carried through to Revelation in the Christian Bible.  However, I am also realistic that we all are human and any way to try and make gains in any way, shape, or form for us we will take, and I feel that there are places where this happened in the Bible.  There are parts of the Bible that I read that I am uncomfortable with not because it tries to justify things such as rape or murder when the rest of the texts appear to speak out about it from God’s perspective, but I also have trouble with certain texts because it makes me uncomfortable to live them out because a lot of times it’s not what I want to do.  However, I try to live by what is written because I can see how it can help make this world a better place, and that’s where my true desire is.  I don’t live up to it, but I try.

      • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

        “However, I try to live by what is written because I can see how it can help make this world a better place,…”

        If you truly believe the world is a better place because of the Bible you are nothing short of delusional. I applaud your stated desire to do good, but we’re too far apart in our understanding of reality to have any meaningful exchange.

        • Ftp565

          I don’t think the world is a better place because of the Bible.  I think the Bible gives a story about a God who is trying to work with humanity to make the world a better place.  This comes in with the theological notion that humanity in their own desire to serve themselves kicked God out of the world when God was hoping for a partnership.  Yes, we are very far apart in our understanding of the world and how it works, but if we have the same desire (to leave this world in a better place than where it was at when we got here) then why can’t we work together to achieve the same goal?

      • Discordia

        You should not NEED religion to make an effort to leave the world a better place then when you found it.

        • Ftp565

          Agreed

  • Christopher Patrick Aro

    Hi Bruce! Happy New Year to you and your family! :-)

    Now this is one very interesting article you’ve written! Chimes in perfectly well with what I’ve been writing in my own blog as well. You haven’t been peeking on me have you? :-D

    You make very convincing arguments for why a Christian should ask him/herself whether the God he/she believes in is actually who God is (or at the very least, the same God that Christianity posits Him to be).

    I think no one will argue that the basic difficulty in determining anything in this plane of existence is that we cannot help but be subjective in our assessments. Its just the way we are, being individuals and all.

    So to answer one of your questions, I highly doubt that if you put all of us Christians together you would get a 100 percent common description of who we think God is. This is nothing unexpected.

    Let me try explaining this in a scientific manner.

    The laws of physics state that matter cannot occupy the same space with other matter at the same time.

    Now, if I, a being consisting of matter, occupy a particular space with which to view something, let’s say a tree, then according to the laws of physics, NOBODY else can see EXACTLY what I see at that time because they would be unable to see it exactly from my perspective.

    Even if another person were to take my exact place after I leave, they STILL would not see exactly what I saw because TIME has already passed. What I saw at 8:30 is still different from what another person saw a few seconds later.

    What this means basically is that there is no way for ANYONE to get a 100 percent consensus on ANYTHING, let alone religion.

    To put it rather bluntly Bruce, I could ask the same question you asked to non-theists, and the laws of physics practically ASSURES that I would get answers as varied as you’d receive from any group of Christians. :-)

    Nevertheless, it DOES bear significance for those who profess to follow the Christian faith to constantly ask themselves whether they really are fully convinced that the God they follow is who God actually is.

    I would think the same goes for non-theists. Non-theists should not stop questioning themselves whether their decision to reject the idea of a creator of the universe actually reflects ultimate reality.

    After all, we’re all only human. :-)

    • Discordia

      Ha.  I like it when people try to use science to prove fantasy is real.

      In the real world, science can be used to prove or to disprove hypotheses.  In fantasy-land, conformational bias is used to support beliefs.
      In the real world, science is used successfully to treat such illnesses as pneumonia.  In fantasy-land, people prefer to pray away such things as pneumonia … and it works if you count the death of the patient as a successful cure, like the success prayer has with cancer or the depression or traumatic injuries or anything else.  The scientific method has a verifiable success rate.  Prayer has a verifiable failure rate.

      As far as you tree analogy goes… not too good.  The next person who looks at your tree will see the same tree, as will everyone after the 2nd person because the tree will remain whatever species it is and whatever shape it is (assuming no influence from outside forces, such as tornadoes or chainsaws).  It will not have mysteriously changed from a sprawling 400 year old live oak to a 5 year old ficus trained into a 8″ bonsai.  I can post of Facebook the geocache coordinates of said tree so anyone who cares to go see it will see it and it will still be the same oak at N xxxx by W xxxx.  

      However, religion changes on almost a daily basis.  The Angel Oak, a Southern Live Oak near Charleston, SC is estimated to be 1500 years old.   When the Angel Oak first started to grow, Christianity was just starting to spread and had its first official canon decided by a group that became the Holy Roman Catholic Church. That particular religion has now split into at least 33,000 different denominations.  The RCC of today is not the RCC of 600 years ago when witch-hunting was a popular sport.  The RCC of today accepts that Earth orbits the sun, unlike the RCC of 400 years ago.  Churches used to keep women silent while today churches have women leading them.

      Religion has changed and continues to change to suit the wishes of anyone who wants something different.  The Angel Oak is still the Angel Oak.  It has not changed in 1500 years except to grow bigger and older.  I can ask 100 physicists in any part of the world how fast a basketball dropped from 100 feet will be falling when it hits the ground if the gravity is at X and I can get the same answer.  If I ask 100 religious leaders in any part of the world what the path to eternal happiness is, I will get 100 different answers.

       Between the fantasy of changing-at-a-whim religion and hard-fact science, I will take the science any day.  

      • Ftp565

         Us in “fantasy land” pray for the people treating the pneumonia in the hopes that God would work through the physicians to bring about a cure.  When it comes to a point when a doctor says that there is no cure, then we pray that the person is cured.  Wanted to clarify…

        • Discordia

          No.  Praying for a cure means that you don’t bother with those silly old doctors in the first place.  God Almighty shouldn’t NEED to use a fallible, imperfect HUMAN to do a bit of healing.  In fact, if Christians are praying for the constant health and well-being of all their friends and family, none of the should be getting sick to start with.

          After all, if true believers are supposed to do greater miracles than Jesus, according to Jesus, then why is any Christian EVER sick?  I would think that curing cancer would qualify as a lesser miracle than raising the dead yet you lot can’t even handle that.

          • Ftp565

            I hold the belief that God gives us gifts to do what is right and good in the world, and in a world where disease, sickness, and death occur; the gift of healing that doctors provide through their care is just that.  Just because God chooses to do work through people doesn’t mean God’s not part of the healing.  I would also argue that those who have been suffering from disease and die from it also get the healing that was prayed for.  Sometimes people pray for healing hoping for a cure.  If there’s a belief that this is it, then it’s a wasted prayer and there is no healing in death.  However, for those of us that believe there is an after-life I carry the hope that they get to experience what it’s like to live without the pain that some have lived with for so long.

            For the record, there are Christians that have been cured of cancer.  There are also Christians who have not.  The question should be more, why do some get cured and others don’t.  You can attribute to treatment, and again I would point out that the doctors definitely played a role, but what about those who are left to die but are cured.  There are people like that.  And going back to the early church, it was the Christians who exposed themselves to disease that developed immunities who survived many of the sicknesses.  It was the Christians who cared more for the sick and dying and sat with them when no one else would go near them.  You can use the science to say that their gradual contact with the disease helped the body build antibodies, and one could even say that God was there protecting them.  It comes from a matter of belief.

            By the way, with the technology that is being developed, the deaf are being able to hear.  In the biblical accounts God worked through Moses (in fact he was the only one who communicated with God), the prophets, kings such as David, prostitutes, widows, connivers, and so many other people; why wouldn’t I fall under the belief that God can work through doctors?

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Ah, I have to disagree with you again on this point.

            While I agree with you that the Christian God DOES NOT need humans to carry out His work on this planet, that does not in any way limit Him from ACTUALLY USING humans for His purposes. His decision to do so does not diminish His Godhood in any way in my opinion. That only goes to show His mercy and love for His creations that even in their fallen condition, He still uses them for His good purposes.

            And about your next point: being a Christian DOES NOT EXCEMPT me from being subject to the instruments of God’s wrath in this plane of existence (sickness and death being some of them). I could be stricken with cancer tomorrow and God would still be justified in doing so because I AM A SINNER just like everyone else.

            The only thing that would keep me from falling into despair is God’s promise that He’ll raise me up on the last day for believing in Him. I think this is what sustains a lot of Christians in this continuing age of human suffering and disbelief.

            If you don’t believe in that, that’s perfectly fine. I have absolutely no reason to condemn you. Belief is a matter of choice after all. And we are each individually responsible for the choices that we make in life.

            Does that mean I’ll stop being friends with Bruce? Nope. He’s been a good friend to me. And I hope I’ll continue to be a good friend to him.

            Does that also mean I can’t ask to be your friend as well? (I am asking by the way). I hope not. But again that’s a matter of choice for you. I wouldn’t condemn you for choosing not to be friends, although as I’ve told Bruce, I could be a really good person to be friends with if you give me a chance. ;-)

      • Christopher Patrick Aro

        Hello Discordia! Nice to meet you! Thanks for you comment!

        I hope you won’t mind that I will reply to your post, seeing as Bruce was kind enough to have both our posts cleared for uploading on his blogsite (thanks Bruce! I agree with the pre-screening requirement by the way. Helps for you to keep things under control and focused. :-) )

        Anyway, back to Discordia’s argument against “my tree analogy.”

        With all due respect, I think you’ve confused matter “per se” with the “classification” of matter.

        I was speaking of the tree in terms of its material configuration, which science will tell you, is ALWAYS changing (being a biological construct and being constantly affected by time and the environment. Just as we humans are). I was not speaking of it in terms of it changing its material classification as a tree.

        Of course people will say that they see the same tree (unless one of them says he/she sees something else entirely. But that’s for a different subject matter altogether). What I was referring to was the fact that it would be IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE to see the tree EXACTLY AS I SEE IT at any given moment, since it is impossible for two living human beings to physically occupy the same space at the same time. 

        So it possible to see the exact same tree? Yes. Is it possible to have the exact same PERSPECTIVE of the tree? Nope.

        I see reality as having a God. Bruce (and I assume yourself) sees reality as NOT having a God. Do we all occupy the same physical reality? Yes. Do we have the same PERSPECTIVE of that reality? Nope. :-)

        Oh, and about your comment about the Roman Catholic Church of today not having the same exact viewpoint 600 years ago? Well, guess what: the non-theist movement of today ISN’T THE SAME as it was 600 years ago either. :-)

        And just in case you put forth an argument saying that non-theists have ALWAYS agreed that there is no god, the Christian movement, despite their varied denominations, ALSO have consistently agreed that there IS a God.

        I like your statement where you said you’ll take science any day. Does that mean that once science acknowledges the existence of a Creator, you would believe in a god?

        Or will you choose not to believe in science anymore? Just curious.

        Food for thought: even though scientists would all agree that a ball falling from 100 feet will be traveling at 9.6 meters per second squared or approximately 29.52 feet per second squared in the Earth’s gravitational field, I doubt that those same scientists would still give you a consistent answer if you ask them WHY there is a law of gravity in the first place.

        Lastly, on the subject of prayer. Prayer was not meant to compete with the physical laws of the universe. And the Christian Bible does say that prayers DO fail. So I don’t think its proper to dismiss religion on the basis of the failure rate of prayer.

        After all, just because humans failed so many times trying to create a machine that could fly, doesn’t mean that its IMPOSSIBLE to create a machine that can fly right? ;-)

        • Ftp565

          Just a side note: the early Christians were called atheists by the Romans…so were the Jews.

        • Discordia

          “Prayer was not meant to compete with the physical laws of the universe.”
          Oh really? Since when?  So what about that crap Jesus was spouting about having enough faith to move mountains and bring the dead back to life?  Did you know that a “miracle” is something that happens that has no natural, scientific explanation?  Obviously not as you claim that prayer doesn’t compete with the physical laws of the universe.

          Your are splitting hairs.  That’s cool.  I can do it too.  The tree you were looking was changing the entire time you were looking at it so even it wasn’t the same tree from start to finish.  You aren’t the same person you were five minutes ago.  Except that your DNA hasn’t changed.  Nor has the tree’s.  Come to think of it, no one should be sent to hell by God since they aren’t the person who sinned five minutes ago by lusting after the neighbor.   I like that idea.  You should tell the Supreme Court that since life is always changing and no one is the person they were even 5 minutes ago, that no one can be tried for any crime at all since they aren’t the same person that committed the crime.   Deadbeat dads should not be held liable for child support because they weren’t the same person who got that woman pregnant.  Same for murderers and rapists and thieves and pedophiles and drug dealers.  They aren’t the same people so let’s just open up the prisons and let them all out, why don’t we?  Since they aren’t the same people then it is NOT fair to keep them locked up.

          Religion from god is supposed to be unchanging just like God… yet religion and your holy book and your God KEEP changing.  There are more humans doing more “evil in God’s eyes” now than there were 2000 years ago yet God has yet to hand down judgment like He used to back in the good old days when there weren’t credible observers to record all His miracles.  No pillars of fire, no plagues, no emerods springing up on everyone.  No flies, no boils, no frogs, no mass hailstorms.  Shit, there isn’t even a flakes of manna falling from the skies to feed those starving people in Africa.  No one being raised from the dead after three days or even one day.  No blind people getting their sight back, no deaf people suddenly getting their hearing.  No Red Sea being parted.  Oh wait… none of those things could have happened because they go against natural laws.  So we should edit the bible and remove everything that goes against natural laws and see what the end result is.  My guess would be a pamphlet.

          “I like your statement where you said you’ll take science any day. Does that mean that once science acknowledges the existence of a Creator, you would believe in a god?”

          Yes it does.  Give me verifiable and falsifiable PROOF of a god and I will believe one exists.  But the existence of A god doesn’t mean it would be YOUR god. 

           ”So I don’t think its proper to dismiss religion on the basis of the failure rate of prayer.”

          If the religion in question is claiming that Jesus answers prayers and that prayer works, then you’re damned skippy I feel justified in judging it by the results of prayer.  Do you not judge anything else by its results?  If you buy a microwave oven, take it home, plug it in and attempt to cook something in it according to manufacturers directions and the oven doesn’t work even when you try it 10 times, do you keep it or exchange it for something that actually works like it is supposed to?

          The only consistent thing about religion is that it fails to deliver.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Hello again Discordia!

            To answer your points:

            1) Prayer is different from a miracle. While prayer can produce a miracle, the prayer itself is NOT the miracle. Just because you claim that a miracle has no scientific basis means that the prayer that produced it doesn’t as well. Its easy to prove why people pray. They pray when they have no hope. They pray when things are beyond their control. Science will show you that a lot of people pray all the time.

            2) Uh, I didn’t mean to split hairs. I was just trying to clarify where I was coming from with the tree analogy. Sorry if that offended you. Nevertheless, I have to respectfully disagree with the conclusions you’ve drawn from my argument. After all, it wouldn’t make sense for me to answer your post if you were not the same person who answered mine earlier. :-) The only point I was trying to make was that it is impossible for two people to ever completely agree with one another on anything.

            3) Religion is NOT God. Religion is the worship of God. Worship allows for individuality and change. I find it more glorifying to God for Him to be worshipped in unique ways as each individual He created is unique. That being said, I agree with you that for God to exist, He has to be unchanging. For one to accept that part requires faith, just like believing (or not believing) in God requires faith. As Bruce once said to me, we cannot be absolutely certain on the God issue. And for me, this works just fine, since faith is believing in what you do not see. :-) (And if you say that living in faith is foolishness, please see my reply to Mr. Jones above explaining why I think faith is a pre-requisite to living in this world.)

            4) Yes, I realize that just because Anthony Flew became a deist, that doesn’t mean he believes in the Christian God. I just wanted to make sure that your faith in science is based on the evidence that science presents, and not just because science conveniently agrees with your own views on life. No problems here. :-)

            5) I agree with you that the ends does not justify the means. Just because prayers from a particular religion work, doesn’t mean that that religion is justified. What justifies religion is how well it helps one accurately interpret reality in a way that helps its believer to progress in life. A religion that preaches for you to sacrifice your baby to a blazing hot bronze idol will not get you very far in life now would it? :-)

            6) Finally, I’m afraid you’ve jumped to a conclusion by saying that religion fails to deliver. Maybe it would be more accurate for you to say that religion failed to deliver its promises to YOU. I believe this is a perfectly normal human reaction to any religion. I know this because earlier in my life, I made the same conclusions about Christianity. But I’m a believer now. Should I be punished for revising my views on life?

            Like you, I would like to believe that I follow the evidence where it will lead me. And the events that happened in my life led me to Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christianity. As far as I’m concerned, Christianity works just fine in my life.

            Now that does not in any way mean that I disapprove of your decision not to believe at this time. I would be a hypocrite to do so. Our differing views on life only proves the point that as individual human beings, we would not be able to completely agree with one another unless something external to human beings show us otherwise. :-)

            BTW, I read in your tag that you’re a gamer. Xbot or PSucker? :-) I have a PSN gamertag myself. What games do you play? 

          • Discordia

            1) Of course praying isn’t a miracle.  Anyone can talk to themselves or to a wall and expect an answer.

            2) Well, if I agree that it is impossible to agree then I have agreed and therefore it IS possible for two people to agree.  So I agree.

            3) Faith is not a prerequisite for living here, else EVERYONE would be born a believer instead of having to be indoctrinated into the local faith.  And if a perfect and unchanging God sets the standards for His worship, why do those standards change on an almost yearly basis?  A perfect and Unchanging God has followers from 33,000 different sects of Christianity and Christians want to claim they have The Truth?  If two people witness ONE event, say a vehicle swerves and hits an object and when questioned, the first says a blue truck swerved and hit a light post and the second says a white car swerves and hits a store, then it should be pretty freaking obvious one of them is lying.  And here Christians are with thirty-three thousand variations of the same story and more coming into the game every day.  Who is telling the truth?  I’d have to say none of them are.  There are not 33,000 variations of the Theory of Gravity.  Same theory applies anywhere you go on Earth.  So if God’s truth is supposed to be GREATER than man’s truth, then why are there so 33,000 variations of God’s truth and just one Theory of Gravity?

            4) I couldn’t give two shits about who became a deist.  That is their journey, not mine.  I have tested religion and prayed to God and Jesus for help on a family issue and I never EVER got the help I was promised.  I prayed for years on this and the only thing that changed was that the situation became worse.  As far as I am concerned, God and Jesus had their chance and they dropped the ball–mainly because they were never there to catch it.  My life has improved drastically since I have left religion and the belief in sky-fairies.

            5) A religion that tells you that it’s OK to sell your daughters into sexual slavery and that bashing your enemies’ infants heads against rocks is a good thing is also not a religion worth following.  As far as accurately interpreting reality, how real is it to claim that dead people rise from the grave and live again?  How realistic is it to believe that putting sheep and goats in a pen where they can look at striped poles while mating will result in striped offspring?  ( I would LOVE to have a goat with candy cane stripes)  How realistic is it to claim that rabbits chew cud?

            6) I have not jumped to a conclusion about the failure of religion.  From where I and quite a number of other people are standing, religion fails every day.  And please don’t blame it on people being human.  If the claims of religion were indeed factual then those humans in religion would not be failing.  Priests would not be raping children, pastors would not be embezzling money, preachers would not be shagging people they are not married to and sanctimonious, judgmental assholes would not be coming to sites like these telling us how we are all going to hell and how they are going to enjoy watching us burn.  You should read some of the posts from True Believers on sites made for ex-christians and you would see the failure of religion and the non-power of God.  I would even go so far as to say that I think you would post in defense of us non-believers against such judgmental tripe.

            I am glad that Christianity works for you.  I hope it doesn’t warp you into one of those judgmental mo-fo’s who are doing nothing but validating every reason people like me have had to leave religion by being so hateful, intolerant, arrogant and spiteful that I tell them if Heaven is real and full of people like them then I am quite happy to take my chances in Hell.

            Gaming… oh dear.. is this something we will agree on?  ;)  Nah.  No way.  I am WAY too particular about my games for THAT to happen.  If there is a Hell, then I will be a quest giver and people will have to find/design a game for me that I will like and/or don’t already have.  Good luck with that.

            We have a PS3 that only knows what Skyrim looks like though it has a fading memory of Deus Ex, Resistance and New Vegas. We have a XBOX that I am playing Morrowind GOTY on because I can’t beat my husband away from the PS3 and a PS2 that we don’t currently use much.  I play D&D, several non-common board and card games (like Carcassonne and Fluxx and I used to play M:TG) and 2-3 MMOs.  Well, I don’t play the MMO’s now because I cannot build a good team because I am not on at the same time every day.  It’s frustrating.  The MMO’s force you into group play, meaning it is impossible to complete main quests solo, and I don’t like PUGs because I can’t trust that strangers will be doing their jobs in the group.  So, I play a handful of solo offline RPGs mostly and a couple of co-op shooters with my husband. No, I do NOT play WoW.  I don’t like PVP games.  I despise games that you have to buy AND pay a monthly fee to play.  Either let me buy the game and play for free or give me the game and limited content and have me pay for extras.

            Later!

          • Ftp565

            I have to agree with you on Skyrim.  It’s basically the only world my PS3 knows.  I’m around 200 hours into the game.  I actually decided to finally play some of the main quest on the game.  I just got an XBox for Christmas, but that’s because my fiancee likes the Kinect, and so that’s her gift.  When she makes it over to my place; that’s what we usually play.  I have Deus-Ex, but I didn’t get a chance to even play it before I got Skyrim; so it’ll have to wait some more.  I got involved in playing Team Fortress 2 on the PC, but I haven’t ventured into playing that in about six months.  I also have the Wii, and I have the new Zelda game which is still waiting for me to be done with Skyrim.

            As for the laws of gravity…”Please, I’m a horse” (reference for in the world of Skyrim)

          • Discordia

            I just found out today that you can beat the main quest and still do all the side quests afterwards!!!!  I’d have a go at that but my husband is on the PS3 so I will soon be back on Morrowind.  At least I can levitate there… and get some constant Chameleon effects going.  And make my own spells.  Not as cool as Shouting a dragon out of the sky but I will take what I can get.  :(

          • Ftp565

            SWEET!  I’ll have to keep that in mind…I am at level 54 right now; I’m sure it’s high enough to beat the game.  And shouting a dragon out of the sky is fun as long as the dragon isn’t on a “fast as fast can be, you’ll never catch me,” glitch.  Speaking of glitches I once fell through the floor of my house into the bottomless pit only to arrive once more on the second floor of my house (I fell through my floor when I got to the basement).

          • Discordia

            At level 54 I think you will find the end-game rather anti-climatic.

            Glitches… ever seen a dragon flying backwards?  That’s pretty freaky.

            If you want to talk gaming email me at spiteandlogic@gmail.com.  I don’t want to hog the forum with this stuff. :P

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Gasp! You’re a lady GAMER! And you play RPGs! Your husband is a very lucky man. :-)

            I’ve tried my best to convince my wife of the thrills of gaming, but all she would ever play is Text Twist, Bookworm and Sudoku. (Are those even really considered “games”?)

            I’m currently trying to finish Infamous and Killzone 3. Also trying to re-live the past with Xenogears on the PSP, after re-finishing Final Fantasies 7 and 8. Next up: Final Fantasy 9 (this one I’ve never played before. Was too cutsie for me when it came out during my college years). I won’t even begin touching Skyrim until I find the time to finish Oblivion once and for all. :-P

            My apologies Discordia. I should have jumped to this reply of yours before answering the ones further above. I think I understand you a bit better after your reply here. I hope you won’t take that as my trying to ”psych” you or anything.

            I’ll STFU with sharing my beliefs with you from now on.

            I still hope you’ll consider me as a friend though. Ever visited the Philippines?

          • Discordia

            I could never get into the FF games.  Too much jibber-jabbering.  I wanted to get into them but I just could not get around all the talking and cut-scenes which you either don’t have the option of skipping or if you DO skip them, you will miss valuable information for later quests.  Fifteen minutes into a game before I really get to start playing? No thanks. 

            Soduku is fun but I can’t see myself playing it for hours.  I’d rather play Pokemon TBH.  I do enjoy puzzle games.  See if your wife would like Puzzle Quest.  I’ve seen PC and DS versions of it.  It has some RPG as far as your toon goes, but the combat is you matching 3 or more to build up power for spells to stomp your opponent.

            LIke I told ftp565, if you want to talk games, email me at spiteandlogic at gmail dot com.  I don’t mind further chatting about religion but since we both agree that we will disagree I’d rather explore more common interests than common divisions.

            I’ve never visited the Philippines, no, but I could think of worse places to travel to…if I fancied flying across an ocean.

          • Discordia

            I could never get into the FF games.  Too much jibber-jabbering.  I wanted to get into them but I just could not get around all the talking and cut-scenes which you either don’t have the option of skipping or if you DO skip them, you will miss valuable information for later quests.  Fifteen minutes into a game before I really get to start playing? No thanks. 

            Soduku is fun but I can’t see myself playing it for hours.  I’d rather play Pokemon TBH.  I do enjoy puzzle games.  See if your wife would like Puzzle Quest.  I’ve seen PC and DS versions of it.  It has some RPG as far as your toon goes, but the combat is you matching 3 or more to build up power for spells to stomp your opponent.

            LIke I told ftp565, if you want to talk games, email me at spiteandlogic at gmail dot com.  I don’t mind further chatting about religion but since we both agree that we will disagree I’d rather explore more common interests than common divisions.

            I’ve never visited the Philippines, no, but I could think of worse places to travel to…if I fancied flying across an ocean.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Hehe, I understand your disinclination towards the FF games. It does take a while to get into their groove of play. I play them for the story as much as for the gameplay. Some people HATE the storyline of FF8. But my wife and I have a special place in our hearts for Squall and Rinoa. :-)

            I’ve heard about Puzzle Quest. It plays kinda like Bejeweled right? I’ll try and get a demo for my wife to play with, although she’ll rather spend time playing with and teaching my daughter.

            I asked about the Philippines because just in case you do decide to visit and don’t mind having a real life discussion about the follies of religious fanaticism (try looking up “Feast of the Black Nazarene”), then please don’t hesistate to look me up. :-) I work for the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila.

      • Jim Jones

        Indeed. One of these days there will be a cure for all cancers.

        Will it come from religion or from science?

        • Discordia

          Well, gee Jim, I hope I am not going out on a limb here, but I think I will have to go with B) Science.  *winks*  Final answer.  :D

        • Christopher Patrick Aro

          Well, how does science account for miraculous cases of remission and healing? My mother was diagnosed with stage three breast cancer over ten years ago. She lives everyday in faith that God is not yet through with her life. In contrast, she knows a friend who was also diagnosed with stage three breast cancer and died not too many years after.

          Just because science can’t explain it, doesn’t mean its not possible. It just simply means that the current level of our science is not sufficient to explain HOW its possible.

          Take the scientific view of a vacuum for example. Newtonian physics-based science would not be able to tell you that a vacuum is not really a vacuum. There is such a thing as negative energy particles at work on matter even within a vacuum.

          Oh, and lest we forget, in ancient times, there was almost no distinction between science and religion. They were oftentimes one and the same in many cultures. Science informs religion, while religion inspires science. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could find a way to reconcile the two once more? :-)

          • Discordia

            How does religion account for all the people who die from diseases and accidents every day?  Why does “God” save some people and let others die a lingering, miserable death?  

            As far as your mother goes, did she get any medical assistance or did God do it all by himself? If he can create the entire universe in a day I don’t see why healing a few million people with cancer WITHOUT medical intervention should pose such a challenge to Him.  Yet it does. In fact, I say that if it was a TRUE healing there should not have been a doctor involved at all and if there was, then it was medical science that healed your mother and not God.

            And what sort of loving, caring uber-being would GIVE people such a nasty and malicious disease to start with?  Would you do that to YOUR kids that YOU claim to love?

          • Jim Jones

            Forget cancer. Why did ‘god’ invent bedbugs?

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Interesting. Why bedbugs? I myself keep wondering why God made cockroaches. :-)

          • Jim Jones

            Cockroaches are actually useful in forests. However bedbugs have no known purpose except misery for humans, are hard to kill and spread far too easily.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            If that’s the case, why not ask why God created head lice? :-)

          • Jim Jones

            Head lice don’t come home in library books.

          • Ftp565

            What about ticks?  I hate those things!

          • Jim Jones

            I hate bedbugs more. They hunt you down when you’re asleep and suck your blood. They’re just nasty.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            You’re right. My mother had to go through several sessions of chemotherapy. So I cannot deny that a medical doctor was INDEED involved in the process. But see, her other friend underwent more or less the same treatments. How come my mother continues to survive, while her friend didn’t? Even a doctor would tell you that undergoing chemotheraphy does not guarantee healing. So medical science, for all the good it has done for humanity, is not really an exact science. On the contrary, it leaves a lot of room for chance. It just so happens that I call that “chance” God. :-)

            Are you married and with kids? Because I doubt if you’ll fully appreciate what I’m about to tell you if you aren’t.

            Parents discipline their children. Discipline hurts. It hurts because its meant to get your child’s attention. Because if it doesn’t, your child might end up with a much bigger hurt later on.

            What about death, you ask? Is that a form of “discipline” as well?

            Personally, I don’t know. I haven’t died yet you see. :-)

            But I do ride on the testimony of One who HAS died, and has come back to tell humanity about it. He tells me that if I believe in Him, I would be able to come back from the dead as well, along with others who believe in Him.

            Do you mind if ask you a personal question? What is it about Jesus Christ that you hate? Is He really such a hateful and despicable person? Or do you hate Him because of the attitude of some of His followers?

            If its the latter, than please believe me when I say that I understand you completely. I used to HATE Christians. Some of them can be really hateful people. But not all Christians are hateful my friend. I hope I can prove that to you someday.:-)

          • Discordia

            A bigger hurt…. what?  Bigger than the one that damns all of humanity to hell because great great great great all the way on back Grandmom Eve and Grandad Adam ate some fruit?  They stole apples and I am suppose to burn in hell for it?  Is that how you raise your kids?  Does your grandfather punish your kids for something your dad did when he was a little boy?

            God is a stupid parent and if you would read your bible with an eye towards how he is treating his kids that he is supposed to love you may begin to understand where I am (we are?) coming from.

            I don’t hate Jesus because I don’t believe Jesus is real. I don’t hate Loki or Zeus or Peter Rabbit for the same reason.  I have met nice Christians but most of the ones online are generally beneath contempt.  Fortunately, both you and ftp565 have been fun to argue with and have not, to the best of my knowledge, promised that you would be sure to have ringside seats to my visit to hell so you can laugh and spit in my face while I learn the joys of the rotisserie first-hand.  I wish I could say the same for other True Believers.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Okay Discordia, I get your point. No need to reply to me thrice in a row.:-)

            Thank you for not lumping me in with those people laughing and spiting on your face about Christianity. Believe me, I’ve met my fair share of them both before and after I became a believer. Please do let me know if I myself suddenly become Pharisaic in my own reasoning.

            If you have had a history of alcoholism in your family, wouldn’t you try your best to discipline your son or daugther away from that tendency, genetic that predisposition may be?

            Besides, in the real world, people DO get convicted for the sins of their parents. But it isn’t God that does the convicting. We humans do.

            If the son or daughter of the murderer of your loved one came to you to borrow money, would you lend it to him or her without a second thought? How about if the son or daughter of a serial killer asked to be your household help, would you hire him or her right away?

            I’m not saying I myself would do these things. It makes me no less of a sinner for pointing these things out.

            My point is that children DO bear the sins of their parents. And a good parent would try his or her absolute best not to pass any sins down onto their children.

            Oh, and discipline =/= punishment. Punishment only deals with a present offense. Discipline looks to avoid a greater offense in the future. I hope that clarifies a bit of my reasoning. :-)

          • Discordia

            EVIL DISQUS!!!!  :(
            That was supposed to be just one reply, not three.  I apologize for that.

            God does convict people for the sins of their parents which is what the whole Adam and Eve myth is about… how all humans became sinful failures.  

            And being a good parent, if my children were predisposed to alcoholism, I would keep them away from it and not emulate God.  Not only did God leave temptation where Adam and Eve could get to it, He went out of his way to point out the forbidden object, He left a babysitter that He already KNEW would encourage them to head right for the forbidden thing AND He did not give Adam and Eve the necessary skill set to refuse to eat the fruit.  In fact, the only way they were able to really comprehend what they had done was after they had the knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong).  And THEN he comes back and gets all pissed off like He didn’t already KNOW exactly what was going to happen.  

            No parent with a lick of sense would act in that fashion.

          • Discordia

            A bigger hurt…. what?  Bigger than the one that damns all of humanity to hell because great great great great all the way on back Grandmom Eve and Grandad Adam ate some fruit?  They stole apples and I am suppose to burn in hell for it?  Is that how you raise your kids?  Does your grandfather punish your kids for something your dad did when he was a little boy?

            God is a stupid parent and if you would read your bible with an eye towards how he is treating his kids that he is supposed to love you may begin to understand where I am (we are?) coming from.

            I don’t hate Jesus because I don’t believe Jesus is real. I don’t hate Loki or Zeus or Peter Rabbit for the same reason.  I have met nice Christians but most of the ones online are generally beneath contempt.  Fortunately, both you and ftp565 have been fun to argue with and have not, to the best of my knowledge, promised that you would be sure to have ringside seats to my visit to hell so you can laugh and spit in my face while I learn the joys of the rotisserie first-hand.  I wish I could say the same for other True Believers.

          • Discordia

            A bigger hurt…. what?  Bigger than the one that damns all of humanity to hell because great great great great all the way on back Grandmom Eve and Grandad Adam ate some fruit?  They stole apples and I am suppose to burn in hell for it?  Is that how you raise your kids?  Does your grandfather punish your kids for something your dad did when he was a little boy?

            God is a stupid parent and if you would read your bible with an eye towards how he is treating his kids that he is supposed to love you may begin to understand where I am (we are?) coming from.

            I don’t hate Jesus because I don’t believe Jesus is real. I don’t hate Loki or Zeus or Peter Rabbit for the same reason.  I have met nice Christians but most of the ones online are generally beneath contempt.  Fortunately, both you and ftp565 have been fun to argue with and have not, to the best of my knowledge, promised that you would be sure to have ringside seats to my visit to hell so you can laugh and spit in my face while I learn the joys of the rotisserie first-hand.  I wish I could say the same for other True Believers.

          • Jim Jones

            “But not all Christians are hateful my friend. I hope I can prove that to you someday.”

            No one makes that claim. However the people who are good with religion would be good without it. Case in point: (Mr) Fred Rogers.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Thank you for clarifying. That makes me feel a lot less unwelcome here. :-)

    • Jim Jones

      “Nevertheless, it DOES bear significance for those who profess to follow the Christian faith to constantly ask themselves whether they really are fully convinced that the God they follow is who God actually is.”

      No, first they should as if a god is possible. If no god is possible, why consider belief?

      A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist

      1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
      2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
      3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
      4. But the universe is not perfect.
      5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
      6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
      ————————————————————

      A Personal Being Cannot Be Nonphysical

      1. If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
      2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
      3. A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
      4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
      ————————————————————

      A Transcendent Being Cannot Be Omnipresent

      1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
      2. If God exists, he is omnipresent.
      3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
      4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
      5. Hence it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent.
      6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.
      ————————————————————

      The Problem of Evil

      1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
      2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
      3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.
      ————————————————————

      Worship and Moral Agency

      1. If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
      2. No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one’s role as an autonomous moral agent.
      3. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.
      ————————————————————

      The Paradox of Omnipotence

      1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
      2. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
      3. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
      4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

      • Ftp565

        Since we are in the realm of Philosophy again the first notion free will enters in.  Imperfection entered in with the choice of sin.  The free-will beings that God created chose to be imperfect and through that imperfection entered into the world as a consequence.  As for the physical/non-physical, for a God that doesn’t show Himself (i.e. the God that Moses meets on Mount Sinai) doesn’t mean that God is non-physical.  In that case Moses sees God’s backside which means there’s a physical component to God.  Why can’t a being outside the confines of space and time be unable to interact with anything.  It seems that you are running under the assumption that because something operates outside of space and time means that they are distant from everything; why can’t it be both?  Evil is existent apart from God.  Either through a separate powerful being as well (going into the discussion of whether or not a devil exists) or through separating oneself from that which is good (i.e. sin *see start of discussion).  Also, claiming that there is a such a thing as good and evil could also bring on the notion that there is something in which one would need compare what is good to (unless you go the route that what it good or evil is the projection of evolution as we moved through societies and figured out what worked or didn’t work).  Worship and Moral agency runs under the assumption that you lose autonomy by worshiping a deity.  I would argue that I am still as autonomous now even in my worship as I was before I worshiped the God I worship.  As for the last one, it’s like asking to create a liquid that is not wet nor a liquid.  It’s a use of words to create a paradox that cannot possibly exist; it’s more a beauty of how we can use language to make odd word pairings that don’t make any sense than a proof against an omnipotent God.

        • Jim Jones

          “As for the last one, it’s like asking to create a liquid that is not wet nor a liquid.”

          Not quite. But this covers it:

          • Ftp565

             Thanks for the video, I definitely agree with the conclusion at the end, and it also states my premise about whether you or not you or I would believe in any sort of God if that said God came and made said Godself known.  There would still be debate whether or not it was even God at all.  So when it comes to having evidence for God (from a Christian perspective) people like me would refer to the Bible and say that it has a collection of stories of how God has interacted with humanity over the years.

            Other people would conclude that those are just made up stories in order to try to explain how things are in the world, and the rest of the stories are just stories or misguided fools blindly following what is not real.  So even though my “evidence” cannot be claimed as such because of the reasonable doubt rule (if there’s reasonable doubt, throw it out) how do you not know that it is evidence? (rhetorical question which relates back to, “if God were to show up, how we would know it was God”).  I guess I’m trying get the point across that my faith isn’t completely blind since I believe that the Christian Bible’s stories of God interacting in the world are real, but at the same time it is because I believe that notion (make sense?).

        • Discordia

          Evil is existent apart from God.
          False.  Isaiah 45:7  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

          Sin exists because God willingly and knowingly made people with the ability to sin.  If people did not come with the capacity for sin, then people could not sin.  Just like how males do not have the capacity to conceive a child and carry it to term.  It can’t happen.  God arranged the first set-up in history where he was able to frame Adam and Eve for scrumpting apples.  He knowingly and willingly made them with the ability to sin, he deliberately didn’t give them the ability to discern right from wrong, he made sure to leave tempting objects where the people could get to them, he deliberately pointed out the two forbidden objects right before taking off for a while, he leaves a special Talking Snake in the Garden right where he knew it would do the most harm to a pair of innocent, naive, gullible kids and gets pissed off because all that shit went down just like he planned for it to happen.  He could have NOT put the forbidden trees in the Garden, he could have either told the kids to not trust the Talking Snake or even (GASP) not made the Talking Snake in the first place.  He could have even given the kids the ability to comprehend right and wrong.  But none of that happened.  In effect, he took the hand of a child and put that little hand in a fire and then beats the child for getting burned.  The God in Genesis is either a malicious bastard or a fucking moron.  In either case, he isn’t worth spitting on, let alone worshipping.

          • Ftp565

            Just a translation error on the quote…The translation would be more accurate with “woe” or “disaster”; not “evil”.  That being said, how can a good God create calamity?  I think this is the source of your thesis that you conclude with in the paragraph that follows…

            As for the story, I can’t help but see a lot of imagery being used which talks about humanities choice to go their own way and kick God out of the world.  A choice where both male and female were present.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            in your opinion, cheery picking the Hebrew definition that best fits your interpretation of the word. :)

            H7451
            ra‛ râ‛âh
            rah, raw-aw’
            From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: – adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            You also might want to look at the other places this word is translated evil. After all……. and the treeH6086 of knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil.H7451

            Is it the tree of woe or disaster? Is woe or disaster the opposite of good?

            My point? On what lexical basis do you decide to translate this word woe or disaster as opposed to evil?

            I already know the answer…:) This illustrates another problem with using the Bible to determine most anything. Don’t like a word? No problem. It is a translation error. It r-e-a-l-l-y means __________

            Similar case with you saying sin=selfishness, whereas the Bible says sin is transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4

          • Ftp565

            Thank you for the clarification…I was looking at the word used vs. not looking to the other uses of the word.

            As for sin=selfishness, my argument is that anything we do out of pure selfishness is a transgression of the law.  You can go to the “10 Commandments”, and I can think of a selfish motivation behind each transgression.

            I will agree that picking and choosing what definition we like best is a problem, but there is also a problem with ancient language where one word can have so many uses or even a phrase can mean more than just what is said.

            For example, when Ruth uncovers Boaz’s feet, with context and everything else it appears that it’s part of the euphemism for uncovering his genitals; i.e. took off his clothes and laid next to his naked body so he would assume that in his drunken stupor he took advantage of Ruth.  Did this text really mean feet?

      • Christopher Patrick Aro

        Nice points Mr. Jones! And my pleasure to make your acquaintance. :-)

        Please allow me to address some of the points you’ve raised, as a matter of discussion of course.

        First of all, even IF there were NO God, I doubt you could live in our plane of existence without ANY form of belief.

        My argument to that is that it is impossible for two human beings to completely agree on what they see at any given moment. One can only agree that another person sees what he sees based on his TESTIMONY (and reliability as a witness).

        In other words, a person can CHOOSE whether to believe another person’s testimony or not. If that is not living in faith/belief, then I would like to hear the alternative view.

        See, even our dependence on the natural science relies on faith.

        Let me ask you, have you ever SEEN a real live atomic particle? I’ve never seen one, but I have to rely on the testimony of scientists who have been studying atoms to describe what an atom’s properties are and how they affect me in my everyday life.

        How problematic do you think the sciences would be, if any time a scientist would like to conduct an experiment or project involving atoms, he first has to make sure he himself has actually seen one? For the sake of pragmatic research, even scientists have to rely on the testimony of other scientists to support their own.

        In other words, even scientists HAVE to CHOOSE TO BELIEVE the research of other scientists.

        Now let’s bring that closer to home.

        Have you ever seen what your own brain actually looks like? Do you know the means by which the brain processes information and thoughts?

        Perhaps you’ll point me to a book on anatomy and tell me that hundreds if not thousands of physicians agree that a human being HAS a brain. Perhaps you’ll point me to countless books on psychoanalysis and pshyciatry and tell me that studies are available that map the functions of the human brain.

        Unfortunately, that will only give me partial assurance and not absolute certainty that I myself have a brain. I would still have to live by faith that I have a brain, because unless someone figures out how to take out my actual brain from my head and show it to me while I’m still alive, then its impossible for me to know for certain.

        Do you know that we all by in faith every single day of our lives? I have faith that I when I go to sleep, I will wake up the next morning. I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning and set on the evening. I have faith that even if I can’t see the sun due to a cloudy day, its still up there giving its life-producing/sustaining heat on the Earth.

        I have faith that I’m actually communicating to a real live person right now, even though I cannot see you with my own eyes. :-)

        So, faith/belief is a pre-requisite to life. Show me a person who does not live by faith and I’ll show you God. :-)

        • Jim Jones

          “Let me ask you, have you ever SEEN a real live atomic particle? I’ve never seen one, but I have to rely on the testimony of scientists who have been studying atoms to describe what an atom’s properties are and how they affect me in my everyday life.”

          Here’s the difference. If you or I studied physics to the required level, we could perform experiments proving that atoms have an effect on the world or vice versa and we could show that to other people. There is no experiment you could ever do that would demonstrate to another person that gods have an effect on the world or vice versa, no matter how long you studied. In the whole history of the world, no one ever has.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Good point. But WHO determines the required level that you mention? Aren’t those standards determined by people as well? Don’t you still have to have faith in those people that the standards that they’ve set actually weed out aspiring scientists who do not meet the needs of the profession?

            Besides, those standards are always subject to review and revision. They are in no way absolute determinants of a person’s qualification to be a scientist.

            The same goes for religious qualifications. The Roman Catholic clergy have their own standards for the anointing of a priest in their order. As do the elders or presbyters in Evangelical churches. Are those standards absolute and infallible? Nope. Just look at Bruce’s case. (No offense Bruce okay? Just trying to illustrate a point :-) ).

            As human beings, we’re subject to growth and change every day of our lives. For our institutions (religious or scientific) to keep up with that, they too have to grow and change along with us.

            And I have to respectfully beg to disagree with you on your last point. Christians (and followers of other religions) have always used their own testimony to convert others. If that is not proving to another person that God has an effect on creation, then please share with me how I should otherwise view that. :-)

          • Discordia

            You are trying to validate your belief.  You, I think, do not want to face the world without some sort of psychological safety blanket.  Just because you see a kitten and get a warm fuzzy feeling doesn’t mean that its GOD giving you that warm fuzzy feeling.  Using testimony is appealing to emotions by using circumstantial evidence interpreted through a lens of conformational bias.  Christians HAVE to use testimony because they don’t have a single verifiable FACT at their disposal.  The entire religion is founded on second hand stories told by other people.  It’s a faith built on Chinese whispers and indoctrination and sustained by urban legends.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Well, I really hate to be the one to tell you this my friend, but all this time you’re taking replying to my posts, you were most certainly trying to validate your OWN beliefs agains mine. :-)

            Not that I disapprove of it though. I kinda like hearing your contrary views. Helps me to gain a broader perspective on things.

            “Using testimony is appealing to emotions by using circumstantial evidence interpreted through a lens of conformational bias.”

            Uh, aren’t you referring to commercial advertising here?

            “Christians HAVE to use testimony because they don’t have a single verifiable FACT at their disposal.”

            Well, I say there’s a Bible. Isn’t that a fact?

            “It’s a faith build on Chinese whispers and indoctrination and sustained by urban legends.”

            This is most certainly true. Buddha is actually Jesus Christ and Confucius is actually John the Baptist. The I-Ching is actually the Old Testament and Sun Tzu’s Art of War is actually the New Testament. I heard this from a friend who said he hard it from his barber in downtown Manhattan, who read it off a fortune cookie at Wang’s Noodle Shop along the 23rd. ;-)

          • Discordia

            There is a Bible.  That is a fact, Jack.  So what? A real, live copy of the Holy Bible makes Jesus real?  Well, I have a real live copy of Grimm’s Fairy Tales so, with your argument in play, then that make all those stories real as well?  And I used to own both the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda, so I guess all those stories of the Aesir and Vanir are real also.

            “Well, I say there’s a Bible.  Isn’t that a fact?”

            Shame on you.  That is a perfectly awful argument and you know it.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Hehe, you can’t blame me for trying to get away with an awful argument now would you? People do that everyday when asked to pay for parking tickets. :-D

            Just trying to lighten the moment here. Please don’t take it seriously. :-)

          • Jim Jones

            “As do the elders or presbyters in Evangelical churches. Are those standards absolute and infallible? Nope.”

            Which is why the government refuses to validate them. 

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church 

            There are several online places to get ordained – takes only a few minutes. That’s why Madalyn Murray O’Hair was an ordained minister as am I.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Well, that kinda begs the question now does it? Do you TRUST in your government? Do you trust them to know absolutely what is best for you?

            I’m not an American, but I’ve been told that the Second Amendment was included in the US Constitution PRECISELY because the constitutional forefathers DID NOT trust that the government would keep the people’s best interests for long.

            I’ve always thought that to be a little extreme. But it eventually made sense to me. After all, the government is ALSO made up of FALLIBLE and SELF-CENTERED people just like you and me. And you can be sure that when it comes to implementing the Bill of Rights, most people in government will prioritize THEMSELVES first.

            I should know. I work for my government. And I’ve seen and experienced firsthand just how human government people can be. :-)

            The point I’m trying to make is this: whatever standards we humans make to try and make our societies equitable and just is doomed to fail Why? BECAUSE THEY’RE NOTHING MORE THAN MAN-MADE LAWS. For them to be enforceable, you need something more than human to keep humans in check. (And I certainly don’t mean machines, all those Terminator movies notwithstanding.)

            Would you trust yourself and your family’s safety to a bunch of random and mindless interactions of natural laws, namely time plus matter, plus chance?

            I certainly wouldn’t get much sleep at night knowing that the laws of the universe can suddenly work against me and my family for no other reason other than chance.

            The fact that ALL of humanity has not faded away into nuclear holocaust DESPITE the proliferation of nuclear and atomic weapons in the world (a number of which remain unaccounted for) and despite the sheer amount of HATE we humans have for each other practically convinces me that it is not just mere chance that governs the universe. That there is Something Who TRULY has our best interests in mind governing all of creation.

            Out of all the gods we humans have surrounded ourselves with, I’ve made up my mind that the Christian God best fits that description (arrogant and self-centered Christians notwithstanding.)

            I think it rather telling that the most powerful government in the world has the words “In God We Trust” stamped on the very money it prints to keep its own economy alive.

            Now I don’t know about you, but I have a strong suspicion that the “God” written there does NOT refer to either Allah, Brahma, or Zeus. ;-)

  • Anonymous

    We don’t wanta shortchange Yahwe. S/h/it (She/he/it) gave yet another set of 10 commandments in Exodus 34 (3rd set of 10 commandments) just to be sure. Perhaps a kinder, gentler Yahwe would have had suggestions instead of commandments?

    For Ftp565 – Where did Jesus go immediately after his baptism? I will help you. Compare accounts from Matthew 3-4 and John 1-2. This is merely one discrepancy among hundreds. 

    • Ftp565

       Yes, you pointed out one of many discrepancies that can be found throughout the entire Bible.  I never made the claim that the Bible is inerrant and that each stroke of the letter should be taken as 100% historical, factual truth.  I know these discrepancies pretty well, and I don’t attribute it to meaning that who God is and how God acts in the world is any less real because of those discrepancies.  I chalk those up to human error and human bias.  Such as texts trying to make monarch conquests legitimate even though they are condemned later on.  Just because I were to make the case that something is divinely inspired doesn’t mean that I subscribe to the belief that the Bible is 100% historical, factual truth (yes I know I said something similar before).  The evidence is overwhelming pointing to the contrary.  However, through that statement I still feel that God works and moves through it because through those pages is a communication about who God is and how He interacts with humanity and God’s desire for humanity.  Things like to “act justly, and love mercy,” or to “love your neighbor as yourself”.  It’s through this lens that I read the Bible, and I can even see how texts try to use and abuse such recordings for their own gain in history (of course this is never done now, right?).  (I know, I know, a question mark and then a period?  Where does this guy get his grammar from, and what’s with all of the parentheses?).  Again these are notions that can’t be proven unless said God were to come down and claim these things as true, but then again would you even believe it was said God coming down or would you explain it away also?  Of course, you would also be right in saying that you can’t prove that there isn’t an invisible teapot circling the moon.  Is that a valid case for its existence?  I guess we’ll never know the answer to that question.

      I just have to add in that I thank you all for these discussions.  I hope you enjoy these as much as I have!

      • Discordia

        So why do you need Biblegod to act like a decent human being?   Of the Bible 49% is lies 49% is hate and war-crimes which leave the other 2% of warm fuzzy stuff that you should have learned as a kindergarten class such as Don’t be mean and Share your things.  As it is now, you are apparently seeking moral guidance from a God who floods the world out of spite and tells his Mostest Special People to take young girls as prisoners of war to have fun with back at camp.

    • Anonymous

      “S/h/it (She/he/it) …”

      ! am so going to steal this delightful terminology the next time I feel compelled to say shit about S/h/it!

  • http://agardeninthesun.blogspot.com/ renoliz

    Good article on this topic, Bruce.  Does every person on the planet have Biblegod written in their hearts?  If so, why are they going to hell if they are not Christian?  For gosh sakes, if Biblegod would simply actually make itself know to all instead of talking to a tiny backwards group in the Middle East we would all believe wouldn’t we!!!!

    Clearly Biblegod didn’t even know that the Americas or China existed. What kind of loser omnipotent omniscient god is that?

    • Ftp565

       You forget the Mormon notion that Biblegod came to the Americas and witnessed to the Native Americans.

      • Jim Jones

        Who were the lost tribes of Israel and came to the New World on barges and fought battles with steel swords.

        • Discordia

          Who also don’t have a whisper of Jewish DNA in them.  I guess the tribe was so lost that even their mitochondrial DNA forgot it was of Jewish descent.

  • Ftp565

    Just two things to point out.  In creation the Christian God is the same God as the Muslim God and the Jewish God.  Each faith tradition traces their history to Abraham.  I am not 100% sure on the creation story depicted in Islam, but the same Creation Stories are both Jewish and Christian.  Interpretation will most likely be different.

    The second thing is that Luther would argue that the only way God reveals Himself is through Jesus and the cross.  The only place that we can encounter God is through the proclamation of the Gospel.  According to Luther, faith does not come out of nature, definitely not our conscience (i.e. Luther’s treatise on the Bondage of the Will), and not from the Bible since the Gospel would need to be proclaimed from it.  Luther would be considered Christian and so would those of the Luther denomination.  I just want to make sure that all sides are represented as much as I can with the knowledge that I have.

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      No, the Christian God is a truine being, the Jewish and Muslim God is not. Jesus is the Christian God, Jesus is not the Jewish or Muslim God.

      You are missing my point. Where do we find the gospel? In the Bible. Did Luther himself “hear” the gospel proclaimed or did he come to his beliefs from “reading” the Bible? The reformation was predicated on what Luther read not what he heard.

      • Ftp565

         Luther would have argued that even he received the Gospel through proclamation.  It would be his argument that it was through his faith that he saw the Gospel through a different lens than the Catholic church; i.e. the indulgences and other abuses of the church he witnessed.  Luther may have started the Reformation through what he read, but he would claim that it wasn’t what he read that brought about faith.

        • Anonymous

          Scripture, that is the Bible, says that it is breathed by God–i.e., inspired by the very breath of God himself. 

          “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

          I think it was Luther’s point that, if this be the case, we need not emissaries–such as Bishops or Popes–but that faith can indeed come directly from Scripture.

      • Ftp565

         I forgot to add in my agreement that the view of God is different between Christianity compared to Jewish and Islamic tradition.  Even suggesting a hint of more than one divine being is heretical in both, and yet Christianity holds the claim that there are three separate divine beings that cannot exist without the other, and so they are one.  Talk about adding a more confusing statement of belief to the mix of things, right?  Maybe when I have a little more time I’ll add a post as to why I love the imagery of the perichoretic dance view of the Trinity, and if anything useful, provides an excellent model as to how nice it would be if we all could live life in such a way.

    • Jim Jones

      “The second thing is that Luther would argue that the only way God reveals Himself is through Jesus and the cross.”

      Since Bible Jesus never existed you have nothing to stand on. By your own definition there are thus no gods. At least Xenu is original – if a demented idea.

      • Ftp565

         What do you mean that Bible Jesus never existed?  Even the Roman historian Josephus refers to Jesus.  He was confused about all the commotion about his followers, but he even cites the crucifixion.  If you are saying that the Bible Jesus in reference to the Messiah (anointed one) or the interpretation that Jesus is God in human flesh, the it’s a speculation about a historical figure that cannot be proven nor disproven.  With all of the documents that reference this character that we call Jesus both biblical and other it can be assumed that there was once a man named Jesus; a Jew who was crucified.  Anything beyond that is inference yes, but saying that he never existed is something else entirely.

        • Jim Jones

          No, a man called Jesus (or maybe not) who fits the bible stories never existed.

          http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ 

          http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm 

          http://www.pocm.info/ 

          The Romans certainly executed many Jews, many called Jesus (or the equivalent, a common name) but none that fit the stories are recorded. And anyway the model for Jesus may be Simon of Perea:

          http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html 

          The TF of Josephus is widely accepted to be a ‘forgery’, probably inserted by Eusebius, an early liar for Jesus.

          But if you can find reliable, contemporary documents, preferably autographs, which can stand the test of analysis and have not been redacted by the church, the world is anxiously waiting as am I.

          “Clearly, the Christians have used myths in fabricating the story of Jesus’ birth. It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie, and their fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction. I have even heard that many of their copyists, as if they had just left a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the original writings three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism.”–– (Celsus, ‘On The True Doctrine’, 2nd century; quoted by Origen in his 3rd century rebuttal, ‘Contra Celsum’)

          Jim Jones
          “Christianity: 2,000 years of everybody making it up as they go along.”

          • Ftp565

             Yes, around the time that the story of Jesus takes place, Jesus was a common name.  Yes, people have added to the story over the years as even evidenced by texts that we have in our possession.  Earlier manuscripts don’t contain certain passages, later ones have notes in the margins, and ones later than that have taken those notes and injected them in the text.  Things such as the virgin birth could have been constructions to fit with the Septuagint translation from Hebrew to Greek that took the text meaning “young woman” in Hebrew to meaning “virgin” in Greek.  Something like this is evidenced in Matthew where Jesus is depicted riding on two donkeys because he happened to misread the prophecy that seemed to him be saying that Jesus entered in on two animals.

            As for Josephus, the documents date back to the right time frame as the time frame the “Gospels” say that Jesus was crucified.  As for the ‘forgery’ by Eusebius; anything is possible.  Again I wasn’t alive then so I can’t say with certainty if this is the case or not.  However, I would ask the same for proof that the texts supposedly written by Josephus are forgeries.  From my studies of ancient documents, the claim that Josephus’ writings on the happenings of the empire were not “widely criticized” as forgeries, but then again this is going back three years, and a lot can happen in that time.

            When it comes to early manuscripts we have to choose to accept what we accept as history because none of us were alive to see this be actually the case.  We have ruins and archaeological sites to support writings, but we don’t have the certainty of having seen it with our own eyes.  There is a lot of trust that we place in the annals of history even while knowing that history for the most part is written from the eyes of the winners.

          • Jim Jones

            There are so many things wrong with it it cannot be authentic. Josephus was a Jew – he would never have accepted a man who dies and came back to life as a Jewish Messiah.

            The gospels appear to have been constructed mainly from the Septuagint, particularly Isaiah. They are simply not Jewish at all – and in fact are offensive to Jews. And since Jesus had lived and ‘died’ before Josephus’ birth his comments are clearly inappropriate.

            If he thought Jesus was the promised messiah, he would have become a Christian, and he didn’t. The statement interrupts the flow of the surrounding text, and doesn’t fit there at all. Several early Christian writers knew of Josephus’ works, and quoted him (about other things). Yet when those same writers were making arguments for an historical Jesus (and yes, they made them then, because many non-Christians at the time didn’t believe Jesus was a real person that had lived), they didn’t quote this passage from Josephus, even though they knew his works and had copies of them. That’s evidence that the passage was not in Josephus’ works at the time.

            http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-josephus-so-called-testimonium.html 

            http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm 

            http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/rameus_on_testimonium_flavianum/ 

          • Ftp565

             I am not making the case that Josephus believed Jesus was the Messiah.  From what I recall of Josephus, that even though he was a Jew, he more aligned himself as a Roman first and foremost.  The writings that he did were not specifically about Jesus, but some had mentioned Jesus in passing.  I am not saying that Josephus thought Jesus was the promised Messiah; in fact he thought Christians were crazy for believing what they did.  However, he still has record of a historical Jesus, and that was the case I was making.  Now whether historical Jesus was the Messiah or not is a different question altogether.

            Now as for your thought on the Hebrew Scripture vs. the Septuagint.  The reason why the Septuagint was created was because of Hellinization and then Roman occupation.  The Hebrew language was dying and the rabbis and religious leaders came together saying that they needed to come up with a new, accurate translation of the Jewish texts.  So the legend behind it is that 70 rabbis all went into their separate rooms and translated the Hebrew texts into Greek.  When they came out, their translations matched.  It would not be offensive to the Jewish culture to quote from the Septuagint since it was widely used as Hebrew was dying off.

            That being said, it is commonly believed that the author of the book of Matthew was a Jewish scholar or even a scribe.  He tries to follow closely to the Hebrew texts and had  a strong appeal to the Jewish audience.  If doing what you said was so offensive, then why did it have an appeal to the people who should find it offensive?

          • Ftp565

            As for specifically the text that is quoted from Josephus does have things right and wrong with it.  Christianity was one of those off-shoots that was growing during Josephus’ time; so it would only make sense that he would make mention of it in his history.  I am in agreement that nowhere else would Josephus make the claims that Jesus was the Christ or believe the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.  However, Agapius seemed to quote Josephus leaving out a lot of the “additions” that were made that would appear to be in line with how Josephus would have reported the account.  Also, this is not the only reference to Jesus that Josephus makes.  He also makes reference to James the brother of Jesus (which the reference to Jesus as Christ shows up again).  I don’t doubt the authenticity of the mention of Jesus by Josephus.  I do, however, believe additions were made as the texts were copied.

            As mentioned before, it was common to see notes appear in the margins of later copies and then have those notes make their way in to the text when the copies were copied (have you seen multiplicity and why it’s not good to make a copy of a copy).  And a lot of what we have of Josephus’ writings were preserved by Christian groups that copied them over the years.  When Christians received texts like the one in question they would have put notes adding in what their order or group would confess about Jesus as additions to the text (very common place).  However, the problem was that when these additions to the margin were placed they would eventually work their way in.  Just because there are parts that seem to be out of place doesn’t mean that the entire thing is made up.  I believe Josephus wrote briefly about the Christians of his time and the source of their belief, Jesus.  Who was a Jew, who was crucified, and was believed/claimed by his followers that he rose from the dead.  Possibly even that they called him the Messiah or the Christ.  The other parts are additions of confession as to who Jesus was by the early church.

          • Jim Jones

            “He also makes reference to James the brother of Jesus (which the reference to Jesus as Christ shows up again).”

            No, it’s a reference to someone called James who has a brother called Jesus. You have no claim as to which pair this is. And since the TF is the only external reporting on Jesus and is not contemporary few who know this would rely on it.

            As I said, the evidence is strong that there was no gospel Jesus.

          • Ftp565

            You would have to admit then that there was no Josephus either.  Because the only people that kept his records preserved were mainly Christians.  The Jewish community saw him as a traitor (rightfully so) and didn’t work to preserve anything he wrote.  Then again if he didn’t exist, then he wasn’t a traitor at all!  You throw out the biblical accounts that such a man existed, you throw out the account of Josephus, you throw out possibly “Q” source which is thought to be the source from which Matthew, Mark, and Luke were derived from, and you throw out Paul’s mention of Jesus.  I mean how much do you have to keep throwing out to convince yourself that such a person did not exist??  I mean, if I keep throwing out references to Constantine and his exploits, I can eventually come to the conclusion that Constantine never existed nor did he ever march upon Rome and take it over.  Just throwing out texts simply because they are in the Bible, ignoring sources from which said texts could have possibly derived from (the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so close to each other and from different regions in different times points to there being an earlier source that was borrowed from), ignoring other sources, even outside sources seems to be pointless.  We can debate the deity of Jesus endlessly; we can debate whether or not he did all the miracles that he did; we can debate whether or not he rose from the dead and it will be something that neither of us will probably not change our beliefs about, but to throw out the historical Jesus in the face of so many texts mentioning such a person is like throwing out any piece of history because it’s just not liked.

            As for Matthew, most scholars have come to the conclusion that the author was quite knowledgeable of Jewish laws and customs and was most likely a Jewish scribe or scholar.  Most scholars hold the notion that not only was Matthew a Jew, but that Matthew was a good Jew.  If you read the accounts of the crucifixion, it’s not the Jews that crucified Jesus; they needed the Romans to do it.  Crucifixion was reserved for political insurrectionists and hanging them on the cross was much like putting impaled heads on a stick to invoke fear into any future political overthrowers.  So crucifixion eventually came down to being need to be done by the Romans.  The Jews pushed for the crucifixion, but the Romans carried it out.  So it’s not just the Jews that did so in the account even though Christians in the past have put the blame strictly on the Jews (which isn’t a notion that Paul makes in his writings).  The blame on the Jews comes much later. In fact Paul defends the Jews.

          • Jim Jones

            “You would have to admit then that there was no Josephus either.  Because the only people that kept his records preserved were mainly Christians.”

            That”s a non-sequitur.

          • Ftp565

            Okay, so what I was more concluding was, how can you rely on anything that Josephus wrote?  If it’s writings preserved by a Christian community, how can you rely on any of it?

            Then I sidetracked asking how can you prove that Josephus ever existed?  Sort of in the same fashion of trying to prove that the “Bible” Jesus ever existed.  The only texts we have are copies translated by Christian communities over the years.  So how can we be certain that there was such a person named Josephus that wrote these texts and that they weren’t written by another person (maybe even Eusebius)?  How can you rely not only on the historical documentation, but how can you rely on the person?

          • Jim Jones

            See above.

          • Jim Jones

            “So the legend behind it is that 70 rabbis all went into their separate rooms and translated the Hebrew texts into Greek.  When they came out, their translations matched.”

            Legend indeed. It’s a terrible translation, full of errors.

            “That being said, it is commonly believed that the author of the book of Matthew was a Jewish scholar or even a scribe.  He tries to follow closely to the Hebrew texts and had  a strong appeal to the Jewish audience.”

            It’s commonly made up. All four gospels get Jewish geography, history and culture wrong, and all four blame the Jews for the death. The fact is they were all written in Greek, for Greeks, by Greeks. They are Greek pagan religions and not at all Jewish.

    • Anonymous

      Scripture, that is the Bible, says that it is breathed by God–i.e., inspired by the very breath of God himself. 

      “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

      I think it was Luther’s point that, if this be the case, we need not emissaries–such as Bishops or Popes–but that faith can indeed come directly from Scripture.

      • Ftp565

        One of Luther’s big arguments was that faith came from the hearing of the Law and Gospel, not reading it.  Luther argued that the Holy Spirit calls us through the spoken word and Scripture would be there to strengthen our faith.

        The “need not emissaries” meant that the Gospel can be proclaimed by anyone of faith.  That we are all saints and sinners; that we are all the priesthood of believers…that those who have heard and believed the Gospel are priest, bishop, and pope.

        Trying to clarify Luther’s theology a little bit.

  • Obiron

    I once ran across a list of gods, it numbered in the thousands.  It seems that nearly every culture had plenty of gods to call upon.

    It got me to thinking that each Christian imagined the Christian god slightly differently than another Christian.  Just think of the difference in the medieval Roman Catholic Jesus and the current Protestant Jesus.  Two entirely different gods!