Who Was Jesus?

Who is Jesus Christ?

In the Hebrew and Greek languages, the words usually translated “Messiah” and “Christ” mean “Anointed One.” Jesus was the Anointed One, or the Chosen One of God—the promised Leader. The Scriptures contained prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the Jews at the time were in expectation of him. Luke 3:15: “Now as the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John {John the Baptist}: “May he perhaps be the Christ?”
The Bible shows that Jesus really was God’s Chosen One. In the year 29 C.E. when Jesus was 30 years of age, he went to John the Baptizer to be baptized by him in the waters of the Jordan River. The Bible states: “After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: ‘This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.’” (Matthew 3:16, 17)
By pouring out His holy spirit on Jesus, Jehovah God anointed him, or appointed him, to be the King of His coming Kingdom. Thus, Jesus became Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Anointed One.
Jesus’ life course might be divided into three stages. The first began long before his human birth. His origin was “from early times, from the days of time indefinite,” says Micah 5:2. Jesus himself said: “I am from the realms above”—that is, from heaven. (John 8:23) He had been in heaven as a mighty spirit person.
Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Jesus was his first creation. The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. Therefore, he is called God’s “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) The firstborn Son also bears the title “the Word” (John 1:14) because before being born as a human, he served in heaven as one who spoke for God.
“The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.”
That close association with Jehovah for untold ages deeply affected God’s Son. This obedient Son came to be just like his Father, Jehovah. In fact, Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God.” This is one reason why knowledge about Jesus is vital in satisfying our spiritual need and our natural desire to know God. Everything Jesus did while on earth is exactly what Jehovah expected him to do. Getting to know Jesus also means increasing our knowledge of Jehovah. (John 8:28; 14:8-10)
The second stage of Jesus’ life course began when God sent his Son to the earth. Jehovah did this by miraculously transferring the life of Jesus from heaven to the womb of a faithful Jewish virgin named Mary. Jesus inherited no imperfections because he did not have a human father. Jehovah’s holy spirit, or active force, came upon Mary, and his power ‘overshadowed’ her, miraculously causing her to become pregnant. (Luke 1:34, 35) Mary therefore gave birth to a perfect child. As the adopted son of the carpenter Joseph, he was brought up in a humble home and was the first of several children in the family.—Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22, 23; Mark 6:3.
Little is known about Jesus’ childhood. When Jesus was 12 years old, his parents took him on their annual visit to Jerusalem for the Passover. While there, he spent quite some time at the temple, “sitting in the midst of the teachers and listening to them and questioning them.” “All those listening to him were in constant amazement at his understanding and his answers.” The young Jesus could not only ask thought-provoking, spiritually oriented questions but also give intelligent answers that amazed others. (Luke 2:41-50) As he grew up in the city of Nazareth, he learned to be a carpenter, undoubtedly from his adoptive father, Joseph.—Matthew 13:55.
Jesus lived in Nazareth until he was 30 years old. Then he went to John to be baptized. Following his baptism, Jesus embarked on his dynamic ministry. For three and a half years, he traveled throughout his homeland declaring the good news of God’s Kingdom. He gave evidence that he had been sent by God by performing many miracles—powerful works that were beyond human ability.—Matthew 4:17; Luke 19:37, 38.
Jesus devoted his energy to his God-assigned work. He was also a man of tender warmth and deep feelings. His tenderness was especially evident in the way he viewed and treated others. Because Jesus was approachable and kind, people were attracted to him. Even children felt at ease in his presence. (Mark 10:13-16) Jesus treated women with respect, even though some in his day looked down on them. (John 4:9, 27) He helped the poor and oppressed to ‘find refreshment for their souls.’ (Matthew 11:28-30) His manner of teaching was clear, simple, and practical. And what he taught reflected his heartfelt desire to acquaint his listeners with the true God, Jehovah.—John 17:6-8.
Using God’s holy spirit to perform miracles, Jesus compassionately healed the sick and the afflicted. (Matthew 15:30, 31) Jesus even willingly gave his perfect human life so that imperfect mankind would have a hope for the future. Jesus had profound love for people.
Jesus died on a torture stake at the age of 33 1/2. But death was not the end of his life course. The third stage of his life began about three days later when Jehovah God resurrected his Son as a spirit person. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people living in the first century C.E. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) Thereafter, he “sat down at the right hand of God” and waited to receive kingly power. (Hebrews 10:12, 13) When that time came, Jesus began ruling as King. Jesus today is neither a man nor God Almighty. He is a mighty spirit creature, a reigning King. Very soon now, he will manifest his rulership over our troubled earth.
Using symbolic language, Revelation 19:11-16 describes Jesus Christ as a king seated upon a white horse and coming to judge and carry on war in righteousness. He has “a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it.” Jesus will use his great power to destroy the wicked. He and his Father will preserve those, who strive to follow the example he set while on earth, through the upcoming “war of the great day of God the Almighty”—often called Armageddon—so that they can live forever as earthly subjects of God’s heavenly Kingdom.—Revelation 7:9, 14; 16:14, 16; 21:3, 4.
During his reign of peace, Jesus will perform miracles in behalf of all mankind. (Isaiah 9:6, 7; 11:1-10) He will cure sickness and bring an end to death. Jesus will be used by God to resurrect billions, giving them an opportunity to live forever on earth. (John 5:28, 29)

Even after Jesus's crucification, the Apostle Paul was converted by Jesus Himself and historians have a huge inventory of evidence of Paul.

Paul fervently persecuted Christ's followers so much so that he would hold coats for people so that they could be freed to stone Christ's believers. But it was not until after Jesus died that Paul was converted - not by men - but by Jesus whom he had disbelieved. Paul is now renowned for starting many churches. Paul's account is found in the book of Acts.

Who was Jesus? And what was His purpose?

I'm new here, but I think it fair to say that I was a questioning Christian since about age sixteen. Not that I questioned the eternal purpose, BUT over the past forty-some years, I have posed most of the questions I've read here and on other forums. Some things just didn't add up.

I've always felt that I was unworthy of Jesus' sacrifice, and felt that I could never live up to the standards needed to attain heaven. To be honest, I often experienced FEAR that I could NEVER lead a life worthy of God's acceptance. I knew there was MORE that I was unable to grasp...and prayed for clarity to all the questions I had no answers for. I was almost ready to give up, when I discovered the following website:

http://bible-truths.com/

The website, and webmaster, make perfect SENSE-- there is no room left for ambiguity. This site is for Christians, Athiests, Muslims, Jews, et al...for it is so clear that even a child can understand it.

Now I have a more meaningful relationship with God...for I know His purpose for my life, for my family's life, and for all mankind. Some may not agree, but to me--it was a blessing to finally realize that God's plan is "alive and well"...and it doesn't matter what WE think or do...HE is in charge and His purpose WILL be achieved in the end. More than anything else, it explained EXACTLY who Jesus was...what HIS life was about, what His death was for, and how I must now LIVE a righteous life, simply because God was looking ahead and saw my faults...BUT still had ME in mind when He planned eternity.

Agreeing to disagree isn't the answer for anyone anymore...we ALL need something (with evidence) to hold on to in these last days. Otherwise, why would any of us be posting here? We've all been searching at one time or another. I simply want to share my findings with all...in hopes that it can
answer others' questions, as mine were answered when I found the website. It has changed MY life. I honor God and Jesus for the right reasons now...NOT out of fear...I do so willingly in THANKS for His eternal plan. THIS may not be YOUR answer...but it certainly helped me to look forward to the future with assurance.

The website listed above has made me LOVE our God SO much more -- and honor Him for His perfect plan for mankind.

P.S. There is scriptural backing for EVERY topic listed on this site, if you take time to read.

In Christ's love,
Brynn

To Tommy O:

Jesus’ parents were Jewish. He was born in the Middle East. He was a carpenter at one time. Near the end of his earthly life he threw out those buying and selling in the temple. He also turned over the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. So he had to be strong. This is information found in the Bible. Can you get a general idea of his appearance?

Considering the Bible offers no description of the physical appearance of Jesus, why would I not put my "faith" in the teachings of Confucius?

Jesus, the son of god lives on Earth and there is no record of what he looked like. Curious.

Jesus “is” the son of God.

God said so. (Matthew 3:16-17) 16 After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. 17 Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

The angels said so. (Luke 1:35) 35 In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

Jesus acknowledged he was the Son of God. (Matthew 26:62-64) 62 With that the high priest stood up and said to him: “Have you no answer? What is it these are testifying against you?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said [it].

(John 8:54) 54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who YOU say is YOUR God;

His disciples knew him as God’s Son. (John 20:31) 31 But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.

Jesus acknowledged that his disciples’ belief in him as the Son of God was correct. (Matthew 16:13-17)13 Now when he had come into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.”

Even the demons recognized Jesus as the son of God. (Matthew 8:28-29) 28 When he (Jesus) got to the other side, into the country of the Gadarenes´, there met him two demon-possessed men coming out from among the memorial tombs, unusually fierce, so that nobody had the courage to pass by on that road. 29 And, look! they screamed, saying: “What have we to do with you, Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?”
What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of God? Jesus’ life course can be divided into three stages. The first began long before his human birth. His origin was “from early times, from the days of time indefinite,” says Micah 5:2 . Jesus himself said: “I am from the realms above”—that is, from heaven. (John 8:23)) He had been in heaven as a mighty spirit person.
Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15,16) According to the Bible, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. Therefore, he is called God’s “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16)
That close association with Jehovah for untold ages deeply affected God’s Son. This obedient Son came to be just like his Father, Jehovah. In fact, Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God.” This is one reason why knowledge about Jesus is vital in satisfying our spiritual need and our natural desire to know God. Everything Jesus did while on earth is exactly what Jehovah expected him to do. Hence, getting to know Jesus also means increasing our knowledge of Jehovah.(John 8:28, 14:8-10)

It seems arguable that there was an historical individual who has since served as the model for the eponymous central figure of Christianity. But he (evidently male) had little or nothing in common with that central figure. So far, the historical individual is not known to have left any evidence of his existence, but there are some things that can be plausible inferred.

Unfortunately for those who would propose one or another religious canonical attributes, none of these survive placement in the historical context of the times. What we know is that the Persian colony of Judea had been generally left hanging by the Macedonians who conquered the Achaemid Empire in the 4th century BCE. Although the Greeks tried to corral it into the Grecian culture, the erstwhile Judeans managed to regain control. Until Pompei invested Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE (around 60 BCE).

Because of this heritage of militant and cultural harassment, there had developed a movement that looked for a Davidic warlord to arise and clean house (run the Romans back into the sea). That warlord would be a savior, a restorer of the Davidic throne and thus a mesha (messiah). The political movement that supported this expectation was, in large part, the rebel zealots (those who were "zealous of the (Mosaic) Law". Naturally, Rome regarded them as outlaws to be quelled and submitted to Roman justice.

It must be recognized that the nation of Judea was not religiously homogenic: there were other "cults" who were variously disposed to Mosaic legalism. One of these is given by Josephus and other relatively contemporary writers as the Essen(oi). Josephus seems to suggest that the Essen(oi) was a general term for a variety of said "cults".

Recent evidence arguably supports a long held contention that these cults conferred titles now interpreted as personal names or attributes. One such was the "Son of Man", re-invented later as the "Son of God". In general, the Judeans had long used code terms in their written communications, just as beleagured national cultures have done even unto modern times. So it was easy to appropriate one or more of these terms and propose it to mean whatever served the then current agenda.

In connection with the individual in question, the historical figure of James the Just seems to have been attested independently, and it has been suggested (however poorly received) that James' death was the spark for the rebellion that resulted in the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. Some scholars (Robert Eisenman in particular) have inferred the existence of a historical Jesus from that of James. But that is as far as legitimate scholars have gone in this regard.

What is well known and understood is that the expatriate Judeans (Jews) managed at one point to have engaged fully half of the military might of the Roman Empire. Which is arguably why the Romans razed Jerusalem after running Simon bar Kochba (the last false messiah) out into the wilderness). So far as we know, all that ended with the mass suicide at Masada.

After this, Judaism was outlawed and Jews were subject to summary trial and execution; it has been said that Rome put a hefty price on the head of any Judaic royalty which has not been lifted to this day. The Diasporic Jews fled in all directions, but there was already a conclave of Grecianized Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. And the evidence of history strongly suggests that it was in Alexandria that a legalized form of Jewish worship was developed.

Apparently, the concensus was that Yahveh really didn't care about His physical properties (Jerusalem and the Temple) because he was of an entirely non-physical nature, existing (ruling?) an equally non-physical realm. It's convenient to label this state and this realm as spirit and spiritual, a state and realm to which certain qualified people could claim as their heritage.

This was all well and good, because the Roman Empire had long looked to the Greeks as the source of their antiquity, and thus the source of authentic culture. And this solution was quite amenable to the Greeks, possessing as they did an intensely intellectual and philosophical cast to their culture. So this form of the messianic movement, now acculturized, was sold the the Grecianized areas. Note: messiah == christos.

This began to take the pressure off the Grecianized Jews and their God Fearer brethren of other national cultures, and Rome started to back off from its policy of persecution. However, Rome itself had undergone an internal fragmentation, a consequence of over-expansion, which resulted in the period of the four emperors, two caesars and two augustus. Each of which had headquarters outside of Rome itself.

Inevitably, this broke down and it was Constantine who re-merged the Emperorship, choosing to move the headquarters to what is now Istanbul, renaming it Constantinople. It was this move that more than anything else shook up the Empire, leaving it with a very different demographic structure. And of course Constantine was concerned to consolidate the new Empire (now the Byzantine Empire).

He had been passively neutral to this new Christian cult, and remained so until his death. As a national policy, however, Christianity had to be de-criminalized in order to satisfy the demographic, and it was the execution of this policy that did in Lucian, the last co-Emperor. Immediately, Constantine set about formalizing Christianity, and called a council at Nicaea, his country villa across the Bosporus.

What he found was that the Alexandrian movement had consolidated enough power to provide an adequate template for that formalization; he intended to incorporate Christianity under the more militant Roman state religion banner, together with Mithraism and Sol Invictus, for example. But immediately there was an apparently intractable problem: The Christ figure was held as the head of the now legal Christianity, and that was unacceptable to Constantine.

So after much acrimony, the council decided that the Christos figure had to be non-physical as well, leaving Constantine as the head of the religion. The problem was that now the Christos figure had to be reconciled with the already non-physical Yahveh, a problem that has yet to be resolved.

And that, folks, is how the Christian religion began. Like it or not, it was the result of quite mundane political necessities, just like its progeniture, Judaism.

One can claim the Jesus was/is the Son of God. Or not. One can claim that Jesus was/is "The Christ". Or not. One can make any claim that one likes, but one cannot assert as fact what is false to evidence and go unchallenged.

One can reasonably grant that current cultural traditions mandate certain claims, and that very many people find those claims to be socially and psychologically useful; probably many if not most of these people are addicted thus. But one must recognize the legitimacy of such a grant to traditions other than Christianity, especially Judaism and Islam.

The point is that there are attested historical answers to the question of the identity and nature of the Christ figure, and all else is only opinion.

William D. Tallman

The founders of Christianity, created a larger-than-life being they believed would bring them followers--and it did. However, they unwittingly imparted to Christ their own human frailties. Nevertheless, the number of followers increased dramatically once government and ecclesiastical authorities joined forces and made acceptance of Christianity mandatory.

They could not credit their “Lord and Savior” with bringing peace, curing leprosy, preventing famine or eliminating poverty. It was obvious and indisputable that all of humankind’s maladies were as prevalent after Christ as before Christ. Christ’s proponents circumvented this problem by declaring that life on earth didn’t matter as believers would spend eternity in paradise. As a subterfuge for Christ’s failure to cure diseases, etc., the proponents of the new religion disseminated stories about Christ performing miracles. It did not matter how farfetched the Gospels were. Beginning in the fourth century torture insured that they were “true.” I’ll bet with enough torture, the world could be made flat.

Christ’s creators did their best to put profound words in His mouth. However, anyone analyzing what Christ said will find that very little He said was meaningful. His words were primarily a public relations effort to promote a new religion.

In essence, the Gospels are little more than a threat, “Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and bow before His God or suffer horrible consequences.”

Thomas & Ross & JVST,

1- I havent qouted the exact words but more or less the same expresion.

2- One better speak upon evidence and not upon personal opinion. Read both the books and evaluate your self which is human/satan handy work keep on changing taking out lies/ incorrect maths/information and which is divine unchanged/correct? And ask your self does God lies and decieve or satan????

3- I would also expect your answer to my questions in this post and previous???

Muslims are using this topic to prosletyse for their religion while Atheists are using the teachings and practices of Islam to discredit all theists.
Muslims claim that their Holy Book was never altered , which is not true. There were many different versions of that book and the Caliph Uthman ibn Affan gathered those copies and burned all but one which became the standard version. As for its infallibility , I cannot help but concur with Voltaire who said " every page in it is an insult to human rationality".

It seems to me that the question upon which this forum is based, "Who was Jesus?", misses the facts entirely. Jesus Christ never existed. He is a fictional character created by people who wanted to use people's worship of the Sun to their advantage. The details of his life were plagiarized from those of the pagan prophets who came before him: Born on the 25th of December of a virgin mother and visited by three kings, became a teacher at 12, began his work at 30, had 12 disciples, rose from the dead three days after his crucifiction - even the miracles he performed were the same as the prophets before him. Most of these characteristics are shared by dozens of previous prophets of other religions around the world, and most of them are based on the behaviour of celestial bodies like the star Sirius, the three stars of Orion's belt, and the Sun, as well as twelve signs of the Zodiac. Hence, the transformation of Sun worship to the worship of an actual man.
In addition, I find it odd, to say the least, that 'Jesus' was born in the Roman Empire, at the peak of that empire's power, and not a single historian even so much as mentions him. An era of high culture, excellent record keeping, and relatively high literacy, and of all the historians who were active at the time, not one felt like mentioning a man who could walk on water and turn water into wine. This begs the question: "If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not completed until a century and a half after the death of 'Jesus Christ', what did they use for their historical evidence?" I couldn't write about Winston Churchill without any sort of historical notation, much less someone who healed the sick with his touch.
Finally, in response to Moody: I hardly think a Muslim is in a position to gloat about the 'superiority' of Islam. Even if Muhammed existed, he was a marauding warlord and a pedophile, who gave his victims three options: conversion, slavery (dhimmitude) or death. Since the Islamic world never experienced equivalents to the Reformation or the Rennaissance, not very much has changed.

It seems to me that the question upon which this forum is based, "Who was Jesus?", misses the facts entirely. Jesus Christ never existed. He is a fictional character created by people who wanted to use people's worship of the Sun to their advantage. The details of his life were plagiarized from those of the pagan prophets who came before him: Born on the 25th of December of a virgin mother and visited by three kings, became a teacher at 12, began his work at 30, had 12 disciples, rose from the dead three days after his crucifiction - even the miracles he performed were the same as the prophets before him. Most of these characteristics are shared by dozens of previous prophets of other religions around the world, and most of them are based on the behaviour of celestial bodies like the star Sirius, the three stars of Orion's belt, and the Sun, as well as twelve signs of the Zodiac. Hence, the transformation of Sun worship to the worship of an actual man.
In addition, I find it odd, to say the least, that 'Jesus' was born in the Roman Empire, at the peak of that empire's power, and not a single historian even so much as mentions him. An era of high culture, excellent record keeping, and relatively high literacy, and of all the historians who were active at the time, not one felt like mentioning a man who could walk on water and turn water into wine. This begs the question: "If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not completed until a century and a half after the death of 'Jesus Christ', what did they use for their historical evidence?" I couldn't write about Winston Churchill without any sort of historical notation, much less someone who healed the sick with his touch.
Finally, in response to Moody: I hardly think a Muslim is in a position to gloat about the 'superiority' of Islam. Even if Muhammed existed, he was a marauding warlord and a pedophile, who gave his victims three options: conversion, slavery (dhimmitude) or death. Since the Islamic world never experienced equivalents to the Reformation or the Rennaissance, not very much has changed.

Thomas Baum,

I don't mind your language because by now I came to conclusion that it is common norm in west, false accusations and slinging dirt on others IGNORING CONCRETE PROOFS.
And now in reply to your post: BRINGING PROOF FROM YOUR OWN BIBLE BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN IT SO YOU NEED IT TO VARIFY,
AS MUSLIMS PROOF AND WHAT WE BELIEVE IS QURAN.

Lies or Truth: Evidence speaks for it self.

1- There is not a single verse in ANY VERSION of Bible where Jesus (A.S) said, worship me OR I'm god. Instead he said,” I speak what I hear from father”, “My Father is greater than me."

2- Again word "Trinity" is not mentioned in ANY VERSION of the Bible. The closest verse to trinity that,” Father, Holy Ghost & spirit is one" is thrown out in your REVISED VERSION of Bible. As all your high priests said,” It was a concoction, fabrication, addition, a lie in the Bible, as no such verse is found in the most ancient scriptures".
So please ask your own priests who is lying and fabricating??????

3-We Muslims FOLLOW more in Jesus (A.S) commandments then you Christians:

(You say, you love Jesus (A.S.), but you disobey his every commandment).

4-From Adam to Jesus (PBUT) MENTIONED IN YOUR BIBLE, all prophets when prayed to God, they prostrated like we Muslims.
Do you follow Jesus, how to pray?

5- In ALL Bibles more than 3 times Jesus said swine-pig in forbidden to eat. We Muslims follow him, but you Christians follow PAUL and disobey Jesus (A.S.) commandments.

6- More than 4 occasions in ALL Bibles Jesus (A.S) told wine has bad attributes on the humans. But Paul quotes the "FIRST MIRACLE OF JESUS" and since then wine is flowing like water in Christendom and NOT AT ALL in Muslimdom. (Bible said water tasted like wine and never said turned into wine).

7- Jesus said," I came to keep all the commandments of the God and not to break them". But you Christians broke EACH AND EVERY of them.
Hale-aluu-Yaa to Church, Paul, Mathew, John and Luke!!!!!

8-According to Christian Bible first miracle of Jesus (A.S.) was turning water taste like wine and recovering the shortage in the gathering. But according to Quran the first miracle of Jesus was talking to Jews when he was infant in his mother’s arms.

When after birth, Mary came:
According to the BIBLE she told the Jews that she hear voices and then had a child birth. Do you believe your daughter or sister, if she come and tell you she had birth after hearing voices? Do you think when she had told that to the Jews, they would have believed it???
But Quran tells that the Jews accused her, she knows that Jesus (A.S) was the miraculous birth. So she told the Jews ask the infant. And miraculously Jesus (A.S) talked to them and told them to be nice and respectful to my mother as she is among the highest of the pious. Quran gives highest respect to Mary, even there is a complete chapter by her name in Quran. You have chapters named by Mathew, Luke, John or lying Paul and many others but not a single by his mothers name Mary.
Which version would you like to tell to your children, HEARING VOICES AND GETTING PRAGNANT or MIRACULOUS TALK????

9-Christians says Jesus (A.S) was the BEGOTTEN SON. What are you trying to apply here? So what you are trying to put in all the humans throat is that the All Mighty God who made every thing miraculously from Adam to every thing of this world needs to come done to seed…. (God forgive us for such satanic thinking). Allah tells in Quran that when He wants to do some thing, He just says and it happens. He begets not nor He begotten. Human miracles are not the proof of any kind of divinity. Jesus (A.S) was the prophet like all other prophets with miracles.

10-Christians says Jesus (A.S) get crucified for there sins. And a son of god (not mentioned any where in the Bible he himself never said that). And dozens of Bible verses proving that he was not died through crucifixion. You Christians are also divided about it.
So basically what you are making to swallow us (the whole human race) is that the whole nation rape, kill and do bad atrocities and when brought for justice there King hang his own son instead of punishing them. IT DOES REALLY MAKE SENSE! Hale- alu- Yaa PAUL and the greatest deceiving of the human history.

11- Jesus says “ He is jealous God only pray to Him”. But Christians are eager to make partner to Him. We Muslims only pray to God and don’t make any partners to Him.

So I am asking you a question:

Next time does Jesus (A.S) come to the house of people who are obeying his commandments OR who are TOTALLY disobeying his commandments???

The question should not be, "Who was Jesus?," but rather, "Who IS He?" Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and at the same time, He IS God. The same yesterday, today, forever.

He's God, He's My Savior & He's My Friend...That's Who Jesus IS.

You can find a reply to your post here Cheap Pharmacy

I may be late to the discussion, but I believe Jesus was the son of God. I believe He is the way to Heaven and that we live in a fallen world because of sin. It is my belief and I think that our nation has turned away from that because we tolerate everything and we didn't back in the 50's and 60's and 70's. Our morals and our society has suffered due to the lack of a "line." We have erased the line and we compromise our values for the sake of tolerance. We allow too much in society today and there is often no price to pay.

What says about Jesus and other who were sent before him.

"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation Given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, And the Tribes, and that given Moses and Jesus, and that given To (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference Between one and another of them: And we submit to Allah".

So if they believe As ye believe, they are indeed On the right path; but if They turn back, it is they Who are in schism; but Allah will Suffice thee as against them, And He is the All-Hearing, The All-Knowing. {S 2.A. 136-137}.

We are thus in the true line of those who follow the one and indivisible Message of the One Allah, wherever delivered. If others narrow it or corrupt it, it is they who have left the faith and crerated a division or schism. But Allah sees and Knows all. And He will protect His own, and His support will be infinitely more precious than the support which men can give.

Dear friend, what do you think about this faith, faith which generalize all Messages from their Lord without differentiating or preferences.

"That they said (in boast), "we killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messanger of Allah", But they killed him not, Nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that Was shown to them. {S 4. A. 157}

The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.

As many Christians believe that Jesus was killed by Jews, however here Islam come in to deffend justice, eventhough their relationship look otherwise, but justice should be tell and serve.

What says about Jesus and other who were sent before him.

"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation Given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, And the Tribes, and that given Moses and Jesus, and that given To (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference Between one and another of them: And we submit to Allah".

So if they believe As ye believe, they are indeed On the right path; but if They turn back, it is they Who are in schism; but Allah will Suffice thee as against them, And He is the All-Hearing, The All-Knowing. {S 2.A. 136-137}.

We are thus in the true line of those who follow the one and indivisible Message of the One Allah, wherever delivered. If others narrow it or corrupt it, it is they who have left the faith and crerated a division or schism. But Allah sees and Knows all. And He will protect His own, and His support will be infinitely more precious than the support which men can give.

Dear friend, what do you think about this faith, faith which generalize all Messages from their Lord without differentiating or preferences.

"That they said (in boast), "we killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messanger of Allah", But they killed him not, Nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that Was shown to them. {S 4. A. 157}

The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.

As many Christians believe that Jesus was killed by Jews, however here Islam come in to deffend justice, eventhough their relationship look otherwise, but justice should be tell and serve.

What says about Jesus and other who were sent before him.

"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation Given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, And the Tribes, and that given Moses and Jesus, and that given To (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference Between one and another of them: And we submit to Allah".

So if they believe As ye believe, they are indeed On the right path; but if They turn back, it is they Who are in schism; but Allah will Suffice thee as against them, And He is the All-Hearing, The All-Knowing. {S 2.A. 136-137}.

We are thus in the true line of those who follow the one and indivisible Message of the One Allah, wherever delivered. If others narrow it or corrupt it, it is they who have left the faith and crerated a division or schism. But Allah sees and Knows all. And He will protect His own, and His support will be infinitely more precious than the support which men can give.

Dear friend, what do you think about this faith, faith which generalize all Messages from their Lord without differentiating or preferences.

"That they said (in boast), "we killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messanger of Allah", But they killed him not, Nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that Was shown to them. {S 4. A. 157}

The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.

As many Christians believe that Jesus was killed by Jews, however here Islam come in to deffend justice, eventhough their relationship look otherwise, but justice should be tell and serve.

Jesus will be back soon to settle this question. Maranatha!

I believe most people who believe in Jesus and consider themselves religious, and sincerely try and follow his teachings, are basically good people.

I also think it is good to adjust or modify your beliefs based on your own experiences and evolving understanding, especially when certain life experiences teach you that what you've been taught from childhood is in part erroneous or in need of revision.

Was Jesus the son of God. Well, yes. But aren't all of us a son or daughter of God, at least in terms of the Spirit that animates us.

I think that Spirit was fully awakened in one such as Jesus, but I also believe we all have the potential to awaken it to the same degree as He. And that each in his or her own way should strive to do so.

It's an inner experience of Spirit that is important. Words, scripture, sacred teachings all have their place ........ as stepping stones to the awakening of an inner radiance in one's own consciousness.

Don't seek for concepts, seek for the experience. The direct experience of Spirit is the savior. Any path that leads to it is the right path.

To anonymous who responded to my paragraph.If you choose in your own way to degrade someone elses knowledge and understanding, that simply reflects how much work is left for you to in your search for truth.
As I had stated in my first brief paragraph there is much more to explain. You in turn in stead of being open to that type discussion choose to lessen my explanation of truth. You know not my source. In response to what you wrote.Your concept of divinity is not accurate. To explain a bit fruther regarding Christ. Christ(Amellious) being the first soul of all souls of Creator.From Him the reast of us were birthed. When Christ was on earth and said you to can do what I do and even greater. IS a guide of explanation that we all have Divinity and the potential of the first Soul Amellious who then was Christ. If we choose to do right with the Creator. That is part as to why earth is like a school. It is for the resolve of our soul essence to perfection, not sacraficing parts of what we are. None is greater than another, we all have the same potential in soul.

Mike Peter - You've been reading too much Edgar Cayce fantasy.

Christos was a term for the inner divinity within all people that can be brought into one's awareness to elevate one to one's highest mind and creative potential.

It is the birth of the inner sun/son by immaculate conception...you give birth to your own higher self.

Take a course on allegory and metaphor and stop believing in fairy tales.

Divinity is that which is WITHIN EACH BEING WHEN WE SACRIFICE OUR ANIMAL SELVES TO OUR HIGHER GOD-LIKE SELVES.

Give yourself some credit for the very power and magnificence within your own being.

As per a direct communication with Arc Angel Gabriel. After Creator God created form, light,dimensions, umong other things, Creator than choose to give to the sharing of all Creator created. Creator than pushed forth from Its own self the first soul which Creator named Amellious. From Amellious than all other souls were born. Over many eons and for reasons I can explain at another time after souls came to the orb of earth and some became entrapped in the material, that is when Creator asked its first amellious and He came to assist. Over many incarnations than amellious was incarnated on the earth. Many times as what we call a religious leader. The final incarnation in human form on earth to show us the way is when Amellious was Christ.. I will explain more later. But there is much much more than this brief explanation..

As per a direct communication with Arc Angel Gabriel. After Creator God created form, light,dimensions, umong other things, Creator than choose to give to the sharing of all Creator created. Creator than pushed forth from Its own self the first soul which Creator named Amellious. From Amellious than all other souls were born. Over many eons and for reasons I can explain at another time after souls came to the orb of earth and some became entrapped in the material, that is when Creator asked its first amellious and He came to assist. Over many incarnations than amellious was incarnated on the earth. Many times as what we call a religious leader. The final incarnation in human form on earth to show us the way is when Amellious was Christ.. I will explain more later. But there is much much more than this brief explanation..

As per a direct communication with Arc Angel Gabriel. After Creator God created form, light,dimensions, umong other things, Creator than choose to give to the sharing of all Creator created. Creator than pushed forth from Its own self the first soul which Creator named Amellious. From Amellious than all other souls were born. Over many eons and for reasons I can explain at another time after souls came to the orb of earth and some became entrapped in the material, that is when Creator asked its first amellious and He came to assist. Over many incarnations than amellious was incarnated on the earth. Many times as what we call a religious leader. The final incarnation in human form on earth to show us the way is when Amellious was Christ.. I will explain more later. But there is much much more than this brief explanation..

Free prescription with your order, FedEx overnight shipping: http://BuyTramadolOnline.Ws

Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary and if there was any immaculate conception it took place on clean straw in the far corner of the barn. If any God was involved it may have been God help us, or in God we trust all others cash or for God sake take care I want to keep my dress clean. He grew up to be a bit of a trouble maker and like Martin Luther did years later over Indulgences, fell foul of the church leaders when he evicted their business representatives (money lenders) from the Temple.Because of his communistic rabble rousing talk he also upset the Romans. Their fear was
of competition for the job of emperor and meant he was soon struggling up hill carrying a large cross. Carrying with it also the best wishes of the Clergy of the day to help him on his way. Their reaction being "Why not let the Romans kill one bird with two stones." The usual business in money-lending to resume Monday post Crucifixion. Unbeknown to the Church of the day Jesus had arranged with a couple of his closest associates to remove his body from the Tomb and make out he had risen to heaven. The ruse worked and 2000 odd years later the worlds first conman is still taking the suckers to the cleaners.

Google is the best search engine Google

Hello all; I'm back!

To Mr. Mark: Thank you for your gracious reply. I'm always wary of posting on public places such as these for fear of people ganging up on me - it has happened before; not pleasant, but I handled it quite well. As to us being somewhat alike, I agree. I actually do see the logic behind a lot of atheistic arguments because those ones make up part of my view in the world, albeit a view that includes God. The arguments that get my goat are generalizations and personal opinions brought out as solid arguments. They don't make me think or evaluate my faith at all; they just irritate.

[digresson] However, even as I question my faith, I don't think I'll ever renounce my belief in God entirely, as there is a fundamental reason to my belief in God's existence and the existence of an afterlife, which is personal to me and not to be divulged here. [/end digression]

I may not be on here a lot either, as life generally gets in the way...

Good luck to those who continue to post in this thread.

Cheers,
Rose

Gerry, Fate, Acrapist, Mr. Mark, James, Joseph A., A Hermit, Falk Steinle and the rest:

THE CHALLENGE!

(Go to the main thread on "Why Atheism")

One exercise that I do for myself is to try and argue the various sides of a debate and attempt to give (what I would consider) a fair and “winning” accounting of each one. There are several benefits to doing this: you keep yourself sharp, you are better able to anticipate what must necessarily come next in a systematically consistent logical construct, you waste less time dueling with straw men, and it’s just plain courteous to try and understand where another person is coming from without putting words in their mouths or claiming that you know what they “really mean”.

So here is what I propose. I would like to see the various people in our circle of friends that frequently post here attempt to define the strengths of Christian thought on morality (pick your brand) and also the strong points of whatever Atheistic take on morality you choose to define. The contribution to this entire discussion could be huge (if done well) as we would could prove to each other that we might in fact understand the other position. Then the field would be clear to explain WHY we find a particular view lacking! Sounds fun right? So what do ya say?

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?"

YES!

God died for my sins. He didn't send someone else to do his dirty work. That's how much he loves us!

foundationchurch.org

Jesus is the Messenger of God. His message was that of all the messengers of God, which is there is only one God. Worship God alone and nothing else.

Jesus is GOD. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and was born into the world as a human to do the will of GOD which is perfection without blemish.
Jesus had so much compassion he took everyone of mankinds sin and died for them so we would not have to slaughter lambs for each and everyone of our sins.
Jesus was pure and very smart. He spoke in parables to fools he wanted to reach so that they would not burn in eternal hell. And to the rest he spoke regular language.
Jesus was among sinners, but was not one.
Jesus was a teacher.
Jesus is my ABBA.
God Bless Everyone!
Beth

Take to offence:
An Atheist will always deny the existence of Jesus, as will the other mythical religions..

The people of scriptures (Jews, Christians & Muslims):

Me as a Muslim I will always say, Jesus was a Messenger of God, Jews Don't, the reason is not understandable to me; if moses could be a messenger of God, why cant be jesus? Christians made him God for some reason; Is it to feel superior than the Jews? Bible testifyes God sending messengers after messengers to Guide the mankind; why should he suddenly come himself before 2007 years to excuse mankind from the original sin?? Does it mean that Adam and eve and all the mesengers mentioned in Bible were also not pure souls; as they were bearing the burden of so called original sin? while son does not bear the responsibility of fathers sin, how illogical for me to bear the responsibility of sin committed by adam and eve?? does it not make the christians think?? How can god die? why does god need to become a man to do something? An engineer does not need to become a television to understand the problems of a television he just made....

No where in the bible jesus claims in his words to be the God. Now another problem when you talk about bible, the next immediate question is, which bible? there are so many versions. It can even be changed today, because the bible is not collected verbatim as it came down to Jesus the prophet from God, Jesus passed the messages and later after his death, some of his deciples or companions started writing, so there was always scope of the words of jesus the humanbeing and the narrator getting into the book. So those human words created confusions and disagreements leading to factions.

The same problem have happened in a different way with Islam as well; while some people started collecting the words of Muhammad the human being; confusions were created and lead to some division.

The beauty is, that The Quran is the words of Allah (God), which was recorded as it came. So You can find words of Allah correcting mistakes made by Muhammad as well.

There is only one version of Quran for last 1400 (Approx) years, since it came. Allah says that it will remain the same and that's His responsibility to keep it like that. None can change it, There is no mistake, no ambiguity, it is Humanly impossible for any humanbeing to write a book with such precision of neumeology, The scientific facts revealed to such perfection which can only be said by the creator who created the universe and many many more signs to believe that it's a book from the creator.

Quran mentions that, Muhammad is the last prophet and the quran is the final guidence from Allah, you can see that in 1400 years none has really been challenging it and I dont see it happening anytime. Quran can answer every sincere question of a soul; Quram testifies; Allah has sent same message through all the prophets starting from Ibrahim (Abraham) and All everyone's religion was Islam.

Look; word perfect to MS word for xp, all came from microsoft; they all do the same work, but it has been perfected in the latest edition; there are still some who are sticking to WP and that's serving their purpose as well of typing the doc, if the copy is not corrupted. Quran testifies,Moses and Jesus to be the messengers and I as a muslim believe whole heartedly that they were and they got messages as we call bible and Taorah. But my friends, the copies are corrupted, please move to the final sestament which is proven to be not to be corrupted, you will be a better christian or a better jew and that only means Islam.

Quran says: 'There are many good christians and jews, who pray deep at night and are righteous people, who will go to heaven, whom you may not know but I do' I salute them whoever those are who can earn nearness to Allah amidst all confusions created by cholars around them.

Quran is a open book and there is only one version. I would request all of you; if you havnt read it, please do read and try to find out a mistake in it's History, Predictions, scientific facts, Language and Neumerology....If you cant believe it to be from Allah and Say: 'La Ilaha Illallah' - There is none worthy of worship except Allah.

Jesus is the messenger of God. It is shameful for the God to have a son without getting married, while He forbid us to not to do so. Any way God never gets married, "None gave birth to Him nor He gave birth to anyone, There is nothing like him."- Quran

Dear Deanna,

All we have to do is:

A) Cut and paste a Mr. Mark post.

B) Send it to a believer for comment.

C) Post the believer's response WITHOUT reference, ie, without Mr. Mark's original post.

D) He'll be back in a FLASH!

Voila!

:)

Dear Mark,

Congratulations on the new job!!! Hope the relocation is to your perfect environment, whatever that may be!

Getting along on Dawkins. BTW, he talks about atheists banding together to combat the various stripes of theists haranguing the government and trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. I say, go for it! The "Moral Majority" has claimed the high ground on very flimsy credentials for far too long!

I have to wonder how long Joseph A., News Cynic, Rose, and I will keep this thread going without your regular input. You will most definitely be missed. I'll look for you on Dawkins' site after I've finished my "homework".

Richest blessings to you and yours,
Deanna

Mr. Mark: Congrats on the job friend. To whatever extent you can't keep up on these threads you will be missed. I have checked out the Dawkin's threads a while ago but did not see you at that time. I'll be sure to head over there again. Was I in the "Friend" or "Adversary" category? (Or at times both?)

When you wrote: "My problem is in your inferring that god is perfect, and that qualifies god as being a perfect external moral source for man (as opposed to the imperfections of man)." You were absolutely right. God as I understand the concept to mean and if such a being were to exist, would by definition be perfect. I did not want to overly encumber my post with a defense of Christianity, but I know you know very well were I stand so that's fine.

You: “Is god omnipotent? No, he isn't...he couldn't defeat those chariots of iron...”

Me: Awesome! Anytime a post contains the phrase, “chariots of iron” that has to be a good thing. On a different note though I would say that any god that can’t defeat chariots or tanks or atom bombs or super novas is not a god (in the Christian sense). Are you sure God wanted to stop them?

You: Dawkins' point is that our morals were formed early on in human development through our survival mechanism, ie: that humans better survived when they banded into communities and looked out for each other's welfare. This furthered the common good of humans, and over the millenia, a "moral" code emerged, predating the codified codes of the world's religions.”

I can see that.

Me: Oh I can to. Given a materialistic Universe I see no problem with that supposition. It is as plausible as any (and better than some!)

Let us just be clear that when Dawkins gives the OK to intellectual elite, “leaders” and the ever changing “Zeitgeist” to redefine what is moral (since our minds have evolved to the point that we can take control of our cultural evolution), then good and evil are no longer absolutes and we are back to where we started: in some very real way what we call moral absolutes are arbitrary to geography and generation.

So my question is, why get so worked up about other people perceived short failings?

Dear Mr Mark,

Good Luck! Hurry back! Won't be the same without ya!

To My Various Theist Friends & Adversaries -

Just a few housekeeping points.

1. To NC - I tend to cut-n-paste from the KJV Bible online because a) it's a version that is commonly used to this day, and the words and phrasing are know to many, and b) because it's available to cut-n-paste while other versions aren't.

As far as versions of the Bible that I know and have owned, those would include the KJV, the RSV (I still have my confirmation copy of that from 1968), The New English (with Apocrapha) and the Zondervan Amplified (which I no longer own).

2. To Rose - welcome to the Board. You and I aren't so far apart. I'd say that your beliefs are about where I was 12-15 years ago. At that time, I considered myself a deist, if anything. I, too, enjoy the ritual of the church, at least until the soft racism and misogyny rear their ugly heads. Certainly, the music is often worth the price of admission.

Atheists love to say that we are all - atheists and theists alike - atheists, it's just that we atheists believe in one less god than do you theists. I'm 52, and it took quite a while for me to end up where I am in my journey. I'm still asking questions, but I would have to admit that I am well beyond redemption! One could say that I've been redeemed - by reason. I like to say that I have backslid all the way up to the top of the mountain, where the air is clear and the view is spectacular.

3. To James - well, here's another problem when we play the Bible translation game. Ultimately, none of us can be sure what it says, unless we are fluent in Hebrew, Greek and whatever. With all the various translations I have owned, I have never felt that the basic message emenating from the KJV was turned around 180º, and the points of clarity offered were often the stuff of angels dancing on pinheads. Still, the verses you cite give ample room for discussion.

I do have a question for you concerning more-literal translations: how does that effect the concept of midrash? Do you find that a more-literal reading of the Bible circumscribes midrash, or is midrash itself limited to a study of the original Hebrew?

As to the "faults" of the first covenant - as is typical of the Bible, the fault is all man's, not the Biblical god's. Well, to quote South Park, I CALL SHENANIGANS!! I don't buy it.

If god were omnipotent and omniscient, he would have seen it coming, so why have the first covenant in the first place? And, if Version 1 of the covenant was faulty, why should I buy into Vers 2? What if god is a supernatural Bill Gates, issuing bug-ridden covenant "software" over and over again, never quite getting it right? What if those Biblical translations you cited are just security patches, issued by god through humans until the "virus" of scientific research finds the next "security breach" in the Biblical argument, leading to yet another round of finger-in-the-dike theological reasoning?

After all, that faulty first covenant was around for, what, four thousand years? The bright-n-shiny New Covenant has only been around for half that time. Isn't it entirely possible that two thousand years from now, god will issue a third covenant that says science and reason were right all along, and that the quaint stories of the Bible were only operative until we evolved that sixth finger and a set of wheels for legs? Think about it.

It brings us back to the age-old question: if god is all-powerful, could he create a rock that was so heavy that he couldn't lift it?

Sorry, but blaming man for god's mistakes is too easy by half. It reminds me of bush & the neo-cons blaming the Iraqis for the disaster WE have made of their country.

4. To Deanna - always good to see you hanging around this site. I hope Valentine's Day was a good time for you and yours.

FWIW - I don't take comments like Rose's to be harsh. The only comments that would qualify as harsh to me are those made out of ignorance.

To all: I'm going to try to keep posting here on occasion, but it looks like the volume of my posts is going to have to drop off. Why? Well, I've been unemployed for the past few months, and it looks like I'm very close to landing a new position. That in and of itself will, hopefully, curtail the time available to me to surf the net, but coupled with the very real possibility that acccepting this position would entail a major relo as well, it may just about doom my recreational time for the forseeable future.

FYI - I occasionally post at both Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins' sites under my Mr Mark screen name, so we can always catch up there, though the same reality I etched above will impact my postings at the atheist-friendly blogs as well.

Gotta go.

Best to all,

Mr Mark

To Deanna:

Thanks for your support. As for my somewhat harsh tone, I didn't mean it to come off that way - I was composing it at around 4 in the morning when I had to wake up at 6:30 for the "next day"...so you could imagine how I didn't sound as civil as I should have been. :) I really do like the civil discussions more than those stray comments who spout off Scripture or those who are just spiteful in general.

One comment about your post: I agree with you - there is much I have to learn about my faith and what is it I believe, and that's what makes faith so compelling - the state of it is never concrete, and it should be normal to question one's faith to see if it holds up in where one is in life.

I'll also get around to checking out the evidence for Jesus' nonexistence, but now it's time to sleep. ^__^

I'll keep checking back often to see if anyone else has anything interesting to say!

Sincerely,
Rose

Mr. Mark,

I quoted from the New International Version. It's translation was started in 1968 and completed in 1978. It was translated for the purpose of being as true to the modern English language as it is to the original Greek and Hebrew. See this link for more info.

http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/index.php

I apologize for not analyzing your other statement about God's law.

You wrote:

"Is god's law perfect? Not so much (Hebrews 8:6-7 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.)"

The NIV reads (with verse 8):

6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

"7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah." Hebrews 8:6-8

The King James Version also becomes clearer when you include verse 8:

" 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"

The fault God found in the covenant was on the part of the people.

You also wrote:

Is god perfect? No, he has to repent for mistakes he's made (Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart; Jeremiah 42:10
For I [God] repent me of the evil that I have done unto you).

Again, going to the NIV it is clearer:

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

When I read this, it seems that God made man, man chose evil, and it grieved God. I don't see where it says it was a mistake.

On the Jeremiah verse, you have to read back in Chapter 40:

2 When the commander of the guard found Jeremiah, he said to him, "The LORD your God decreed this disaster for this place. 3 And now the LORD has brought it about; he has done just as he said he would. All this happened because you people sinned against the LORD and did not obey him.

Jeremiah 42:10 then reads:
10 'If you stay in this land, I will build you up and not tear you down; I will plant you and not uproot you, for I am grieved over the disaster I have inflicted on you.

God punished the folks for their sin. They repented and gave them some good news.

You also wrote:

"Does god lie? Not directly, but he does by proxy: (2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.)"

God doesn't lie but he allows lies to be told thereby giving us a choice between choosing the truth or the lie. If only truth were told, there would be no free will to choose the truth.

Ahab wanted to go attack a neighbor and he asked the king of Judah to help him. In the Old Testament, God seemed to not allow wickedness on the part of the leaders of his people to continue. God therefore allowed a lie to be told to entice the king to his death. Even so, God still allowed the truth to be presented through Micaiah:

16 Then Micaiah answered, "I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, 'These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.' "

17 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Didn't I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?"

18 Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing on his right and on his left. 19 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab king of Israel into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. 20 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.

21 " 'I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

22 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

Ahab most likely could have repented at this point, but chose to defy God. He chose to listen to those who told him what he wanted to hear and he went to his death.

Dear Rose,

Welcome to the board! To your two posts, I say, for the most part, Amen. I only ask that you not be too harsh on Mark and many of the others. Like you and I, they are seekers of the truth.

There are many, many who have posted on this board -- on both sides of the issue -- who are irrational, spiteful, closed-minded, and unwilling to accept any point other than their own. I find it much more profitable to examine the atheistic arguments and test them against my own. The fact that their truth and ours are at odds with each other does neither frightens nor intimidates me. In fact, I am finding our discussions profitable and eye-opening. At some point in this thread, I believe Mark and I agreed that it was highly unlikely that we would either of us change our beliefs, but a civil discussion between friends was a wonderful thing.

To repeat something I said much earlier in this thread, I had a college professor tell me is was too accepting and uncritical of the faith tradition in which I had been raised. I was angry and offended at first, but then realized he had a point. This was many years ago. In the interim, I examined my "faith", found it (me) wanting, abandoned it for 30 years, then returned about 15 years ago. But it is only in the past 5 years or so that I have begun to "understand" what it is I believe. And there is still much I can learn.

I do believe that God created the universe and all that is in it. What I have learned from reading the scientific account of the birth of the universe,the genesis of life, and the evolution of life into a sentient creature with a consistent set of basic moral beliefs leads me to believe that the statistical improbability of all the elements necessary for any one of these to occur is exceedingly high. For all of them to occur is even more mind-boggling -- unless you are willing to accept the existence of the divine.

Although I have yet to examine the many arguments for the non-existence of Christ, I do believe God took on human form and died as a human to fulfill the laws of the Old Testament that commanded that men die for their sins. Curiously enough, I can see where Richard Dawkins argues that christianity was "invented by Paul of Taursus," although I don't agree with him.

My question to those who argue Christ never existed is, why, then, have so many people believed to the contrary for over 2,000 years. Also, in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE -- when the Romans and the Jewish hierarchy were so relentlessly trying to eradicate the Jesus sect and it's disturbing belief that Jesus was the risen Lord, why didn't they produce the body? That would certainly quashed any notion of Christ's resurrection -- and taken most of the wind out of Christian's sails.

Two comments on specific comments of yours: I had a mother who invoked God's will to justify many of her acts that were hurtful to others. It was one of the things that drove me away from religion! The position is not supportable because 1) God gave us free will, and 2) Christ commanded us to love one another. Lazy, yes. Also an act of moral cowardice. But Christ has long since forgiven my mother, and so must I.

As for good deeds, there is no way anyone can "earn" their way into heaven. Christ already paid the price for our "ticket." We act with kindness, caring, and generosity toward our fellow humans because 1) the love of God showered upon us is too great to be contained, and 2) Christ commanded us to love our neighbors -- even commanding that we love our enemies!

Stay with us. There's a lot to learn here.

Peace and Love,
Deanna

Mr. Mark (and other Bible Readers)!

Saw your comment to James about Bible translations. If you want one that sounds corny and that makes it easy to mock modern Christians with I recommend you use the Kind James version. It just sounds funny to modern ears. if you want clarity of understanding though there are sevearl newer versions that come with great notes in the margins about which verses are not found in the oldest texts and which passages are in dispute etc.

I would recommend the New American Standard but it's not as easy to read as some because it places conformity to the existing ancient texts over ease of reading. I also like the TNIV but that is rather controversial in some circles.

On a different note I am having a hard time with an atheist over on the "Why atheism" thread. He is adamant that he disputes the notion that atheists do not believe in morality in the same sense that Christians do. I have tried to explain this to him several times but nothing works. Perhaps you could help? (It would be a swell thing for you to do.)

Here is my last post to him:

You said that I said (and he said that she said) that atheists, ““IN REALITY have no morality”. What I actually said was, “in reality atheists ARE saying that there is no such thing as morality in the sense that Christians mean."

Gerry, my friend, I don’t understand what you are disputing! We agree here don’t we? Are you honestly trying to argue that atheists ARE saying that they believe in morality in the same sense that Christians do? I can’t believe that. Let me repeat that I never said (or even thought!) that you have no emotions and no sense of morality. I know you didn’t like my Bible quotes but I used them to show you that within a Christian world view it is understood that all people have a sense of morality because God put “eternity” in our hearts.

Again, are you really saying that atheists DO believe in morality in the same sense that Christians do? That would make you an odd atheist indeed because while Atheists will argue that morality comes from our evolutionary history (as a set of learned survival skills) or from the “spirit of our times” or from both or from some other (perhaps undefined) place, the Christian will say that “Goodness” flows from the character of God and is a category of reality that exists quite independent of the predilections of time or the vagaries of culture. Let me guess. You don’t believe that do you. So, that means we both agree that “in reality atheists ARE saying that there is no such thing as morality in the sense that Christians mean." Right?

You were jumping to conclusions (and false ones at that) to say that I think you have no emotions or no sense of morality.

I hate to belabor this point, but if you want to be a good atheist I think we should both agree that we disagree that morality is a reflection of the character of God. You maybe should read Dawkin’s book The God Delusion. He never gets around to explaining the “ought” of morality or even how we can determine what is good and evil, but he does go to great lengths to explain why he does not prefer the morality of the god of the Bible! As he puts it, “All I am establishing is that modern morality, wherever else it comes from, does not come from the Bible.” See? Dawkins and I agree on this point! Atheists think Christians are wrong on morality. That was easy!

(Chapter3:verse59)
Verily, the likeness of Iesa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.

(Chapter4:verse163)
Verily, We have inspired you (O Muhammad SAW) as We inspired Nooh (Noah) and the Prophets after him; We (also) inspired Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Yaqoob (Jacob), and AlAsbat (the twelve sons of Yaqoob (Jacob)), Iesa (Jesus), Ayub (Job), Yoonus (Jonah), Haroon (Aaron), and Sulaiman (Solomon), and to Dawood (David) We gave the Zaboor (Psalms).

(Chapter4:verse 171)
O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rooh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is AllSufficient as a Disposer of affairs.

(Chapter4:verse 157)
And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (i.e. Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ):

Also, many atheists cite that people who believe in God do so because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, putting them all on God. That is not a true Christian, but forget true Christian - that's just laziness and irresponsibility. Disgusting.

Then, there is that other claim that Christians only do good things so we can get a fast ticket to heaven, and all sorts of nonsense like that. So you atheists are better at helping your fellow man/woman but theists aren't simply because they believe in something that you don't? I don't know; sounds like a superiority complex to me.

Mr. Mark,

I'm new to this board, but I've read most of the posts since 11 PM tonight.

Okay, so you've established that faith is not needed and religion is not needed, so the rest of the world needs to wake up and realize that atheists are right. Without debating points of theology and evidence, aren't you just as guilty as religious fundamentalists of thinking you have the one "truth" and it is right? I know you're backed up by scientific evidence and whatnot; I didn't come here to disprove evolution or to question Jesus' and God's existence. I'm just saying that just because you believe a certain way, even with more proof than the others, doesn't make you the "most right." As a Catholic (shock! horror!), I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't condemn others for not believing or hold a sense of superiority in my beliefs. No one should. Maybe that's just me, and I know Sam Harris hates people like me, but one can't please everyone. :)

Yes, the Bible was written by humans to understand the world around them. I don't take it literally except the nuggets of moral codes in there that are pretty much universal to everyone. The only reason why I'm not an atheist or a plain theist with no denominational ties is that I believe SOMETHING or SOMEONE created the universe. Maybe it is just a force that created whatever the first material was because something cannot come from nothing, and maybe we are just worshipping the complex form of nature as well as defined moralistic codes inherent in people, but I and others like me shouldn't be looked down upon for choosing to believe in this way. I don't for you or anyone else.

Again, the only reason why I am still a Roman Catholic with views controversial to Orthodox RCism is that I like the way Catholics worship God/the force/nature. It's simply my preference, as not believing in spiritual beings is yours.

Humans deny that God and Jesus exist. Who is to say humans are not fallible?

James -

1. What translation are you citing? Obviously, the meaning is quite different from that outlined in the KJV. Is that because the translation you're using is considered to be a closer representation of the Hebrew/Greek etc, or is it a version that has cleaned up the earlier message for 21st century consumption?

2. You didn't address the quote about god's not-so-perfect law.

3. " I am grieved over the disaster I have inflicted on you. Jeremiah 42:10" Check me on this, but I believe the word "disaster" can't really be compared to disciplining one's children.

Mr. Mark Wrote:

"Speaking of evil, God creates evil as well as peace (Isaiah 45:7). Maybe he creates perfect evil?"

Does God create evil or free will?

Mr. Mark wrote:

"Is god perfect? No, he has to repent for mistakes he's made (Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart; Jeremiah 42:10
For I [God] repent me of the evil that I have done unto you)."

'If you stay in this land, I will build you up and not tear you down; I will plant you and not uproot you, for I am grieved over the disaster I have inflicted on you. Jeremiah 42:10

Seems to me God is grieved because he had to punish his people. Sort of like hurting when you have to discipline your children.

Let's not take things out of context.

Mr. Mark wrote:

"Is god omniscient? No, he isn' t (Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not)."

Let's look at context:

3 But Israel has rejected what is good;
an enemy will pursue him.

4 They set up kings without my consent;
they choose princes without my approval.
With their silver and gold
they make idols for themselves
to their own destruction.

5 Throw out your calf-idol, O Samaria!
My anger burns against them.
How long will they be incapable of purity?

I disagree with your statements about God especially after reading the verses you cited.

Dear NC -

My problem is in your inferring that god is perfect, and that that qualifies god as being a perfect external moral source for man (as opposed to the imperfections of man).

Is god perfect, specifically, the Biblical god? One needs to define perfection.

Is god omnipotent? No, he isn't...he couldn't defeat those chariots of iron in the OT.

Does god lie? Not directly, but he does by proxy: (2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.)

Is god omniscient? No, he isn' t (Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not).

Is god's law perfect? Not so much (Hebrews 8:6-7 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.)

Is god perfect? No, he has to repent for mistakes he's made (Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart; Jeremiah 42:10
For I [God] repent me of the evil that I have done unto you).

Speaking of evil, God creates evil as well as peace (Isaiah 45:7). Maybe he creates perfect evil?

My point is that there is no perfection, in man or in god, to serve as an external measure of perfection against which we should judge ourselves. That being the case, the human experience is just as good a measure or morals as is god, for both are flawed.

Toss in the wrathful, vengeful god of the OT, and mankind starts to look even better (well, that's a relative statement, isn't it?).

Dawkins' point is that our morals were formed early on in human development through our survival mechanism, ie: that humans better survived when they banded into communities and looked out for each other's welfare. This furthered the common good of humans, and over the millenia, a "moral" code emerged, predating the codified codes of the world's religions.

I can see that.

I hear from Xians that their god is a god of love. Well, that god didn't exist for early man. In fact, there were multiple gods around, and most of them were pretty rank, killing at will and for no reason. I doubt that early man looked to his gods to define his moral center, or to "find the love." Early man's relationship with his god(s) was, "I'll kill my daughter for you if you bring the rains/stop the rains."

Unless you wish to say that man had absolutely no morals before the Abrahamic gods made their appearance.

Does the above explain my earlier remarks?

Mr. Mark

You wrote: “your latest post is loaded with too many false premises, the largest of which is:

"without an objective standard of measure external to ourselves all we can gauge ourselves against are other people or other cultures and I haven't met a perfect person or a heard of a perfect culture yet have you?"

think so? But then you went on to say that you don’t prefer the Christian concept of God (we all have our preferences after all) and to deny an external moral standard.... which was my point right? If we have no external and objective standard then “Man is the highest measure of man.” Surely you’ve heard of this before.

What’s the problem? You can go ahead and try to find something different concept in Kant, Dawkins, and Russell but in the end you will come back to humanity defining what is right or wrong for humanity. Which does not disagree with my contention that "without an objective standard of measure external to ourselves all we can gauge ourselves against are other people or other cultures and I haven't met a perfect person or a heard of a perfect culture yet have you?"

I have read the Dawkins book (or most of it anyway). I would say I found it “lacking” but that is a highly contentious word right now over on the “Why atheism” thread.

Dawkins is a good cheer-leader and I am sure he rallies the troops, but what did you actually think was significant in his discussion of morality? I am curious because even Dawkins seemed to realize this was his weakness and tried to avoid saying anything conclusive. The two chapters on morality were a fun read but so short I felt like he hadn’t had time to make his point or deal with many of the questions that you and I have raised here.

Deanna -

Re: Francis Collins. Yes, he's interesting, isn't he? He supports evolution and doesn't give any credence to ID or the Young Earthers.

He's a theistic evolutionist. A rara avis among both scientists and theists.

Hello, my friends,

First of all, E Fave, I was intrigued enough by your plea to Mark to help him respond to JB in the Jacoby sex thread, that I checked in out. Mark, thank you for helping E Fave, and thank you for explaining the basis of your first response to me. You're right. I must remember to think before I speak! [My dear prayer sister counsels that I pray before I speak. For a "B" that is excellent advice.] Your advice is excellent for both Bs and NBs. Thank you, too, for sharing your father's story. Difficult as it was to do, I too found that I was accorded more respect by my father when I stated my case clearly -- and respectfully -- and requested his compliance.

I see the discussion has progressed to the famous Miller-Urey experiments that were able to form small quantities of amino acids and other biological building blocks by applying an electric discharge to a primeval "soup" of water and organic compounds. At this point in this thread, I feel compelled to insert a rather long quote from one of the stack of many books I am reading as a result of our earlier conversations -- some recommended by you, some I already possessed, and some I "discovered" in my quest.

This comes from on of my "discoveries". It was published in 2006 and is written by "one of the country's leading geneticists and longtime head of the International Genome Project." Given his sterling scientific credentials and a personal fascination with genetics, I was drawn to the book, The Language of God, by Francis S. Collins.

Speaking of the Miller-Urey experiments, Collins continues: "The finding of small amounts of similar compounds within meteorites arriving from outer space has also been put forward as an argument that such complex organic molecules can arise from natural processes in the universe.

"Beyond this point, however, the details become quite sketchy. How could a self-replicating information-carrying molecule assemble spontaneously from these compounds? DNA, with its phosphate-sugar backbone and intricately arranged organic bases, stacked neatly on top of one another and paired together at each rung of the twisted double helix, seems an utterly improbably molecule to have 'just happened' -- especially since DNA seems to possess no intrinsic means of copying itself ... RNA, by contrast, is more like a zip disk or flash drive -- it travels around with its programming and is capable of making things happen on its own. Despite substantial effort by multiple investigators, however, formation of the basic building blocks of RNA has not been achievable in a Miller-Urey type of experiment, nor has a fully self-replicating RNA been possible to design." At this point, Collins discusses some criticisms based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy, and then fires a shot across the bow of theists who would infer divine intervention at this point.

"A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the Middle Ages, to the origins of life today, the 'God of the gaps' approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that's possible)...There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on a (temporary) lack of knowledge.

"In summary, while the question of the origin of life is a fascinating one, and the inability of modern science to develop a statistically probable mechanism is intriguing, this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith."

BTW, Dr. Collins was the son of free thinking, somewhat bohemian parents who provided/force-fed him with no religious training of any kind. In his college years, he was an atheist and "started his journey of intellectual exploration to confirm my atheism." At 26, when asked by a patient what he believed, his response was "I'm not really sure." His investigation of world religions through "CliffNotes versions" eventually led him to a neighbor who was also a Christian minister. In response to Dr. Collins questions, the minister handed him C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, a life-changing little book for Dr. Collins, me, and nearly everyone I know who has read it.

I am working away -- admittedly very slowly -- at Dawkins' The God Delusion, and I will finish it and respond. However, I wanted to bring Dr. Collins' book to the attention of everyone on this thread. I haven't finished it either, but I am finding it highly accessible, thoughtful and thought-provoking, cautious, and firmly grounded in up-to-date science. I highly recommend it for Bs and NBs alike.

News Cynic -

Thanks for your thoughts, but your latest post is loaded with too many false premises, the largest of which is:

"without an objective standard of measure external to ourselves all we can gauge ourselves against are other people or other cultures and I haven't met a perfect person or a heard of a perfect culture yet have you?"

Think about what you're saying here, and what that "external" moral influence is that you posit. An objective person would have to admit that the LEAST-objective standard of measure would be the god of the Bible. I, for one, refuse to set my moral sights below the bottom of the barrel that is the hateful, selfish, vengeful and childish god of the Bible!

Richard Dawkins dismantles the argument that our morals come from religion quite handily in The God Delusion. Give it a read and tell me what you think.

(I leave it to the other atheists on this board to do the line-by-line response to NC's post).

Dear News Cynic,

Great post! Thanks! Now I want to read some Benford...

James wrote:

"The jist of my message was, let's see some evidence for these pre-biotic molecules from inorganic sources. Origin of life researchers have not been able to identify any relevant sources.

"Nice theory though."

James, you know very well that Urey & Miller synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors way back in 1953. Even Wikipedia has a decent and succinct overview of the experiments:

"The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

"At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

"The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first."

There's your proof: inorganic life under controlled conditions in the lab did, indeed, produce organic compounds. Experimentation has proved it can happen.

What do you mean when you say "Origin of life researchers have not been able to identify any relevant sources"? Do you mean that they're supposed to come up with a fossilized transitional example of an inorganic precursor caught mid-process developing into an organic compound? The Urey-Miller experiments provide the source. Their hypothesis is now a theory because it has been tested, retested and proven to be a viable scenario (I use the word theory in the scientific way, not to signify conjecture).

The discussion is not whether or not it could happen. It could and, in the experiments, it did. The discussion has always been whether or not the 1953 experiments accurately reflected the conditions that would have existed millions or billions of years ago (most scientists think the atmosphere used by Urey was too oxygen rich).

Or maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Joseph A, James, Mr. Mark, A Hermit and all the rest

Acrapist had a good post over on another thread. I think my response can give you an insite to what he said (or much better yet go read it for yourselves on the atheism thread).

From NC to A-crap-ist,
Have you ever read Gregory Benford's "In The Ocean of Night"? It's the first book in his Galactic Center series. I don't recommend it really. Not as good as his "The Martian Race" and not within a lightyear of his contribution to the new Foundation series, but he repeats (or invents - the book is from 1987 so I'm not sure) some neat "Just So" stories for how various aspects of humanity that make us so unique might have evolved: Things like dance, warfare, religion, etc. He seems in debt to Carl Sagan and brings in the idea of Intelligent Design of the human race by space guys.

Anyway, Benford invents a new nature/sex based religion that takes all the "good" aspects of traditional faiths and presents humanity with a new social glue. The main character a kind of atheist thinks it's crazy. I know you weren't talking about religion, but your words reminded me of it. "If my hypothesis is true, then we can use culture to more effectively shape our behavior."

When you wrote, "What mechanism shall we use to decide on the appropriateness of each rule" you asked the million dollar question. It brought to mind Nietzsche's "The Madman"

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

I believe that you and I and Gerry and the Hermit and the rest all of us want to be good and noble people after our own fashion, but without an objective standard of measure external to ourselves all we can gauge ourselves against are other people or other cultures and I haven't met a perfect person or a heard of a perfect culture yet have you?

Then again maybe we are all perfect in our humanness! If we just do what we have evolved to do why call it "sin?" Do we fret over nothing? Are ant wars that devastate other colonies a crime? Does a large chimp taking all the females for himself wrong the smaller male chimps?

Dostoevsky's much quoted line that, "if God is dead, then everything is permissible" perhaps misses the point that everything always was permissible.

But as the apostle Paul wrote in Romans to believers saved by grace and not merit, "Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial". And maybe that is what you are getting at?

And how does math, or mechanics, or astrophysics, or information theory, or any other aspect of science help us with what we "ought" to do and what is sinful?

Dear David,

Though it may appear daunting, given the number of posts here, I suggest you take some time and read as many as you can. A Hermit and others have addressed your exact sentiments many times over, and I, even as a believer, feel their pain. Intentional or not, your suggestions come off as a touch flip.

Regards

Sorry to hear Hermit that you couldnt understand the meanings in the Bible but unfortunately for you, you were given the chance to believe in Jesus and did not accept Him or His grace which will result in you experiencing a second death, that is the death of your soul. I on the other hand look forward to life after the physical death. I pray for you that you can experience true wisdom and give yourself a second chance to truly STUDY the Bible, not just READ it. You obviously misinterpreted what you have already read. Here's a hint. When you study the Bible keep in mind the historical aspects of the message and who is writing that particular book. It does make a difference in realizing that those scriptures that seem contradicting are in fact supporting one another. Give it a shot Hermit. What do you have to lose except your soul huh?

News Cynic wrote:
"Please stop doing this kind of thing. You're engaging in...irrational and unnatural selection!!! :)"

Good one!

Hey, no need to rub salt in the wounds!

Mr. Mark,

I disagree with you saying I took things out of context. The jist of my message was, let's see some evidence for these pre-biotic molecules from inorganic sources. Origin of life researchers have not been able to identify any relevant sources.

Nice theory though.

Well David a lot of us unbelievers have studied the Bible. In fact, for some of us the more we studied the less we believed as the incoherence, falsehoods and contradictions inherent in much of the scripture became clear.

I think the problem for those who do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God is that they haven't taken the time to study the bible to realize that there is 100% proof of Jesus being not just the Son of God but God himself in human form. Several Old Testament prophecies indicated the coming of the Messiah including where he would be from and what he would do. The Bible contains 100's of prophecies that all have come true or will come true. All you have to do is study them to see. And realizing that all these have or will come to pass will give you insight on why Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. And look around this world unbelievers! How can such perfection be created? Of course by God in heaven whom so many believe in but will not believe in His Son? I can understand the ignorance of not believing in any higher being but to believe in God but not acknowledge His Son would be to deny God. The proof is there in God's Word, The Bible. And no other religion on earth has been put to the test any more than christianity and have never been found false. All other religions are teachings of falsehood by some "great prophet" who decieved the masses as Jesus would predict. I urge all those who do not believe in Jesus as God to study scripture instead of coming up with your own conclusions. It is so much easier to believe yourself than to believe in the PROVEN truth of Jesus Christ.

I think the problem for those who do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God is that they haven't taken the time to study the bible to realize that there is 100% proof of Jesus being not just the Son of God but God himself in human form. Several Old Testament prophecies indicated the coming of the Messiah including where he would be from and what he would do. The Bible contains 100's of prophecies that all have come true or will come true. All you have to do is study them to see. And realizing that all these have or will come to pass will give you insight on why Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. And look around this world unbelievers! How can such perfection be created? Of course by God in heaven whom so many believe in but will not believe in His Son? I can understand the ignorance of not believing in any higher being but to believe in God but not acknowledge His Son would be to deny God. The proof is there in God's Word, The Bible. And no other religion on earth has been put to the test any more than christianity and have never been found false. All other religions are teachings of falsehood by some "great prophet" who decieved the masses as Jesus would predict. I urge all those who do not believe in Jesus as God to study scripture instead of coming up with your own conclusions. It is so much easier to believe yourself than to believe in the PROVEN truth of Jesus Christ.

"The most important thing Jesus Christ does for me is that he has marked the path and led the way for me to be able to return to live with my Heavenly Father forever. "

AND IF I DON'T FOLLOW THE PATH??? MY BELOVED HEAVENLY FATHER IS SENDING ME STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!

I wanted to respond to the question--Who is Jesus Christ? He is the resurrected Son of God--this means that just like His Father, He has a perfected body of flesh and bone that will never die. I am a child of God too, but I do not have the ability to save myself from my sins. Jesus Christ has the power to save me from sin and death--he makes my burdens light. Jesus Christ loves me and has created this beautiful world for me to live in and become the kind of person my Heavenly Father hopes I'll become. Jesus Christ loves me and cares for me in a very real and personal and sacred way. Through Jesus Christ my Heavenly Father is able to bless me in so many ways. The most important thing Jesus Christ does for me is that he has marked the path and led the way for me to be able to return to live with my Heavenly Father forever. I love my Heavenly Father, and am so grateful to Him for sending His Son. I love Jesus Christ with all my heart, and I owe Him my life, my respect, and my loyalty. I know Jesus Christ lives and is an active, interested personage in my life. I know this, for I have received a witness of this truth from the Holy Ghost.

"Please stop doing this kind of thing. You're engaging in...irrational and unnatural selection!!! :)"

Good one!

Joseph A wrote:
"Still, if there is no creator, we are left with:

"Time + Matter = All This."

You left out energy. THAT should make the odds work for you. :)

James wrote:

"Mr. Mark wrote:

"In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules."

To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules.

Well, James, YOU DID IT AGAIN! SELECTIVELY QUOTING something I posted and taking it out of context to make some point that had nothing to do with what my post was all about.

Why, oh why did you leave out the preceeding sentence, ie: "Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties." Here is the phrase in context:

"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."

Clearly, clearly, CLEARLY the phrase you did quote is rendered senseless if you divorce it from the discussion of molecules arranging themselves NOT RANDOMLY, but according to their chemical properties. The clear connective basis of the thought expressed in this paragraph is, "...according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially...."

This was clearly, clearly, Clearly NOT a discussion of the very origin of life, but of carbon atoms arranging themselves according to their chemical properties which then leads to the spontaneous formation of complex molecules. In fact, the article I cited makes it clear that it wasn't about the origin of life as it closes with this: "One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least." Geez, there's another section you conveniently forgot to quote!

Please stop doing this kind of thing. You're engaging in...irrational and unnatural selection!!! :)

Honestly. Make your case without resorting to such games. It's tiresome and it's beneath you.

Still, if there is no creator, we are left with:

Time + Matter = All This.

And I am left thinking it is a mathematical impossibility....and that time and matter are "more intelligent" than all the world's scientists....and that we cannot create life, or a protein, or a cell from scratch.

The odds don't work for me. At all.

In my humble opinion it is perfectly logical for one to believe in a creator.

But I repeat myself....sorry.....

Mr. Mark wrote:

"In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules."

To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules produced by nonbiological processes. 31 All the carbonaceous deposits recovered from the oldest rocks are, without exception, the by-product of biological activity. The “absence of evidence” for a prebiotic soup must be taken as “evidence of absence.”32

Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (New York: Cambridge University, 1992), 183, 203-04.
Yockey, Information, 235-41.
Hubert Yockey, “To NASA: Stop Funding This Science-Without-a-Subject,” Facts for Faith 1 (Q1, 2000), 13.

The theory sounds good and all, but let's see some evidence!

AJ writes:

"I could go on, and on, and on.....is this all by chance?"

The typical uninformed Xian response to evolution.

Study evolution even A LITTLE and you'll find that it's not all "by chance". Here's a start for you from the Talk Origins website's "5 Major Misconceptions about Evolution":

Misconception #4: "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

It is amazing to see how easy it is to loose the forest for the trees. For some it is easier to believe in horoscopes, lucky charms, the dead, witchcraft, etc. etc. If we look at humanity from a bird´s eye view (from space, far away at the beginng of our galaxy) it would be easier to answer the question: Did all of this happen by chance?

Anyone with a bit of basic chemistry knowledge will tell you that at the center of the atom we have the Neutrons and Protons, and on the outer shells are the different energy levels for electrons.

Has anyone heard of the SUper Conductor Super Collider project? THis was a project that was going to take us further into the atom...it was designed to define the orgins of the universe! (before it was cancelled)

Assuming the nucleous of the atom (neutrons and protons) is the sun, why are the planets circling it in opposite direction, at different speeds, and at the right angles like the energy levels in the atom?

Now,if the earth was closer to the sun what would happen? if it was farther? if there was no moon?

Who put the ozones layer there for us? what would happen if the earth did not rotate? Would we have water?

The earth is 2/3 water, the liquid in our bodies is 2/3, could we survive without it?

Why (when conceived) are we in water in our mother´s womb?

I could go on, and on, and on.....is this all by chance? If so, what are the probabilities of this happening as a result of an explosion? Why does it not happen again? Why is mother nature constantly trying to protect us? Why does the animal kingdom fear us humans? (God told Noah that He would put that fear in their hearts)

Look at history, the Bible clearly states that one of the signs of the end times is when a nation is born in a day! According to history this happened when the UN declared Israel a nation...was it in 1947?

How can such a tiny nation like Israel defeat Egypt and Jordan in six days! Why did this powerful nations leave their weapons behind and ran?

Read the Bible, after Exodus, God drove Israel's enemies away from the land in the same manner...with fear in their hearts.

My God, is a faithful God. And His word clearly states that sooner or later every mouth will confess that Jesus is Lord.

Now, there are many, many scriptures in the old testament that clearly state how Jesus was going to come, how He was going to die, etc., etc. FOr instance, what are the probabilities that He could have orchestrated His crucifiction and death on the Cross at exactly the appointed times of the Passover by GOd?

Ok, still don´t beleive? what are the odds of Jesus entering Jerusalem on a Colt (on Palm Sunday for us) as written in the scriptures almost 500 years before?

Still don´t beleive?
Like I told someone...it does not matter how much one tries to help you, for if you are in the vault and refuse to open the door of your heart to receive help...it is hopeless!

If you read the Bible like a history book, and with contempt, that is all you will get out of it. If you read it with a repentant, and contrite heart, and ask God to remove the scales from your eyes.....He will let you embark on the most beautiful journey of your life!

Believe it or not!

Jesus is the example by which we Christians are to compare our lives. Whether doctrine interprets that he was God in human form or the son of God is less important than his exapmle for living and interacting with others.

John says: "if Jesus is God, pray to Him. Ask that He reveal Himself to you, then pick up a Bible and read the gospel of John. If Jesus is who He says He is, He can answer this prayer."

Since I have done this (more than once) and never received an answer I assume you will support my belief that Jesus is not God as a rational, informed conclusion?

Thank You!

Sincerely

A Hermit

This is what Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." Then he asked the million dollar question, "Do you believe this?"

If Jesus is telling the truth, then we will answer to Him on judgement day. If Jesus is lying, then he is not a "good" or "moral" man... he'd be the most deceptive person in history.

Here's a thought... if Jesus is God, pray to Him. Ask that He reveal Himself to you, then pick up a Bible and read the gospel of John. If Jesus is who He says He is, He can answer this prayer. Then you can make an informed decision whether Jesus is God or a con artist who deceived billions of people.

The Gospels are the wrong place to look in answering the question Who Was Jesus? The Gospels were written as propaganda, with a good dose of pro-Roman apologetics, anti-Jewish polemic, and sheer ignorance. In any case they were novels not biographies.

To find the real Jesus, look at his earliest followers, those led by his brother James of Jerusalem. They believed he had been favored by God as a prophet and would return to fulfill the purposes of God. He was not part of the godhead, he was not born of a virgin, he did not die to save us from our sins -- all the nonsense about the vicarious atonement was invented a thousand years later by Catholic theologians.

Jesus died and that was that. He fell afoul of the Romans who regarded him as a passive supporter of Jewish rebellion. Read Robert Eisler's hard to find book Jesus the Messiah and John the Baptist.

In correlation (if that is the correct use of the word) to Anthony's response: "As far as being the deliverer of the Jews, look at what has happened to the Jewish People since Jesus' death: Their Temple was destroyed, their country was overrun and renamed "Palestine," the people were scattered, anti-jewish propaganda was instituted by the Catholic Church to separate itself from the mother religion, the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Progroms, German Holocost, Arab Wars, Palestinian Suicide bomers, and now Iranian threats of destruction. Is this what any sane person would consider the "deliverer of the Jews?" The answer is no. Jesus fails that part of the definition also."

This is pretty crazy, I was reading in Hosea and I remembered a few things I've read:

"I know what you are like, O Ephraim. You cannot hide yourself from me, O Israel. You have left me as a prostitute leaves her husband; you are utterly defiled."

The Jews left God, yet God allowed trials. Imagine a God so merciful He sent His Son to die for yours and my sins, even when we have left Him.

The Jews in Jesus' time didn't recognize the temple that is in the His believers. In the old testament the Jews made sacrifices to God in the temple, but then Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice for man's sin. The tangible temple wasn't needed anymore, because the blood had atoned. 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you (Those who believe in Christ as the savior)?" The Jews didn't take into account all of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. When Jesus died, after the 3rd day He rose from the dead. He appeared to so many people, just maybe a day after his death almost everyone in Jerusalem knew he'd died, He even appeared to more than 500 people at once! Here's one account Luke 24:13-34 13 That same day two of Jesus’ followers were walking to the village of Emmaus, seven miles[c] from Jerusalem. 14 As they walked along they were talking about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things, Jesus himself suddenly came and began walking with them. 16 But God kept them from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing so intently as you walk along?”

They stopped short, sadness written across their faces. 18 Then one of them, Cleopas, replied, “You must be the only person in Jerusalem who hasn’t heard about all the things that have happened there the last few days.”

19 “What things?” Jesus asked.

“The things that happened to Jesus, the man from Nazareth,” they said. “He was a prophet who did powerful miracles, and he was a mighty teacher in the eyes of God and all the people. 20 But our leading priests and other religious leaders handed him over to be condemned to death, and they crucified him. 21 We had hoped he was the Messiah who had come to rescue Israel. This all happened three days ago.

22 “Then some women from our group of his followers were at his tomb early this morning, and they came back with an amazing report. 23 They said his body was missing, and they had seen angels who told them Jesus is alive! 24 Some of our men ran out to see, and sure enough, his body was gone, just as the women had said.”

25 Then Jesus said to them, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures. 26 Wasn’t it clearly predicted that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory?” 27 Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 By this time they were nearing Emmaus and the end of their journey. Jesus acted as if he were going on, 29 but they begged him, “Stay the night with us, since it is getting late.” So he went home with them. 30 As they sat down to eat,[d] he took the bread and blessed it. Then he broke it and gave it to them. 31 Suddenly, their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And at that moment he disappeared!

32 They said to each other, “Didn’t our hearts burn within us as he talked with us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us?” 33 And within the hour they were on their way back to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven disciples and the others who had gathered with them, 34 who said, “The Lord has really risen! He appeared to Peter.[e]”

Tell me How is it there are accounts of Jesus appearing in Greece (Patmos Island), Damascus (Syria), and Jerusalem (Israel) within the span of his 40 days on earth after His resurrection and before His ascension into heaven with God. Mind you Jesus stayed within I think 100 miles or less of His home during His ministry before His death. There was no such thing as a car, and Jesus was poor and wouldn't have been able to afford the fineries of horses, and other forms of mobility, He must have been able to appear like it says in the bible.

Jesus is alive and well even today! If you are seeking more scripture that is easy to find I would suggest biblegateway.com
I HOPE THIS HAS BEEN INSIGHTFUL. I PRAY GOD SHOWS YOU THE TRUTH IF YOU HAVEN'T FOUND IT.

In correlation (if that is the correct use of the word) to Anthony's response: "As far as being the deliverer of the Jews, look at what has happened to the Jewish People since Jesus' death: Their Temple was destroyed, their country was overrun and renamed "Palestine," the people were scattered, anti-jewish propaganda was instituted by the Catholic Church to separate itself from the mother religion, the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Progroms, German Holocost, Arab Wars, Palestinian Suicide bomers, and now Iranian threats of destruction. Is this what any sane person would consider the "deliverer of the Jews?" The answer is no. Jesus fails that part of the definition also."

This is pretty crazy, I was reading in Hosea and I remembered a few things I've read:

"I know what you are like, O Ephraim. You cannot hide yourself from me, O Israel. You have left me as a prostitute leaves her husband; you are utterly defiled."

The Jews left God, yet God allowed trials. Imagine a God so merciful He sent His Son to die for yours and my sins, even when we have left Him.

The Jews in Jesus' time didn't recognize the temple that is in the His believers. In the old testament the Jews made sacrifices to God in the temple, but then Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice for man's sin. The tangible temple wasn't needed anymore, because the blood had atoned. 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you (Those who believe in Christ as the savior)?" The Jews didn't take into account all of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. When Jesus died, after the 3rd day He rose from the dead. He appeared to so many people, just maybe a day after his death almost everyone in Jerusalem knew he'd died, He even appeared to more than 500 people at once! Here's one account Luke 24:13-34 13 That same day two of Jesus’ followers were walking to the village of Emmaus, seven miles[c] from Jerusalem. 14 As they walked along they were talking about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things, Jesus himself suddenly came and began walking with them. 16 But God kept them from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing so intently as you walk along?”

They stopped short, sadness written across their faces. 18 Then one of them, Cleopas, replied, “You must be the only person in Jerusalem who hasn’t heard about all the things that have happened there the last few days.”

19 “What things?” Jesus asked.

“The things that happened to Jesus, the man from Nazareth,” they said. “He was a prophet who did powerful miracles, and he was a mighty teacher in the eyes of God and all the people. 20 But our leading priests and other religious leaders handed him over to be condemned to death, and they crucified him. 21 We had hoped he was the Messiah who had come to rescue Israel. This all happened three days ago.

22 “Then some women from our group of his followers were at his tomb early this morning, and they came back with an amazing report. 23 They said his body was missing, and they had seen angels who told them Jesus is alive! 24 Some of our men ran out to see, and sure enough, his body was gone, just as the women had said.”

25 Then Jesus said to them, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures. 26 Wasn’t it clearly predicted that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory?” 27 Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 By this time they were nearing Emmaus and the end of their journey. Jesus acted as if he were going on, 29 but they begged him, “Stay the night with us, since it is getting late.” So he went home with them. 30 As they sat down to eat,[d] he took the bread and blessed it. Then he broke it and gave it to them. 31 Suddenly, their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And at that moment he disappeared!

32 They said to each other, “Didn’t our hearts burn within us as he talked with us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us?” 33 And within the hour they were on their way back to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven disciples and the others who had gathered with them, 34 who said, “The Lord has really risen! He appeared to Peter.[e]”

Tell me How is it there are accounts of Jesus appearing in Greece (Patmos Island), Damascus (Syria), and Jerusalem (Israel) within the span of his 40 days on earth after His resurrection and before His ascension into heaven with God. Mind you Jesus stayed within I think 100 miles or less of His home during His ministry before His death. There was no such thing as a car, and Jesus was poor and wouldn't have been able to afford the fineries of horses, and other forms of mobility, He must have been able to appear like it says in the bible.

Jesus is alive and well even today! If you are seeking more scripture that is easy to find I would suggest biblegateway.com
I HOPE THIS HAS BEEN INSIGHTFUL. I PRAY GOD SHOWS YOU THE TRUTH IF YOU HAVEN'T FOUND IT.

James -

Yes, the bat v bird thing. If one reads the Bible:

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. Also, Deut. 14:11, 18 says "14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat (long list of birds snipped)14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."

The commentary you pointed me to says that the Hebrew has been badly translated, and that the use of the word "bird" in the standard translation of the word "owph" in Leviticus is an overstep. Maybe that's true. However, I would disagree with the writers equal dismissal of the word "tsippowr" in Deut. To me, that clearly indicates a bird, and the bat is listed in the laundry list of god's birds.

Here we have - yet again - a case where we can't take the standard English translations at face value. We have to know Hebrew (I've used that trick myself). That said, now knowing Hebrew, we get a very convoluted answer when it comes to the word "tsippowr." I don't buy it.

As far as there being no linnean classification for animals in Biblical times - that just proves the Bible is the creation of men, not god. If god created bats, he created them as mammals, and he would know that and could have let the humans penning the Bible in on his little secret. Indeed, had the Bible grouped bats with mammals it would have worked in the favor of proving there was a god. Imagine if for centuries people wondered why god grouped bats with mammals in the Bible. They have wings, they must be birds! Could you imagine what the theists would be saying if god had called bats mammals, the scientists had called that crazy talk for decades, only to have later scientists confirming the truth of the Bible? We wouldn't hear the end of it.

As far as the flat Earth, I'd point to this from Daniel:

4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.

In other words, a tree grew so high in Daniel's vision that everyone on Earth could see it. How can that be possible unless the Earth is flat (please don't cop out and say "it's only a vision").

You wrote: "We could instead throw up our hands and say, oh well the Bible doesn't know today's science so it must be false."

But god created the world, and he created the biologies that we study through that which we call science. Why didn't he write the Bible to reflect the scientific reality he created? A thousand years are but the blink of an eye to god. Are you telling me he couldn't see 6 blinks in front of him and write the Bible to make sense for the time when science did become the language of discovery and explanation?

Pretty silly argument, James.

I consider it a very lame excuse to say that the words and concepts didn't exist in Biblical times to explain today's science. First, because the Bible purports to explain the natural world. In this it fails miserably. Second, because it purports to explain the supernatural world. If it's accuracy in explaining the natural world are any indicator, I would take it's description of the supernatural world with a big grain of salt. And third, if it can't get the natural world and the times we live in right, how can it have a snowball's chance of getting the future right, let alone the afterlife?

Mr. Mark,

I believe you mentioned something about the Bible calling a bat a bird? Please read http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html
Linnean classification for animals didn't even exist in Bible times. The Hebrew word owph simply means the owner of a wing. It comes from a root word meaning to cover or fly.

Also, you mentioned that the Bible refers to the world being flat. I refer you to Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Also, referring to the four corners of the earth is simply a reference to the four directions (N,E,W,S).

We could instead throw up our hands and say, oh well the Bible doesn't know today's science so it must be false.

On the contrary, I argue that it continues to be correct.

Mr Mark - I could use your help over at the Jacoby "sex" thread.

See my conversation yesterday and today with RB -it's not exactly working out the way it did with you and Deanna.

Dear Fred & Russell D -

Re: Canyon - I am quite done with that person. You can't reason with someone who is so deluded, so why respond? I'll leave it to others who will also soon tire at the futility of it all.

Ok, I see that Mr. Canyon Shearer has been making his presence known, and just as in the other post (I refer to the one currently going on under John Shelby Spong) he has made no attempt to hide his hollow beliefs and refuses to open his eyes. You guys should go to the other board, his rantings and ravings over there are quite funny.

As for who Jesus was? He was a man that made a mark on humanity. He was a man who will be remembered for who he was and what he started. Of course, he also seemed to be bipolar, but that is a matter of discussion for later days. But he was a good man, regardless, and whether his story is embelished or not, we cannot deny that he left his mark.

Ok, I see that Mr. Canyon Shearer has been making his presence known, and just as in the other post (I refer to the one currently going on under John Shelby Spong) he has made no attempt to hide his hollow beliefs and refuses to open his eyes. You guys should go to the other board, his rantings and ravings over there are quite funny.

As for who Jesus was? He was a man that made a mark on humanity. He was a man who will be remembered for who he was and what he started. Of course, he also seemed to be bipolar, but that is a matter of discussion for later days. But he was a good man, regardless, and whether his story is embelished or not, we cannot deny that he left his mark.

The phrase „We wish to entertain you“ first comes to mind when reading the emanations of Canyon’s brain.

A friend of mine who was director of a large insane asylum told me the story of an inmate who thought she was the princess of an underwater castle. She had what can be called an “operational intelligence”, just like Canyon, and could respond with an admirable amount of fantasy, even technical knowledge, to every question concerning the functioning of her castle, with complete infrastructure, traffic, visitors etc.

Of course, she was merely “insane”. Shearer is dangerous. He is perfectly capable of killing somebody (does he really stop short of it, as he professes?) who does not believe in his “underwater castle”. Mr. Mark and Fate, you are quite correct with your analogy of the “elephant” picturing. Therefore he should be kept in an insane asylum to keep him from inflicting damage on society, which he obviously does. Mass crime starts in the brain of people, and in spreading his nonsense to simple-minded listeners he reminds me of my childhood when exposed to Nazi propaganda, which of course, as a simple-minded child, I believed without the slightest spark of doubt.
I remember this "belief" and what it felt like very well!

Dear Deanna -

Re: Arthur Peacocke. I also find him baffling. Just look at the quote from Wikipedia! If one was honest, they would have to say that scientific evidence CONTRADICTS the Biblical description of the way the world works. How does a guy like Peacocke get around the Bible saying that bats are birds and not mammals? How does he get around the flat earth that the Bible posits?

Well, there's only one way to do that, and that is to reinterpret the Bible to fit the facts that science has revealed. If one wants to go down that path, then one can reinterpret everything and anything. At some point, Santa Claus will indeed exist (we see him at the malls and he's in plenty of movies).

If one goes down that path, then why not reinterpret the moral issues as well?

One thing's for sure: science is a great predicter, the Bible is not.

BTW - I strongly suggest you check out this site as a great start to exploring the questions about the historic Jesus:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Dear Joseph A.!

Wonderful quotes!! I especially like Tolstoy's analogy, for I, too, realized that I "can fly, can be free and no longer need to fear." It's an incredibly liberating and humbling experience! But Kierkegaard's "despair" resonates with me as well. How often do we contemplate seeking the "fearfully easy way out"?!!

To all my wonderful friends, including Joseph, I hope you will accept my previous posting for what it was intended to be -- an expression of happiness, and the sprinkling of the site with a little levity. I was having a particularly spectacular day and couldn't resist sharing my good feelings with my friends here!

I have started reading Dawkins, but I have also decided I need to do some research on the historical authenticity arguments, particularly about the NT, since I do so love the Gospel of John -- it reads like the testimony of a convicted disciple who was also an eyewitness. Having read some of the historical arguments, I can see where atheist believers find invoking the Bible as evidence for Christ's existence more than a little flimsy.

In the process, I also spent some time reading up on Dawkins, primarily from the Wikipedia entry on him -- which led me to do some reading on the "good scientists who are sincerely religious" but who "baffle" Dawkins "by their belief in the details of the Christian religion."

I have to be honest. Much of what I read from these eminent theist/scientists is persuasive, given their coming to theism from atheism by way of science -- physics, in most cases. Below are a couple of quotes I picked up in my search which I think merit consideration by the sincere seekers here. This is from John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist from 1955 through 1981. He was ordained an Anglican priest in 1982. "The question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality." Polkinghorne quotes with approval Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination."

Polkinghorne "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can) but that theism makes more sense of the world, and of human experience, than does atheism" He cites in particular: * The intelligibility of the universe: One would anticipate that evolutionary selection would produce hominid minds apt for coping with everyday experience, but that these minds should also be able to understand the subatomic world and general relativity goes far beyond anything of relevance to survival fitness. The mystery deepens when one recognizes the proven fruitfulness of mathematical beauty as a guide to successful theory choice.

Another of Dawkins' "baffling" scientist/theists is Arthur Peacocke. To quote from the Wikipedia article: "Arthur Peacocke describes a position which is referred to elsewhere as “front-loading”, after the fact that it suggests that evolution is entirely consistent with an all-knowing, all-powerful God who exists throughout time, sets initial conditions and natural laws, and knows what the result will be. An implication of Peacocke’s particular stance is that all scientific analyses of physical processes reveal God’s actions. All scientific propositions are thus necessarily coherent with religious ones."

In reading the article on Peacocke, I stumbled upon the following: "The mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church in America made the following statement in correlation with many of Peacocke's arguments: “The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation.” 'Twould appear my position in the ELCA has not been one of an apostate! Drat! I thought I had come up with that one on my own. Actually, I did. This was the first I knew that the ELCA essentially agreed, in PRINT, with my position.

Fear not, Mark. I will read every syllable of Dawkins and, if I can stomach him, Harris. But I have also pulled out my trusty copies of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters. The next couple of weeks' reading look to be very interesting! More later!

Peace and Love,
Deanna

"Lord Jesus Christ, how often was I impatient, about to lose heart, about to give up everything, about to seek the fearfully easy way out: Despair.
But you never lost patience. You bore a whole life of suffering to redeem even me."
---Kierkegaard

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

"Jesus Christ teaches man that there is something in them above this life with all its hurries, its pleasures, and fears.
He who understands Christ's teaching feels like a bird that did not know it has wings and now suddenly realizes that it can fly, can be free and no longer needs to fear."
--Tolstoy

Dear Mark, Gerry, Joseph A, and E Favorite,

First of all, I have not "abandoned" this site! I'm just lurking in cyberspace, keeping tabs on what you're up to (sort of like God) ;-) !!

You're right. Shouldn't start with Sam Harris. Just read the intro, and decided his affect was a bit harsh. I know, you didn't suggest him; I just decided to include him in my order. Have started reading The God Delusion. Dawkins' credentials are very impressive, and his presentation is very civil, as if addressing an intelligent audience.

Valentine's Day was not a flimsy excuse! Remember the Mafia connection? It was in celebration of the Valentine's Day Massacre! LOL!

As for when I'll post again, Arbor Day might be a possibility. We could celebrate the scientific process that keeps us all alive -- photosynthesis! Where would we be without plants?!! Dead, that's where! But Arbor Day isn't until late April.

Since we brought up saints and the Catholic Church's presumption to determine who is/isn't a saint -- they're dead! Who cares?! We could reconnect on a drunken saint's day that's a little closer -- St. Paddy's Day.

But thinking it over, I think the best day to reconnect and discuss our positions is April 1!!
April Fool's Day!!! Then we can argue who is the greater fool!

Just remember, I'm still out there. You just never know when I'll pop in. I like to keep things interesting!

Dear E Fav -

Thanks for providing Mr Sullivan's e-mail address. I have sent him a note. Maybe he'll publish it at his site.

andrew@theatlantic.com

Dear E Fav -

Do you have Sullivan's e-mail address? Long story, but clickng on the link to his e-mail at the Atlantic site doesn't work for me on my computer.

Thanks.

Mr Mark – Sullivan posted a critical email this morning, either from you or someone just as eloquent – go to his site to check it out. And if it wasn’t you, please pick another topic and write to him. Like I said, he reads his email. I sent him something too – on the topic of channeling his energy to finding ways to maintain his beloved “cultural inheritance” of Christianity without dependence on supernatural beliefs.

Regarding Romans – Interesting! Hadn’t heard that angle. Even more interesting is the case of my smart, cynical friend (whom I mentioned somewhere on these threads) who more or less shared Sullivan’s thoughts on the specialness of Jesus. A few days ago, after her first reading of Romans in Bible class, she decided that Paul “invented” Christianity. In her opinion, his “smarmy” style shows that he’s a con artist and master marketer – a style she’s all too familiar with from her ex-husband!

I got her the God Delusion for Xmas – she’s going to start reading it now. From the way she was talking yesterday, I thought she already had.

E Favorite asked Sophia:
" what about people, through no fault of their own, who do not know about Jesus? Maybe they live in a remote village, or can’t read, or are so involved in another religon that they don’t check out Christianity. Do they not get everlasting life? Do they just die forever, because they didn’t hear about Jesus during their life?"

According to Paul in Romans, god still gets the generalized info to those who haven't heard about Jesus so they have a chance of getting into heaven:

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
2:14 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:
2:15 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 other words, if you haven't heard about Jesus but follow the law, you can get into heaven. HOWEVER, once you've heard about Jesus, you need to follow him. Your previously unknowing but doing good position has just been nullified.

Dear Mr. Mark,

I second E. Fav's Motion. You write very well. You make compelling arguments. I too would enjoy seeing you, and others, tangle with Sullivan. But it appears he has his hands full with Harris.

I'm, still enjoying the posts. Each day I'm expecting to see them vaporize. Glad they're still here. Bonus time.

I'm still on Deanna's team, so to speak. After reading the 1000+ posts, I think so much depends on what one "wants" to believe, almost as if it's genetic, pre-programmed. We could all examine the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Much like a hung jury I suppose.

more later...

Mr Mark – Sullivan does read his mail – you could do a quick cut and paste job from a lot of what you’ve posted here.

Sophia – very nice, for you to feel so sure about everlasting life, but what about people, through no fault of their own, who do not know about Jesus? Maybe they live in a remote village, or can’t read, or are so involved in another religon that they don’t check out Christianity. Do they not get everlasting life? Do they just die forever, because they didn’t hear about Jesus during their life?

Deanna – your description of the Gospel of John sounded very much like the introduction section to John in the Jerusalem Bible, (pp 139-145). Is that where you got the information?
If so, please consider checking source outside the Bible, as commentary within the Bible does not reflect the broad scope of biblical scholarship. There are a lot of different opinions as to when John was written – from 60 to 100 AD, and scholars think that all 4 gospels were written anonymously.

THE PRICE OF IGNORANCE
There is a scripture which addresses all the comments made herein on the question "Who IS Jesus?"

This scripture puts people on both sides of the discussion about Jesus into perspective: "The Natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV)

Everybody has an opinion. Unlike Islam, Christianity does not seek to deprive man of his God-given Free Will. There are only two manifestations of the Will: to choose to love God or to choose to reject (hate) God. The critical question then is how informed is your opinion?

The Bible would be a good starting place to get an informed opinion and I would guess the majority of people sharing their insights on the subject of Christ have not read it. If I could choose only one book in the Bible to recommend to someone to gain an understanding of Christianity, it would be the book of Romans.

For those who have read the Bible and your understanding remains darkened, it simply means that you are not spiritually minded and you were not intended to 'get it.'

Salvation (belief that Jesus is the Son of God and died on the Cross for the sins of man) is not dependent on IQ, education, science, social position, bank account, worldly wisdom or politics. It is a simple matter of faith.

The large number of anti-Christian responses I have read by contributors to this column does say something to me. My own belief is that the majority of Americans are not Christians and have not been reared in the tenets of any faith. Yet polls are continually published saying that 86% of Americans are Christian. That cannot be. It flies in the face of reality when we live in a society that labors under the weight of its immorality. Also, it is contrary to what the Bible says at Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV). [13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

For those who believe, the clay falls from the eyes, the ears hear, and Truth is revealed. But you will find your travel on the straight and narrow is often lonely.

Contrary to the feel good, I'm okay/you're okay teachings of Humanism, Christianity is not ecumenical and does not seek to embrace all theologies and people. It is very much about drawing a line in the sand. Christ IS the line.

Dear E Fav -

I just found a new website that would be an excellent link to send off to Andrew Sullivan. It's called "Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ." It covers it all quite nicely with major sections on:

-The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it
-The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction
-Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures
-Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures
-Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically
-The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record
-The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life
-Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person
-There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime
-Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea
-All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims
-There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories
-There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh"
-The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh"

This site is currently linked to Sam Harris' website:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

It's a long read but worthwhile. Check it out.

Dear E Fav -

Well, I just read Sullivan's latest reply to Harris. Sadly, he seems to have not a clue to the historic evidence against the existence of Jesus. The "historical" arguments he makes are the same tired arguments that atheists, historians and rationalists have been handily shooting down for decades. For a supposed intellectual, I had hoped Sullivan might have offered something better than "Defending Jesus 101."

I hope that Harris will not induldge in the all-too-easy dismantling of Sullivan's reasoning, but finds something new to say in response to the asking.

In the meanwhile, Sullivan might consider doing even a cursory bit of study on his own. The answers to his simplistic questions are readily available at the click of a mouse.

I do believe Jesus is the son of God, but that is the point after all--BELIEF. I shudder to think at times how I would get through the roller coaster called life, if I did not have belief that there was a man who came to earth, from the divinity of heaven to die for me and other so that we might have life eternal. Jesus was such and optimist, so forgiving, so loving, so compassionate. If only we who call ourselves Christians would emulate Him more. I think about Jesus everyday as I pray, and I am in awe of Him, truly because he gives a fallen man hope of redemption and life everlasting. Not Buddah, not Mohammed, not Hindi can offer this, nor do they proclaim to. Think about it for those that believe and are baptized into Christ (Mark 16:16; Romans 6:1-4) we have HOPE of something no-one has ever claimed before. That is, "O death where is thy sting"--we live forever, even after we die. Now that is a wonderful thing to believe in and hope for.

Dear E Fav -

Thanks for the compliment! I only wish I had the intellectual skills of a Dan Dennett, let alone his writing ability.

I've been following the Harris/Sullivan debate via the link at Dawkin's website (BTW - my comments at RD.com are also written under my webname, Mr Mark). I think Harris is doing a good job laying out the position, but he's already pissed off Andrew with his style of debate.

I don't think a letter to Sullivan would do any good. The hoops that man is jumping through to explain his beliefs are many...and quite the emotional construct. I don't think anything short of Sullivan having a Road to Damascus moment is going to change his mind. He seems to be operating from a firmly ensconced defensive position. Letting go of that is near impossible, even moreso for the intellectually fleet.

Thanks again for the kind words.

Mr Mark –

I suggest you go over to Andrew Sullivan’s blog http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/, read his latest response to Sam Harris, and send Andrew an email. I’d specifically like to see your response to his paragraph that starts “Consider the evidence….” You have the needed information, the writing ability and the patience. He’s a fair guy – I wouldn’t be surprised if he publishes your email (not using your name, of course).

Deanna – I agree with Mr Mark – read Dawkins first. Also consider Dan Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.” He’s a philosopher and he writes a lot like Mr. Mark, so I know you’ll like him.

Glad you are back, Deanna.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact (which you are aware of, of course) that the material your body consists of is not your personality. The personality is the “system” behind that matter, as a beautiful building is the IDEA of the architect who used the stones to bring that idea into real being, the “system” of the building. The stones are not the building, they are only the vehicle for the building. The "system" is necessarily an abstract, immaterial, the stones are material.

So, the fact that the matter (which in reality also is energy) of which my body consists must necessarily go back to Mother Nature, get “recycled”, so to speak, is no argument either for or against an afterlife, and I am quite happy with this cycle, which morphs energy into a different form.

For me, eternity is now, it seems to be a little similar to your position, and if time is one of many dimensions of reality I am happy and grateful for being able to both observe and be part of nature for the time being, for this part of eternity. I don’t need any additional afterlife. Life is process, plan, development, direction, hope. Eternal life is an oxymoron. What would anybody hope for if life were eternal? The reward-and-punishment system therefore doesn’t apply to me either. And Nature is so overwhelmingly grand and beautiful that I regard the posit for the "supernatural" as an insult to nature, as a little appendix attached to nature for ("understandable") lack of understanding, as if nature were not enough and unable to fulfill our overbearing demands. Nature needs no additional "super" added to it. Religions to me are the attempts to reduce the greatness of nature to the smaller "manageable" dimensions of the human mind.

Dear Deanna -

Good to see you. Happy Valentine's Day.

You must miss us! Valentine's Day is a pretty thin excuse to visit this blog that you said you were abandoning. I look forward to reading your comments on Dawkins, maybe on...Arbor Day. :)

Re: Sam Harris - you'll recall that I didn't recommend Harris to you, but Dawkins. Harris is very much in your face, maybe too much so for someone coming to the topic for the first time. While we atheists may read his books and nod our heads in agreement, I sometimes wonder whether or not his "Letter to a Xian Nation" should have been subtitled, "So, You Thought Atheists Pissed You Off BEFORE You Read This Book!"

Try not to let Harris' style prejudice you against Dawkins. I recommended Dawkins because I feel his writing is more accesible and less confrontational. Maybe you won't find that to be true, but it's the reason I recommended Dawkins and not Harris to you as the FIRST book to read to get an idea about atheism.

You wrote: "By your definition, I am religious, and I won't deny that. But I will argue that my "religious-ness" is informed by a belief and faith in the existence of God, specifically the Triune God of Christianity. Religion without belief/faith is the empty practice of rituals and forms. And that's not where I'm coming from."

Deanna, I'd assume that the answer you give is the answer that every theist gives. I don't know a single theist who would say, "Belief in god? No thanks. I'm just here for the empty practice of rituals and forms." Indeed, I often think that the one redeeming factor of religion IS the ritual! We all have rituals in our lives, from how we awaken in the morning and the order in which we prepare for work, to our schedule in the work day to what we do to relax at night. This sense of order helps us feel that our daily lives have structure. Anybody with kids knows that you've reached a major milestone when you finally get the kids "on a schedule."

So, ritual? OK. Religion? Not so much.

Re: the "cheap imitators" remark was a friendly jab and I'm happy you took it as such.

You wrote: "What if we did practice what Christ and others taught?"

What if we didn't cherry pick what Christ wrote when we speak of practicing what he preached? What if we take to heart his words that we must love him more than our families? What if we take as a given that folllowing him will pit us against our families ("I bring a sword")? What if we take to heart his ordering us to follow the OT law in its entirety, including stoning our kids to death for sassing back at us ("not a tittle of the law shall be fulfilled until heaven & earth pass")? What if we took to heart his instructions to sell everything we own and take up and follow him?

One point that Sam Harris makes in which I am in total agreement is his pointing out that few of us have met religious types who really, REALLY believe this stuff to the point that they would fly a plane into the side of a building. Xians roll their eyes at sects that handle deadly snakes as part of their ritual, yet, it's in the Bible. Why aren't all the Xian sects doing this? When we discussed your illness, you admitted that you trusted medical procedures over prayer to cure you. That's much different from the Christian Scientists who will go to their deaths refusing medical treatment because they really, REALLY believe that their life is in god's hand, not some doctor's. As Harris points out, these people really live the convictions of their beliefs, and those beliefs are lined out for them in their holy texts, the same holy texts that other sects follow. Yet, 95% of Xians will shake their heads, maybe even mutter the word "idiots" under their breath when they hear that the child of a Xian Scientist has been allowed to die from some easily curable disease, simply because their parent's heart-felt religious beliefs were taken at face value and followed with conviction.

Most Xians cherry pick their Bible, following the "good" parts while ignoring the embarrassing "bad" parts. Is it so strange that we atheists wonder why that is? I don't think so.

Your minister asked, "If all there is after death is worms and decay, would you still choose this path?"

I must tell you that these are the kind of thoughts that helped to drive me away from Xianity. The absolute fixation on death. The directing of one's life toward some imaginary afterlife. I want to lead my life fixated on LIFE. If I was your minister, I would say, "Since all there is after LIFE is worms and decay, would you still choose this path?" The point is that we have a life that we are experiencing, right now. It's all we've got, and it is glorious.

Hope to hear from you again soon.

Dear Mark and all,

Just checking in to wish you love on Valentine's Day. That is what is at the heart of Christ's message -- LOVE. Just imagine how different our world might be if everyone tried to practice Christ's primary injunction to all his followers -- love your neighbor as yourself?! [BTW - you will argue that the many of the moral precepts Christ taught are not new to Christianity. And I won't disagree. I'm just positing the question: What if we did practice what Christ and others taught?]

Okay, Mark, I'll cry "uncle." By your definition, I am religious, and I won't deny that. But I will argue that my "religious-ness" is informed by a belief and faith in the existence of God, specifically the Triune God of Christianity. Religion without belief/faith is the empty practice of rituals and forms. And that's not where I'm coming from.

Perhaps the reason 99% (although I think that number is a bit high) of Christians deny being religious is that the religious right has co-opted the title "religious" and many of us don't want to be in any way associated with that kind of "religion." I recall a very early post from a self-effacing gentleman who pointed out that the real Christians of this world practice their faith quietly every day -- we're not making noise or news, so it's very easy to overlook us.

A couple of friendly jabs: "them cheap imitators" were Matthew and Luke! John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and his is the non-synoptic (unique vision) gospel. Very few scholars attribute this gospel to anyone other than John bar Zebedee -- John, the son of Zebedee -- who, with his brother, James was among the first disciples. John was the one to whom Christ entrusted the care of his mother; the only male disciple to witness the crucifixion, and the only disciple not martyred. His account of Christ's ministry is that of an eyewitness to the events. His unique take on the gospel focuses on Christ's divinity and unity with God; Christ's message of love; and the teachings of Christ -- only a few "signs and miracles" are recorded. What is recorded is the impact, both one-on-one and in large groups, Christ's loving message had on the people whose lives he touched.

BTW, Every baptized Christian is a "born-again" Christian. In baptism, we are "born again of water and the Spirit." That's a once and forever sacrament. I don't know what all that other noise is about, except that we all stray, sometimes for years, sometimes forever, but when we come back, if we come back, it may feel like a transformational experience. But it's only that we are reawakened to the presence of Christ in our lives. We never ceased to be God's beloved children; we just forgot we were.

The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation arrived yesterday. I have read a bit of Sam Harris, and my initial reaction -- no, I won't tell you that. I need to read more!

A couple of points arising out of a conversation yesterday with one of my special pastors (She is "my Pastor of Love" because that is what she teaches, both by example and by word.) She is also an amazing minister to our youth. We were discussing grace, and whether Christians live for the promise of heaven. Actually, it wasn't much of a discussion because we our beliefs are identical. As she said, she often asks our youth, "If all there is after death is worms and decay, would you still choose this path?" My answer is a resounding, "YES!!!" For me, God's grace is here and now, and I'm already experiencing the joy and peace of living in his grace. If there is nothing behind either Door A or Door B, I'm okay with that, because I've got the goods right here, right now!

The message of Christ is peace and love. I believe that, and I try to practice it. I cannot prove to you that God exists, and I won't try. I also think, in the final analysis, God's existence cannot be disproved -- it's very hard to prove a negative, but I won't argue with your beliefs -- yes, I did say, "beliefs," for you BELIEVE as you do with as much fervor as I do. I will say this: I LOVE YOU -- just as you are. That's not some sloppy, sentimental Valentine's Day sop. We have developed an friendship -- a connectedness, if you will, and your well-being, health, happiness, and peace of mind, as well as that of those you love -- your wife, the survivor; your sister, the esteemed physician; your daughter, who wants her time on the computer, and all the others you haven't mentioned -- is important to me. I believe each of you is, as I am, a beloved child of God. You are my brothers and my sisters, and I care for and about you.

I don't know if this blog will still be going when I have read and digested Dawkins and Harris, but I will make every effort to find you and share my reactions and considered thoughts on both. Until then,

Peace and Love,
Deanna

If he was just a rabbi then why did you folks just make oover one thousand comments? If he was just a rabbi then how do you answer the question of group hypnosis, as some people call it, and the change in those twelve ignorant men? Why not refer to some of the books from F.F. Bruce, Mark Goodacre, and maybe even John Walvoord. SO many of your sources stated are has beens. This cultish facination with JD Crossman, the man was fine in his day but that is in the past. You want to see where scholarly research is going read Mark Goodacre. Ask yourself why none of these great scholars will take him on?

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη.

James wrote:
Mr. Mark wrote:

"In other words, a FRAGMENT from as late as 150AD qualifies as THE EARLIEST piece of the NT we have extant. Think it over."

This is an amazing thing! The fragment was found in a community along the nile river in Egypt, a long way from Ephesus in Asia Minor where the book was written! Also, by comparison, the earliest copy of a Greek manuscript of Homer's Iliad is from the 2nd century. A far cry (1000 years) from its composition date in approximately 800BC. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming when compared to other works from antiquity that scholars have no problem with treating as authentic."

Yes, it is an amazing thing that the fragment was found at all.

Scholars aren't sure that Homer existed either (you know the old joke that the Iliad wasn't written by Homer but by somebody else with the same name). When one speaks of these epic works, one is speaking of poems that existed in an oral tradition for centuries and were only written down sometime between 900-600BC. There's not even a consensus on whether or not the Trojan War was a real event. If it was a real event, there's nobody alive today who would believe that the fortunes of that war were the result of the interventions of Apollo or Zeus.

That said, we have lots of pottery and art works that depict the legend of the Trojan War story, pieces that have been dated to the time frame in which the Homeric epics were supposedly set down in written form. So even if the written record is missing, we do have physical evidence that attests to the legend of the TW existing deep into the pre-Xian centuries.

Let's be honest here when discussing written sources from antiquity. Many non-Xian works were purposefully destroyed by Xians during the purges of the 5th century. The church issued edicts to destroy all pagan and scientific writings and sources. St John Chrysostom of Constantinople, who called Pythagoras a barbarian and a sorcerer, reported this destruction when he wrote, "And as for the writings of the Greeks, they are all put out and vanished." The pagan academies were either destroyed or starved into oblivion as the rich erected churches to buy their way into heaven. Even though the writings of Homer, Ovid and a few others were generally spared by the Xians, the fact remains that we will never know how many truly ancient scrolls were fooder for the Xian fires, even as the Xians were busy making their multiple copies of the NT.

I think you'd have to admit that the volume of extant Xian sources vs the volume of extant sources for Greek literature is not the most accurate way to measure which stories are true and which are fables, especially as the Xians systematically destroyed anything that the Church deemed unapproved for the consumption of believers while cranking out multiple versions of their own version of the resurrected godman myth.

Having said all of that, I appreciate your bringing Homer into the mix. I'll take that as an indication from you that you put the Homeric gods on equal footing with the Biblical gods...or maybe it's the other way around? :)

Mr. Mark wrote:

"In other words, a FRAGMENT from as late as 150AD qualifies as THE EARLIEST piece of the NT we have extant. Think it over."

This is an amazing thing! The fragment was found in a community along the nile river in Egypt, a long way from Ephesus in Asia Minor where the book was written! Also, by comparison, the earliest copy of a Greek manuscript of Homer's Iliad is from the 2nd century. A far cry (1000 years) from its composition date in approximately 800BC. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming when compared to other works from antiquity that scholars have no problem with treating as authentic. Also, when the thousands of copies of copies of copies are compared, we can be certain that the New Testament is 99.5% reliable.

I'll have to comment on the Marcionites at a later time. I'll do some checking. All I really know about him at this time is that he was a heretic and excommunicated from the church around 144AD.

Congratulations on getting post number one thousand Mr. Mark!

You should get a prize and for that! (and for the quality of your comments as well..I've been enjoying them.)

1000 comments in this thread.

The debate goes on!

James wrote:

"Skeptics like to ignore the fact that a fragment of the Gospel of John exists in John Rylands Library in Manchester, England that dates to between 98-150 AD."

I researched your claim. Here's what the John Rylands website has to say about the fragment in question:

"The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language."

"First half of the second century A.D" in your translation = as early as 98AD. I don't doubt their scholarship as they at least hedge their bets and state that "it may with some confidence be dated." Were they more absolutist about it I'd suspect an agenda.

I would be more inclined to translate "First half of the second century A.D" as meaning "written probably no later than 150AD." I can understand your wanting to assign as early a date as possible to support your claim, but I question whether that's the best interpretation of the research.

Also, you might have noticed this interesting tidbit: "(it) thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language." In other words, a FRAGMENT from as late as 150AD qualifies as THE EARLIEST piece of the NT we have extant. Think it over.

As to the writings of St Paul - yes, I know what he wrote in his Epistles. But was Paul talking about an earthly death and resurrection or a heavenly death and resurrection? Was Paul a Gnostic who believed that Jesus' battles were fought in heaven before the dawn of time? There's evidence in his writings that would indicate so. It's a fascinating subject. Let's face it, Xianity is based on the writings of Paul as much as it is the words of Jesus, and Paul felt himself to be a power unto himself with the Truth revelaed directly to him through divine inspiration, not from contact with Jesus himself or familiarity with the Gospels.

Since you brought up the fragment of the Gospel of John, we should look at the documentation that exists for Paul's epistles. As you probably know, there are NO ORIGINALS extant for any of Paul's writings. We have only copies and copies of copies. The EARLIEST COPIES we have of Paul's writings date from the 3rd century. In addition, 14-15 of Paul's 21 books of the Bible are of questionable authorship. The authenticity of Paul's writings has been under attack by scholars since the 1700s.

Question: what do you make of the church of Marcion and their championing the works of Paul in contrast to the Gospel-based beliefs of the Apostolic-founded Roman Church? What do you think of the fact that it was Marcion who discovered Paul's writings in the 3rd century?

Greg – Yes, I did look at your post. I have seen this “evidence” before. The Josephus reference to Christ is a well-known addition/forgery. Also, the fact that other historians referred to “Christians” does not prove that Christ existed, only that Christians existed, which is not disputed.

Most of all, your source, Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, does not impress me. I trust academic archeologists over professional fundamentalist Christians.

Ghostbuster wrote :

"Unfortunately, I can't scroll through this page anymore. Maybe it's because they put all 900+ responses on one page?"

They do make it difficult, don't they? This will be my third attempt to respond to your post (#995). Other tries have been unsuccessful - I get a message that the thread is closed or that I can't respond.

"So, if you did respond to my questions Mr. Mark, I appreciate it."

I did. You'll see it if you scroll up.

I think I'm going to abandon this thread. Nothing's more frustrating to compose a response and then to have it not show up. I refuse to compose in a Word doc and then try to cut-n-paste over and over again. The webmasters at OnFaith need to do better.

Greg – Yes, I did look at your post. I have seen this “evidence” before. The Josephus reference to Christ is a well-known addition/forgery. Also, the fact that other historians referred to “Christians” does not prove that Christ existed, only that Christians existed, which is not disputed.

Most of all, your source, Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, does not impress me. I trust academic archeologists over professional fundamentalist Christians.

Unfortunately, I can't scroll through this page anymore. Maybe it's because they put all 900+ responses on one page? So, if you did respond to my questions Mr. Mark, I appreciate it.

E. Favorite,
So did you even look at my post? It provided plenty of evidence for the accuracy of the OT.

E. Favorite,
So did you even look at my post? It provided plenty of evidence for the accuracy of the OT.

E. Favorite,
So did you even look at my post? It provided plenty of evidence for the accuracy of the OT.

Jesus is the literal Son of the Living God. He is the promised Messiah--the very Christ. He left His Father's presence to show mankind a perfect example of how to return to God's presence. He made an infinite Atonement for the sins of mankind through the shedding of His holy blood in the garden and on the cross. He was slain that we might live eternally. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He rose from the dead the third day in immortal and eternal glory and as we speak HE LIVES in flesh and bone. In due time He will return to this earth in glory to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. Glory be to God for the immeasurable gift of His Beloved Son.

Henry: Eternity is now!

Henry: Eternity is now!

If Jesus really was God's son, and if God really wanted us to know that he exists, then Jesus should have written the Bible instead of a bunch of guys he was able to convince to leave Judaism behind them. It shouldn't have taken him longer than the blink of an eye.

At the very least, one would think that some of his family members would have written about him as well. Surely they knew him better than any of the apostles.

If Jesus really was God's son, and if God really wanted us to know that he exists, than Jesus should have written the Bible instead of a bunch of guys he was able to convince to leave Judaism behind them.

At the very least, one would think that some of his family members would have written about him as well. Surely they knew him better than any of the apostles.

Many of you seem so lost, trying to explain the non-existance of God.

Have you ever talked to God? Have you ever experianced his wonderful love in your life.

Look around you and you will know that there is a God.

Try to explain why we have Life, love, joy, and hate, or fruit, vegetables, or water and light?

Look up into the sky at night and explain "where the universe begins and ends? God gives us the answer, He said that he "is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending".

I have prayed and my Lord Jesus Christ has answered my prayer. When I need help He gives me help. My wife and I pray about all of our needs, and God always answers.

When we begin to live by faith, not by sight, We will be blessed of God.

Try talking to God through His Son, Jesus Christ, The Lamb of God.

Here is a truth.
Eternity will be real for all, either everlasting life with Our Lord Jesus Christ, or everlasting punishment for denying Him.

Mr. Mark

You wrote, "I would have no problem with you writing that "Dr Hugh Ross has speculated," but you don't do that. You present his writings on evolution as a dissenting scientific theory, which they are not. They are a hypothesis, and an untested hypothesis at that.

I think we can agree on that, can't we?". This was in a post you directed at me, but I think that although it began that way it ended as a post for James right?

Still, for what it's worth I am happy to agree that untested hypothesis should be viewed as just that.

Sometimes I think that I don't make myself clear enough as a few times people have thought I was taking an opposite position when I was in reality just trying to "fine tune" my understanding of what that person was getting at. Need to work on that.

James - I trust huge amounts of archeological findings over 2 Egyptian tablets - that could have been misinterpreted.

In the article I linked to I see no mention of homosexuality.

regarding conspiracy theories, I think people looking for them can always find them.

I suggest you go to a conservative temple and check out the reference I mentioned.

It's a big Red book.

Mr. Mark - no it was not Nietsche that prompted me to ASZ... It was Zarathustra himself, and a prediction he made in the 1600's, the ;last millenium, about this millenium.

Taken from the Precepts Given by Zardusht - (Zarathustra)- to the King and to all mankind. It is from a Persian work called: Dabistan-ul-Mazahad, which was composed in the 1600s, and deals with the great wars of the second millennium.

“When the second millennium commences, mankind shall behold more calamity than was witnessed in the times of Zohak and Afrasiab. (The second millennium began with the year 2001)!!

“A people clothed for war, oppressors of the poor, without title, reputation, or merit, friends to tumult and wickedness, fraudulent, hypocritical, and deceitful….speakers of falsehood…seeking the ways of hell, having conspired together will destroy the FIRE TEMPLES, and turn to themselves the spirit of the inhabitants of Iran. The sons and daughters of nobles shall fall into their hands, and the children of the virtuous and mighty become their attendants. This race shall make a covenant-breaker king over them: -

“That person among them obtains both power and rank, Whose career is directed to the production of misery.”

The clouds shall mostly appear unattended; the rains not fall in their season, heats predominate, the water of rivers be lessened; and men despicable in figure.

An evil-disposed rapacious host shall come to Iran; and force away the crown and throne from its chieftains. O Zardusht! Communicate these tidings to the Mobeds, that they may impart them to their people:

“From every quarter they shall prepare to assail Iran,… They shall lay it waste.”

Three mighty battles will then ensue, which will render Persia the land of mourning; after which will arise an exalted avenging prince who shall obtain the victgory! -------------------

FIRE TEMPLES I am more than certain has reference to Nuclear reactors.

In the context of what is happening today, (at this the beginning of the second thousand year period), I ask you, just how prophetic are these words which were written in the 1600s???

E Favorite:

Further on the article you referenced; it appears that this "New Torah for Modern Minds" purpose is to undermine the Bible so that its or God's prohibitions can be disregarded (or at least picked and chosen between by proxy). Case in point: homosexuality. Read the third from last paragraph.

E Favorite wrote:

"Jewish clergy accept, based on the lack of archeological evidence, that much of the Old testament is fable but they don’t pass it on – and it’s even written in the back of their new Torah and commentary - ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew) found in all Conservative Jewish Temples. I checked it out myself. The Biblical Archeology section starts on page 1343. For an NY Times article on the subject, go to http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm"

That article you reference states "Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.'

They just ran a special on the history channel the other night showing two separate Egyptian writings that verified or coroborated the departure of the Israelites from Egypt and the parting of the Red or Reed Sea.

I am detecting a hint of conspiracy theory among all of these posts claiming the Bible is fairy tale and Jesus didn't exist!!

Has it ever occurred to any of you that if there was solid proof of Jesus' existence we would have heard about it by now - possibly every Sunday - definitely on Easter and Christmas, and there would probably be a gold plaque in the vestibule of every church detailing the proof. Instead, we’re trying to ferret out the information on our own, as adults, via internet searches and on-line discussions.

Clergy learn in Div school what little evidence there is for Jesus, but they don’t pass it on. Conservative Jewish clergy accept, based on the lack of archeological evidence, that much of the Old testament is fable but they don’t pass it on – and it’s even written in the back of their new Torah and commentary - ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew) found in all Conservative Jewish Temples. I checked it out myself. The Biblical Archeology section starts on page 1343. For an NY Times article on the subject, go to http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

As I said on anther thread - I wish the scholars and historians could just say something like, “We’ve been looking long and hard without finding any strong evidence for Jesus and at this point it’s doubtful that we’ll ever find any.”

Has it ever occurred to any of you that if there was solid proof of Jesus' existence we would have heard about it by now - possibly every Sunday - definitely on Easter and Christmas, and there would probably be a gold plaque in the vestibule of every church detailing the proof. Instead, we’re trying to ferret out the information on our own, as adults, via internet searches and on-line discussions.

Clergy learn in Div school what little evidence there is for Jesus, but they don’t pass it on. Conservative Jewish clergy accept, based on the lack of archeological evidence, that much of the Old testament is fable but they don’t pass it on – and it’s even written in the back of their new Torah and commentary - ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew) found in all Conservative Jewish Temples. I checked it out myself. The Biblical Archeology section starts on page 1343. For an NY Times article on the subject, go to http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

As I said on anther thread - I wish the scholars and historians could just say something like, “We’ve been looking long and hard without finding any strong evidence for Jesus and at this point it’s doubtful that we’ll ever find any.”

Greg,
Excellent post. Archeology is continuing to confirm more and more Biblical stories as truth.

News Cynic:
Good to hear from you as always. I agree that we cannot simply dismiss all scientists , philosophers, etc. that have an opinion about E.T. That would eliminate a good number of them I suppose. The study that I eluded to in an earlier post about the evolution or lack thereof of modern man was conducted by the aforementioned evolutionary biologists. Dr. Ross merely referred to their study on his site.

To continue my previous post,

Mr. Mark wrote:
"though few scholars imagine that Jesus' apostles were the actual authors."

I don't believe it's true that only a few scholars believe the apostles were the actual authors.

Many say that the names of the Gospels were assigned to bring a seeming authenticity. However according to Dr. Mark Roberts in his articel "Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable?" he states "this argument could explain the naming of Matthew and John, though I think it reflects unwarranted skepticism about early Christian tradition. But the main flaw in this argument is obvious: Two of the biblical gospels were named after relatively inconsequential characters who did not actually know Jesus in the flesh. If you were some second-century Christian wanting to make up an author for a gospel, you'd never choose Mark, even if he was believed to be a companion of Peter. And you'd never choose Luke, because he had no direct connection to Jesus at all. If second-century Christians were fabricating traditional authorship, surely they could have done a better job. Assign the second gospel to Peter himself, for goodness sakes, not Mark!"

Also, I'd like to say that I agree with News Cynic concerning the so called Jesus Seminar. It's leader Robert Funk had a grand vision of undermining Orthodox Christianity and this seminar was just a part of that plan.

Greg -

Thanks for the additional material, the long post and the sources. I will check them out. This kind of back-and-forth is what I hope to get out of posting at On Faith.

Astrobuff -

Sorry about getting on you about the typo. Maybe the foreign language set me off. I'm a great believer in typos...just read any of my posts.

I'm still wondering why you brought Nietzsche into the conversation...or were you listening to the Richard Strauss tone poem at the time?

News Cynic wrote:
Mr Mark! (and later for James as well)

"I think you need to check out a wider range of scholars. I know you don’t hold much stock in Biblical scholars that actually believe that the text in question is a work of Divine inspiration but you should be aware that the Jesus Seminar you are found of quoting from is not held in a esteem by the majority of religious or “secular” Biblical scholars."

Did you check out the links I provided above? Why are you saying these are scholars involved with the Jesus Seminar. Are they?

"If you had checked out a wider range of sources you would have seen that dates for the four canonical gospels mostly fall within the range of 65 and 100CE."

Er...those were the time frames I gave. Average out the range I provided and you'll find it's pretty close to falling within the parameters you set. What's the problem?

"A question for James and Mr. Mark!: If we disregard every scientist and philosopher who postulates the possible existence of extra terrestrial or parallel dimensional intelligent life isn’t that just a back door way of shutting down all speculation on the existence or a goddess or god or “the gods?”. Are all people who speculate on the existence of such life unworthy of listening to on other matters? "

Speculation is fine. Just don't present speculation as scientific theory.

In the case of Ross, his hypothesis on UFOs is on the same speculative hypothesis level as his theory on evolution - neither has been subjected to the scientific discipline of peer review. Until either undergoes the process of review, they shouldn't be cited as a proof of anything. I would have no problem with you writing that "Dr Hugh Ross has speculated," but you don't do that. You present his writings on evolution as a dissenting scientific theory, which they are not. They are a hypothesis, and an untested hypothesis at that.

I think we can agree on that, can't we?

Can you ever forgive me Mr. Mark for erring by writing "spricht" when it should have been "sprach". We all, at one time or another, make typographical errors.

I must also add that I resent your accusing me of having unproven and unprovable beliefs. It does "prove" one thing to me though; which is that you, "Mr. Knowitall", actually know nothing, and use thousands of words to bolster that fact.

Infallible you are not!

This conversation is still going? Wow talk about legs!

OK here is more information on the historical part of Christianity...
"Tacitus, a leading Roman historian of the 1st century, described the great fire of Rome which many have said was caused by the Emperor Nero. He states:

“Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievious superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. ...[A]n immense multitude (of Christians) was convicted”.

I wonder what Tacitus was describing as “a most mischievous superstition”. What do you think he meant? The resurrection certainly comes to mind. There must have already been a great number of Christians in Rome at this time.

Suetonius, secretary to the Emperor Hadrian who ruled Rome in the beginning of the 2nd century, wrote in his Life of Nero, 16: “Punishment was inflicted upon the Christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.”

Josephus, the reputable Jewish historian who worked for the Romans, in his books Jewish Wars (A.D. 77-78) and Antiquities of the Jews (A.D. 94) details the historic nature of both the Old and New Testaments. He describes the Old Testament Books “which contain the records of all past times”.

Josephus confirms that Jesus was a real 1st century person, who was called Christ. Josephus confirms the existence of John the Baptist, that he was called the Baptist and that he was killed by King Herod. Josephus described Jesus as a wise and virtuous man who was crucified by Pontius Pilate; that his disciples claimed that Jesus appeared to them three days after His death alive and that perhaps Jesus was the Messiah of whom the prophets foretold.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator, stated that Jesus was worshiped as god by the early Christians, that they were not easily swayed of their beliefs and he describes Christian morality.

Talmadic writings from the 1st century show that Jesus was hanged on the day before the feast of the Passover at the instigation of the Jewish religious leaders as described in the New Testament.

“On the eve of Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery (healings and exorcisms) and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of Passover!”

There are other non-Christian writings that confirm the Gospel accounts of the New Testament. I am afraid to test your patience any longer. The non-Christian writings described above and others show that Jesus of Nazareth existed and that he lived a virtuous life. Many people believed that he performed healings and his critics called him a sorcerer. He was crucified at the instigation of the Jewish religious leaders by Pontius Pilate during the reign of emperor Tiberius. His disciples believed that He was alive after His crucifixion. His disciples lived moral lives. Early on Jesus was worshiped as God. Christianity rapidly spread beyond Judea to Rome.

The non-Christian written sources agree with the Biblical account when speaking of the same subject matter."

And the refrences for the above with more commentary...

Tacitus. Annals. In Great Books of the Western World, ed. by Robert Maynard Hutchins. Vol. 15. at 15.44. The Annals and The Histories by Cornelius Tacitus. Chicago: William Benton, 1952.

Suetonis. Life of Nero, 16, The Twelve Caesars, Trans. by Robert Graves. Revised by Michael Grant. New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1979.

Josephus Flavius. “Against Apion,”at 1.8. The Antiquities of the Jews. New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., 1900.

Josephus Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., 1900.

Josephus Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2. New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., 1900.

Id. At 18.3.3.

Pliny the Younger. Letters 10:96. Trans. by W. Melmoth. Quoted in Norman L Giesler, Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998.

Babylonian Talmud, Sanedrin 43a.
______________________________

Regarding the study and acceptance of historical documents, I find it interesting that there are approximately ten good copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars with the oldest dating 900 years after Caesar; approximately 35 books of The Roman History of Livy with the oldest dating to the 4th century; approximately 14 books of The Histories of Tacitus written around 100 A.D., with the earliest copy dating to approximately the 9th century; approximately eight manuscripts of the History of Thucydides written in the 5th century B.C., with the earliest copy dating to approximately 900 A.D.; and only a few papyrus scraps of The History of Herodotus which was also written in the 5th century B.C. with the earliest manuscripts being 1,300 years old. All of these books are considered to be reliable histories. It becomes obvious that the New Testament, 1) with thousands of manuscripts and some of them within 35 years of the event and 2) with all copies being in agreement, is bibliographically reliable. No other ancient document is even close to being as reliable.

The New Testament came onto the scene within a very short time after the death of Jesus. The apostles preached the Gospels to people who knew the facts. If factual inaccuracies were contained in the New Testament many people, who actually witnessed the events, could and would have said “You’re wrong. That’s not what happened.” Though there have been many attempts at explaining away the facts alleged in the New Testament, there is nothing contradicting them. I am impressed.

As for the Old Testament, Dr. Gleason Archer has stated, “The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record”. Time after time archaeology has confirmed the bible as historically accurate. Biblical Canaanite cities mentioned in Genesis once thought not to exist have been uncovered. “For thousands of years they have been buried deep in the ground, now they stand clearly before us. Among them are many towns whose walls the patriarchs had seen: Bethel and Mizpah, Gerar and Lachish, Gezer and Gath, Askelon and Jericho.”

Archaeologist William F. Albright speaking of Egyptian finds stated, “According to our present knowledge of the topography of the eastern delta the account of the start of the Exodus, which is given in Ex. 12 and Ex. 13, is topographically absolutely correct.” This attests to the historical nature of the Exodus story.

In or about 1923, Friedrich Simon Bodenheimer and Oskar Theodor, botanical experts from the Hebrew University at Jerusalem, brought back the first photographs of the biblical food called manna which is a secretion from tamarisk trees and bushes when they are pierced by a certain plant-louse which is found in the Sinai. It was about the same shape and size as a coriander seed, white in color, and tasted sweet like honey when left to solidify.

Some of the cities which the Book of Joshua describes as having been destroyed by the Jews have been discovered. The city of Jericho was found with its walls collapsed and clear traces of a tremendous fire; the city of Debir was found with a layer of ashes and considerable destruction; the city of Lachish was found and determined to have been destroyed by fire; and, the city of Hazor was found and determined to have been destroyed by fire. The remains date back to the 13th century B.C., which corresponds to the time of Joshua. It appears the battles described in the Book of Joshua happened because these cities were certainly destroyed at about the time claimed in the Bible.

Based on hieroglyphics found in Egypt it is now known that the Philistines of the Bible actually existed. The drawings show that the Philistines were much taller than the Egyptians. The city of Shiloh was discovered and its remains clearly indicate that it was destroyed around 1050 B.C. which was the approximate time of the Biblical Philistine victory over Israel.

Since the statehood of Israel in 1948, the Old Testament has acted as a guide for such practical matters as learning what plants would grow there. The ancient wells of Abraham and Isaac have been searched for and rediscovered providing water to the arid desert lands. Under the sands “the ancient wells are still there and still as before at the foot of them runs clear pure water.” Issues in the new country such as forestation of bare mountain slopes, condensation principals, copper mining and even oil wells have been resolved by reference to the Old Testament texts.

There was a time when I thought the Old Testament was similar to Aesop's Fables and that Jesus of Nazareth was merely the greatest person ever born. I was wrong. Like Alfred Hitchcock would write himself into his movies, God wrote Himself into His creation in the person of Jesus. Jesus is truly God."

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2007/01/jesus_never_exi.html

And if you want to see for yourself...

Mr Mark! (and later for James as well)

I think you need to check out a wider range of scholars. I know you don’t hold much stock in Biblical scholars that actually believe that the text in question is a work of Divine inspiration but you should be aware that the Jesus Seminar you are found of quoting from is not held in a esteem by the majority of religious or “secular” Biblical scholars.

To adopt one of your lines to James, “As long as you continue to cite (the Jesus Seminar) as a reliable source, I will continue to question why you do so.

If you had checked out a wider range of sources you would have seen that dates for the four canonical gospels mostly fall within the range of 65 and 100CE. Do these dates change the thrust of your argument with James? Not really, but they do serve the benefit of placing you and your position more in the mainstream so you can not be so easily dismissed by those not wanting to grapple with your ideas.

A question for James and Mr. Mark!: If we disregard every scientist and philosopher who postulates the possible existence of extra terrestrial or parallel dimensional intelligent life isn’t that just a back door way of shutting down all speculation on the existence or a goddess or god or “the gods?”. Are all people who speculate on the existence of such life unworthy of listening to on other matters? As a fan of SciFi that would render most of my heroes as unable to address serious matters of science, religion, sociology, history, and philosophy. that would be a bummer, no?

Mr. Mark wrote:

"Biblical scholars agree that the earliest Gospel was that of Mark, written anywhere between 65CE and 130CE. Most put its composition at around 70CE as Mark makes reference to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (through a quote of Jesus), a historic fact of 70CE. That gives us a range of the FIRST Gospel being written anywhere between 30 and 97 years AFTER Jesus died."

Liberal scholars 70's AD, Conservative scholars 50's AD. If it was 50's AD, that's only twenty years after Christ's death. No time for legend to develop. All of the other folks who new the "truth" would have shot all of the gospels down immediately. This wasn't some super secret thing that only the gospel writers new about. They didn't go get their info from God in a cave. It happened for all around to see.

Mr. Mark wrote:
"though few scholars imagine that Jesus' apostles were the actual authors."

Mark was anonymous, Matthew was not. Matthew, a disciple of Jesus was right there to witness the events as was John. Luke a physician, accompanied Paul and wrote his gospel according to how "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" had delivered them to him. Luke's gospel is a precursor to Acts and only very liberal scholars question who wrote these books.

Mr. Mark Wrote:

"Next comes Luke, which was penned between 95-140CE. John came even later."

Skeptics like to ignore the fact that a fragment of the Gospel of John exists in John Rylands Library in Manchester, England that dates to between 98-150 AD.

Mr. Mark wrote:
"but we're supposed to believe that this Xian persecutor not only wasn't present at the crucifixion but didn't ever hear enough about this "historic event" to report the event in any of his writings? Right...and I've got a bridge to sell."

Skeptics always keep trying new angles to squash the truth. Jesus never claimed to be God except in the Gospel of John, the Gospels were not written by the writers named in the title of the books, and now Paul doesn't mention the crucifiction of Jesus. Now let's not be ridiculous. What about: 1 Corinthians chapter 2; "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." What about: 1 Corinthians 15:3- "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I aso received: that Christ died for ours sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time."

Dear Mr. Mark,

Regarding whether Paul met Jesus, I cracked open my Britannica (P - Plastering vol. 17) on PAUL:

..."To further this purpose he set out for Damascus fortified with documents from the religious authorities in Jerusalem, authorizing him to secure the followers of Jesus of Nazareth who had gone there and possibly to bring some back to face trial for heresy. Paul reached Damascus but not as he expected, for on the way he was confronted with Jesus of Nazareth and soundly converted to this new sect which he had been so zealously persecuting, certainly one of the amazing reversals of purpose in the whole history of mankind."

.....

"The following factors should be noted:

3) The probable influence of the Person of Jesus. Whether he ever saw Jesus in the flesh is not known. Some scholars think that he did, otherwise he could not have carried in his mind the impression of Jesus' character suggested by various allusions in the Epistles. He refers to having known Christ "after the flesh" "from a human point of view" by some interpreted to mean "the Jesus of history; but scholars are not unanimous on the meaning of this somewhat difficult passage. That he learned much about Jesus while pursuing Jesus' followers can scarcely be doubted, since knowledge of them and their convictions was inseparable from knowledge of the character and claims of him whom they claimed to be Messiah."

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

Happy to transcribe the footnotes and biblio, also. The biblio is 22 entries, and perhaps you have access online (I don't) or your own set. But I've found the scholarship trustworthy (read: as good as it gets) over the years. The PAUL entry is 12 pages.

===========

So, does it prove Paul met Jesus? No. But it sure does makes me think Jesus existed.

My take...

Astrobuff wrote:

"Once more I reiterate that the thousands upons thousands of words on this blog, whether pro or con, do not change anything."

Who said that anything was going to change? This is a discussion board, not a conversion board. Why are you making statements whose only intent can be to shut down discussion through some absolutism based on unprovable bromides? If you don't feel like entering into the give-and-take of a DISCUSSION, then you're at the wrong website.

Yes, nothing will change through this discussion. Science and history have their tested and verified facts and you have your unproven and unprovable beliefs. You're right. Nothing has been said that changes that basic reality.

Ghostbuster wrote:
"Mr. Mark,

Based on your definition, would you currently consider yourself remotely religious? Why/Why not? If not, were you at one time? Feel free to refer me back to old posts if you wish."

No, I'm not remotely religious. I was at one time, and I've expressed that on these boards. If you wish to read my past posts on the subject, many of them are contained within this thread. Belief in the supernatural dooesn't enter into my belief system, and I see faith as a highly overrated crutch through which one may view the world. Belief in the supernatural and faith in things unseen and unprovable are major pillars in religious belief, especially the Abrahamic religions.

"Many christians do not consider themselves particularly religious per se. Looking at the definition you provided one can see why."

And why would Xians not believe themselves to be religious based on the dictionary definition? Are they not participating in, "the service and worship of God or the supernatural?" Do they not show a "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance?" Does not the sect they belong to offer "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices?" Do they not proselytize for, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith?"

A Xian stating that he doesn't fit the dictionary definition of being religious is a little bit like a seatbelt-less driver running red lights while averring, "I'm not a lawbreaker."

Joseph A wrote:
---Dear Fate, In a sense it almost seems like we're tripped up solely over the probability. Here I am, as a believer, and you're not. But it appears we believe nearly the exact same things. We differ on "the spark." Fascinating really.---

Not really, just proves that we're both human. A lot of what people think is religiously maintained morality is really just plain old human nature.

---When you say, "I believe human life is sacred," I agree. I pause, hesitate, and think, "We've pretty covered everything here."---

Yup, as a phylosopher once said: "People are people". I'm always amazed that when people visit people in other cultures the reaction is "they're so nice!". Whadayano...

Maybe you should consider that religion is just a cover for making money to maintain morality, sort of like the water company that make you pay for water, like you can't get it anywhere else :^)

James wrote:

"It's also interesting that we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but because they have been gathered into one volume (the Bible) and it's the foundation of the Christian faith, we can't trust their authenticity as historical documents?"

Here's the deal, James:

Jesus suppossedly lived between 6BC to 33 AD. He is supposed to have started his ministry at 30, and it lasted 3 years (though Mark says it lasted only 1 year). So, let's say that Jesus died at age 33 and died around 33 CE.

When were the Gospels written?

Biblical scholars agree that the earliest Gospel was that of Mark, written anywhere between 65CE and 130CE. Most put its composition at around 70CE as Mark makes reference to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (through a quote of Jesus), a historic fact of 70CE. That gives us a range of the FIRST Gospel being written anywhere between 30 and 97 years AFTER Jesus died.

The other Gospels all take Mark as their starting point, using his Gospel as the basis for the Jesus story, then adding their own elements to it.

The next Gospel to be penned was Matthew. Scholars have narrowed it's composition down to between 90-100CE.

Next comes Luke, which was penned between 95-140CE.

(sources: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/gospeldate.html and here: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Jesus2.html )

John came even later.

The names of apostles have been assigned to each Gospel, though few scholars imagine that Jesus' apostles were the actual authors. How could they be if the Gospels were penned at the outer years of the timeframes given? The apostles would all have been 90 - 130 years old when they wrote their named Gospels.

Ergo, we can pretty much deduce that the 4 Gospels were named after the apostles by some now-anonymous authors, not actually written by those apostles.

Compare this LACK of contemporaneous documentation to the documentation we have for other people from the same years (Caesar, Herod, Pilate et al), and one can safely say that the Bible is, at least, less-reliable as a history than Roman civil records, civil records that are strangely silent on the "history" presented in the NT.

One further item - scholars agree that St Paul's Epistles were written even before Mark. Paul is portrayed as a contemporary of Jesus. Yet Paul is silent on the many life events of Jesus as portrayed in the 3 synopic Gospels. Paul never met Jesus in person. He was supposedly one of the main persecutors of Xians in and around Jerusalem, but we're supposed to believe that this Xian persecutor not only wasn't present at the crucifixion but didn't ever hear enough about this "historic event" to report the event in any of his writings? Right...and I've got a bridge to sell.

James wrote:
"The 270,000 years was a maximum age of man from the biologists findings. Mankind can be much younger as Hugh Ross points out on his website."

As long as you continue to cite Hugh Ross as a reliable source, I will continue to question why you do so.

Will you address Hugh Ross' asserting that UFOs are the product of Satan? Can you explain why - if Hugh Ross wants to be considered as a scientist and to have his hypotheses subjected to the scientific method like every other legitimate scientist - he has yet to submit his hypotheses for peer review? After all, his theories have been around for years. Submit them now, Dr Ross, or accept the fact that the scientific community will continue to scoff at yout ideas as the worst form of pseudo-science.

Until Dr Ross submits his hypothesis to real peer review, quoting him as a scientifically accurate source is no more reliable than quoting Bozo the Clown as a scientifically accurate source.

You know that, I known that, and even Dr Ross knows that.

Back at ya.

Mr. Mark,

Based on your definition, would you currently consider yourself remotely religious? Why/Why not? If not, were you at one time? Feel free to refer me back to old posts if you wish.

Many christians do not consider themselves particularly religious per se. Looking at the definition you provided one can see why.

Astrobuff wrote:

"Also spricht Zarathustra!"

Actually, it's: "Also sprach Zarathustra!"

At least we know that Nietzsche existed. We should get the title of his book right. :)

Question: did you cite ASZ to bring Nietzsche's "God is dead" idea into the discussion? ASZ is where he expressed that thought.

Dear Deanna -

Sorry to say, but it looks like you can't escape this board. We're like the Mafia - just when you think you're out, we keep pulling you back in!

Yes, my name is really Mark. I was named after the FIRST GOSPEL, not after one of them cheap imitators like Luke or John!!

Re: the "religion v faith" debate. I've had this debate with my born-again family on many occasions. I'm sorry, but faith IS religion, at least if we can agree on the dictionary definition of religion:

a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Source: Merriam Webster Online)

I have no problem with that definition, yet I'd say that 99% of the religious people I know will argue that they're "not religious," even when their beliefs fit the dictionary definition of the word. As Steve Buscemi said in the movie Armaggedon, it's time to "Embrace the horror!" Yep - you're religious.

Joseph A:

One more point, then I'll shut up.

Your friend wrote: "The New Testament manuscripts are historically accurate... The Herods, the procurators... They capture the cultural scene accurately..."

This is an old trick that has been used for centuries to - in the words of WA Gilbert - "add artistic verisimilitude" to a story.

There are many stories set in NYC. Are we to believe that the series "Sex in the City" is accurate in its personages because it was set in a specific time in a real city (BTW - Charlotte is my favorite charcater out of the 4 girls. She's hot!)? Are we to believe that Indiana Jones existed because he not only met Adolf Hitler but got his dad's Grail Book autographed by Hitler in the course of a movie? I mean, it's historically accurate that Hitler existed. Doesn't it follow that Indiana Jones did as well?

I've made this point before on these boards. I repeat it now as it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Good grief, Charlie Brown! It does go on ad infinitum - much ado about.......(?) which does not change anything one iota!

Whether He was or He was not! Fact or fiction!

The fact is not only was He BUT that He IS!!

The Logos, the Word of God, is inscribed in the entirety of the Cosmos; and, is the very embodiment of, whether Jesus The Christ, or Buddha Shakyamuni, or Krishna!

Once more I reiterate that the thousands upons thousands of words on this blog, whether pro or con, do not change anything.

Also spricht Zarathustra!

Dear Mr. Mark,

I'll try again to get him on board but I don't like my chances. Like so many of us, in this day and age, he's swamped with work, plus he has 5 children! considering a move, etc --ie, it may take awhile. Time is his enemy. Mine too.

more later...

Oops. Correction.

In my last post, I wrote: "I'd like to know your friend's take on the similarities that dot the lifestories of Jesus and those of the ancient Greek, Egyptian and Hellenic gods."

That should have read, "I'd like to know your friend's take on the similarities that dot the lifestories of Jesus and those of the ancient ROMAN, Egyptian and Hellenic gods."

Sorry. My bad.

Dear Joseph A:

Thanks for the response and for providing me with the portion of my exchange with News Cynic that you sent on to your friend. Reading it again, I'm happy with what I wrote! In fact, your friend's response seems even stranger in light of what I wrote as many of the points he made were addressed in my post. There's actually quite a bit of agreement there.

As I deduced in my earlier post, your bud was not provided with the beginning of the conversation and the start of the Caesar discussion. Too bad.

I would ask you to approach your friend again and invite him to join the discussion on this blog. We could use a real live historian here! I'm not a historian, I've just had an interest in this stuff for years so I tend to read alot.

What would really impress me and maybe even change my mind would be for someone like your friend to dispute the sources I list. For instance, were he to say that the writings of Gibbon and Ferrill were outmoded and that recent scholarship had disproven points X, Y & Z, then we'd be off on a new discussion. Were he to show that Susetonius' "The 12 Caesars" was a work of fiction and that historians now dismiss it as such, then I'd need to re-evaluate my beliefs. Even better, if he could reference works of more-recent historians that make his case, I'd love to read about that. I want to learn. Your friend could help out.

I'm also very surprised at your friend averring that the NT documents are "historically accurate." That's a leap of faith that most Biblical scholars won't make!

How does your bud explain the Bible's "historic account" of the date of Jesus' birth? As I wrote, "The Bible tries to validate the birth of Jesus by citing the historic figures of Herod and Caesar Augustus. Trouble is that Herod died 10 years before the census ordered by Caesar took place, so unless Jesus was born before 4BC (the year Herod died) and was reborn 10 years later, it's hard to see how he could have been a newborn for both events." I'd like your friend to address that, specifically.

Also - how can it be a historic fact that Mary & Joseph returned to Bethlehem for a Roman census when 1) Galilee wasn't a Roman province at the time, so there could be no census, and 2) a census was taken as a means to levy taxes on landowners, not as a general counting of how many people lived where? If I am mistaken in citing the above as facts, I would like to know.

Moving out of the realm of history and into physics, I'd like to know how your friend explains the Star of Bethlehem, that magical heavenly object that miraculously stopped and hovered over the stable where Jesus was born. How is such an accounting "historically accurate?"

Similarly, the "historically accurate" Bible reports Jesus' words in the Garden of Gethsemane word for word. He goes on at some length in his talk with god. Who was the historian that wrote down his words? Certainly, it wasn't the apostles as they had all fallen asleep. Maybe it was Jesus himself who came back and told Peter and the others, "hey, I was just talking to god, and here's what I said..." Nope...the Bible reports that when Jesus returned to his disciples for the last time that Judas and the Romans showed up and took him away. The Bible doesn't record Jesus telling his disciples the details of his chat with god.

I'd like to know your friend's take on the similarities that dot the lifestories of Jesus and those of the ancient Greek, Egyptian and Hellenic gods. Does he not find it strange that virgin births and resurrection myths were attributed to gods who were being worshipped well in advance of the advent of Jesus? I know that I do.

Finally, as a historian, I'd be interested to have your friend's honest evaluation of how much Biblical scholarship is informed by historical scholarship and vice versa. I would be interested to know if there are points in Biblical scholarship where historians dispute the claims made by Biblical scholars, especially when those claims are based upon work done by historians and archaeologists. Now, THAT would be a great contribution to these boards.

I have posted elsewhere on this board that one can't be 100% sure that Jesus didn't exist as a corporeal being. I'm of the belief that the evidence we have points away from that being a fact. I'm open to any evidence your friend can present to prove Jesus existed. And, I agree with poster James who says that having existed doesn't necessarily mean you were god incarnate. As your friend says, there were a lot of Jesuses back then (BTW - I believe that I covered the topic of many Jesuses existing in that time in another post). Our friend Josephus mentions 19 different "Jesuses" in his writings. St Paul never met THE Jesus, but he had a friend "Jesus who is called Justin." Show us the evidence that this particular Jesus was god incarnate.

BTW - speaking of multiple Jesuses, did you know that the Barabbas who Pilate supposedly released may have had the full name of "Jesus Bar Abbas?" At least that's what he was called in the text studied by Origen. Did you know that "Bar Abbas" is Hebrew for "Son of the Father." Isn't it a little strange that Pilate would just happened to have a "Jesus Son of God" and a "Jesus Son of the Father" sitting in his prison at the same time? Could it possibly be that a couple of characters were combined "for dramatic effect" in the telling of the Biblical story, or that the trats of one real person were broken out into two semi-real people, much the way composite characters dot even the best docudramas today? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Dear Mark,

Can't resist the siren's song, but I have determined to be brief, and, yes, I will report back after having read Dawkins and Harris.

After posting my rant about education, I wondered why I had even gone there -- at least in this blog. Thinking more about it, it is apropos to the discussion. By "dumbing down" the curriculum and turning the minds of our youth over to under-prepared and/or unqualified teachers, we leave them easy prey to every stripe of charlatan arriving on the scene.

A favorite pastime when our daughter was still living at home was to watch TV and, point-by-point, debunk the underlying and even up-front assumptions of commercials in particular, but also of newscasts. With the proliferation of cable networks, it is all too easy to look for and find the one that reports "the news you want to hear." We have become an uncritical nation in search of quick solutions and answers to problems that demand serious and reasoned consideration.

You came to your position on the non-existence of God through a long, tortuous analysis of everything you could get your hands on. I came to my belief in God's existence, as I said earlier, by a halting, questioning road, oftentimes kicking and screaming in protest. And, thanks to this blog, particularly your contributions, I continue to examine my faith.

Just to state again for the record to anyone reading my posts, in my mind, "religion" and "faith" or "belief" are two distinctly different subjects. "Religion" is the creation of man. And "religion" has been the prime cause of "crusades," pogroms, inquisitions, and wars, including many of the current wars, although I believe Iraq is motivated more by economics. "My Daddy can whip your Daddy!" "Our worship practices are right, and yours are wrong!" You'll notice they are almost universally referred to as "religious wars."

In my spiritual lexicon, "faith" is "spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof." Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, definition 3c (about half of the others include "religion" in their definitions, and as my post clearly indicates,I don't believe the two are the same.)

BTW, Mr. Mark, I presume to call you "Mark," on the assumption that 1)it really is your name, and 2) it is your first (given) name. I started using it to try to signal to you that, far from being hostile to your position, I wished to discuss our opposing positions in as civil a manner as possible, and as intelligent adults. You have never corrected me, so I continue to do so. If I am wrong, or if it offends you, I will return to "Mr. Mark," although it feels rather too formal for my taste.

Now, I'm off to do the things that need doing in my non-cyber life, like walk my loving, patient rescued greyhound and catch up on paperwork.

I'll be back!

Deanna

Dear Mr Mark,

I apologize for "poor form." Let me try to clean up the mess a little....

I just didn't want to clog up this forum with what had been written before and erroneously assumed it would be rather easy to quickly gain context. Plus it takes forever to clean them up even in "text edit."

The following was your post. I didn't intend it to be out of context. I thought your post was interesting and assumed his reply would be too. We talk all the time on email. So this was just one of our many emails. And yes, I had permission, and I tried to lure him as I mentioned, but he, quite rightly, I think, feared the time-consuming problems as opposed to the showing up problems.

In any event, I understand what you mean about drive-by, proxy, etc. Point taken.

===============================
This is what I sent from you:

Mr Mark :

News Cynic wrote :
"Mr. Mark,

"As a lover of history I wonder which of the ancients you imagine we
have more evidence for? I don't mind if you want to say we don't agree
but I you should know that many historians would disagree with you."

Well, there's evidence...and then. there's hearsay. There is nothing
outside of hearsay to support the case for a historic Jesus. There is
a ton of evidence to support the existence of other figures from
antiquity.

Let's start with Julius Caesar, shall we? If you're talking about
"evidence," then we really need to examine all of the evidence, don't
we? That would include physical evidence that exists from the time
that Caesar lived, evidence like coins and statues. That might include
buildings that were erected during his lifetime, etc. Those exist for
Caesar.

Then, there are the contemporaries of Caesar who knew him and wrote
about him while he lived - Cicero, Sallust, Virgil and Ovid. There
were those writers who were close contemporaries of Caesar - Plutarch,
Lucan and Suetonius (Caesar's biographer). Is there like evidence for
Jesus? Name a single contemporary of Jesus who wrote about him. You
can't do it. The earliest writings came 50-60 years after Jesus'
suppossed death.

We have a complete lifeline for Caesar, from his birth in 100 BC to
his death in 44 BC. Does that exist for Jesus? No. In fact, we have
only his birth, a scene when he was 12 and nothing more until he was
30. The Bible tries to validate the birth of Jesus by citing the
historic figures of Herod and Caesar Augustus. Trouble is that Herod
died 10 years before the census ordered by Caesar took place, so
unless Jesus was born before 4BC (the year Herod died) and was reborn
10 years later, it's hard to see how he could have been a newborn for
both events.

Of course, we only have the Bible's account of this birth event (and
the rest of his life, for that matter). For some reason, none of the
historians who lived at the time of Jesus found him to be a big enough
deal to write about.

In addition, we have Caesar's own writings and letters, writings that
document his accounts of his battles etc. We have no writings of
Jesus. Everything in the "historic record" that Jesus said is oral and
was reported by witnesses/gospel writers who lived decades after his
death, not by his contemporaries. Strangely, these gospel writers
somehow had the ability to take down Jesus' exact words, even though
they weren't there to hear them, most remarkably in Gethsemane where
Jesus went off and prayed by himself while his disciples slept. The
"evidence" of Jesus' words in this case comes from "divine
inspiration," which is hardly historic evidence.

There's much more, of course. I have no more truck with Jesus than I
do with other mythical figures. Were you to have gone on at length
about the historic evidence for Zeus, Thor or Apollo being
overwhelming, then I wouldn't have bothered knocking down your claim
that Jesus' life/existence was better-documented than any of the
ancients. The truth is that there is no more "historic" evidence
available to prove Jesus existed than there is to prove these other
gods existed. Your saying that the evidence does exist doesn't make it
true, and neither does saying that "most historians would disagree"
with me prove that Jesus existed.

Then, there's the work of The Jesus Seminar. Meeting for the first
time in March 1985, the Jesus Seminar has periodically brought
together dozens of university scholars and gospel specialists
representing every shade of Christian thought, plus a few Jews and
atheists.

In their initial study, the scholars collected more than 1500 versions
of approximately 500 Jesus parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories
written during the first 300 years of Christianity.

After 6 years of debate and reflection the consensus was that 82% of
the words attributed to Jesus were fake.

In phase two, between 1991 and 1996, the Jesus Seminar considered 387
versions of 176 'Jesus events'. Their conclusion: 84% of the
activities attributed to Jesus were bogus.

And these are people who want to buy into the Jesus Mythos!

Here's the challenge: produce sources that show contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus existence...not fairy tales written decades after
the event. Provide a single source outside of the Bible written within
100 years of Jesus life that talks about that life. When you can do
that, we'll have a basis to chat.

Sources for the stuff I said above:
Arthur Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (1799)
Michael Grant, Jesus (Orion, 1999)
Chris Scarre, Chronicle of the Roman Emperors (Thames & Hudson, 1995)
Pierre Grimal, Rome of the Caesars (Phaidon, 1956)
A. N. Wilson, Jesus (Harper Collins, 1993)
Elmar Gruber, Holger Kersten, The Original Jesus (Element, 1995)
Stewart Perowne, Death of the Roman Republic (Hodder & Stoughton, 1969)
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (Penguin, 1980)

These posts are very interesting. I wish I had more time to comment on them.

Mr Mark, though a little blunt, I appreciate you defending the integrity of the boards in your second point to Joseph A. I think we should all at least try to site our sources, or leave them out. In general, nothing bothers me more than those who cut, paste and don't site a source, whether that be in a classroom or an open forum board.

Joseph A, though I agree with Mr. Mark about the netiquette, don't take a slap on the wrist from a pseudonym like me too seriously. Just keep it in mind for the next time.

I took the advise of several on these boards and read "Letter to a Christian Nation". Actually it was a quick read, so I read it twice, once for fun, once critically. I would like to thank you all for the reference. Like Deanna, I will also read the "God Delusion" as my next book and probably a book Harris recommended which I think is called (without the reference sitting here in front of me) the "Case Against Faith". I assume that book was written to debunk Strobel's "Case for Faith".

Mr. Mark wrote:

"If your friend is a historian, he knows very well that the passages in Josephus that mention Jesus have long ago been determined to be 4th-century forgeries."

I don't believe this is a true statement. There are statements in Josephus' writings that can be said with fairly good certainty were added later by others. There are a number of statements about Jesus however that are believed to be authentic by most scholars. I referred to these in an earlier post. Most all historical scholars believe Jesus lived. The question that arises is; was he God in the flesh?

It's also interesting that we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but because they have been gathered into one volume (the Bible) and it's the foundation of the Christian faith, we can't trust their authenticity as historical documents?

News Cynic:
Sorry, it's been a while since I posted. I appreciate your verses of inspiration. "Circle of the earth", good verse.

The 270,000 years was a maximum age of man from the biologists findings. Mankind can be much younger as Hugh Ross points out on his website. Much evidence comes from the very young fossil record.

Dear Joseph A -

Two more points:

1. You bud wrote: " Belief in Zeus as a real
person never really took off." Who ever said Zeus was a person? He was a god. For a historian, your friend is awfully cavalier with his language. One would think that a historian could make a distinction between people, gods, reality and myths when the discussion is about...people, gods, reality and myths.

2. Nero and the "cult of Xians." Did Nero blame the burning of Rome on the Xians? Well, Tacitus reports that he did in his Book 15, Chapter 44 when he writes: "Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

So there you have it, right? Maybe not.

Funny, but no historian quotes that magical pasage by Tacitus until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. In other words, he was good at making forgeries that looked like original ancient manuscipts.

Furthermore - the Xians weren't known as Xians during the reign of Nero. They had other names for them, but not Xians. They were looked on as a sect of Jews. In fact, Nero made the Jews pay for the burning of Rome through a capitation tax. He didn't single out the Xians for the tax because the sect didn't exist as Xians.

Geez - maybe that Tacitus passage is another forgery, courtesy of Severus. Maybe?

BTW - the part about Nero fiddling while Rome burned is a Renaissance addition.

Further BTW - modern historians no longer blame Nero for setting the fire. He was in his hometown of Anzio when it started.

I could go on, but...

Dear Joseph A -

You may be surprised to learn that I've heard all of your friend's arguments before. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with your post:

1) I have no idea of knowing which of my posts you sent to your friend. From his response, I assume you didn't send them all.

Specifically, my bringing Julius Caesar into the discussion was a direct response to another poster averring that there was more evidence for Jesus having existed than there was for anyone else from the ancient world. From your friend's response, it's obvious that he didn't read the posts that started us off on the topic of Caesar. That said, I'd say that he confirms my statements that Caesar's life and existence is much better documented than that of Jesus. Thanks to Mr Anonymous History Dude for making my point.

Another point is your friend saying that Jesus is "attested to" in "numerous" non-Xian sources. He then cites Josephus and Philo. If your friend is a historian, he knows very well that the passages in Josephus that mention Jesus have long ago been determined to be 4th-century forgeries. Your friend also mentions Philo (of Alexandria) a contemporary of Jesus (in his old age, he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula in 39-40 AD). Yet, in the 850,000 words that fill his 30 extant manuscripts, he makes NOT A SINGLE MENTION of Jesus, Jesus Christ, Chrisitanity or any of the events described in the New Testament. Why he would cite Philo as a source on Jesus when Jesus is conspicuously absent from his writings is beyond me.

As to there being "numerous" sources that attest to Jesus - a thousand copies of Josephus' writings laden with forgeries in them doesn't make the forgery true just because all of the 4th-century copies that contain those forgeries are in agreement. Who was making those copies? Why, the Church, that's who. Just because there are thosands of manuscripts that agree doesn't make them reliable. That's what the early church did - they copied scrolls for distribution. SO what? If they were making thousands of copies of Star Wars would that make Star Wars real?

The rest of your friend's comments are irrelevant to the extent that you haven't given me the ability to see what writing of mine has been quoted to him. Those may be my words. They may not be. I can't respond to an anonymous blurb that is laden with elipses and other grammatical marks that scream "this sentence has been taken out of context to make my point!"

2) Most egregiously, there is no point in having any discussion on this board if that discussion is held by proxy.

Did you ask your friend if it was OK to post his comments on this blog? If not, you owe him an apology, because your putting his words out here without any point of reference and, more importantly, without the intention of having them responded to directly is bad form, indeed. If you *did* ask permission to post his comments and he gave you the green light to do so, then he is a craven coward for not showing up in person at this blog, either to enter into the discussion or to take the heat from others and to defend and expand upon his comments.

I'm sorry, but your posting does a real disservice to this board and to those of us who value the discourse and enjoy the comraderie here. A "drive-by posting" by some nameless individual means less than nothing to me.

Your friend should either strap on his guns and get into the fight...or stay completely the hell out of Dodge.

Mr. Mark,

I sent a few of your comments re: whether Jesus existed, to a friend more well-versed on these matters than I, and he sent back the following. (I was unsuccessful at pulling him into the message boards. In any event, he's well-read. History major. Studies all the time, and I would consider him a scholar based on our years of discussions and interaction.)

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

"First off - nice choice by this guy, picking THE highest profile individual of the entire ancient world (any one of the Caesars)... What kind of logic is that? That's akin to disproving the existence of, say, Abraham Lincoln's
father (anybody write about HIM until 50 years later when Abe was President?) by comparing him to his contemporary Frenchman, Napolean. Is
this reasonable?

Um, the Emperor of the Roman Empire is obviously going to have his stamp on everything, from buildings to currency, etc... Comparing the ROMAN EMPEROR to ANY individual in any province of the REST of the Roman Empire is ludicrous... The whole line of reasoning is ridiculous...Basically, this person's premise is: if Messiah wasn't THE SINGLE HIGHEST PROFILE individual
in a pre-printing-press world at the time of his birth, life, and death, then it's bunk. Using the same flawed criteria, this individual couldn't
"prove" the existence of 99.999% of the world's population over the course of human history...

Bringing up the "lack of writings" is typically uninformed culturally as well... Romans wrote books/histories of themselves... Jews didn't do
that... Compiling the oral tradition eventually was a big step. Jews had their scrolls (the Scriptures, or "O.T."), and that's it. THOSE were the "writings"... Rabbis didn't write books... Their "books" were their disciples (discipleship is not a Christian invention, nor was it an
invention of Jesus). Hebrew education involved memorizing the whole OT starting at the age of 5 - and later, young Torah scholars would be
apprenticed to rabbis, where they would memorize every word of the rabbi, dress like the rabbi, walk and talk like the rabbi, etc... Thus every word of the rabbi was recorded in the memory of that rabbi's disciples. And then taught in the same fashion to THEIR disciples when THEY became the rabbis...That's the way they DID IT! To make a logical premise out of the fact that Jesus didn't leave any books is lacking, very... And annoying... Paper was a precious commodity in the ancient world, and more precious in certain
places (Palestine) than in others (Rome)...

Of those (influenced by the Greek academies) that DID write histories, Jesus (and John the Baptist, and James the brother of Jesus) is attested by
numerous sources, not all of which are Christian, such as Josephus and Philo. The Talmud (certainly no friend of the religion of "Christianity")
attests to Jesus's historicity. The Christian movement itself was recognized as a sect of Judaism by no less than the Emperor himself (Nero
blaming the fire of Rome on them) within 35 years of his death. Within 35 years! That means belief in Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure had
spread throughout the Roman Empire going as far as Rome (and truth is, as far as Spain by then) within 35 years of his death. If he wasn't
historical, the whole thing could've been quashed.

Comparing Jesus to Zeus is even more ridiculous - illogical. Zeus was a mythological figure even during his day... Belief in Zeus as a real
person never really took off... Ever...Anywhere... I mean, please... Sorry, I can't even bring myself to take that one up... Which, when debating on the discussion boards means "ah ha! You don't have an answer!"

But some things are too bizarre to know how to respond... The responder is speechless... Flabberghasted...

The New Testament manuscripts are historically accurate... The Herods, the procurators... They capture the cultural scene accurately... In terms of sheer volume of manuscripts, Jesus is by far THE single most attested to individual in the ancient world... Critics would say "it's all the same documents... All the NT manuscripts..." but you can't entirely ignore the volume... How did that volume COME TO BE in the first place? Where are the manuscripts in favor of Zeus, the myth?

No scholar is saying this stuff... Maybe very "fringe" "scholars"... But nobody seriously doubts that there WAS a Jesus...

There were MANY Jewish "messiahs" during that time... To believe that there was a Jew, a messianic figure, from the messianic hotbed that was Galilee at that time (a region of hotheads and zealots bent on rebellion), during the
Roman oppression/occupation of the Jewish people (thus your "motive" for messianic aspirations), and that that Messiah would be a teacher of Torah
righteousness as reported in the prophets of their scriptures - this is really a VERY SLIGHT stretch...

To deny that such a figure could exist is...absurd

Please allow me to rephrase that: I don't KNOW that Mr. Thomas was drunk. I think he made have had a couple. That's more fair, didn't mean to sound judgmental. I considered the entire reading brilliant. These were a few words beforehand, "a few words of a kind," I think....

anyway, I meant no disrespect.

Dear Deanna, Mr. Mark, Fate, News Cynic, Canyon:

I finished reading all the posts from beginning to current and I have a few comments.

Deanna, Bon chance! and thank you for your informative, self-reflective, and moving posts. And I throughly enjoyed your take on the education system.

Canyon, I have to say I'm disappointed in your tone and embarrassed by your lack of decorum. It is true, in my opinion, that you started the name-calling, and it all unravelled from there. Your salient points are rendered moot like Richard Pryor describing describing an argument and the anglo says, "you stupid n-word." In a word, you lost credibility. But good luck anyway....

Mr. Mark, Fate, and News Cynic, I'm happy to stick around as time permits. And I would like to return the favor of Carlin's clever "plastic" quote.

I was an atheist until I heard Dylan Thomas say this, drunk, extemporaneously:

"My life has been nothing more than a hundred tongue-picked, chocked and chiselled, evocative shock phrases in a flamboyant remuneration of past and almost entirely fictitious peccadilloes of interest to no one but me and my guardian angel, who was, I believe, an unsuccessful psychoanalyst in this life, and is lolloping above me now, case-book in claw, a little seedy, on down-winged heel, in the guttural consulting rooms of space."

or something like that....

anyway -- just kidding about its conversion powers for me -- but thought you all might enjoy the quote. It is Dylan Thomas. And he WAS drunk.

Cheers!

Dear Mark,

I couldn't resist the siren's song! I had to know your response, and I'm glad I checked in. I have ordered The God Conspiracy and Sam Harris Letter to a Christian Nation. My husband and I are taking a week-long vacation in a few weeks, and I'm determined to read both before we go so we can, as he said, "Drink a glass of wine and discuss the subject while we watch the sun go down."

Thank you for your kind words. Now I really must say Adieu!

Deanna

Evolution is from the word evolve, which is from the latin volvere, which is indicative of something that turns or rolls, such as a wheel.

In the Buddhist lexicon this wheel is known as the "kalachakra", which is forever turning; and to which both man and beast are chained, until; and unless, liberation from ignorance is achieved.

This world is known as "Samsara", which literally means "journeying", which is the cycle of birth, death and rebirth, to which every human being is subject so long as we live in ignorance and are never made aware of our identity with God, who every so often, as necessary, sends to mankind a Compassionate One such as Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, who are the very embodiment of the
"Word"; and are at onement with the Universal Spirit!

Our "Imprisonment" in Samsara is conditioned by hatred, desire (craving), ignorance; and delusion. It is because we cannot recognize these as the driving forces of "Samsara" that these
"Sons" of God are sent to help us overcome whatever negative impressions, tendencies; and possibilities thereof are present in our consciousness, which have arisen from one's actions and thoughts, which include those of earlier births, the sum total of which forms each persons character, which actions can be either physical, mental or verbal.

Unless a person is delivered from ignorance and delusion, he shall forever be on the rim of the wheel of "samsara" which turns from one eternity to the next, in a never ending cycle of birth, death; and rebirth.

These Sons of God, who as The Logos, are the living embodiment of "The Word"; and are sent to guide us off of the rim and onto one of the spokes of the wheel toward the center where; and when reached, the turning stops.

Dear Deanna -

I hope that you abandoning your friends - that's right, FRIENDS! - at this website doesn't mean that you won't at least check back to read a few responses to your farewell.

I appreciate the conversation we've had. I agree that your husband is probably the person that you should be having this discussion with, but if that is the end product of *our* conversation, then good for us! It's your openess and honesty that got us this far. I hope those qualities invest your discussions with your husband.

I hope you do read "The God Delusion." Your willingness to explore beyond your current belief system is commendable. Would that all of our educators had such self-confidence and -awareness! Who knows? You may gain a better understanding of your husband as well as an understanding of atheists in general.

You know, so many of the theists have fled the field here at On Faith. I don't know if it's because we atheists are too arrogant or smug for them to continue the conversation. I suspect that it might have to do with belief sets.

Most atheists I know didn't arrive at their atheism flippantly. Indeed, most of us have gone through a world of hurt to arrive where we are, often at perpetual war with our immediate families and ostracized by society. It's not an easy position to put oneself in, but we end up there because to us, it is THE position. It's really life changing and liberating. Ergo, we come to forums like On Faith with convictions that are a mile deep and - if society is any example - an inch wide.

That hasn't always been the case with the theists who often - not always - come to boards like this to spout bromides that they really haven't though much about. While it may be a stretch to think that their beliefs can't stand up to an aggressive debate, it's hard not to come away with thinking that's the case, at least when the name calling begins (why is it always the theists who are doing the name calling?). Thankfully, that hasn't been the case with you, and I think that I can safely say that the atheists at this blog have felt a great sense of comraderie and oneness with you. To me, that's true spirituality, and it's as rare as it is precious.

I thank you for allowing our conversations to enter into your quest for truth. Maybe they will reinforce your present beliefs, or maybe you'll eventually modify your beliefs - I doubt you will desert your beliefs, but then, I never for a second imagined that I'd be where I am at age 52 when I was living the life of a believer in their mid-30s!

Life is mysterious and kinda wonderful, isn't it?

I'll miss you and the civility you brought to the party. Please come back some time, if for nothing else than to give us a report on your reading of Dawkins' book.

All the best,

Mr Mark

Dear Mark,

Thanks for the giggle about the BB-gun-toting astronaut! You're right. We do need to be careful about who we're dealing with in cyberspace.

Thank you for recommending Dawkins' book. Interestingly enough, just a few minutes ago, my husband mentioned that The Economist had a very positive review of the book a few months back. The subject came up in connection with a question about when I had awakened this morning, having been up too late again last night. As I said before, he worries about my not getting enough sleep.

I told him my last few nights had been spent having an interesting and informative on-line discussion with a very well-read atheist, and that I would really love to have a face-to-face discussion with you, but it was not likely to happen. The first thing he said was, "You're not going to convert him." To which I replied, "Of course I'm not. First of all, that's not my job, and second of all, I wouldn't insult him or do the one thing I believe too many Christians have done to alienate those who believe differently than we do." I'm really not into whacking people over the head with the bible or threatening them with eternal damnation. As I said before, I'm much more into walking the walk than I am in talking the talk. Unfortunately, it's the ones who are talking the talk, especially those who shout and scream, who are generally identified with Christianity.

Thinking I had somehow hooked up with a friend of our daughter's, he suggested I could have that discussion some time when we were in Minneapolis.
As I was explaining to him the true circumstances of our discussion, it suddenly struck me that he was the person I should have that face-to-face discussion with, and I told him as much.

Having shared bed and board with an atheist for the past 35 years, it took my discussions with you and others on-line to open my eyes to the opportunity for intelligent discussion about faith right there in my arms. Actually, for the first 22 years or so of our marriage, faith wasn't anywhere on the radar screen. I only returned to church because of our daughter, and then it was many years before the seed that had been planted so many years ago began to take root and grow.

My husband has always very generously tolerated my gifts of time and money to my personal faith, and I have rarely proselytized him. He has gone to church a few times, but always in connection with something that was important to our daughter. You see, in addition to being blessed with a deeply loving relationship, we also believe in civility and mutual respect.

For many reasons, this may be my last post. I am going to have to learn to resist the siren's song of this site. First of all, I have a book to read and a discussion to begin with my husband. Secondly, there is much in my life that needs doing, and, obsessive-compulsive that I am, the disarray is beginning to drive me around the bend. I have friends to visit, children to tutor, housework to do, and a plethora of improvement projects both at home and for my church that need finishing up.

My time spent in discussions with you and others, but particularly with you, has taken me back to that point my professor made so many years ago -- and reinforced it. I need to continually re-examine my faith, lest I fall into mindless repetition of dogma and the forms of worship.

I believe, and my life experience continues to reinforce my belief, the universe was created by a loving, purposeful divine force -- God. I believe Jesus was a real man who was also one with God and divine, sent by God to fulfill the Law of the OT which demanded sinners be put to death. Jesus lived, suffered, and died as a man to pay the price for our sins and free us from the chains of the OT. I believe Jesus rose from the dead, and, having completed the task set out for him by the Father, was reunited with the Father. In his place, the Holy Spirit came to dwell in each of our hearts, providing the opportunity to have a direct personal relationship with God. I believe Jesus lived an exemplary life, and that I am called to follow his example: to love others -- all others -- and to demonstrate that love by tolerance, kindness, gentleness, provision for their needs, and an active acknowledgment of our equality in the sight of God. You'll notice I listed tolerance as the first way I can demonstrate God's love. Through my belief, I have found an inner peace I didn't know existed. I feel humbled and abundantly blessed that the Lord of the Universe loves ME, and I am so overwhelmed by God's love of me, my self cannot hold it -- I have to pass it on. As I said before, if there is nothing behind either Door A or Door B, the life I am living right now is grace enough for my belief.

Even if I were not a believer, living my life by Christ's example has greater potential to unite the world in peace than practicing living first for myself. I'm not saying that non-Christians are inherently selfish, only that selfless love of others as lived by people like Ghandi and Mother Teresa has had a significant positive effect on our world.

Just to give you a quick background, while I was never an astronaut, I entered high school about the same time Kennedy took office and the space race began -- and I have followed with fascination the discoveries we have made in our reach for the stars. I have also watched with wonder the astounding advances in genetics since Crick and Watson decoded the structure of DNA. After the obligatory turn most women had to take at clerical and staff jobs, I returned to college, became a CPA (back in the days when the partners at least preached independence) working for one of the big 8 in a large west coast city. I was lured away from public accounting by a position as financial analyst for one of the major studios where I prospered and rose into the management ranks.

Then our beloved daughter was born, and I took to working part-time as a CPA. [I was never meant to be a full-time mother and homemaker] My husband left a lucrative partnership in a major LA law firm to be part of our daughter's life and we relocated so he could take a professorship at the Law School here where Peyton Manning played his college ball.

A very, very nice young man, Peyton is. I met him when he came to our school to talk with our students about the importance of education. All the fifth graders gathered in one room so he could talk to all of them at once. He gave his pitch for education, answered questions, then read our students a book! He made quite an impression on all of us, and I hope his message about education reached my football fanatic fifth-grade boys who were all going to be pros when they grew up. [My lesson on the probability of that happening did little to dent their conviction they would be one of the winners. Sort of like the atheist/theist debate, come to think of it.]

I found my calling when I was volunteering in our daughter's second grade class, tutoring students who had difficulties with math. I was blessed to be there when one tiny little girl had that AHA! moment of understanding subtraction and morphed into Wonder Woman right before my very eyes. That's all it took. I was hooked. I returned to college for my certification and Masters, and spent the next ten years of my life doing what I love most -- teaching.

I quit when the stress of dealing with administrators, federal and state imposed curricula, and parents who blamed me for their child's shortcomings and/or demonized me for trying to impose a modicum of discipline in the classroom became too much and catapulted my gut into the beginning of its steep spiral into disfunction and decay. In all fairness, I must point out that many, many of my students' parents were wonderful, supportive, eager to help their children learn, and understood that I needed the children to cooperate with me if we were going to have fun learning. But it only took a few parents to put an end to my teaching career. It's alright. I still tutor a few students, so I get my "fix." And I have time to devote to things that are more important to me now.

On the subject of education: The threshold for entry into the teaching profession is far too low. Most colleges of education will take anyone who is breathing! Many people go into teaching for all the wrong reasons: they don't know anything else they can do (well, please don't pass off your ignorance to developing minds); they're only doing it to have a "profession" until they get married and, perhaps, after their children are grown; they think the short days and long vacations are great [HA! After almost ten years, I was beginning to reach the point where I knew what I was doing and had lesson plans that involved effective, fun, hands-on learning and the tools to teach them. I worked longer hours and taxed my brain much more during the years I taught than I ever did even during the busiest times of my career in public accounting, and those long "vacations" were, for the most part, spent either taking classes to improve specific skills or developing materials to use with my students.]

We need to be attracting the brightest and best! Our children are the future, and they deserve the very best education we can give them. Colleges of Education need to get off their pedagogical behinds and start providing useful, practical information to would-be teachers, instead of recycling and regurgitating theories -- some of which are very important to understanding the need to reach the child where they are -- but most of which are pure garbage. Classes on What do you do after you've presented the concept? How do you know if the children are ready for the concept? How do you effectively diagnose what part of the concept the child isn't understanding? How else can you present the concept? Courses on structuring your classroom (the learning environment); on motivating students; on maintaining a positive, supportive learning environment for all the children (discipline, expectations, consequences -- both positive and negative). We're sending brand-new "teachers" into classrooms totally unprepared for what they will face there -- and we're sending them in alone!

There are far too many teachers who do not belong in the classroom, and we (other teachers) know who they are. Instituting peer review could be very beneficial, especially since most teachers would jump at the chance to mentor someone who really wanted to teach, but didn't have the depth of skills and intuition it takes actually teach, as in, have the child understand and make the knowledge their own.

And the government needs to keep its hands and nose out of the classroom. The curricula that has been developed and imposed from above is out of touch with reality at best, and positively counterproductive at worst.

My personal pulpit is the teaching of math using the "spiral curriculum" theory. Students are introduced to many fields of math beginning in kindergarten. Each succeeding year, they get more of the same, plus new concepts. There is never time to teach for mastery -- and how we define mastery is whether or not the child can successfully perform the algorithms, not whether they can explain what they are doing and why, and then apply their learning to new situations.

Mathematics, like Science and foreign languages, is developed from the ground up. Certain foundational concepts need to be master before more complex but related concepts are introduced. In math, the foundation is numeration and number sense(place value, one-to-one correspondence, sets and patterns). If I were Benevolent Dictator of Math Education, we would have certified math teachers beginning in kindergarten. Children would master the fundamentals of numeration in kindergarten; solidify and expand that understanding in first grade and master the concepts of addition. Second graders would master subtraction; third graders, multiplication; fourth graders, division; fifth graders, fraction, decimals, ratios and percentages. I would also introduce the basic concepts of algebra (solving for an unknown) in first or second grade. Too many of my fifth graders insisted 11 - 2 = 3 x 3 was wrong. They read the equal sign as "perform the preceding calculation on the left and put the single number answer on the right." Drove me crazy!

At each grade level, the concepts mastered in earlier grades would be expanded upon to a level consistent with their ability to learn, i.e., in kindergarten, numeration activities would probably stop with hundreds, while I would expect my fifth graders to be able to extend their understanding of the basic principles to both positive and negative powers of 10.

But enough. I've done it again! I've spent hours blogging on this site when there was work I needed to be doing.

Adieu, Mark, Fate, Gerry, and the many other posters who have expanded my knowledge and so kindly helped me refine my belief. Thank you for your responses, and know I will miss you all. I can't promise I'll be able to resist the siren's song, but I really must try!!

Peace and Love,
Deanna

New Cynic wrote:

You wrote: “Darwinism leads us forward. Religion leads us backwards.” More value judgements? Are forward and backwards synonymous with positive and negative or right and wrong or righteous and sinful?"

Maybe a better choice of words would have been to replace "leads" with "points."

NC wrote: Mr. Mark you also boasted (I don’t mean in an arrogant way - just that the claim really popped out to me) that, ‘One could easily come up with a test to disprove evolution and run that test’. I am not sure this is true. I will try to remember and/or imagine one, but just now I am stumped. Can you list several from your reading please? You don’t need to write a book - just give me the basics and I’ll work on the rest."

I said that one could come up with a test to disprove evolution, but that it would have to then be tested. The premise of the test could turn out to be false. No - I don't know of any tests that have ever been performed that disprove the basic premise of evolution, but I think the creationists should get off their rhetorical soapboxes and start coming up with a few tests, at least if they want to be taken seriously as a scientific model.

"A verse for Mr. Mark (I know it proves nothing but it seemed to fit our talk.) Isa 40:22
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

Poetry aside, who says god is a he? The Earth is a sphere, not a circle. If we're to be compared to insects, I'd think that ants would be a better model than grasshoppers. If the heavens are a curtain that we're using to make a tent, that's an awfully big tent! Call me when you reach the end of the curtain as it's the ends of the curtain that end up touching the earth when one makes a tent. Can you say "infinity?" If god started stretching out that heavenly curtain at the time Isaiah was written, I'd imagine he still has a ways to go before he gets to the tent making part of the deal. :)

I'm pretty sure that Jesus was a character in The Big Lebowski.

Dear Fate,

In a sense it almost seems like we're tripped up solely over the probability. Here I am, as a believer, and you're not. But it appears we believe nearly the exact same things. We differ on "the spark." Fascinating really.

When you say, "I believe human life is sacred," I agree. I pause, hesitate, and think, "We've pretty covered everything here."

Jerry said:

"we might be able converge on an attitude, you call it faith, I call it awe towards nature, which wants to learn and develop. But it must be done freely, without a given religious prescription or force, without the concepts of fear, of hell or heaven, of reward or punishment, of "original sin" or revenge."

Beautifully said! That was a well thought out and inspiring comment, Jerry, thank you.

Jesus was a man about whom we know little despite there being hundreds of texts written about him. We know so little because these texts so contradict each other.

The Jesus of the New Testament was a man who spoke much wisdom but failed to live up to his own principles. He was a hypocrit who preached to "turn the other cheek." But when his followers were rejected in some village without any suggestion they were abused, he damned the residents and called for God to kill every man woman and child there and send them to hell. There is no evidence God took him up on this. And when he didn't like the practices at the Temple, he became violent and violated individuals providing services there in conformity with the rules established by those who maintained the Temple - it wasn't his. His bad behavior is hardly surprising considering that of the God he called his father in the religion he practiced.

He rejected his own family from an early age up to his death. And he urged his supporters to abandon their families and responsibilities to join him in an alternative lifestyle depdendant on the kindness of strangers.

He was a failure as a prophet. He predicted that Peter would be the central figure in his Church. But it turned out to be Paul, who he didn't even know.

And if he was born from God impregnating young Mary, generally believed about 13 or 14, without her knowing what was going on, as she described in the Gospel of Luke, does that make God a child rapist?

Jesus (peace be upon him)is not son of god. I think that, He is only one of the messengers of God. No where in the Bible does Christ say - Worship before me, and yet most of Christian does.

Astrobuff asked:
---I wonder...just WHAT is a scientific fact?????---

Anything that stands up to repeatable observation. Gravity is the classic example. I guess you're asking this in terms of evolution. Evolution is based on the fossil and, recently, genetic record. We've also seen how variation works and have seen how artifically we can modify a creature like dogs and cats in a short amount of time. When you take the facts of fossils, radiometric dating techniques, genetics and observed variation, evolution is concluded with the evidence fitting the "fact". Some people will say we cannot make evolution happen in the lab so it is not a fact but we cannot make gravity in the lab either. Both are based on observations that are not just one time observations but are many. And the many fossils and genetic observations tend to agree. Where they don't agree scientists work hard to understand the disagreement.

The current squabble among anthrpologists about the "hobbit" is a good example. Science is ruthless at rooting out an incorrect analysis and where there is doubt scientists will continue searching for more evidence, some working to prove it, some working to disprove it. Here's a link to an article on the hobbit and it shows just how science is not the maintenance of dogma but the constant battle to uncover the truth and challenge flawed conclusions: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/29/070129220701.161f20yf.html
The last sentences in the article is telling of science. It shows that anything new that challenges what we think we know, in this case about human evolution, is not covered up or its advocates threatened with hell fire:

"Who did it descend from, who are its relatives, and what does it say about human evolution?" said Falk. "That's the real excitement about this discovery."

Science just wants to know what is really going on, not what we want to be going on. When something new is found, especially if it challenges what we think we know, it is exciting because we might learn something new. When religions find challenging evidence to the faith it is usually buried and its advocates attacked, and in the past, jailed or killed, the Shroud of Turin scientifically dated to only 700 years old being the latest example.

JOsepha A wrote:
---I submit that it's not as easy to believe in nothing as some may think.---

Hmmm, an interesting statement and one that I think brings up the question: Is atheism a belief? Maybe for some but not for me. Dropping a belief is not the same as believing in nothing. Its simply the absense of belief in the supernatural. I as an atheist have lots of beliefs. I believe human life is sacred and no one, not even the state, has the right to take it in a premeditated way. I believe education is key to man's health and security. I believe family is a natural resource people tend not to value. But I do not believe in spirits, gods, ghosts or fairys. I was not brought up that way of course, I had a good catholic upbringing. But when my questions were not answered, when I saw the inconsistencies, and when I saw some take the bible and use it for their own self interest I realized religion was a tool being used for control and extortion. Many have said they agree and to ignore organized religion and just focus on the bible. I tend to agree, the bible as well as other phylosophical renderings are good for people to read and take lessons from. As I tell my daughter, learn the lessons other people have learned or you will learn them yourself the hard way. So I take a lot of what Jesus says as, well, gospel. I also like Aesop and others. But I don't think Aesop was a god or the son of one, just a smart man, as was Jesus. I find it interesting though that those who do believe in the supernatural have a hard time imagining not believing in it in some way and the only way to explan atheists is to say they "believe in nothing". As has been said many times here in On Faith, there are and have been many gods and religions in the world, atheists just believe in one less than christians.

Jesus was a charismatic political and religious reformer, born in a country suffering a brutal foreign occupation and riven by sectarian strife. By biblical account he was intelligent and gifted (if not posessed of magical powers) who detested the powerful, temple-based collaborators among his own but consistantly repudiated revolution by violent means. By advocating an exegesis that absolved Jews from spiritual (and, more importantly, economic) dependance upon the temple hierarchy, and by stirring large crowds and otherwise calling attention to himself as a potential leader of Jewish revolt, he repeatedly provoked both the temple and the occupational authorities, and was eventually executed. Without the subsequent proselytizing of Paul among the Gentiles and the championing of Christianity by Constantine in the 4th century, the story would have likely ended there.

Dear Deanne,

thank you for your extensive answer, which I didn’t even expect and which I greatly appreciate.

Not being as well versed as you in the details of the “matter” (Lutheran-Christian RELIGION) themselves, let me just clear my points:

It is, of course, a platitude to state that Luther represented beliefs and superstitions of his time. I don’t think anybody, even the most ardent Lutheran, shares them anymore, or he would have to believe in witch burning, intercourse with Satan and similar atrocities. But that raises a grave dilemma: Which of his ideas do I select for my personal Christian-Lutheran belief? Do I select what I can use and throw the rest into the great wastepaper basket of our – and Luther’s –common sinner quality? Or may I even deduce that if some of his ideas are so over the top, I don’t see any reason to accept the others? That remains a personal choice. Would Luther have supported Hitler? A hypothetical question. But Hitler certainly supported Luther!

Hence my expression of “ripples”: Confronted with such huge basic and principal discrepancies, impossibilities, the attempts at adapting to minor ethnic or other variants of “belief” seem irrelevant to me. Still, it is apparent that these – to me – irrelevant variants create a huge amount of discussion. The thirty years’ war (which killed one third of the population in Germany!) was in part about such minor interpretation details (“ripples”). (“hoc est” – this IS my blood etc., you know all this.) Ripples turn into tsunamis, as we so clearly see in Iraq these days.

My point: All religions start from this given status of limited knowledge and NECESSARILY CONSEQUENT superstition at a given historical time. That is true for all religions, but with Luther, since historically he is not as far away from us as Jesus and the blurred tales of the gospels and the still more blurred discussions about their historicity, it can be traced much more clearly. (It seems beyond doubt in modern theological science that none of the gospel writers has known Jesus personally, and that their writings, originating many years after his death, were already tendencious reports to boost the belief of the growing number of mostly analphabetical Christian followers.)

My other point: Religious installations always were motivated politically. (Btw: Jesus did not "install" the Christian Church, as Luther did not “found” Protestantism.) They both wanted to “clean” the existing religions. The “political installations” came later. The emperor Theodosius INSTALLED the Christian religion by order across the whole Roman Empire, evidently for only political, that is, power reasons. Similarly, the famous “cuius regio, eius religio” (“who reigns, decrees the religion”, in the Augsburg religion peace treaty in 1555) is the undisguised pretense of every ruler to have the right to demand which religion ANY subject HAS TO follow within his realm. Just imagine: Officially installed brainwashing! The only options there were – to convert "voluntarily" (through fear) or by force, or to emigrate, which many people have done, if it was within their reach.

Thus, the details WITHIN a certain religious belief, also the ones you bring forth in great detail, be they historical or not, fail to convince me of the religion itself, which, to me, represent a transitory phase of the development of the human spirit within the realm of ignorance, superstition, developing knowledge, scientific hypotheses, belief, faith, awe, wonder, tradition, doubt... But certainly not Truth!

About the ambivalence of the word “spirit” (Greek: Pneuma): It can be used in a general semantic sense (“... in the spirit of the constitution”) or in a more "technical" sense, (“Holy Spirit”) to which in my opinion it degenerated in order to bridge the quarrel between the different factions about the concept of “Son of God”. The concept of trinity was an intended obfuscation from its very start, and besides unctuous preachings I have never come across anybody with a plausible definition.

I get along very well with my spiritual life without the limiting straight jackets of a particular religion (resulting in the hateful zealous nonsense of some figures on some of these threads). I stick to Kant’s definition of the “a priori” moral demand of mankind and the awe and wonder about nature.

But thanks for your civility and circumspection. And I don’t want to convert anybody, as little as I want to be converted by anybody. I even think, Deanna, that we might be able converge on an attitude, you call it faith, I call it awe towards nature, which wants to learn and develop. But it must be done freely, without a given religious prescription or force, without the concepts of fear, of hell or heaven, of reward or punishment, of "original sin" or revenge.

Romans 1/26-32
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men,leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly,and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind,to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteous, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy,murder, debate,deceit, malignity: whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding,covenant breakers, without natural affection,implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God,that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1/26-32
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men,leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly,and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind,to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteous, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy,murder, debate,deceit, malignity: whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding,covenant breakers, without natural affection,implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God,that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Dear Deanna -

Hello again.

Sometimes my humor is a bit too dry. The references to the BB gun and the astronaut were a play on the story in the news this week about the woman astronaut who was having some kind of relationship with a fellow astronaut and drove 900 miles (armed with the BB gun and a hammer) to confront him about some other woman. When I suggested that we were developing a long-distance relationship, I felt that I would be wise to ask for a few particulars. One never knows!

You know, for a quick and easy fix to what atheism is all about, I can think of no better book that Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion." His writing is very accessible and he has the knack of getting to the essence of complicated issues in a reader-friendly way. He rather dismantles a number of common arguments made to prove that god exists. I must admit that there were a few in there that I wasn't familiar with. There are other books, of course, but Dawkins is current, it's widely available, it costs under $20 and it will take you 2-3 days to read it, tops.

I will warn you that Dawkins can be a bit acerbic to the theists, but that is only because theists are usually treated with kid gloves in polite company. Dawkins is quite forward - there's no hidden agenda there.

BTW - my sister is a doctor at the Cleveland Clinic.

Dear Mark,

I am very glad to hear your wife is a survivor! As to her struggle with her doctors, many of them have developed "God complexes" because of the advances made in the past century. Prior to the advent of sulfa drugs and then antibiotics and vaccinations, doctors were limited to making diagnoses and prognoses. The ultimate outcome was very much in the hands of nurses. [There's an excellent book on the subject of by a doctor at one of the major New York City hospitals. His father was Chief of Staff of a major hospital, and his mother was Head of the Nursing staff at the same or another hospital] Wish I could remember the name of the book or the author. If it comes to me, I'll include it in a future post. Unfortunately, too many patients buy into the "doctor as god" theory, and never question their doctor's judgment.

I learned as my disease progressed to question my doctors' pronouncements. I changed GIs twice until I found one who would take the time to answer my questions. One of the nicest things about my brief stay at The Cleveland Clinic was that everyone -- from Dr. Fasio to the person who mopped the floor and removed the trash from my room -- treated me as a sentient human being! I had a great chat with the lovely Irish colleen who was doing a fellowship with Dr. Fasio and was on my case about "It's my body! I have the right to know what you plan to do and why. AND I have the right to question the course of treatment you are prescribing, seek another opinion, or even refuse the treatment you are prescribing." BTW, pardon my hubris in bragging about being treated by Dr. Fasio, but it was comforting to know I was in THE best hands. Of course, it upset my daughter (Why would he operate on my mother if there weren't something seriously wrong?!) so much that she drove, along with a wonderful friend who agreed to come along and help drive, from Minneapolis to Cleveland to be there for the surgery. That alone was worth a million dollars to me, and surely released all kinds of happy brain drugs to help speed my recovery.

Yes, I believe we are developing a friendship -- and bringing a level of civility to the site as well. I must admit that I would love to sit down with you over coffee and listen to your story, not that I'm ever likely to have that privilege. Such are the pros and cons of life in cyberspace. You can meet very interesting people with whom you would like to have an extended discussion, but doing so by keyboard just doesn't seem to fill the fill. Ah, well, I'm glad to have made your acquaintance, and I am happy to answer your questions, although I'm puzzled by them. Yes, there is a BB gun somewhere in our house. It has been used in the past to attempt to "spank" a raccoon who insisted on stealing the suet we had put out for the birds. We were never successful! We haven't seen him/her around for the past couple of years, but we like to think his/her life was ended by a massive cardiac arrest. The fact that I gave up putting out suet surely has no bearing on the issue. And, no, I am not an astronaut. Couldn't get past the eye exam, even if I had wanted to try. I was also way too old to be a candidate by the time they started accepting women. [I'm going to slip this in and see if it gets past the censors: I'll bet your "lost" post didn't make it past the censors because the AMA has "influential friends" at the Post. It was a conspiracy to silence the critics -- a great Washington pastime.]

Allow me to ask you a question. Of all the many, many books you have read on the theism/atheism issue, which one do you think best presents the argument for atheism? I'm looking for a "quick and easy" fix for my lack of knowledge of the subject, and I believe you are my best source to recommend a thoughtful, reasoned, coherent argument for atheism.

Dear News Cynic & James -

I'll try to respond tomorrow. It's getting late and I need to fully digest your points to formulate a cogent response.

Sorry about all the typos in my latest posts. My daughter was staring me down waiting for her computer time (only one machine in the family) and I was a bit rushed.

Mr. Mark (& James),

You wrote: “You're not addressing the fact that Darwinism marked a seismic paradigm shift in the way we view the world. Darwinism marked an entirely new way of thought, and that way of thought has informed and, indeed, fostered many other sciences.”

Sure I think we all should give Darwin his props. He popularized and idea that had been around a long time and with natural selection gave it a seemingly probable mechanism. Still the Greeks developed a theory of evolution and I believe Augustine held to the possibility of humans arising from fish from a study of morphology.

You wrote: “Darwinism leads us forward. Religion leads us backwards.” More value judgements? Are forward and backwards synonymous with positive and negative or right and wrong or righteous and sinful? Don’t get me wrong - I love science (and SciFi), but it has brought much hardship on us as well. (OK - not science but the people that use it for harmful ends). My point is that “progress” in and of itself led to the destruction of WW1 and then WW2. Earlier wars just were not able to be as destructive even if the people in them wished they could be. A Chinese proverb says, “Any road is acceptable when you don’t know where you are going.” An increase in knowledge and technology without an increase in “goodness” doesn’t necessarily get us anyplace pleasant.

Mr. Mark you also boasted (I don’t mean in an arrogant way - just that the claim really popped out to me) that, ‘One could easily come up with a test to disprove evolution and run that test’. I am not sure this is true. I will try to remember and/or imagine one, but just now I am stumped. Can you list several from your reading please? You don’t need to write a book - just give me the basics and I’ll work on the rest.

Mr. Mark - The book just came into the library today! (Yeah!) I’ll try and get a jump on it this weekend but I’ve got a lot on my plate.

A verse for Mr. Mark (I know it proves nothing but it seemed to fit our talk.) Isa 40:22
"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

James! - Interesting stuff but how do you reconcile the 40,000 yrs date with the 270,000 yrs. date? I notice that you use the term ID instead of “creationism.” I think that if I had used the term it would have cleared up a lot. I don’t want to get sidetracked attacking/defending all the various faith based understandings of ultimate origins. For THE FAITHFUL it is enough to know God and leave the why and when of creation to others.

I ALWAYS read your posts James. Whether I agree or not I always appreciate your gentle spirit.

A verse for James, Isa 66:1-2
"This is what the LORD says:

'Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?
2 Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?"
declares the LORD.

"This is the one I esteem:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit,
and trembles at my word."

Gerry wrote: "But then, some of these documents are suddenly, for political reasons (Theodosius, 381 A.D., so many years after the death of Jesus, if he ever lived) attributed a “divine” origin (“Trinity”, a wildly concocted concept even the Bible never mentions), a meaning that puts them outside of human perception and thinking."

You are correct. Nowhere in the Bible is the specific word "trinity" used. However, the NT refers to three specific [I'll use the word "avatars," although I'm not totally comfortable with the connotations of it] of the divine, and the gospels testify to all three. Permit me to quote from my favorite gospel, John.

"Jesus gave them this answer, 'I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he caqn do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.'" John 5:19, and "Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word." John 8:54-55. There are many more passages where Christ and others assert his unity with the Father. I won't bore you with any more.

As for the Holy Spirit, "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever -- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you [present tense, read Christ] and will be in you [future tense, read Holy Spirit.]"

I don't know which documents you speak about when you say Theodocius suddenly attributed a divine origin to them. If you are referring to any of the four canonical gospels, there are several theories as to the source of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), but none of them posit "divine" authorship. As for John, the majority of biblical scholars -- actually, a substantial majority -- agree that it was written by John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved." As such, it is an account of Jesus' ministry from someone who lived it. That it is very different from the synoptics has much to do with why John wrote it: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31. John is not called "The Evangelist" for no reason.

There are some who believe John was also trying to strengthen Greek believers' faith in the face of heretical influences. In any case, what purpose would John have served if he essentially parroted the synoptics. He would have been well aware of their existence and their broad dispersal throughout the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries. If you choose to study John, you will find more and deeper meanings every time you read it.

As far as, "The “Lutheran” ripples about Lutheran Orthodoxy in the US seem rather funny to me...," I'm not sure what you're referring to, unless you mean my recounting of the formation of the ELCA. Even I was amazed at how many "Lutheran" churches there were in the early years of the 20th century. It seems every time an immigrant group settled an area, they established their own Lutheran church. There might be several Lutheran churches in an area, all different. Remember, Martin Luther said the bible should be accessible to the people in their own language, so someone who had grown up speaking Swedish would certainly not worship in a church where the service was conducted in German, or Dutch, or .... fill in the blank. It took over 60 years to sort out everyone's differences, well mostly, but now most Lutherans are "on the same page." May I remind you -- if you read an earlier post of mine -- that "religion" is the creation of mankind; "faith" or "belief" exists outside of exterior structures, laws, dogma, or ways of worship.

As for our friend, Martin, your quotes don't begin to touch the breadth or the depth of his sinfulness. You are right that he was, in many ways, a product of his times, a bigot, a misogynist, superstitious, and many other things. I have a book containing 818 quotes from Luther's "Table Talk" Many of them turn my stomach. The book jacket states, "These excerpts are frequently anecdotal, highly opinionated, sometimes sublime, sometimes unsophisticated, occasionally brutal ... and always unequivocating. Right or wrong, Luther has his say." Would Luther have supported Hitler? I can't answer that question. His admonition to us all was to spend our lives trying to live by the 10 commandments. On that basis, I would hope he would oppose Hitler. On the other hand, he is very clear in his position on the Jews. In his mind, and, I believe, in the corporal mind of the Catholic Church, Jews were responsible for the death of Christ and therefore beyond redemption. Actually, Jesus was a Jew through and through -- never a Christian. I suspect that irony was not lost on Luther. Just as Christ was the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies of the Jews, but rejected by them. So Luther set out to reform the practices of the Catholic Church not supported by scripture, and was excommunicated!

News Cynic:

Excellent point. I can't think of any experiment that can disprove evolution. Truly both sides of the argument can present evidence that supports their beliefs (although both sides will claim that they are objectively looking at facts and experimental results without bias).

The study by evolutionary biologists Robert Dorit (Yale), Hiroshi Akashi (University of Chicago), and Walter Gilbert (Harvard) suggests that no evolution has occurred in male ancestry and that men can be traced back to a single ancestor that lived no longer than 270,000 years ago. I'm sure there are ways to shoot holes in their experiment although these men are evolutionary biologists who were trying to prove evolution. Does this study in fact disprove evolution? I don't think so however it does present an interesting possibility on the age of mankind. Does the fact that modern man suddenly appears in the fossil record about 40,000 years ago disprove evolution? No, but it does present additional evidence for the relatively young age of mankind.

If nothing else, these and other discoveries do give rise to interesting discussions.

I wonder...just WHAT is a scientific fact?????

Dear News Cynic -

As always, nice to chat.

You wrote:

"Can you think of a test that would disprove evolution?"

I responded:
At this point, no. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Its precepts have been proven to the point where it is a scientific "fact," a fact that informs and propels many sciences."

You wrote: If you go back and read your response and try to "get out" of yourself and see it from the perspective of an outsider I think you will see that it comes off looking like you are saying that "Because evolution is true, there can be no test to disprove it." --

I would say that the theory of evolution is as much a fact as is the theory of what makes up the air we breathe. I would welcome any test to try to disprove evolution for the simple fact that I believe such a test would only serve to confirm the validity of the evolutionary theory. So, yes, bring on the tests, as long as they are scientific tests and not philosophical talking points.

"I realize evolution is the paradigm in which so much good science takes place and the assumption of it's truth seems to explain many things, but is that really what we are stuck with?"--

Why stuck with? It's like being stuck with happiness.

"Evolution evolves? Whatever we discover tomorrow will fit because the theory will morph?"--

No, science evolves and evolution is a proven scientific theory. Science doesn't change its rules to fit any of its various branches. We're "stuck" with evolution because we're "stuck" with science and the scientific method as the best system available to prove the truth of any assertions made about the natural world.

"That's why I wrote to you: “As with any paradigm there are expectations and plausible hypothesis that can be developed given the initial “reality” of the thought framework, but a test to disprove evolution or “creationism” is not easy to come up with."--

I would disagree.

One could easily come up with a test to disprove evolution and run that test. The hypothesis behind the test will stand or fall on the results. One can't come up with a test for creationism because creationism fails the test of being a scientific model. It is dependent on the supernatural, so unless the supernatural were to somehow get involved in the test, we're left with a philosophical debate, not a scientifically provable hypothesis.

There is the chance that god may someday decide to show himself to all of us as he did in Biblical times. He may return and start raising people from the dead. At that point, the paradigm would shift once again. I'm not holding my breath. Are you?

"Both theories have changed again and again as new discoveries are made and new theories gain popularity.”--

I'd say that science marches on while creationism regroups.

You're not addressing the fact that Darwinism marked a seismic paradigm shift in the way we view the world. Darwinism marked an entirely new way of thought, and that way of thought has informed and, indeed, fostered many other sciences. It has led to many of the technical gains that we all know and live with. It has helped us to understand our world, and that's all to the good.

Why don't the creationists demand that science retract it's other theories that contradict the Bible, like the Earth not being flat? because it's indisputable. Evolution is indisputable to the scientific community, and they are willing to wait for the religionists to catch up with reality.

Creationism is the repackaging of a time-worn view of the world, a view based not in knowledge, but in superstition and the best guesses of people who were operating with the knowledge set of a modern-day third-grader. Darwinism leads us forward. Religion leads us backwards. Were science to operate under the rules of religious discourse, we'd be back in the dark ages, arguing over how many leeches one should put on a patient's back to bleed them into better health (wait a second...we ARE doing that! :) )

You get my point.

"maybe I was not clear but I was not using the Darwin quote as a club to bash modern evolutionary theory - just as an example that any conceivable test can be rendered pointless as the initial paradigm adapts."--

There's truth to that, of course, but when tests are honestly and diligently duplicated and achieve the same results, then we would (hopefully) reach a point where the results of said test are accept as facts and not as mere speculation or conjecture. Such is the case of evolution. One can't make such a claim for the pseudo-science of creationism.

The biggest problem for the creationists is that they have now decided to play in science's sandbox. Because of that decision, creationism needs to play by the rules of the science sandbox, not to change the rules, or to throw the sand in people's eyes or to declare that the game is now water polo.

Mr. Mark writes:

"I agree. In fact, my life has become much more purpose-directed since I dropped the pretentions of religions. There's no greater incentive to making something of the one life we have than to know it's all we've got...and to live it for today.

Are you living your life for the hope of some mansion in the sky? I hope not. That would be so sad. We need you here and now."

Well, I agree that religion can be the salve of inaction. Or contribute to the belief that life doesn't matter much now, I always have later, in heaven, that's what's important. Yes, it can be a crutch. But, on the other hand, if THIS is IT why should much of anything be sad? What matters? What difference does it make what I make of my life? Nothing matters. Shouldn't I just strive for comfort? "Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt."

Perhaps you discount the enormous potential mental health benefit of belief. Of course that shouldn't enter into the equation, granted. But it creeps in nonetheless. One starving in a desert might abandon all hope. Tragic. Something like: "Let me remind you, you starving little ones...let me leave you with this, you're life is and was meaningless. You were born, you starved, you died. Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

Your points are cogent. Just as News Cynic's and Fate's, and Victoria's and many others. And I've learned much in these posts and have been impressed with the civility. But I would be tempted to err on the side of hope even if it appears to abandon reason, which I don't think it does.

I submit that it's not as easy to believe in nothing as some may think.

Dear News Cynic,

Funny! Yes.

I hope we all win! Here and after. "If the accident will."

To Joseph A.

You wrote: "Fate just happened, and News Cynic is a result of years of evolution and Joseph A. is an accident?"

Yes! Fate just "happened" and Joseph A. is an "accident" but I am the result of YEARS of evolution!! YES!

Does this mean I win?

Mr. Mark!

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Good stuff as usual. However, what is the point of “evidence” that cannot be disproved? If we don't have a test how do we know we are right (I mean in a scientific sense).

I think that for some posters on these threads that when they look at probability and the weight of all evidences they seem to think that science has a good hook on the origen of the Universe. But also that Theism has the best angle on explaining humanity and our quirks (we believe in morality, we want to be spiritual, we yearn for justice, we want to believe something is "out there").

Do we "need" a god to explain the origin and variety of life? Is non-theistic evolution so compelling in it's present state that there is no need of another theory? (Better question: Is the theory of evolution so pliable that it will fit whatever facts we find thus rendering any other theory pointless?) Is it even possible to imagine a theory without macro evolution? (Other than the non-starter of spontaneous generation?)

Mr. Mark, you wrote: "You asked, "Can you think of a test that would disprove evolution?" At this point, no. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Its precepts have been proven to the point where it is a scientific "fact," a fact that informs and propels many sciences." If you go back and read your response and try to "get out" of yourself and see it from the perspective of an outsider I think you will see that it comes off looking like you are saying that "Because evolution is true, there can be no test to disprove it."

I realize evolution is the paradigm in which so much good science takes place and the assumption of it's truth seems to explain many things, but is that really what we are stuck with? Evolution evolves? Whatever we discover tomorrow will fit because the theory will morph?

That's why I wrote to you: “As with any paradigm there are expectations and plausible hypothesis that can be developed given the initial “reality” of the thought framework, but a test to disprove evolution or “creationism” is not easy to come up with. Both theories have changed again and again as new discoveries are made and new theories gain popularity.”

Also, maybe I was not clear but I was not using the Darwin quote as a club to bash modern evolutionary theory - just as an example that any conceivable test can be rendered pointless as the initial paradigm adapts.

Joseph A wrote:
---But I cannot square that time and matter starts with ooze and ends (perhaps no) with us.---

Hey, I have trouble squaring that light is both a wave AND a particle, but that's what the evidence shows, and as they say on CSI, the evidence doesn't lie.

---If I may be so bold, you are so FAR removed from a fish, which is light-years from a cell, or a protein (THE protein?), that I can type with a straight face that that fish is wholly and completely unrelated to you.---

If that were true the fish would not have the same proteins in its cells, the same DNA and use the exact same DNA code. But it does. And when you eat the fish you break down its proteins into amino acids you body can use and its DNA into nucleic acids your body can use. If it were totally different, like a machine or rock, you could not eat it and use its parts. Also consider that many hormones are grown in bacteria, bacteria that normally do not make the hormone, but scientists identified the human gene for that hormone and spliced it into a bacteria which then makes the protein. And as the bacteria multiplies, the gene gets multiplied too. Human insulin is a great example. Diabetics used to get their insulins from cows which caused alergic reactions in some people. Today the insulin is human but made in bacteria.

Now if we were so far removed from bacteria they could not take our genes and produce the same proteins, but they can because all life is related.

---I might as well believe that my Timex will become a railroad grade Hamilton 992B pocket watch (I collect them...love 'em)---

Its never been observed, there is no evidence for it in any fossil record, there is not even evidence that your Timex reproduces by itself creating variations of itself as we see in life. Maybe you're comparing apples and oranges? Maybe you should instead think about a thunderstorm that forms, then eats the warm air and evaporating water, grows and spawns tornados. Oh yea, that actually happens, all by itself, without any intelligence directing it. The storm will also die as its "food" runs out and whether it then goes to meteorological heaven/hell is a debate outside science.

One housekeeping item.

Joseph A wrote:

"The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it can't count unless it's the genesis (no pun intended), so to speak, of true belief."

In which case the wager is rendered non-operative as Door A no longer exists as an option.

Jesus, the Christ, was one incarnation of an Transcendant Cosmic Reality, which is working in all ages; and in innumerable worlds, for the salvation of ALL BEINGS!

Science, like Time, is not a reality; and, are mere methods of measurement.

There is only ONE REALITY!

It is AN TRANSCENDENT COSMIC REALITY!

Jesus was a great man, but if you believe he was the son of God, you're a fool. If you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, you're a fool. If you believe a senior citizen loaded every animal on Earth into a boat and got them to reproduce, you're a fool. We should not suffer fools lightly.

The Buddha said:

"Men, driven by fear, go to many a refuge - to mountains and forests, to groves and to sacred trees.

"A sage is not easily found. He is not born everywhere. Wherever such a sage is born that race prospers.

"Happy is the birth of the Awakened. Happy is the teaching of the True Law. Happy is the devotion of those who are at peace.

"He who pays homage to those who deserve homage whether 'The Awakened' or their desciples, those who have overcome the host of evils and crossed the flood of sorrow - He who pays homnage to such as have found deliverance and know no fear, his merit can never be measured by anyone."

Joseph A. wrote:
"Dear Mr. Mark. ...I do believe in chance and do not believe in fate. Meaning: if a comet hits me on the head tonight while walking my dog, it was not directed at me."

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. I don't believe in luck, for instance. Winning the lottery is pure chance, not luck or fate.

"But I cannot square that time and matter starts with ooze and ends (perhaps no) with us. If I may be so bold, you are so FAR removed from a fish, which is light-years from a cell, or a protein (THE protein?), that I can type with a straight face that that fish is wholly and completely unrelated to you. I might as well believe that my Timex will become a railroad grade Hamilton 992B pocket watch (I collect them...love 'em)"

Well, there's a couple of issues here. I doubt that evolution "ends" with us. It's the religionists view that we are the top banana of creation. The truth is that 99% of the species that have roamed this globe are dead and gone. We'll end up there as well.

Yes - fish TODAY can be said to be unrelated to me at some level, but they are certainly related on the common-ancestor DNA level. Your watch analogy isn't really appropriate as it is a device designed by man.

"The fact that we may be evolving into something else, or insects are, or bears, comforts me none."

But the truth is we have evolved very little as humans since our basic model came online. No extra ears, fingers, etc. More fascinating, we have the same brain that people had who lived in the Biblical age. The difference is the knowledge set that we possess. Compared to their knowledge set, we are as gods, even though we're - in fact - all too human. I think we're pretty much at the end of the line when it comes to human evolution...at least for the next 100,000 years.

"Wouldn't evolving, by definition, be devoid of purpose?"

Evolution is often a response to a "purpose" presented by nature. Then again, there's that prehistoric shark that's been making the rounds in the news. There's a design that hasn't changed for 18 miilion years. Why evolve if your form is going to do just fine and keep you going for 18 million years?

"So we get a little bigger, a little faster, a little smarter...so what?"

Well, there's a very important "so what." So what might be the fact that we now communicate over the internet in a way we didn't even 3 years ago. That's the result of someone getting "a little smarter," at least in the figurative sense. "So what" might be that we're getting a lot fatter - so what if we die earlier due to that? What if fatso would have been the person who discovered the cure for cancer? That's a "so what" that could hurt many people.

"My instinct tells me it's unhealthy to believe in lack of purpose."

I agree. In fact, my life has become much more purpose-directed since I dropped the pretentions of religions. There's no greater incentive to making something of the one life we have than to know it's all we've got...and to live it for today.

Are you living your life for the hope of some mansion in the sky? I hope not. That would be so sad. We need you here and now.

Dear Mr. Mark. Thank you, and I understand what you mean. This is just one of the problems with quick responses on a keyboard, or better said, my quick responses. Actually, and I do not wish to sound too heretical here, to some of the other fine responders, but actually I do believe in chance and do not believe in fate. Meaning: if a comet hits me on the head tonight while walking my dog, it was not directed at me.

But I cannot square that time and matter starts with ooze and ends (perhaps no) with us. If I may be so bold, you are so FAR removed from a fish, which is light-years from a cell, or a protein (THE protein?), that I can type with a straight face that that fish is wholly and completely unrelated to you. I might as well believe that my Timex will become a railroad grade Hamilton 992B pocket watch (I collect them...love 'em)

The fact that we may be evolving into something else, or insects are, or bears, comforts me none.

Wouldn't evolving, by definition, be devoid of purpose?

So we get a little bigger, a little faster, a little smarter...so what?

As Kurt Vonnegut's son, Dr. Mark Vonnegut said: "We're here to help each other get through this thing called life."

Perhaps that is naive. Often I think: time + matter = This is naive. Extraordinarily naive. Some humongous leaps.

I don't know, don't claim to know, and don't want to know, if I'm wrong. My instinct tells me it's unhealthy to believe in lack of purpose. Instinctive self-preservation? dunno....

I'll second Mr. Mark's endorsement of the Talk Origins site. Best resource on the Web when it comes to this issue (including links to all of the creationist and ID proponents out there).

On the topic of probability this is an excellent article:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Dear Joseph A -

I don't know why you insist on saying that to believe in evolution is to believe that everything is accidental or the result of random chance. That is not what evolution is about in any way, shape or form. Science doesn't propose that, pseudo-science does. Why buy into the either/or BS of the creationists?

Any quick search on the web on what evolution is and ISN'T will show that chance isn't the basis of evolution. The Talk Origins site is a good place to start: www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#what

Maybe you'll feel better about evolution if the red herring of random chance is removed from the mix.

Astrobuff wrote:
---All the thousands of words posted do not in any way negate the existence of Jesus...Science does not, nor will ever have, all the answers to everything.---

Science actually helps prove Jesus existed by scientifically dating the documents and records studied by biblical scholars written by Josephus and others. And lets not forget the archeological evidence (science!) supporting much of what was written in the bible about Jesus. But his existence does not prove he was the son of God, just a man who existed, spoke great wisdom, was tortured and put to death for his effort.

And you do not know that one day science will not have the answers to everything. You can no more prove it than I can prove God does not exist. You can "believe" in both however.

Fate: You're right. I'm hung up at the beginning. I can see with my own eyes evolution in, say, dogs. I'm hung up on the proteins, and cells, or the first cell or protein from which all other cells or proteins come. And that they don't seem so easy to come by naturally or spontaneously in nature, or in a lab.

And Mr. Mark I agree with you too (and I enjoyed the Carlin quote.) The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it can't count unless it's the genesis (no pun intended), so to speak, of true belief.

But geeeez, I hope you're wrong. I'm just this living blob-thing hurtling through space and time, on top of this rock, willy-nilly, accidentally without purpose, eating and excreting, and...and....what should I do next? doesn't matter....whatever I want.... why do anything? How exciting will that next sandwich really be? Or that next waterfall?

Nowhere to go -- eternity to get there....

Thanks but no thanks. Respectfully submitted. And at least I can (intellectually) honestly say I believe the odds are overwhelming against chance. Plus there's no advantage to it. That's just the little kicker bonus.

Perhaps the purest (subconscious, ID) way to say it is this: I don't want to believe in chance, therefore I won't. Maddening purposelessness.

Joseph A. wrote:
My take is this, a simplistic and perhaps hackneyed version of Pascal's Wager:

If there is no creator and I believe I lose nothing.

If there is a creator and I do not believe I might...well, one understands...

Certainly it's no great basis for belief, but it can start a discussion, an examining, a calculation of the odds, so to speak.

Behind Door A there is nothing.

Behind Door B may be everything.

Logic (naivete? intellectual laziness? self-preservation?) propels me toward Door B. What do I give up by not choosing Door A? Rationalism? Realism? Fact?

Combine this choice with the odds of chance. That is where I would begin..."

We've been around the On Faith block on Pascal's Wager. The big flaw in the wager is that it only works if you accept feigning belief as a viable response to Door B. I don't believe in god. If I lie and say I believe in god to go through Door B, does god not see through my lie? If he sees the lie and accepts the lie (sin) without the consequence of eternal damnation, then why not accept every other unrepented sin?

Of course, the answer to "what I would lose by choosing Door B" is: myself and everything I am.

Astrobuff wrote :

"There is an old saying which postulates that there are no atheists at the time of death."

In the USA, there's an old saying about there being no atheists in foxholes. That begs the question: who were we shooting at during those Cold War years? I assumed that the communists' foxholes were literally teeming with godless atheists. Who knew that all the while we were killing our fellow believers?

Here's a new saying for you: there are no atheists - or theists, for that matter - after death.

Joseph A ponders:
---The math, I can't past the math. The odds. The probability. Time plus Matter = This? ---

Well, likely. Once you have a primative DNA based life that was "somehow" created the rest is pretty easy based on what we know about DNA and what we see in the fossil evidence. We've seen how in a hundred years or less "artificial" selection has created the many types of domestic dog, some so different that mating might be close to impossible but still the same species. Give them millions of years and the variation would certainly lead to speciation. I don't think evolution is your question though. I think for you its more of how nothing could become something. How matter came into existence in the first place, the big bang, why?

Yea, great questions. All I can tell you is that science knows a lot about how things came to be the way they are today and how they were in the past but in the cases of the big bang or life, not tell us HOW they came into being. At least not yet. There are some theories floating around out there about how the universe came to be and life's components came together, but they cannot be proved yet. It doesn't stop people from trying to figure it out however.

Still I cannot understand why people look at these unsolved mysteries and leap to the conclusion that a God or some supernatural intelligence must have had a hand in it. Its quite a leap since you do not worry about where God came from, just the universe and life. I don't have many answers for you about these big questions except to look at the ancients and what they did not know. If you went back in time to ancient Egypt and told them the Sun they worship is a ball of gas with thermonuclear reactions going on, disproving their Sun god, and used chemistry to make steel, plastics and so forth, and maybe explained how the earth was a sphere, they would be amazed. The knowlege we have accumulated just in the last century has been amazing. Just because we do not have an answer yet for how the universe started or how life started is no good reason to leap to God as the answer anymore than it was a good reason for the ancient Egyptions to leap to Rah to explain the sun. And you'd think we would have learned from our mistakes, having used gods to explain everything from the sun shining to babies being born to rain for the crops. Now, since we know SO much God is relegated to explaining the few mysteries left, creation, life and death.

Maybe its just human to invent a god to explain the unknown. Maybe the formula you should be thinking about is whether:
Unknown + Man = God?
The probablity based on history seem very high.

Thousands upon thousands of words - words - words - But, like the one who could not see the forest because of all the trees, cut down the trees and, lo & behold!, still did not see the forest!

Jesus did exist and there is evidence of His existence in, of all places, Tibet! I have been personally informed by several Tibetan Lamas of His existence and visit to Tibet.

All the thousands of words posted do not in any way negate the existence of Jesus...Science does not, nor will ever have, all the answers to everything.

There is an old saying which postulates that there are no atheists at the time of death.

My take is this, a simplistic and perhaps hackneyed version of Pascal's Wager:

If there is no creator and I believe I lose nothing.

If there is a creator and I do not believe I might...well, one understands...

Certainly it's no great basis for belief, but it can start a discussion, an examining, a calculation of the odds, so to speak.

Behind Door A there is nothing.

Behind Door B may be everything.

Logic (naivete? intellectual laziness? self-preservation?) propels me toward Door B. What do I give up by not choosing Door A? Rationalism? Realism? Fact?

Combine this choice with the odds of chance. That is where I would begin...

Joseph A asked:

"Time plus Matter = This?"

There it is in a nutshell.

As George Carlin once remarked, it may turn out that the only reason men evolved was to invent plastic.

Thank you Fate, and News Cynic!

You see, for me, it all comes down to EXACTLY what you both have said. Or, if I may be so vain, what I've asked. Seems logical to me that before we, or anyone discusses doctrine, first we have to get over the evolution/creation hurdle. And that's why I have enjoyed reading your (and others, e.g. Mr. Mark, Victoria, et al) reasoned responses.

News Cynic just mentioned "probability" and that is precisely the core of my position. I cannot get past the odds. And I know the tired old bag of watch parts seems lame....but it's where I'm at, so to speak. And I do not mean this to sound whimsical. But let's step back, give it a detached view, forget all the arguers that argue over doctrine, and "the true way." All of that just clouds the issue, appears overwhelming, "they can't all be right" or "what are the odds that guy's doctrine is right, this guy over here seems a lot smarter?"....anyway.....we step back and ask: what are the odds that all of this just happened? Fate just happened, and News Cynic is a result of years of evolution and Joseph A. is an accident? Granted, I find that prospect depressing, but I discount the depression factor as irrelevant. And I come back to probability without instructive doctrine.

The math, I can't past the math. The odds. The probability. Time plus Matter = This?

News Cynic wrote:

"Can you think of a test that would disprove evolution? Darwin (responding to critics who pointed out the lack of transitional forms) predicted we would have an abundance of transitional fossils in short order. While we have some intriguing candidates the reality is that we do not have the abundance of fossils that Darwin expected. Hence Punctuated equilibrium, the idea of rapid speciation after mass extinctions, the Japanese theory of rapid mutations due to viruses and etc."

Good question.

The simple answer is that unlike religion, science does not deal in absolutes. Any scientist will tell you that a scientific "fact" is based on the preponderence of the evidence. Science evolves. Indeed, it is the job of every scientist to not only prove theories but to attempt to disprove them. To hold science and the scientific method to the absolutism of religious belief is to hold science to a standard that it doesn't set for itself, in practice or in definition.

To roll out the, "but Darwin said X...and X hasn't happened...so Darwin was wrong" argument is DOA. You are applying the closed absolutism stance of religion to the open-to-new-discoveries stance of the scientific method. No scientist today is trying to prove that everything Darwin predicted in his Origin of Species was and is 100% accurate. The book was a starting point. The basic premise of Darwinism has been proven and reinforced to the point where the scientific community considers the premise to be fact by the preponderence of the evidence. That evidence includes tests done to prove and disprove Darwin's original theory as well as new theories and tests that go where Darwin could never have imagined.

You prove this point yourself with the examples you cited, for they all take Darwinism as their starting point. Without Darwin, there would be no theory of punctuated equilibrium to compete with phyletic gradualism (and the jury is out on whether Darwin was a gradualist). They're both theories of evoluntionary process that are still hotly debated. Eventually, one theory will win out when the preponderence of the evidence proves one or the other.

To draw an imperfect analogy: in the 1920s, people were predicting that zeppelins would be the major mode of air transport in the future. After the Hindenburg crashed, that proved to be false. Airplanes emerged as the preferred mode of air transportation, and so they are today. That didn't mean that scientists had to come up with a new theory of flight for man to take to the skies. Ergo, flight is indeed possible. The same laws of physics that govern blimps govern airplanes, but airplanes evolved to become the dominant species in the field of flight while blimps went the way of the Coelacanth (OK, I said it was an imperfect analogy).

Your fixating on what "Darwin said" would be like me fixating on the 4 Gospels being actually written by the 4 Apostles for which they're named (something no Biblical scholar with an ounce of credibility would aver in this day and age).

Science evolves, as have the details that flesh out Darwin's original theory. As to your point about the abundance of fossils: there certainly is an over abundance of fossils. You're hung up on the fact that those fossils seem to be bunched into short time frames and not equally distributed throughout the timespan as shown in the geologic record.

The fact is that there ARE transitional species - as Darwin predicted - but AT PRESENT, the proof has yet to be uncovered that would prove these transitional species happened in some sort of spread-out, graduated manner (ie: 5 transitional species every 5 million years). Indeed, discoveries in transitional fossils have led to new theories being forwarded. That's not disproving Darwin's theory, it's putting the details to the theory.

You asked, "Can you think of a test that would disprove evolution?" At this point, no. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Its precepts have been proven to the point where it is a scientific "fact," a fact that informs and propels many sciences. There is no debate in the scientific community on evolution v creationism.

That said, science would still allow that little green might might show up tomorrow and say, "we actually did all of it, life, species, everything...your laws of physics are just a computer simulation we're running down at our cosmic Best Buy." Is that likely? No. The evidence says that probably won't happen. But, it COULD happen. Does that mean I should base my life on the possibility that little green men created life on Earth? Don't think so.

News Cynic wrote:
---1) When we do make life in a lab do you think that will bother theists? Won't they just say that mathematics, philosophy, and all the sciences are simply "thinking god's thoughts after him/her/it"?---

The Catholics have already accepted evolution as just another of God's works which lead to man. I think when the day comes that 7th graders are creating life in science class, theists will still be holding onto their God, they will just have one less mystery to "prove" He exists. There is always the "mystery" of what happens to consciousness after we die. I doubt science can answer that better than it already has, the consciousness goes away like a tornado evaporating into nothingness. I don't see people accepting that any better in the future than they do today.

---2) Do you really honestly think that the probability that "god" is real is as likely as that of Tinkerbell's wand being real? How did you arrive there? How do you differentiate between the various truth claims? Because it appears that you do not.---

Well, I have seen tinkerbell and her wand but not God. That was a small joke. Seriously though God has few proofs and all come from the minds and mouths of men. Moses saw the burning bush and heard God, not thousands and rarely since then with "proof" today being an unusual algea pattern on an overpass wall. And why write the ten commandments on stone? Why not Platinum or high grade steel, something that could not have been made back then to help prove his existence? It is clear to me that God is the invention of man since we humans are eager to believe in the supernatural, as children at Christmas prove every year.

And what happens when part of the belief is PROVEN wrong? When the Shroud of Turin is proved to have been made around 1300 the "believers" begin finding evidence for it being 2000 years old, much of it very thin. Then they just throw up their hands and declare radiocarbon dating innaccurate, which is a lie proving that people will sin to protect the faith.

Did you know that there are people who consider the shroud as proof that Jesus survived the cross? An ancient practice of using cloth to hold myrr and aloe against the skin to promote wound healing was practiced in the area by the Essene sect of jews. The shroud may explain his resurrection as a resusitation which would explain people seeing him as arisen. The Catholic church is not eager to see this idea spread and some have seen the Catholic church's acceptance of the 1300 date as evidence they want the date to be ambiguous. What I find clear, looking at this through atheists eyes, is that the truth is not what is important to them. And in my mind, that is the definition of religion, the maintenance of a belief against the truth. It used to be persecution of galileo or anyone recording the passing of a comet, which was not allowed in the perfect firmament. With science's accumulation of overwhelming evidence the church as aclimated and accepted the obvious but continues to work hard to maintain the belief.

Fate!

Good post. I just wonder if we can't be a bit more creative in making up or tests for the alien grad student. Even if we can't hit certainty can we find probability?

News Cynic wrote:
---I asked in one of my earlier posts if we were the products of some alien graduate biology student’s final lab exam how could we ever now? Can we find any evidence of design? I am curious what you and others think Mr. Mark.---

Its a good question. The answer is we can never know unless we find evidence of the grad student and what he did, for example Captain Kirk finding the student's lab on some far away planet and plans to send life to earth dating 4 billion years ago. But there are other ways to approach this. For example, could life have formed on earth? Does the earth have the components to make life? Science has made many of the components of life in the lab using old earth conditions, including the making of nucleic acids and proteins.

Consider an alien coming to earth millions of years from now and finding no life on it but finds fossils, including we humans. They would conclude that life existed here. They may find some humans and other species frozen in ice and determine we were made of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen, all elements found on earth. They see lungs that must have breathed the atmosphere and cells that are mostly water so water must be needed. Again earth has it all.

Now they go to the moon and find cities man built and fossils of men in graves. They do not find fossils of any other animal or plant. They find a few humans frozen and preserved that look like the fossilized creatures found on earth. So they think, "the moon has no carbon, the moon has no water, the moon has no other animal fossils, just humans". They would conclude humans did not evolve on the moon but must have come from earth where humans are also found along with many fossil animals that are similar to humans, tetrapods, all having four appendeges.

Now the aliens may wonder if earth was colonized millions of years earlier by some form of life who brought their animals with them. That may prove harder to determine but when they determine the earth is only 5 billion years old and the fossils go back almost as far they would likely conclude that is where man began.

So we know the earth has the components to make the components of life. It therefore is possible to assemble life here. Considering this is where we are and it seems from the fossil record life goes WAY back, its likely it started here, shortly after earth formed which is what the fossil record shows. But there is no reason life couldn't have formed in an asteriod that smashed into earth, or on Mars where a rock full of spores was sent flying into space and to earth after a metorite struck Mars. We may never know but that does not mean we will not know. All we can say now is that earth had the means to create the components of life naturally. How they assembled into the first forms of life is still a mystery.

Fate:

"...you assume it (how life is created) cannot be determined in the future by science and you leap to God as the answer. Why not Ganesh the Hindu God or Tinkerbell flicking her wand?"

Good post but I have two questions:

1) When we do make life in a lab do you think that will bother theists? Won't they just say that mathematics, philosophy, and all the sciences are simply "thinking god's thoughts after him/her/it"?

2) Do you really honestly think that the probability that "god" is real is as likely as that of Tinkerbell's wand being real? How did you arrive there? How do you differentiate between the various truth claims? Because it appears that you do not.

Mr Mark, gabby, & James (also “A’ Crap-ist”)

You wrote:
1. Is creationism a scientific theory subject to the norms of verification embodied in the scientific method (ie: testability, predictive power and explanatory power)?
2. If so, what experiments have creationists performed to support their hypotheses? Not to disprove existing evolution theories, but to support their hypotheses?
3. Specifically, what creationist hypotheses have been subjected to empirically verifiable hypothesis constructed to falsify them?
4. What evolutionary theories have been falsified through the proof of creationist hypotheses that have been subjected to the scientific method?

You have a good point. As with any paradigm there are expectations and plausible hypothesis that can be developed given the initial “reality” of the thought framework, but a test to disprove evolution or “creationism” is not easy to come up with. Both theories have changed again and again as new discoveries are made and new theories gain popularity.

Can you think of a test that would disprove evolution? Darwin (responding to critics who pointed out the lack of transitional forms) predicted we would have an abundance of transitional fossils in short order. While we have some intriguing candidates the reality is that we do not have the abundance of fossils that Darwin expected. Hence Punctuated equilibrium, the idea of rapid speciation after mass extinctions, the Japanese theory of rapid mutations due to viruses and etc.

I asked in one of my earlier posts if we were the products of some alien graduate biology student’s final lab exam how could we ever now? Can we find any evidence of design? I am curious what you and others think Mr. Mark.

Last point: the position that “The only true things are those that can be scientifically proven” is itself a metaphysical statement that cannot be scientifically proven. Your list of four questions for creationists (young earthers or old earthers or theistic evolutionists of any stripe) is excellent. I like it because I can see me writing the same list - but they are only another piece to the puzzle.

Joaeph A wrote:
---The odds that both male and female life forms evolved simultaneously.---

They do not evolve simultaniously. They are part of the same species therefore evolve as one.

---That fish somehow "knew" to grow legs without becoming prey.---

Fish did not "grow legs". The fossil evidence indicates fins became legs via evolution. The appendages of vertibrate life is that of a quadraped, four apendages. Fish have two font fins and two back. All land vertebrate have two front legs and two back. A comparison of the muscles and bones in the fin structures of fish is similar that in reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals. Here's a web site that helps explain it:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Intermediate_Forms_Between_Classes

---The odds that our distance from the sun is just right. The odds that, thus far, it appears that we may be alone in the universe. It seems totally incomprehensible to me.---

We evolved to live at the earth's temperature. The earth was not created to have a temperature we need. We see life that can survive below freezing and at temperatures above 700 degrees F. If we lived around an oceanic volcanic vent as some shrimp do and were accustumed to 700 degrees you'd say that the volcanic vents were made by God just for us because we need 700 degrees. Do you see the irrationality there? Was the ice up north made for polar bears? The swamps for frogs? The air for birds to fly in? The water for fish to breathe? Or maybe, just maybe, life evolved to live in and take advantage of these environments. That is what the fossil, genetic and other evidence shows.

---And as many of you have read before: How long do we have to shake the bag of watch parts before the parts become a watch? And then we immediately need the other sex of the watch to promulgate the watch species.---

The watch analogy is commonly touted by creationists to promote their religion of a creator. Consider that many things form without an intelligence. Hurricanes, tornados, dust bunnies, raindrops, snowflakes, thunder storms and volcanos all form on their own. It takes energy to make them form and its likely it took energy for the first life to form. And consider that hurricanes "spawn" tornados. What is different about life is that it can replicate itself into an identical copy. If you want to focus on the real issue that is it. Nothing regularly produces copies of itself besides life. If you now want to use that to imagine a God that is ok with me since it is quite incredible. I just happen to find jumping to the conclusion that it "proves" a god a monumental leap.

---I am unable to point to peer-reviewed articles.---

There are tens of thousands...

---And I am not sure that peer-reviewed articles can answer evolution/creation questions.---

They have for evolution anyway. Still waiting to hear about a peer reviewed creationist article...

---I can point only to what "seems" logical to me.---

And there is the problem. Man has prescribed everything he didn't understand to proof of a god. The Greeks and Romans had a god for everything that was mysterious. As science has been uncovering the truth behind these mysteries, the gods have disappeared. Did you know that until the early 1900s the Sun was proof of God because nuclear fusion was unknown so there was no way science could explain how the sun could stay lit, even for 6600 years much less the billions the geologists were telling us. The inability to understand or comnprehend what we see around us has been the driving force for man creating gods. And once those gods are created, they are used for controlling people. I mean, why would God require man to sacrifice lambs for him? Funny how christians no longer sacrifice lambs. Guess God got tired of the blood? Or did man change what God wants?

---I cannot consider evolution logical no matter how hard I try.---

You are not trying very hard because the evidence is everywhere, in your genes, in the diversity and physical relationships of humans and animals, and in the fossil record. Go to the libarry and get any elementary book on evolution. That would be a good place to start.

---No matter how much I read. It just seems like the odds are overwhelmingly against it. I don't know, .000000000000001% chance?---

That sounds like a guess. Why so low? Do you look just like your parents? Does your dog look like every other dog. Variation is obvious, even creationists agree with that, they just cannot get over taking it to its logical conclusion, that variations can accumulate and lead to a new species, one that cannot interbred with the previous population. Imagine a fox that begins ranging into colder climates. Those without long fur and lightly colored fur die due to the cold or preditors. Over many generations the variations within the population lead to a white furred fox which can hide among the snow and more easily catch prey, and is better insulated. Now, the animals it preys on are different. Maybe rabbits instead of the mice their ancestors lived on. Variation in their digestion begins to shift just as fur length and color did. Due to the tougher life the fox need to be smarter. Smarter foxes survive while those less smart die off again shifting the variation so now the fox's brain is slightly different. These shifts in variation are actually the loss of genes, the accumulation of some mutated genes, and duplication of genes. Over time the genetic map of this "white fox" becomes so different from its cousins still living in the warmer climates that if they found themselves together and mated, the genes from one would not match up to the genes of the other very well, so the babies would die, probably not even making it to birth. And when we go to look for evidence that this happened we see it in the genes of the two species of fox and the fossil history. Creationists would like to tell you that its impossible for a horse to give birth to a zebra. The people who study evolution would completely agree. Evolution does not work that way. Its the accumulation of variation over time.

---And I also keep coming back to this: if it all happened by chance, if life happened by chance, why can't we re-create some? Why can't we take some elements and create life ourselves? Something like a giraffe perhaps. If we cannot, are we clever by half compared to time and matter?---

The argument used to be "why cant we recreate the sun", but we learned how to do it. The creation of life is a mystery, no one doubts that, but to leap to a God is as silly as not understanding how the sun is powered and leaping to God as the answer. So far science has shown that all components that make up life; proteins, DNA, lipid bilayers of cell walls, can all be created under circumstances that science has determined existed on the early earth. The energy to create mostly comes from sparks (lightning). We see many organic compounds on Jupitor where we have seen lightning from our orbiting spacecraft. It seems that the components of life can be easily created. So the creationists then come up with the silly argument of the watch parts in a bag, shaken up randomly. Well, tornados form in windy air. How can that be? Must be God eh? We even refer to hurricanes as "feeding", being "born" and "dying" out. Yet it comes together naturally. You may wonder why we don't see life popping up every day as we see tornados do. Its a good question. Life did not form on an earth full of oxygen but instead on a earth that lacked oxygen. As crazy men on TV will tell you, oxygen is good at cleaning (and killing) things. Cells have many built in abilities to deal with oxygen, something they must have evolved as oxygen, a waste product of photosynthesis, accumulated.

You are right to be curious about how life could have come together but you make two mistakes, you assume it cannot be determined in the future by science and you leap to God as the answer. Why not Ganesh the Hindu God or tinkerbell flicking her wand?

And understand that the creation of life and evolution are not connected as some creationists will tell you. One deals with a one time event and the second deals with how life, after it was created, evolved into the multitude of forms we see today and in the fossil record, and continues to evolve.

Deanna -

Thanks for your comments and the background on Martin Luther.

FYI - my wife is fine. Her latest check-up came back as normal. The reply that the WP didn't think fit to post recounted our struggles with the doctors in charge of her surgery. Basically, from finding the cancer through the operation itself, she had to tell them what to do. In that post, I stated that we never felt the need to turn to god for help or assurance. We depended on the doctors...but those doctors were no bargain! Any invocation of the Lord's name we uttered during that experience was definitely made in vain.

Re: posting at OnFaith - please don't stop posting if I happen to desert the blog. From the tone of your posts, it seems that we're developing a relationship! If that's true, I have a few questions: 1) do you own a BB gun?, 2) are you an astronaut? :)

Re: Ohio Synod - I graduated high school in 1972, so the Ohio Synod was still going strong back then. I moved to NYC in the late '70s and my church going fell in with the Episcopals as that's where I was getting hired as a singer, so my Lutheran days faded away (BTW- I could never get past the text in the Anglican BoCP where the congregation said, "we aren't worthy to gather the crumbs from your table." Now THERE'S some EXCELLENT grovelling!).

Take care.

Gerry:

With all the "evil" in human history from the Assyrians, to the Aztecs, to the Nazis, to Stalin and Mao I find it odd that folks like Gerry are fixated on the fact that Luther (a "sinner" and hypocrite and down right feisty guy to be sure) was a product of his time and culture.

It is enough to make a news junky a cynic.

Then again I should commend Gerry because in our world of declining morals and relativism he boldly condemns others not of his time period or culture. It's good to see someone who believes in an objective standard of morality higher than the whim of fashionable trends. Good on you!

Deanna,

Luther’s words not only revealed his „fiery and combative“ nature, but also both the prevailing superstition of his time and his personal value system. Here are his words (don’t actually have words any meaning, when you say “he couldn’t foresee”... etc.?):

Martin Luther, 1483−1546, Founder of the protestant Church, May 6th, 1526 in a sermon:

“It is a fully just law that witches have to be killed, because they do a lot of damage, which is sometimes ignored: They can steal milk, butter and everything out of a house, they can cast a spell on a child. They also can create mysterious deseases in the human knee, so that the body is consumed. They create damage to body and soul, they distribute drinks and curses to create hatred, love, bad weather, all turmoil in the house, on the field, over a distance of a mile and more they make people limp with their witch arrows which nobody can heal.

The witches must be killed, because they are thieves, adulterers, robbers, murderers. They create all sorts of damage. They must be killed not only because of their damage, but also because they have intercourse with Satan.”

“The greatest honor of a woman is that a man is born through her. If the wife is not willing get the maid.”

„The Jews are such a desperate, evil, poisoinous thing, that for 1400 years they have been our pain, pestilence and calamity and they still are. In short, we have real devils in them... one should burn their schools and synagogues to honour our Lord and all Christianity, so that God will see that we are Christians... destroy their homes as well.“

„Therefore you should know, dear Christian, and never doubt, that next to the devil you have no more bitter, poisonous, atrocious enemy than a real Jew, who seriously wants to be a Jew.
I will give you my faithful advice. First, that one must burn their synagogues and schools with fire, and that which will not burn, be covered with soil, so that in eternity no human shall see a stone or cinder thereof.“

I just happened to visit Wittenberg, the city of Luther, two weeks ago and stood in awe and desperation at the door where he posted his 95 theses. I was knocked out by the double standard of such a historic figure, who exerted such huge political influence. First he incited the peasants’ uprising (1525), then abandoned and betrayed them, with such words:

“...against the murderous robber gangs of the peasants. One should crush them, pierce them, strangle them, in secret and in public, whoever can do it, as you would slay a mad dog.”

The “Lutheran” ripples about Lutheran Orthodoxy in the US seem rather funny to me...

To me, it has always been a phenomenon how different people „digest“ the different historical documents mankind has preserved.

Some of the documents are clearly readable (Homer, Tacitus e.g.), others need a lot of assiduous scientific approach to even be deciphered (stone of Rosette), still others have been translated over and over (OT, NT), losing much of their original meaning. But then, some of these documents are suddenly, for political reasons (Theodosius, 381 A.D., so many years after the death of Jesus, if he ever lived) attributed a “divine” origin (“Trinity”, a wildly concocted concept even the Bible never mentions), a meaning that puts them outside of human perception and thinking.

People interested in wielding absolute power over humans like emperors (not democrats, lol!) and popes have disingenuously linked these stories to morality (with which they don't have anything to do!). They linked morality to ignorance, demanding that fairy tales, metaphors, myths, legends – in short, ignorance be regarded as truth. If you doubt their folly, they will kill you – which they did by the millions! You are not allowed to use your thinking powers anymore, you are brainwashed into a mythological thinking which prevents you from a clear perception of nature and from the clear, honest attempt to learn and to understand its secrets better as time passes and generations acquire new understanding of nature and of our own existence. The obviously irrational, anti-rational is being used to exert power over other people within a society or for the purpose of conquering other societies BEFORE PEOPLE EVEN REALIZE THEY ARE BEING BRAINWASHED, which is the worst part of it. It borders to mass hypnosis.

As soon as you attribute a superior, even absolute value to ignorance itself and bolster it up by quotes from some of these documents (“if you don’t become like children...”, that is, “if you are not as unwitting as children”), you can force people into following you into anything, as has been successfully done over and over in history.

Religious belief, the admittance of “not knowing” (Socrates) could understandably start at the ever changing frontier between knowledge and ignorance. This frontier does change: If, however, you attribute “eternal”, UNCHANGING value to a historically given state of ignorance of 2000-3000 years ago, it becomes a dangerous impediment to the development of mankind, as we can see both in present day politics (“Credo quia absurdum” – “I believe BECAUSE it is absurd!” is the inherent creed of these figures).

For some, the earth is still flat, since the bible does not speak of a solar system – the biblical tribes simply didn’t know it then (some cultures did, btw, in Greece and in China, but this knowledge was suppressed, even destroyed by Christianity not to be re-detected until 1500 years later!). Christian fanatics like Bush or other evil 6000-years-creationist retards as Shearer or Coulter and their mirroring Moslem fanatics like Ahmadinedschad present the real danger we are presently in, not atheism, as it represents the honest search for insight and knowledge as far as it is increasingly available to the human spirit.

The growing bigotry (there are a lot of fine people who succumb to it, also in these threads!) offered by Newsweek and Washington Post is a Menetekel on the wall for me. I am not even talking about the criminal and idiotic concept of Rapture and Armaggedon (“thank god” there are only very few such freaks in Europe), or the kindergarten mentality of a General Boykin (a guy who has considerable power!) with his comparisons of “your god against my god”, which amounts to “my teddy bear is better than your teddy bear”. My pessimism is growing, if even the top US Democrats have to pander to these superstitions in hope to be elected.

Still, the discussions on these boards have increased my knowledge about history and religion, and about how people tick - giving a huge boost to my atheist stance. Thank you.

Mr. Mark wrote "If you're reading this, then this particular post has made it past the On Faith censors. My last post - in which I recalled my wife's battle with breast cancer - was embargoed and was never posted here. It was one of my milder posts, so I wonder why that happened. I assume that I've been flagged as a trouble maker...or worse! and "I don't know how much longer I'll post at On Faith. The questions aren't really targeted at answers from non-believers. Playing the party pooper role isn't something that interests me, and I think that most of the theists here would rather we atheists just left them alone to discuss how many angels CAN dance on the top of a pin."

Dear Mark,

I have enjoyed our discussions very much. I don't see where you've been a "trouble maker." On the contrary, you have argued your case for atheism -- for the most part -- in a forthright, candid, and educated manner. When you were "impolite," it was for the most part in response to personal attacks on your sanity, education, and knowledge. If you stop posting, I most likely will too. I've said pretty much all there is to say about my faith without becoming "preachy," and I'm much more committed to walking the walk than to talking the talk. Also, in all fairness, in order to carry my weight in our conversation, I need to read some of your sources.

As for the theists wishing the atheists would go away so they could continue to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, you may be right -- but I'm not one of them!! One of my professors in college accused me of being "uncritical and mindlessly accepting of the doctrine" by which I had been raised. Boy, was he ever right!! I was very much insulted at first, but then chastened. Sometimes I think that comment started me on my journey to agnosticism -- and back. If we can't have a civil discussion on a topic we disagree about, how can we test the validity of our positions?

I can't imagine why the On Faith editors excised your post on your wife's battle with breast cancer. Whatever the outcome was (and I hope it was positive, but fear it was not), it would most certainly be appropriate for this blog. I will not insult you by saying that your wife's battle was a test of your faith. Rather, it confirmed your position on the uselessness of faith or belief in the existence of the divine. The bible is filled with passages where man denies God, or at least rages against him, for the evils visited upon man, and they've not been edited out!

Your comment on the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia really threw me a curve ball, so I went and looked it up. You're right! That's exactly what the author of the entry presumed to say. From scanning the entry, I count exactly four critics (and their followers) cited as denying the historical accuracy of the Gospel of John. Rather a large leap, wouldn't you say?

Arguing for the other side, allow me to quote you a couple of passages from a collection of Martin Luther's discussions with his colleagues and students:

"In the writings of Saint Paul and Saint John are a surpassing certainty, knowledge, and plerophoria * They write as if all they narrate had been already done before their eyes." And "Saint Luke describes Christ's passion better than the rest; John is more complete with regard to Christ's works; he describes the audience, how the cause was handled, how they proceeded before the seat of judgment, how Christ was questioned, and for what cause he was slain."

* [not in my dictionary either. Deconstructing the word, Luther seems to have meant either Paul and John were filled with rapture, or their writings filled their readers with rapture. Neither interpretation parses well, but you know how inelegant German prose can be! ;-)]

Admittedly, Luther was Catholic until the church excommunicated him, so the author of the entry may be counting Luther as Catholic [I jest!]. One of the many reasons he was excommunicated was his insistence that the bible was THE ONLY source "sola scriptura", I believe. And his 62nd thesis states: "The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God."

The following is from the ELCA web site on what ELCA Lutherans believe about the bible:
"To borrow a phrase from Luther, the Bible is 'the manger in which the Word of God is laid.' The New Testament is the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection. As such, it is the authority for Christian faith and practice."

Also, the ELCA's three-year cycle of gospel texts devotes one of those years to John and Mark, presumably because they are less long-winded than Matthew and Luke, and so must be combined to come up with a year's worth of texts.

SIDEBAR: (The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the result of a series of mergers of various synods, culminating in the 1986 agreement that merged the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELC), the Lutheran Church in America (LCA), and the Assoc. of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC)into a single body, effective January 1, 1988. It encompasses all Lutherans except those of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which my research indicates included the Ohio Synod. So, given your age, you were most likely raised in the Missouri Synod Lutheran tradition -- one that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, does not recognize anyone as a Christian unless they are a Missouri Synod Lutheran. As my de facto son-in-law said (I paraphrase) How can I believe in a god who says all my friends are going to hell because they don't belong to this one particular church!!)

And on the most prosaic level of all, both my protestant bible and my dear Catholic friend's bible include the Gospel of John.

Somehow, I think the author of the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia was over-reaching. I've never spoken with anyone steeped in the Bible who held this position. In fact, many have directed attention to the Gospel of John as an exemplary source for Christ's teachings, being the account of an eyewitness to the whole of Christ's ministry.

As to our dear friend, Martin, allow me to quote from "Reclaiming the 'L' Word: Renewing the Church from its Lutheran Core" by Kelly Fryer:

"Luther's courage and clarity changed the world. But he was far from perfect. He had a terrible temper and a pretty foul mouth. He called supporters of the Pope 'papal asses,' and worse. He ate too much and probably sometimes drank too much, too. He said some pretty terrible things, even for medieval times, about women. He wrestled with depression; often falling into spiritual funks from which his friends worried he might not recover. Sometimes he said one thing and did another. The horrible things he wrote five centuries ago about the Jews were used, in this [past] century to justify the most outrageous and unforgivable actions taken during World War II. Of course, Luther could not have foreseen that his words would be used in such a destructive way, but that he said such things at all reveals his fiery and combative nature."

Rev. Fryer is making the point that one of the guiding principles of the Lutheran church is that "all are welcome," one of the reasons I returned to the Lutheran church.

She follows this up by saying, "And I'll say it again, if we started drawing lines to let some people in and keep others out, I would be hard pressed to know which side Luther would be on. It would be a little embarrassing, wouldn't it, to build a church our namesake wouldn't be allowed to join? So, let's not."

Luther himself acknowledged his sinfulness and inability to do the good he wanted to do. Honestly, I'm not surprised you didn't know of Martin's "ugly" side. Most of us are very reluctant to admit to ourselves, let alone others, that we have an ugly side. You can imagine how the church fathers would feel about exposing Martin's flawed humanity to the flock, but he was human -- and very combative. In fact, he would go to almost any length to prove his point, which is why, I believe, he said some of the ugly things he did (not to in any way excuse his behavior).

It took a belief in the righteousness of his challenges, bordering on hubris, to dare to challenge the authority of the Catholic Church -- and to continue to hold his ground, living many years of his life as a hunted man, condemned to death for his "heresies."

I must go now. It is well past the time I should have retired for the night, and my husband will be upset. (He worries about my not getting enough sleep.) Again, I will miss your posts if you choose to stop. Thank you for your honesty, openness, and civility. I will you only the best.

Peace and love,
Deanna

"He claimed his divinity" -- historically false. The Johannine Jesus comes close to claiming divinity, but the Johannine discourses are not the words of the historical Jesus.

"to believe in his good message while ignoring his claim to divinity is paradoxical." Actually, no.

"Either he was the son of God or he was a lunatic who happened to fully understand every aspect of the human condition, preach the greatest commandment (love thy neighbor as thyself) and reveal to us the greatest, fullest description of God (God is love)." Again, not a valid argument. You could say he was a Sage (like the Buddha) or a Prophet, rather than the Son of God in the sense of trinitarian doctrine. The orthodox church reading of Jesus is perfectly coherent, but lower christologies are not contemptible either from the point of view of exegesis and logic.

"The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God." Yes, but what does it mean by that? The highest claim is John 1.1-18, and that does not seem to mean that the Son is very God, equal to God, since the Logos is called "theos" but not "ho theos".

"Jesus said he is the Son of God." Historically, that is unlikely.

" That means he is God very God, the second person of the Trinity." The Nicene interpretation of John. It took two centuries to be worked out.

In short, orthodox Christology cannot simply be read off from the New Testament, though it can claim to be a coherent, or even the only coherent, reading of the NT data. Our current awareness of the complex relationship between the NT and the Creed must prompt us to think through the latter in more subtle and incarnational ways.

"The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God." Yes, but what does it mean by that? The highest claim is John 1.1-18, and that does not seem to mean that the Son is very God, equal to God, since the Logos is called "theos" but not "ho theos".

"Jesus said he is the Son of God." Historically, that is unlikely.

" That means he is God very God, the second person of the Trinity." The Nicene interpretation of John. It took two centuries to be worked out.

In short, orthodox Christology cannot simply be read off from the New Testament, though it can claim to be a coherent, or even the only coherent, reading of the NT data. Our current awareness of the complex relationship between the NT and the Creed must prompt us to think through the latter in more subtle and incarnational ways.

Wow! This has been fascinating. I've been reading these posts for the past few hours. I am unable to get past "the odds" dilemma of evolution. The odds that both male and female life forms evolved simultaneously. That fish somehow "knew" to grow legs without becoming prey. The odds that our distance from the sun is just right. The odds that, thus far, it appears that we may be alone in the universe.
It seems totally incomprehensible to me. And as many of you have read before: How long do we have to shake the bag of watch parts before the parts become a watch? And then we immediately need the other sex of the watch to promulgate the watch species.
I am unable to point to peer-reviewed articles. And I am not sure that peer-reviewed articles can answer evolution/creation questions. I can point only to what "seems" logical to me. I cannot consider evolution logical no matter how hard I try. No matter how much I read. It just seems like the odds are overwhelmingly against it. I don't know, .000000000000001% chance?
And I also keep coming back to this: if it all happened by chance, if life happened by chance, why can't we re-create some? Why can't we take some elements and create life ourselves? Something like a giraffe perhaps. If we cannot, are we clever by half compared to time and matter?

Atheist Totalitariansim wrote:
"www.jesusneverexisted.com"

"how amusing.

"an invitation for rational discussion initiated with a link that completely ignores the very premise of Christian dogma while invoking a hyperliteralist view of the Bible and choosing to find fault where fault is naught."

Sounds like you haven't bothered to explore that site at all. Maybe you took a quick glance at the homepage, but nothing in depth. Your "hyperliteralist view" isn't to be found there, but you will see lots of info on early church leaders, the different versions of Xianity that flourished in the first century, the chronology of who wrote what when (based on the work of Biblical scholars, not the owner of the website) and references to many of the standard works of history and Biblical scholarship.

In short, there's a lot more Biblical scholarship codified in that site than I ever got in my years of Xian-directed study.

Yes - the website's url is very in-your-face, but it's what the wesbite is about. Would it be better if the site called itself "greatnews4xians.com" and pulled a bait-n-switch?

I can understand one staying out of the kitchen if they can't stand the heat. I don't understand someone refusing to enter the kitchen at all...and then reporting back that it's more like an outhouse.

Is it the final word in things Biblical? No. What is? But it is a good place to start and it does reference many books that anyone interested in Biblical studies would do well to investigate.

I'll stand by my recommendation.

In defense of Jesus, The Christ; and Christianity, I offer the following words of the Buddha:

"A Sage is not easily found. He is not born everywhere. Wherever such a sage is born that race prospers.

"Happy is the birth of the Awakened. Happy is the teaching of the True Law. Happy is peace in the Order. Happy is the devotion of those who are at peace.

"He who pays homage to those who deserve homage, whether the Awakened Sages or their desciples, those who have overcome the host of evils and crossed the flood of sorrow - he who pays homage to such as have found deliverance and know no fear, his merit can never be measured by anyone."

"www.jesusneverexisted.com"

how amusing.

an invitation for rational discussion initiated with a link that completely ignores the very premise of Christian dogma while invoking a hyperliteralist view of the Bible and choosing to find fault where fault is naught.

The atheist's mantra: Believers must be wrong because they see what we cannot see. Because they believe in what we choose not to believe. It cannot be our flaw so it must be theirs.

Nice.

"www.jesusneverexisted.com"

how amusing.

an invitation for rational discussion initiated with a link that completely ignores the very premise of Christian dogma while invoking a hyperliteralist view of the Bible and choosing to find fault where fault is naught.

The atheist's mantra: Believers must be wrong because they see what we cannot see. Because they believe in what we choose not to believe. It cannot be our flaw so it must be theirs.

Nice.

Dear Jim Hill -

Welcome to the blog.

You wrote: "I am a Christian who wants to know the truth, and is not afraid of the truth, in religion or science."

If you really mean that, then I would second the link posted above by Big Daddy: www.jesusneverexisted.com

This is a very good website to start you on a voyage of discovery about the early church and competing religions (I wish it was around when I was first researching such things! It would have made life easier!).

As to the Gospel of John - did you know that the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this bold claim: "The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church." Whoa!

Read about the many contradictions between the three synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John here: www.jesusneverexisted.com/john.htm

Happy reading...and welcome to the blog.

Jesus never existed.

www.jesusneverexisted.com

Thank you Jim Hill.

To add:

Jesus described himself further at the Sermon on the Mount (Gospel of Mathew). He described himself as the "fulfillment of the Law".

The Law of the Old Testament decreed that the wage of sin is death. God did not change his mind in the New Testament vis a vis the Law, or his relationship with man. To sin is to die and separate from God. God and sin are incompatable. But God's love for the world offered his Son to pay that wage. Hence the fulfillment of the Law in the crucifixion of Jesus. The resurrection completed the reconciliation of God and man. Through love. The sins of man caused separation with God, and the wage of sin is death. God couldn't ignore his own rules for 2 reasons: 1. Sin is anathema to God. 2. God cannot break his word, if he broke it then, then his love for us is also in doubt. For God to save us from the wage of sin a death was required. For God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten son.

Jesus was no mere rabbi, nor did he claim to be just that. He claimed his divinity and to believe in his good message while ignoring his claim to divinity is paradoxical. Either he was the son of God or he was a lunatic who happened to fully understand every aspect of the human condition, preach the greatest commandment (love thy neighbor as thyself) and reveal to us the greatest, fullest description of God (God is love).

Amen.

Thank you Jim Hill.

To add:

Jesus described himself further at the Sermon on the Mount (Gospel of Mathew). He described himself as the "fulfillment of the Law".

The Law of the Old Testament decreed that the wage of sin is death. God did not change his mind in the New Testament vis a vis the Law, or his relationship with man. To sin is to die and separate from God. God and sin are incompatable. But God's love for the world offered his Son to pay that wage. Hence the fulfillment of the Law in the crucifixion of Jesus. The resurrection completed the reconciliation of God and man. Through love. The sins of man caused separation with God, and the wage of sin is death. God couldn't ignore his own rules for 2 reasons: 1. Sin is anathema to God. 2. God cannot break his word, if he broke it then, then his love for us is also in doubt. For God to save us from the wage of sin a death was required. For God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten son.

Jesus was no mere rabbi, nor did he claim to be just that. He claimed his divinity and to believe in his good message while ignoring his claim to divinity is paradoxical. Either he was the son of God or he was a lunatic who happened to fully understand every aspect of the human condition, preach the greatest commandment (love thy neighbor as thyself) and reveal to us the greatest, fullest description of God (God is love).

Amen.

Jesus was the greatest person you or I will ever know of. Whether the son of God or not, he preached a message of acceptance and tolerance that completely flew in the face of the old Jewish traditions. Loving our enemies and embracing the sick and poor were not high on the list of the followers of the old testament God. He told them to remember the laws of Moses, but to bring a modern sort of common sense to it. Do you really need to kill a guy for picking up sticks on the sabbath? Don't think so. But more than that, he didn't judge or condemn. He never voiced out against homosexuality, never called for war to solve our problems, never excluded people for any reason. ANY REASON. It saddens me greatly to see so many people pretend to be Christians, so many wrap themselves in His name and His ideas as though they were doing the righteous thing; the just thing. I may not be a Christian but I understand Jesus in a way few "Christians" can.

An amazing blog. The full gamut of beliefs, and my 1st entry here.

The only authoritative source of information about Jesus is the New Testament (the historian Josephus said only a couple of things about him, of no consequence). The authenticity of the NT is very well documented, more so than any other ancient book, with fragments of John dating to before 100 AD. My point of saying all this is to say that if you don't believe the NT, you don't really know anything about Jesus.

The NT clearly alleges that Jesus was the Son of God, or the Son of Man. The Son of Man designation is a clear reference to a scene in Daniel 7: "there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days, and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory, and sovreign power ...". Jesus himself said "I and the Father are one" in John. The Jewish leaders of his time clearly understood Jesus' claims, that is why they crucified him -- read for yourself.

Many people on this blog and elsewhere claim that Christians are all wrong and Jesus was just a good man who was trying to help people. There is really no evidence to support this claim. My challenge to anyone who really wants to know who Jesus is, read for yourself in the Gospels, especially John. Everytime I read John I am amazed by what I learn about Jesus.

I hope this helps someone discover the truth. I am a Christian who wants to know the truth, and is not afraid of the truth, in religion or science.

Thanks for considering my thoughts.

"Try it, believe it, live it."

Been there, done that, moved on. ;-)

Juesus is the son of God. Jesus is man's savior if you will just accept him in your heart. If not then you are lost.

Juesus is the son of God. Jesus is man's savior if you will just accept him in your heart. If not then you are lost.

Juesus is the son of God. Jesus is man's savior if you will just accept him in your heart. If not then you are lost.

Jesus is the son of God. If you don't believe that then you are confused. Seek the truth and read the bible for yourself. Jesus is the only way. You will see in the end. Don't let it be to late. Seek the truth now while you still have breath in your body. Just ask him to come into your heart and open yourself up to accept him. Try it, believe it, live it.

Jesus is the son of God. If you don't believe that then you are confused. Seek the truth and read the bible for yourself. Jesus is the only way. You will see in the end. Don't let it be to late. Seek the truth now while you still have breath in your body. Just ask him to come into your heart and open yourself up to accept him. Try it, believe it, live it.

Someone in another thread told me they didn't think there could be useful dialogue between religious believers and agnostics/atheists.

I didn't agree, and reading the exchange between Mr. Mark, Deanna and others here convinces me I was right.

Thanks to all of you.

A Hermit

Dear Deanna -

I've you're reading this, then this paricular post has made it past the On Faith censors. My last post - in which I recalled my wife's battle with breast cancer - was embargoed and was never posted here. It was one of my milder posts, so I wonder why that happened. I assume that I've been flagged as a trouble maker...or worse!

Thank you for your very kind words. I'm humbled by your evaluation of my past scribblings. Yes - I have read extensively on the subject, both sides of the subject, in fact. I continue to be fascinated by the power of myth in the human experience (I guess that's how I view religious faith these days), and I must say that there ARE basic truths that one can take away from such myths. They have their basis in human experience and they certainly ring true on many levels.

I also find the study of ancient religions to be fascinating. It seems that certain archetypes were set early on in man's journey, and they haven't changed much at all over the ensuing millenia.

FYI - My Lutheran upbringing was in the Ohio Synod. I don't know if they're less-dogmatic than the Missouri Synod. I know that they allowed Catholics and others to partake of communion, but I don't know whether that was accepted Synod doctrine or was the decision of my local church. I do remember that a survey was done of Lutherans back in the 1970s and 60% of them believed that you could get into heaven through "good works," even though that was not a church doctrine. I can also report that never once in my life in the Lutheran Church did I ever hear mention of the raging racism of Martin Luther! That's something that I had no knowledge of until maybe 5 years ago.

I don't know how much longer I'll post at On Faith. The questions aren't really targeted at answers from non-believers. Playing the party pooper role isn't something that interests me, and I think that most of the theists here would rather we atheists just left them alone to discuss how many angels CAN dance on the top of a pin.

I'll thank you again for your civility and your kind words.

Best,

Mr Mark

Jesus is purely ancient myth! Same man-god mythology as many many others that pre-date the Jesus character. Mithras, Horus, Osiris, etc.

To Mr. Mark and Fate,

First of all, I'll echo Mr. Mark and thank you both for your civility. I spent several hours today skimming over this site (for the first time), looking for Mr. Mark's prior posts. [More on that in a minute.] What struck me most was how many of the people posting were vehemently antagonistic toward anyone whose beliefs differed from theirs, and the number of posts by christians whose entry was pretty much limited to parroting a creed or some variation on one. I say "parroting" because I got no sense that these people had had their faith tested or even examined what their faith meant. I did find many declarations of faith that moved me deeply, and I am grateful for those posts.

First of all, to answer the question you both raised, of course my medical team didn't stop treating me. First of all, I have excellent doctors, in fact, I believe they are the best in the area where I live (where Peyton Manning played college football) Also, they are honorable men and women who are devoted to their patients and their professions. Even if they weren't, there's this thing called the Hippocratic Oath.

All I'm saying is my surgeon held out little hope (I later found out he had lost a patient with similar symptoms only a few days before). Thankfully, I did not have cancer. I had been battling ulcerative colitis for years, and in the summer of 2001, it went into a flare that it seemed nothing could control -- and believe me, my GI and I tried! When I arrived in the emergency room in August 2002, I was comatose, had three different strains of bacteria running amok in my blood stream, and my entire gut below the small intestine was criss-crossed and riddled with ulcers and fistulas filled with infection. It took two surgeries within 24 hours to excise almost everything, and I underwent two CT scans -- the first to see if they had removed all the affected tissue (they hadn't, hence the second surgery) and one to determine if the infections had reached my heart and/or brain. Thankfully, they hadn't. To this day, my GI and internist comment every time they see me that they can't believe I'm still here and as healthy as I am. If nothing else, I'm a statistical anomaly.

Mr. Mark, if I were limited to one choice, I would certainly choose medicine. I am not so foolish as to turn my back on the achievements of modern medicine and science. [Now I'm going to say something that may offend you, and I apologize in advance if it does.] God has given each of us talents to be used for good. I believe my doctors have been called to pursue their particular professions and to pursue them passionately. I think they would agree with me, although they might not attribute their call or their talents to God, which is alright by me. I will also tell you that my final surgery of three was performed at The Cleveland Clinic. My husband asked my surgeon if a referral was possible. It was. So we went to Cleveland, but I went to the initial exam wondering why we were going. My own surgeon already knew my case, and how much better could the random surgeon at The Cleveland Clinic be? The answer was, I was not to be operated on by a random surgeon. My final procedure was performed by the highly-skilled hands of Dr. Victor Fasio, the Chief of Colo-rectal Surgery at The Cleveland Clinic and reputedly the best in the world in his field. I consider that a gift of God's grace. You will probably say Dr. Fasio took my case because of interesting or unusual factors, and that is probably also true.

BTW, Fate, when I turned my problem over to God in April, you'll notice I said "more or less" It was really more on the order of, "Well, my doctors and I have tried everything. I'm at the end of my rope, so I'll try prayer." I wasn't really convinced that it would do me any good, but it was an option I hadn't tried, and at this point, I was willing to try anything!

I didn't understand prayer then -- and I'm not sure I "understand" it now. I do know that it's NOT "a conscious channeling of God's power." And it doesn't give me the power to "grab God's attention." I've always got his attention, even when I don't want it! That's the treasure at the heart of Christianity. God loves ME. He loves all of us, not as some amorphous blob of humanity, but each of us as a unique individual. Christianity worships a PERSONAL god known for his SACRIFICIAL LOVE. I have no intention of boring you, and I certainly would not demean your beliefs by trying to "convert" you.

So, on to another topic. As I said earlier, I spent several hours today skimming the site, looking particularly for Mr. Mark's prior posts. Something he said in response to one of my posts piqued my curiosity, and I wanted to find out more. I still don't have the answer to my question, but I did find out I am dealing with a man of formidable intellect who has clearly read both widely and deeply on the subject under discussion. To say that I am impressed would be quite an understatement. I always enjoy a discussion with an educated person who has done their homework. Unfortunately, I am not a worthy opponent, because I really haven't done any homework that would allow me to overcome your arguments. But, as I said, one of your comments piqued my interest, and I still haven't found the answer. You state you were raised Lutheran, but I'm wondering which "version" of Lutheranism.

As you said above, "just asking," because I know there are synods/branches of the Lutheran church that are unbending in their belief that you cannot be saved unless you belong to their synod. Even though I am a baptized and confirmed Lutheran, I am damned for all eternity in their eyes because I am not a member of their synod. In many cases, I would be refused entrance to the church and most certainly denied access to communion. My de facto son-in-law was raised in the Missouri Synod, and he's now an atheist, with good reason. In theory -- if not always in practice -- everyone is welcome in the Lutheran church.

It is never our place to judge another. It is our responsibility to reach out to others in love. As Fate said, I wish more Christians understood that.

I know I haven't really answered your questions to your satisfaction, but there really isn't any way I can. If it turns out that God doesn't exist, and Jesus was a hoax, I still believe what I believe. I came to where I am today slowly and haltingly, often times kicking and screaming. All I can tell you is that my belief gives me great peace, hope, and comfort. It is also what fuels my passion to reach out in love to those around me. I wake up each morning with the goal of bringing a smile or some comfort to whoever comes my way. I frequently fall short of my goal, but I usually manage to touch at least one person's life. It's what Jesus did. It's what I'm called to do.

Congratulations on your survival and I hope you acknowledge the skill and knowlege of the doctors who it sounds worked hard to save you. I went through a similar little crisis, I was told I had colon cancer. My mother had died of it so I went to get "scoped" and the doctor informed me of the biopsy over the phone, said to come in the next moring to talk, and "bring your wife". My heart sunk, I figured I had a year to live. I didn't sleep that night, went to work the next morning and did nothing, then picked up my wife and went to the doctor. "How long" I asked. He looked at me, "How long for what?" he responsed. I said "You told me I had colon cancer, how long to live?". He tried not to laugh, "Oh no" he said, "This thing is very early, good thing you came in to get 'scoped' when you did. You'll need surgery but its unlikely you'll need chemo. Surgery should cure it and you'll have a normal life". I felt elated, stupid, mad, happy, all at once. After the surgery which showed no spread so no need for chemo I felt as you did, happy to be alive, a new look on life, etc...

But God never entered my mind. The doctors saved me. I went to be 'scoped' because my mother had colon cancer and its known to run in families, not because the bible says so but because medical research journals say so. They found it in my sister since she got scoped because at that point it had been found in both her mother and me. It seems we have the colon/breats cancer gene in our family. Now my daughter and neices need to watch themselves (via a doctor) when they get older.

So I think our experiences are similar and similar to anyone who has gone under the knife not knowing what the outcome would be. My point about prayer was that it is a conscious chanelling of Gods power. Now you may think its more of a petition, a request for God to consider and respond to as He pleases, since He would obviously know best, or to not respond to at all. But it still gives you the power to grab God's attention. Sort of like having George Bush's direct telephone number to call with a problem and ask him to fix it but you'll understand if he can't. I find that strange for people who believe God cannot be comprehended. I also find it hard to imagine a God, sitting at a switchboard, watching the faithful call. To believe you have any ability to channel God's power or redirect it I find inconsistent with the definition of the Christian God but very consistent with past gods, like Roman or Greek, even pagan gods who would help drive out the evil spirits when you woke them up by knocking on wood to get their attention.

The old testament is a testament of a God who smites the enemies of His chosen people at their request. He is a God of war not unlike the God the jihadist pray to or any other god people thought might answer their requests for conquest. After reading both the old and new testaments many times I find it hard to figure out why anyone thinks these are the same gods. It seem obvious the christians took the hebrew God and made a few changes, and God complied.

I agree with your analysis of Christ and his message. I just wish more christians knew it. I've never understood how some "christians" could be against abortion but for capital punishment. But there you go, murder is not absolute but what you define it to be and so the religion bends to meet that definition. I think religion is mostly what you make of it, people's beliefs determine the religion and not the religion determining the beliefs. Some pray to win the lottery so they can buy a fancy car, some unselfishly pray for a loved one's health or even a stranger's. But if you look at all the religions of the earth they all describe the same things and the same ends. They all want peace, happiness and prosperity as any living creature would.

I find children, before they can conceive of a God pretty much have the good/bad thing already worked out. I think its inate since a person who is born with no scruples would quickly be tossed out of any society, even animals do this. I find humanity to be naturally loving, kind and compassionate. Some religions back this up but they did not invent it. To err is human but to forgive is just as human, not devine. I find it very true that everything you need to know you learned in kindergarten and before.

Dear Deanna -

Thanks for the heartfelt story. I'm glad you've recovered.

May I make an observation? Your story give no credit whatsoever to your medical team for your recovery. Why is that? Did your doctors stand idly by as god worked his miracle and healed you, or were they involved on some small level with aiding god in your recovery?

You also say that your doctors had predicted that you wouldn't survive. Did they stop treatment at that point and put it all in god's hands to heal you and to start you on your long road to recovery?

At the end of the process, you report that you had "a new appreciation for the beauty of life and a new understanding of Christian love." Did you have a new appreciation of doctors and medical procedures? Do you attribute your recovery to the efforts of your doctors or to the people who "prayed for me, visited me, prayed for me, sent cards, prayed, sent flowers, prayed!"? I assume that you might say "medicine and prayer were both important." If you could pick only ONE course of treatment for recovery (medicine or prayer), which one would you choose?

Just asking.

Fate wrote, "This is one thing I find fascinating in christians, the notion that they can petition the Lord." and "Is God a genie you can summon by rubbing the bible and make a request?" [BTW, your analogy of summoning God by rubbing the bible gave me my first smile of the day. Very evocative language!]

Prayer is not asking for what you want, although we all have a tendency to slip into that folly. Prayer is entrusting our lives to the Lord's care.

Let me tell you a little story [true]. One Sunday in the winter of 2002-2003, one of my wonderful ministers began her sermon by recounting how she begins her prayers [facetiously]. "OK, God, here's the problem. Now I've thought long and hard about this, and here are the possible solutions to my problem. Pick one, any one, it doesn't matter. And be quick about it!" [chuckles from the congregation] She paused, and then asked, "How many of you have prayed that way? And how often have you received the answer you asked for within the time limit you stipulated?" At this point, I nearly fell out of the pew laughing!

You see, in April of 2002, I turned a serious health problem over to God -- more or less. What I said to God was, "I can't handle this anymore. I've done everything I can think of, and my doctors have too. I can't go on living like this. I promise I will call the church in the morning and have my name put on the prayer board" [I'll admit publicly that I'm not in control of my life, even though I find that admission of weakness totally humiliating.] What I wanted was what most people would call a miracle. I wanted my gut to be completely healed -- and soon, so I could go back to living a "normal" life. Not only did I have my list of preferred solutions, I also had a very short list of "we're not going there" solutions, actually just one very specific solution.

After four months of declining health, I woke up in intensive care with a piece of my small intestine protruding from my abdomen -- an ileostomy! I was very weak with a long slow road to recovery ahead of me, but I was alive -- which was way more than my doctors had predicted!

I prayed. I asked God for what I wanted. And after four months, He gave me the one thing I had been very clear I DIDN'T want. How's that for rubbing a bible and making a request?!

You might think I would have been angry with God and turned away from him as a result of this answer to my prayer. I won't lie and tell you there weren't times I was angry, frightened, and questioned God's sanity. But for the most part, I was overcome with relief to still be alive -- to kiss my husband and hug my daughter; to look out the window and see the sun, the rain, the moon, and the stars.

And I was overwhelmed by the love and prayers of over one hundred people -- many of them praying for me daily, morning and evening. I had a new appreciation for the beauty of life and a new understanding of Christian love. So many people had prayed for me, visited me, prayed for me, sent cards, prayed, sent flowers, prayed!

As I quoted in an earlier post, Only one faith worships a personal God known primarily for his sacrificial love. Christ calls us to love one another, even as He has loved us -- and He doesn't define the others we are called to love. In fact, by his ministry, he made it very clear that those rejected by society were equal in his sight with the wisest and most respected. He sacrificed his human life for me, and he asks me to do the some for my fellow humans -- even the 9/11 terrorists, for He loves them too; even those who would harm me or the ones I love, for He loves them too.

Prayer is not telling God what we want or need. He already knows our problems and needs. As I said earlier, prayer is entrusting your life to God, knowing His way of love is the only way to find peace. Having entrusted my life to Christ and accepted His call to love others even as He loved me, I MUST try to live my life as a servant of others, sharing God's love with a touch, a hug, a sympathetic ear, food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, shelter for the homeless, freedom for the oppressed, and peace in place of war.

However, to quote the lyrics of a wonderful song written by a man I am blessed to call my friend, "But if it's only you and me here making sense, nothing's proven but coincidence. Only God can give you reasons to believe. Only God can give you reasons to believe."

Deanna wrote: ---I apologize for offending you by praying you would find God, and that until then, He would keep you safe.---

This is one thing I find fascinating in christians, the notion that they can petition the Lord. Do you really think you can communicate with God and God will answer your prayers? That if you pray for something God might give it to you? I don't mean to be insulting but it seems counterintuitive that if "God is too big for the human mind to comprehend" how a human mind can summon God to do his bidding. Just who is the more powerful, man or God? Is God a genie you can summon by rubbing the bible and make a request? In my mind it brings God down to being the servent of man, which only makes sense if God was invented by man. Just an observation...

Religion is man's way of finding god; Jesus is God's way of finding God.

I believe that Jesus did in fact exist. But I am not willing to believe that he was able to perform miracles. At least not at this time. But I do believe that he was a good man, who really wanted other people to know that there was and is a better way to live ones life. I can't refer to my self as christian, for obvious reasons. That Jesus was attempting to show people by his own actions that one has to work at overcoming self. That it is better to give, then to recieve. Better to understand others than to be understood.
I know that may sound corny to some, but I really think that he knew the benefits of conquering ones ego.
(an ongoing battle) I consider myself spiritual, not religious. But the spiritual program that I follow has many of its beliefs taken from Jesus. I had not really ever realized just how closely related those beliefs were until I started putting those beliefs into action in my daily life. I also think that Jesus did not give a hoot about politicians, or politics. That there was and is something alot bigger and better than politicians. That he was more concerned with with humans being good to each other, stopping violence, and evil acts by overcoming the dark and negative side of our personalities. By learning how to love my neighbor, to be less greedy with my money and my time. For me today, I want to be a part of the answer, not the problem. I spent most of my life in the problem. this new life has been much more rewarding at times. I really think that is why they were so cruel to him, and tried to humiliate him before they stretched him out on a cross, and nailed him to it. Politicians of all stature feared his teachings then, as well as they do now. I just don't think that they tortured and killed him because he claimed to be the son of God. He commimtted the worse act a human can do in the eyes of politicians, his teachings threatened them.

Dear Deanna -

Thank you for the response, the clarification and your civility.

No one can know everything. We all have our blindspots and shorcomings. Certainly, the various discussions at OnFaith have more than once sent me on day-long research into areas of belief and science of which I had little or no knowledge. That's a big plus.

I've already recounted my move away from faith on this blog. The thumbnail is raised Lutheran, born-again at 18...and by mid-40s, an atheist. My non-belief isn't based on the prooof of evolution or the Big Bang or belief in any particualr theory. It was my study of history and early religions that put me off Xianity. So the evolution "debate" isn't the raison d'etre for my disbelief. It's more like a reinforcing sidebar.

As I have written elsewhere on this blog, I have believed in evolution since my high school days, ie: from the time I considered myself quite the Xian. I really don't understand why Xians get so hung up on this issue. Faith can exist without evolution having to be proven wrong. In fact, it's quite easy for Xians to take multiple sides on the issue as faith - unlike science - can never be falsified in the way theories adhering to the proof of the scientific method can be falsified. Faith isn't based on empirical knowledge, but empirical knowledge can have the effect of questioning or even destroying faith-based beliefs. I don't see that as a threat. I see that as progress.

As far as science at some future date proving the existence of god: science is trending in the opposite direction. Indeed, the gaps in which god now exists grow smaller each day.

My suggestion to you to do a bit of research on the Big Bang wasn't meant in a mean way, and I hope you didn't take it as such. I respect your quest for truth. Thanks for sharing.

Mr. Mark:

Thank you for your suggestion about reading up on the Big Bang. I read the Wikipedia article you referred me to, as well as two or three related articles. Certainly, I have a great deal more reading to do to be even moderately conversant with the theories of Cosmology. I know we have a copy of Hawking's A Brief History of Time somewhere in the house. I bought it and tried to read it once, but it was so intellectually dense and other demands in my life so pressing, I never got very far with reading it. I will have to find it and apply my mind to trying to understand it.

You might think I abhor science and fear its progress. Quite the contrary, I am fascinated by science. I loved teaching it, and math, to eleven-year olds, using whatever means necessary to make the laws of science understandable and show how they applied to my students' daily life. Permit me to quote one of my student's from her letter nominating me for the local Teacher of the Month award, "She is not one of the teachers that just gives you work and tells you to do it. She explains it until you understand. Now I love going to school. I love to learn now because she makes it fun. In science about every day we do an experiment. They are fun." BTW, I received the award, thanks to Megan's enthusiastic recommendation.

I applaud scientists and their determination to understand the universe on all levels and delve deeper and deeper into the origins of the universe and the structures of the all parts of it, both cosmic and microscopic. I am awed and amazed by the discoveries being made every day. I will even give way to a mother's pride and tell you that my daughter is currently applying to to some of the best universities in the U.S. to pursue a PhD in immunology / pathobiology / epidemiology /microbiology so she can contribute to finding a cure for AIDS. She was born to be a scientist, always asking, "Why?" And we have encouraged her since she was old enough to talk -- observing, researching, wondering. She has far surpassed me in her knowledge of science, but she continues to inspire and teach me every day.

I apologize for offending you by praying you would find God, and that until then, He would keep you safe. I can see where, from your perspective, God is only "your imagination, reinforced by a lifetime of religious indoctrination."

I will tell you that I spent the first 18-20 years of my life being "indoctrinated." Then I turned away from the church -- for many reasons, but two in particular stand out. First, the God and Jesus I learned about in Sunday School, and even in worship services, could not withstand the challenges of life as a sentient being in the "real world." It was difficult, if not impossible to find anyone in the religious establishment who had answers to my questions about the existence of evil; why innocent people were tortured and killed for no apparent reason or, more frequently, for their religious beliefs; how a "loving God" could allow these things to happen, and, most importantly, how God could "know" the future without being the "cause" of future events. I felt patronized when religious leaders told me, "You must have faith, Deanna."

Then my mother turned to excusing any of her choices resulting in outcomes hurtful to others as "God's will." That position was so emotionally immature and intellectually irresponsible, I was repulsed and angered by it. I have always believed we are responsible for our choices and their outcomes. Simply stated, my Sunday School faith could not withstand my emerging adult's need to question everything, and so I became an agnostic.

It took many years before I "returned" to the church, and I only did so then because my daughter's friends were inviting her to attend church with them. One very special friend was then a member of the Church of Christ, and their beliefs and practices were beginning to have a serious impact on my daughter. I strongly disagreed with the rigid, exclusionary theology I started hearing about, so I took my daughter to a church in the denomination of my childhood. That was about 13 years ago. In that time, I have found a theology that withstood my intellectual challenges. I have come to understand Christ's command to "love one another, even as I have loved you." I know that it is never my place to judge another -- only God can judge. And I experienced with every fiber of my being the depth and certainty of Christ's sacrificial love for me, just for me.

I am troubled by the effect religious practices are having on human relations. "God" is being used in many parts of the world to justify wars, racial, sexual, ethnic, and religious discrimination. So-called Christians are trying to force-feed their version of religion to others, even declaring that we are all damned for eternity if we do not worship God "their way," whatever that might be.

I am not troubled by the discoveries of science. In fact, I applaud them because I believe, far from disproving the existence of God, they constantly reveal the wonders of his creation and add weight to the argument for his existence. But, as I said before, God is too big for the human mind to comprehend

I believe God is, and I believe He is a loving, forgiving God who desires nothing more than to spend eternity in a loving relationship with all his creation. I know He is, but I do not have the skills to "prove" His existence. It would not surprise me, however, to find scientists reluctantly agreeing at some future date that their experiments and theories, far from disproving God's existence, tend to support the existence of a divine creator.

I don't expect you to agree with anything I've said, Mr. Mark. I just wanted to clarify my position on both faith and science.

James -

Sorry, I didn't address your answer to points 2, 3 & 4 above.

2. As far as the very interesting study you cited, this was NOT an experiment done by creationists. The study you reference proposes that complex life forms arose on earth at a much earlier time than is predicted in evolutonary models. The significance of this is that most evolutionists believe that the Earth was simply too hot to support life before a specific time. If complex life arose earlier than that date, then the "problem" for evolutionists is this: if complex life arose earlier than evolutionists have believed, then the time available for simple life forms to evolve to complex forms is greatly compressed, and how does one explain that?

The guy you cite at RTB jumps to the conclusion that god must have been involved. He's basically saying that this study confirms the predictive validity of the Creationist model as said model argues that life on earth began as a very complex, not a simple, thing. That might be true, but what's god got to do with it? The complex life could just as well have been deposited here in space dust. There's also the question of how complex is complex? The study may well serve to disprove Miller's theories, but it doesn't prove anything about god, just that complex life was present on Earth much earlier than was previously thought.

The other possibility is that simple life forms started much earlier and that complex life forms followed naturally. At present, some scientists believe that the heat needed to produce the metals necessary to create simple life forms from abiotic matter is found only near underwater thermal vents. It's entirely possible that the oceans could have had the same effect as a thermal vent in their "hot" period (ie: the period that is presently thought to have been too hot to support life).

I think the jury is out on this one, but I thank you for raising this very interesting point.

3. Dr Ross' Creationist model has not been submitted to peer review, so it cannot have been subjected to "empirically verifiable hypothesis constructed to falsify" it.

4. What evolutionary theories have been falsified through the proof of creationist hypotheses that have been subjected to the scientific method?

You wrote:
"The evolutionary theory that life evolved from a primordial soup. We now know that cellular life is extremely complex and not some simple life form that could have just "happened" with a lightning bolt and the right chemical mix."

Quite the contrary, the experiments of Miller & Urley PROVED that organic molecules can form from inorganic precursors. The problems with the hypothesis were always 1) that one couldn't know the makeup of the early Earth's atmosphere (modern science rejects the idea that enough oxygen was present in the amounts present in Miller's experiments) and, 2) that any lifeforms formed in the manner would be broken apart in the oceans (that led to the clay theory, wherein these molocules became lodged in clay and thereby survived the inhospitable environment of the oceans).

One can't say this theory has now been "falsified through the proof of creationist hypotheses that have been subjected to the scientific method." Indeed, it is still one of the most-accepted theories for how life arose on Earth, even as competing theories have arisen in the meanwhile.

Dear James -

Thank you for answering my questions.

Do you really feel comfortable citing Hugh Ross as a reputable source? You realize that this is the guy who beilieves that UFOs exist, but that they are "residual," or, as Ross explains, through his “trans-dimensional hypothesis”—flying sacuers are actually entities that come from “beyond our space and time dimensions.” He thinks they're real, but are not physical beings.

Here's how Ross explains UFOs in his 2002 book, “Lights In the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFO’s and Extraterrestrials”:

“It can now be determined who is behind the RUFO experiences. Only one kind of being favors the dead of night and lonely roads. Only one is real but nonphysical, animate, powerful, deceptive, ubiquitous throughout human history, culture, and geography, and bent on wreaking psychological and physical harm. Only one entity selectively approaches those humans involved in cultic, occultic or New Age activities. It seems apparent that residual UFO’s, in one or more ways, must be associated with the activities of demons.”

Did you catch that? UFOs exist, and they're the product of THE DEVIL!!!

But Ross is a scientist (astronomer), so he believes that his UFO theory is testable. How? I'll let him speak for himself: “All that is necessary to further prove the conclusions of demonic involvement, therefore, is to continue surveying people to ascertain who has encounters with residual UFO’s and who does not. If the demonic identificiation of the RUFO phenomenon is correct, researchers should continue to observe a correlation between the degree of invitations in a person’s life to demonic attacks (for example, participation in seances, Ouija games, astrology, spiritualism, witchcraft, palm reading, and psychic reading) and the proximity of their residual UFO encounters.”

Simply, no? If you're demonically possessed to begin with, then the UFOs are going to show themselves to you!

But we're not talking about UFOs here, we're talking about evolution, so let's get back to that.

As to Ross' Creationist model - I don't believe that he has published his model in peer-reviewed scientific literature. When and if that happens, then Ross' work would constitute an answer to my challenge to provide "links to peer-reviewed scientific studies."

I will say that I give credit to Ross for rejecting the young-earth crazies and for saying that he wants his hypothesis to be subjected to the same standards and testing that any other scientific hypothesis would undergo. But at this point, I don't think that one can assert that his model has been peer-reviewed or that it has undergone the challenges I outlined in my original post.

Poor Ross! He's equally disliked by both evolutionists and young-earthists!

Deanna wrote:

"Can you truly look at the universe -- from the infinitesimal to the universal -- in all its beauty, intricacy, and order and say that it is the result of an "accident"?!"

Of course, one can believe in the Big Bang. I do as do millions of others. BTW - who besides you is saying that it was "an accident?" That's a poor choice of words.

"Someone earlier suggested that one read the Gospel of John with an open mind. I couldn't agree more."

May I suggest you read up a bit on the Big Bang theory before posting your thoughts on it. You are obviously well-schooled in the Bible. You might want to divert a bit of time from your Bible study and spend a little time reading up on cosmology. Wikipedia offers a decent summary on the BB that will take you less than 2 minutes to read and digest (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang )

"I pray that someday you will hear God's voice calling from within you, asking you, His beloved child, to come home. Until that happens, I pray God will hold you in His hand and protect your soul."

I hope that someday you will realize that there is no god and that the voice you hear calling to you is your imagination, reinforced by a lifetime of religious indoctrination.

Is that statement too harsh? Then consider this: from the standpoint of a non-believer, it's no more harsh than your statement that immediately preceded it.

Mr. Mark asked:

1. Is creationism a scientific theory subject to the norms of verification embodied in the scientific method (ie: testability, predictive power and explanatory power)?

Yes

2. If so, what experiments have creationists performed to support their hypotheses? Not to disprove existing evolution theories, but to support their hypotheses?

The creation model is one that is researched by Dr. Hugh Ross and his organization called Reasons to Believe. Read one of his associates articles here:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/connections/200501_connections_q1/index.shtml#creation_model_passes_big_test
It talks about a new discovery that is baffling evolutionists.
Science is all the time revealing new information that points to design and away from evolution.

3. Specifically, what creationist hypotheses have been subjected to empirically verifiable hypothesis constructed to falsify them?

Dr. Hugh Ross' creation model.

4. What evolutionary theories have been falsified through the proof of creationist hypotheses that have been subjected to the scientific method?

The evolutionary theory that life evolved from a primordial soup. We now know that cellular life is extremely complex and not some simple life form that could have just "happened" with a lightning bolt and the right chemical mix.

As a believing, practicing Christian, I believe Jesus Christ is the only son of God, fully human and fully divine, both at the same time. I also believe He is one with God, the Father, and the Holy Spirit -- I believe in the Triune God.

As for evolution and creationism, God's "time" is not our "time"! "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Psalm 90, v. 4 [NIV]

Many scientists now support the "Big Bang" theory which posits that the entire universe was created from nothing is a single nanosecond. How very like the account of the first day of creation in Genesis.

Can you truly look at the universe -- from the infinitesimal to the universal -- in all its beauty, intricacy, and order and say that it is the result of an "accident"?!

Notice, I called myself a believing Christian. Belief, or faith, in the existence of God is not "Religion". Religion is, unfortunately, the creation of man, and so it is inherently flawed.
Christ (Emmanuel "God With Us") came to earth in the form of a human infant, lived a perfect life, was crucified, and three days later, was resurrected. He Lives Now and he has "lived" since before creation. He died for my salvation -- and yours.

Someone earlier suggested that one read the Gospel of John with an open mind. I couldn't agree more.
I would also suggest a commentary on John almost as lyrical and beautiful as the gospel itself: "Drawn Into the Mystery of Jesus through the Gospel of John," by Jean Vanier.

I think it is worthwhile to quote from the introduction to John in my NIV Quest Bible: "Why read this book? Our world offers a variety of gods for worship. One major religion features a god of power and revenge; another worships one that is silent and indifferent to the suffering of people; still another offers a god that is mysterious and unknowable, absorbing all of humanity into a great cosmic ocean of oneness. Some people worship gods of possessions, fame, and entertainment. ONLY ONE FAITH WORSHIPS A PERSONAL GOD KNOWN PRIMARILY FOR HIS SACRIFICIAL LOVE. THIS BOOK PROFILES THAT GOD REVEALED IN THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST."

To the person who argues that modern biblical scholars have dismissed the Gospel of John for its lack of agreement with the other three gospels of the mainline Christian tradition, I'd like to know who these scholars are. The NIV Quest Bible states in the Introduction to John: "Who wrote this book? John, the apostle -- one of the twelve original disciples of Christ." -- no caveats, no presentation of differing positions, just "John, the apostle." The section "About the NIV" states that it "is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts" These scholars were from all the English-speaking countries and included members of faith traditions as disparate as Anglican (Episcopalian) and Mennonite, and many more in between, both large and small, international and regional in scope.

So, again, I ask, who are these scholars who dismiss the gospel of John?

From a bumper sticker I saw just the other day: "God is too big for one religion." God is also too big for the human mind to comprehend. It takes faith: "complete trust or confidence; and spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof" (Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus"
to believe in God. My heart knows and my brain believes that Christ is my personal savior. I try to live my life as an example -- to follow His teachings.

I apologize for all those Christians who have given Christianity a bad name; harmed others in the name of Christianity, and otherwise claimed to BE Christian yet failed to follow Christ's teachings and ACT Christian. May I also point out that even the most devout Christians are also human, and therefore sinful. We cannot totally succeed in emulating Christ. In fact, we often fail, over and over again. But if we repent and turn back to God, we are forgiven.

I pray that someday you will hear God's voice calling from within you, asking you, His beloved child, to come home. Until that happens, I pray God will hold you in His hand and protect your soul.

As a parting remark, being a Christian does NOT guarantee you will not face problems or suffer failures. In fact, you almost certainly will! What God does promise is that He loves me and will always be there for me -- and for you too. I trust that whatever happens, God will make the best of it in His own time and in His own way. He has done it in my life over and over again. There is nothing I cannot overcome with God at my side. Believing that gives such security, tranquility, and wholeness, I am already in heaven, by the grace of God.

Your article is very informative and helped me further.

Thanks, David

I have a few questions for the creationists here:

1. Is creationism a scientific theory subject to the norms of verification embodied in the scientific method (ie: testability, predictive power and explanatory power)?

2. If so, what experiments have creationists performed to support their hypotheses? Not to disprove existing evolution theories, but to support their hypotheses?

3. Specifically, what creationist hypotheses have been subjected to empirically verifiable hypothesis constructed to falsify them?

4. What evolutionary theories have been falsified through the proof of creationist hypotheses that have been subjected to the scientific method?

I'm not being facetious here. I'd really like to know.

Thank you in advance for your answers (links to peer-reviewed scientific studies will do fine...no need to write a novel if you don't wish to).

Canyon:---Archaeopteryx is a bird;---

No its not:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html

---Maybe you should take a look at Archaeoraptor; it was once a great prover for evolution; but is actually the greatest hoax of all time after evolution! A Chinese atheist scientist manufactured it!---

Yes, there are bad people everywhere. I was just reading about some evangelical ministers from Brazil caught red handed embezzeling from their church. Guess that proves evangelicals are frauds and criminals.

---Cows are born all the time with 5 or 6 legs...why couldn't a dinosaur have been born the same? The fact is that both are pure speculation with no scientific evidence to back it up and with massive scientific evidence to refute it.---

Sure it could, but that is not evolution. Additional legs are something it already has. Wings however requires a set of DNA the dinosaur or cow does not have. Evolution is not one species giving birth to another. If that's whatyou think it is you know nothing about the subject. You said you have a sociology degree?

---The same blueprint for everything, you say? Hardly; the variation in creation is extraordinary; take fore example differences between People, Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Fish, Marsupials, Insects, Snakes, Dinosaurs, Jellyfish, Penicillin, Plants. The creativity of God is not lacking.---

Except he used the same molecule, DNA, to code the details of his creations, he used the same language in each DNA, from the most primitive bacteria to people. If you take insulin it was created by a bacteria that had the human gene for insulin placed in bacteria who dutifully manufacture the insulin and reproduce the gene. That insulin is identical to human insulin. Now that is either because all life is related or God had the exact same plan for life. I know which one you'll pick, but it shows that while God may have been creative in the creatures he created, he only had one way to make them all using only one DNA code. There is no reason other DNA codes could be used, its just letters after all, but he chose only one. Not very imaginative but fits in nicely with evolution.

---You see what you've done, don't you? You've created a god of evolution.---

No, evolution has proof, creationism requires pure belief. In fact, before any creationist "theory" is allowed, it must agree with the bible. Why the litmus test for facts? Since when in science must a fact agree with a predetermined idea? Science has many examples of what was thought to be true being overturned by new evidence. That is the nature of science. In creationism this is never allowed, therefore it is not science.

---As Darwin concluded, in order for his theory to be correct, we would need to find millions of transitionary fossils. You've found how many? There are TWO(2) that haven't been completely discredited and that's only because they were only discovered in 2006.---

Millions have been fuond. In one formation in Africa, the Karroo formation, there are enough fossilized animals that, if all alive right before the "flood", would put 21 animals per acre just before the flood. And that is just one formation in Africa. The evidence is everywhere and a multitude of it. You choose to ignore it to maintain your belief.

---Don't you find it odd that whenever they discover a new species of shark or bird, they never say, "This animal must have evolved in the last 25 years"...new animals aren't evolving despite the overabundance of reproduction. In the world today, for example, it takes 67 days in order for humans to birth 10 Million babies. Dinky Dawkins amongst others believe that humans evolved from a Neanderthaal base of 10 Million. How come we don't see 5 major evolutionary leaps each year?---

You understand little. Evolution takes a long time. It takes changes in the environment that we both agree leads to variations in the species being favored or not favored, meaning they help the animal survive or work against its survival. But 67 days to make 10M babies is only one generation. It takes thousands of generations for variation shift and mutation accumulation to effect a species to evolve into another assuming the evolutionary pressures exist to evolve. not everything evolves at the same rate due to some species' environments changing little.

---As for your evolutionary evidence. You see it because you want to see it.---

No, that is the definition of creationism.

---I wanted to see it too, but instead of going on my own feelings and beliefs, I actually read scientific research on it. I started on the evolutionist side, got sick of their "language of speculation" and decided to see what the Creationists had in mind. They actually use science to prove their theories and admit when a theory can't actually be proven. The word faith never comes up in evolutionary pseudoscience, despite the fact that it requires blind faith to believe in it.---

No, science requires facts. Theories can only be called theories when they can be used to make accurate predictions, otherwise they are hypotheses. Evolution is a theory because it makes predictions. It predicts intermediary species that we later find in the fossil record. Creationism has predicted that rock layers were laid down in a matter of days, but the "flood", and all animals were intombed at that time. But the flood had to have laid down radioisotopes in different radioactive levels, laid down those layers evenly even on steep hillsides and valleys, and sorted the fossils so all dino bones large and small are below while humans bones large and small are on the top. And one layer had to be laid down (in a flood!), that only contained iridium. All of this goes against any reality of physics or fluid dynamics, yet you believe it because it supports your belief. Science has no belief and anyone who says they "believe" in a scientific principle means they trust the theory behind it but are prepared to abandon it if science shows it to be wrong. Are you prepared to toss the bible if science (which it has) shows it is wrong?

---Gravity is a law because it passes the tests of science. It is observable, measurable, and repeatable. That means it is a law on Earth. Admittedely we know very little about how gravity works in other places than earth, we can theorize how it works on Jupiter, on Pluton, on the Sun, on comets, but that is just theory.---

No, it is also observed fact. We have after all sent spacecraft into successful orbits around these planets (well, except Pluto) and gravity works the same there. Funny how scientists, having never been to Saturn succesfully parked a spacecraft in orbit there. Must have been blind luck eh?

---It is LAW on Earth because it is scientifically proven. Evolution is scientifically unproven because you can't observe, measure, or repeat any evolutionary experiments and get reliable results.---

That is totally wrong. Darwin, as you say, said that intemediary forms of species would be found, and they have been found. Not sure where you get humans evolving from Neandrathals. I've read they are a branch off the pre-human lineage.

---It is a common evolutionist misunderstanding that you don't believe we came from dirt. Let me educate you on your religion.
Man came from monkes.
Monkeys came from mammals.
Mammals came from reptiles.
Reptiles came from Fish.
Fish came from Goo.
Goo came from Amino acids in the Primordial Soup
The primordial soup came from mud.
Mud came from dirt.
Hence, Man came from dirt.---

Evolution is concerned with species evolving. Even the Catholic church has accepted this. The origin of LIFE is a separate issue. This just shows you know little about evolution or science in general.

--Understand? Evolution doesn't make sense, it's a stupid religion. That's why the 'atheist' bible should say, "In the beginning, nothing became everything, and dirt created life."---

Again you understand little.

---Evolutionists are always flying to the "Billions" of years argument.---

As are the cosmologists, geologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, volcanologists, etc, etc, etc. Everyone but the evangelicals. Now what science do they research, oh yea, anything that disagrees with biblical belief.

---If I go into my garage and clean EVERYTHING out of it, close the door, and lock it, how long do I have to wait for my GT40 to evolve? 1 year? 100 years? 5.5 Billion years? Nothing cannot become something.---

---What if I put a dissassembled GT40 in the garage, close the door and lock it, how long before it assembles itself into something that looks like a car?---

Another silly question.

---Time doesn't evolve things. Energy destroys things. How much dynomite do I need to put in the garage before it will assemble my car for me?---

Did I mention tornados developing from nothing?

---Directed energy is the only way things become something. You go to hurricanes and tornados, they do appear to come from nothing until you realize the law of fluid dynamics. That law creates hurricanes, high pressure flows to low pressure. Hurricanes obey the law, evolution does not.---

Evolution happens or nothing would be alive on earth today. Evolution is required based on the way DNA is constantly rearranged from generation to generation. And when you study genetics you see that genes can multiply themselves, rearrange themselves and it has been ovserved that genes "jump" from chromosome to chromosome. This all leads to diversity which is needed to any species to remain alive and over time evolve.

---As I read down your post, I would like to make it expressly clear that the number of intermediary fossils you believe you have is so severely lacking as to possibly prove that 1 thing in history evolved, not millions of species. You are facing your whole eternity and world-view on 0.000000001% of the evidence, and it's not even universally accepted evidence.---

Don't threaten me with your belief to ignore evidence. There are millions of fossils that you choose to ignore.

---Adam didn't have the opportunity of looking through a telescope and seeing how perfectly the Earth is designed with a 23* tilt to ensure the majority of the Earth is livable(without that tilt, the equator would be too hot and the poles would extend down. All life would exist in a tiny strip of land around the tropics), if the Earth didn't have a moon to shake up the Oceans, the coasts would be disgusting sewers, if the Earth were 2% closer or 4% farther from the sun, all life would cease to exist. The design required to keep life living is incredible beyond incredible; for that to happen for a nano-second would impress me, but to remain this way for 4.6 Billion Years takes a little more imagination than I can muster.---

You argue that the world was created as it is to favor life but I saw that life evolved to take advantage of the conditions on earth. See the difference?

---Evolution is true for you because you want it to be. You've looked at hundreds of subjective and made-up ideas and accepted them as fact in the overwhelming face of evidence.---

No, it is true because it makes predictions that are born out.

---I hope at least you've realized that evolutionists aren't quite so smart as you originally hoped.---

I've learned just how stupid and what liars creationists are.

Jesus is my only hope.

Jesus was a vessel for Christ. A pure vessel, innocent, loving, and very forgiving. An almost transparent, and very fragile vessel. I might have to slap some sense into my Brother Jesus, and I would smile as I turned the other cheek! grin.

xdishev batyzdlfg ypfjqao cvfoaji sltcpzdue jekmlhvd zgvmpy

As a Christian, I would have to say that personally I find the question phrased improperly. I would say, Who IS Jesus? The first thing I believe about Jesus is that he is alive now. I never speak of him in the past tense. He is a present reality for me. This is a statement of faith, of course, not a simple historical judgment, but it is a statement people of Christian faith will understand and agree with.

Ah, Dinky Dawkins, the self-appointed high-priest of the religion of evolution.

He's not a smart guy, most prominent evolutionists are growing to severely dislike him; and he refuses to debate prominent Creation Scientists. He is a weak person to follow, but hey, it's a weak religion anyways.

As for your lie about Kent Hovind and AiG. AiG actually dislikes Kent Hovind very much. Ken Ham is the primary person behind AiG, but the website accepts articles from hundreds of scientists.

Proof positive that evolutionists will believe whatever is served in front of them, as long as it doesn't support God.

FYI - Richard Dawkins has posted the 2002 science v creationist "debate" between Kent Hovind and Dr. Massimo Pigliucci at his website here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,606,Evolution-Debate---Pigliucci-vs-Hovind,Infidel-Guy

Dr. Pigliucci is currently (2007), Professor in the Department of Ecology & Evolution at SUNY-Stony Brook (Long Island, NY). His research is on the evolution of genotype-environment interactions and on the role of constraints in evolutionary biology. He also has an interest in epistemology and philosophy of science.

Kent Hovind is the creator of drdino.com and one of the main contributors to the website Answers in Genesis. Many of the creationists posting on this blog use Kent Hovind's writings as their primary source to support their creationist beliefs.

In November, Mr. Hovind was found "guilty of all charges" in a 58-count indictment for violating federal tax law. He and his wife are currently serving 10-year jail sentences, and his chances of doing another radio debate any time soon are slim, so enjoy this one while it's available at Dawkins' website. The debate features a good back-n-forth between the two debators as they directly answer each others challenges in real time.

Enjoy!

Archaeopteryx is a bird;
answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/birds.asp

Maybe you should take a look at Archaeoraptor; it was once a great prover for evolution; but is actually the greatest hoax of all time after evolution! A Chinese atheist scientist manufactured it! It rocked the scientific world, it rocked the Christian faith, until EVERYONE realized that it was a fabrication.

In the face of zero transitions, your scientists have gone to grafting species together.

That is a wonderful brainwashing technique about the dragons. I saw that same special, it was quiet nicely put together. Evolution says that a monkey can become a man but that a dinosaur can't become a dragon. Cows are born all the time with 5 or 6 legs...why couldn't a dinosaur have been born the same? The fact is that both are pure speculation with no scientific evidence to back it up and with massive scientific evidence to refute it.

The same blueprint for everything, you say? Hardly; the variation in creation is extraordinary; take fore example differences between People, Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Fish, Marsupials, Insects, Snakes, Dinosaurs, Jellyfish, Penicillin, Plants. The creativity of God is not lacking.

You see what you've done, don't you? You've created a god of evolution. Just like Dinky Dawkin's. Allister McGrath wrote, "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life,"

In the absense of evidence you are clinging to tiny snippets of debated science. As Darwin concluded, in order for his theory to be correct, we would need to find millions of transitionary fossils. You've found how many? There are TWO(2) that haven't been completely discredited and that's only because they were only discovered in 2006.

Don't you find it odd that whenever they discover a new species of shark or bird, they never say, "This animal must have evolved in the last 25 years"...new animals aren't evolving despite the overabundance of reproduction. In the world today, for example, it takes 67 days in order for humans to birth 10 Million babies. Dinky Dawkins amongst others believe that humans evolved from a Neanderthaal base of 10 Million. How come we don't see 5 major evolutionary leaps each year?

As for your evolutionary evidence. You see it because you want to see it. I wanted to see it too, but instead of going on my own feelings and beliefs, I actually read scientific research on it. I started on the evolutionist side, got sick of their "language of speculation" and decided to see what the Creationists had in mind. They actually use science to prove their theories and admit when a theory can't actually be proven. The word faith never comes up in evolutionary pseudoscience, despite the fact that it requires blind faith to believe in it.

Gravity is a law because it passes the tests of science. It is observable, measurable, and repeatable. That means it is a law on Earth. Admittedely we know very little about how gravity works in other places than earth, we can theorize how it works on Jupiter, on Pluton, on the Sun, on comets, but that is just theory. It is LAW on Earth because it is scientifically proven. Evolution is scientifically unproven because you can't observe, measure, or repeat any evolutionary experiments and get reliable results.

It is a common evolutionist misunderstanding that you don't believe we came from dirt. Let me educate you on your religion.

Man came from monkes.
Monkeys came from mammals.
Mammals came from reptiles.
Reptiles came from Fish.
Fish came from Goo.
Goo came from Amino acids in the Primordial Soup
The primordial soup came from mud.
Mud came from dirt.
Hence, Man came from dirt.

Understand? Evolution doesn't make sense, it's a stupid religion. That's why the 'atheist' bible should say, "In the beginning, nothing became everything, and dirt created life."

Evolutionists are always flying to the "Billions" of years argument.

If I go into my garage and clean EVERYTHING out of it, close the door, and lock it, how long do I have to wait for my GT40 to evolve? 1 year? 100 years? 5.5 Billion years? Nothing cannot become something.

What if I put a dissassembled GT40 in the garage, close the door and lock it, how long before it assembles itself into something that looks like a car?

Time doesn't evolve things. Energy destroys things. How much dynomite do I need to put in the garage before it will assemble my car for me?

Directed energy is the only way things become something. You go to hurricanes and tornados, they do appear to come from nothing until you realize the law of fluid dynamics. That law creates hurricanes, high pressure flows to low pressure. Hurricanes obey the law, evolution does not.

As I read down your post, I would like to make it expressly clear that the number of intermediary fossils you believe you have is so severely lacking as to possibly prove that 1 thing in history evolved, not millions of species. You are facing your whole eternity and world-view on 0.000000001% of the evidence, and it's not even universally accepted evidence.

Why wouldn't God put whales in the ocean? To show that He is not bound by any blueprint. God created animals in front of Adam so that Adam wouldn't wonder, "I wonder if God really did create this place, or if He is just taking credit for it." Adam didn't have the opportunity of looking through a telescope and seeing how perfectly the Earth is designed with a 23* tilt to ensure the majority of the Earth is livable(without that tilt, the equator would be too hot and the poles would extend down. All life would exist in a tiny strip of land around the tropics), if the Earth didn't have a moon to shake up the Oceans, the coasts would be disgusting sewers, if the Earth were 2% closer or 4% farther from the sun, all life would cease to exist. The design required to keep life living is incredible beyond incredible; for that to happen for a nano-second would impress me, but to remain this way for 4.6 Billion Years takes a little more imagination than I can muster.

Evolution is true for you because you want it to be. You've looked at hundreds of subjective and made-up ideas and accepted them as fact in the overwhelming face of evidence.

I hope at least you've realized that evolutionists aren't quite so smart as you originally hoped.

Canyon: ---The fact is that particles evolving into anything defies logic; nothing in this world gets better without intervention.---

Never saw a hurricane form? A tornado? A cloud? A thunderstorm? These all formed out of nothing.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "gets better without intervention". Do you think a sheep dog bred for herding is "better" than a wild dog? Take away the farmer and sheep and leave that sheep dog to the wild and it would be dead in a month. Nature has no direction, no purpose. An animal evolves based on natural mechanisms, just as a rock will roll down a hill and not up, a thunderstorm forms from nothing and can give "birth" to a tornado, etc. No need for any intelligent intervention to make these happen. No need for any intelligent intervention to cause one species to evolve into other(s).

---Minor variation does occur, but never to a point of changing species. If minor variation caused evolution, it would be recorded in the fossil record...but it's not.---

But it is. I assume you've heard of the fossil of Archaeopteryx, a reptile with feathers and wings? Guess they never make it to the arc, eh? Other examples exist, but what is most important to understand is that these intermediary fossils were not just found and placed into what looked like a reasonable fit, they were predicted, based on morphological and genetic studies. They had to exist if reptiles or dinosaurs evolved into birds. Many of these predictions have proven correct. Evolution is a theory BECAUSE it can make predictions and many have born fruit. Consistent fruit.

I was watching the Discovery Channel one night and they had a fictional documentary about dragons and how they li