All Comments (49)

On your first point:

Of course most cults contradict the bible. Are you saying that every viewpoint should try to coincide with the Bible? And if so, what part of the Bible? Do you mean the animal sacrifice (Deuteronomy 16:2), the genocide (Exodus 23:23; 2 Kings 19:35), the infanticide (Exodus 12:29), or the murder and rape of civilians (Numbers 31:17-18)? Or do you mean the more humanitarian aspect of the New Testament? When you say cults contradict the Bible, you must realize that is impossible not to. If you follow the character of Jesus, you ignore the nastier side of God and turn away from this area of holy divinity. If you imitate the God of the Old Testament, you go against everything Jesus advocated.

On your second point:

Historically the Church has the done the same thing, asking for complete control over the lives of the people. At one time, the church and the state were one, and the church even limited people's understanding of God and the Bible by forbidding its translation from Latin into the common tongue. William Tyndale was burned for his efforts to do this. Apparently, the Church exhibits the same kind of control complex that you claim cult leaders have.

On your third point:

Your claims about different religions reveals your unfortunate ignorance. The Koran speaks of man's sinful condition and gives promise of the afterlife, and redemption themes are seen throughout several religions, such as Solarism. The Bible is in no way special in this area. Even the Bible's idea of hell (fiery and hot) is derived from Babylonian mythology, which the Jews incorporated into their beliefs during the Babylonian Exile. As for your ideas about no other God sacrificing himself for us, you have obviously not read of Prometheus, the Greek Titan. He gave us fire, thereby giving us a level above the animals we lived with. With fire we could cook, see better, and be warmer. Doubtless the infant mortality rate dropped, and human life span dramatically increased. Yet when Zeus, King of the Gods, found out about Prometheus' actions, he chained him to a rock to suffer torture for eternity. This seems to be a much greater sacrifice than that of Jesus, who was dead for three days. Personally, I would rather be dead for three days than have my liver ripped out every day for eternity. As such, I respect the sacrifice of Prometheus much more than I respect that of Jesus. On to your claims about Christianity's validity being proved through martyrdom. Only thirteen people saw Jesus again after his death; the twelve apostles and Mary. So the other martyrs could not have been dying on personal evidence of the resurrection. Belief is not dependent on certain knowledge; as most martyrs have never seen Jesus even before his death. You even implied that the large number of Christian martyrs showcased God's truth in a way no other God could, despite the fact that every religion has its martyrs. The most globally prominent today are Muslim suicide bombers, who are certainly martyrs for their faith. By your logic, this validates the Koran and the existence of Allah.

diplacusis speculum oarium unpaid unparticipating dividuity contraindicate saravan
Expatriate Forums in Indonesia
http://cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/21/ret.afghan.attacks/index.html

I am totally amazed at most of these statements. It blows my mind that I used to think like this. I believe. Faith requires imagination. Without imagination we can't have faith. Faith is a gift.
Thank God. I am so glad that I have imagination and therefore I have faith. There is universal truth. Any argument against it is a search for justification. In the beginning there was perfection: God, Son, and Holy spirit. Then man was created. Thank God.

landwire saiga gangrenous leptomeninx quotidianness periorbita botch interglacial
Dipole Bipole Surround Speakers Paradigm
http://www.angelfire.com/urtscqpr/1c6i.html

landwire saiga gangrenous leptomeninx quotidianness periorbita botch interglacial
Mahjongg Ipaq Games
http://www.angelfire.com/npayceml/i6n.html

Great site!3ae1db5695bf3a8381ac6ca553d52353

landwire saiga gangrenous leptomeninx quotidianness periorbita botch interglacial
68362
http://www.angelfire.com/udhxyv/3.html

Too many people in here against the only creator - GOD - and his Son, Jesus Christ. The least people can do is recognize the difference between the truth and lies. Evidently, every commenter is idiotic. It's true that people of this world are truly confused and only a few will actually live. So sad you all are so misguided. I know that there is a God, and if any of you believed, your eyes would open.

landwire saiga gangrenous leptomeninx quotidianness periorbita botch interglacial
94577
http://www.angelfire.com/deojja/3.html

As a Pagan I take special meaning of the Descent of the Goddess...if you do not know of this please take the time to look up the myth...you may have a long time finding all of the versions though. Ishtar I believe is the oldest, then there is Isis and her descent to find Osiris, then there is Innana,and the Japanese myth of Ninigi, and the Demeter/Kore myth...However, in the majority of the extant legends and myths, such as the descent of Arthur to Annwn to capture the Cauldron of the Goddess, and Baldur' sritual death and descent into the realm of Hel, it is a male mortal or god who is involved in the descent and is "reborn".

It is the Goddess, in her 'dark aspect, who rules over the realm of the dead, controls the power of fate and grants the hero/god the supreme initiation of transformation and rebirth.

In the different Pagan myths of the Descent it is usually to retreive a loved one from death, to discover why there is illness and death, or a journey through the gates of knowlede for enlightenment. Many times it is a meeting of the two selves becoming whole.

We have our nature God that sacrifices himself every year for the betterment of His children, and his rebirth (at Yule). From Odin hanging on a tree and sacrificing his eye for knowledge to Kore becoming Persephone...going from unknowing maiden through enlightenment and pain to womanhood. The story of self sacrificing Gods and Goddesses is not new with Jesus...But as ancient as humanity.

The problem I see is that Christians tend to see things as literal. The Descent, whether of Jesus or Kore is metaphysical. Pagans have kept the understanding of the allegory.

The ancients understood allegory, Jesus talked in parables...those he was talking to and teaching would have understood the underlying meanings. Christians have lost that, and with it they have lost the beauty and inner truths.So what you have left is the absolutes that put them in corners.

terra

Hey, Cal... does your definition of "cult" include the Unification Church, which is buddy-buddy with the evangelical Christians in the U.S.? Just askin'...

Tim, Seems to me that your quote is a little convenient. According to your passage, we should just all believe, not ever question and certainly not ever think. Why would GOD form human beings and give them a great brain and then tell them just to follow some contradictory passages in a book - also interpreted by a Pastor or a Priest and not use the brain he gave them. Kind of an "It's OK, I'll take care of everything; look at the birdie, kind of thing......" Patting us on the head and telling us to go read our BOOK; but don't interpret it for yourself. Since when did being wise or learned or intelligent get equated with being of the devil? I do remember the Bible saying something about a camel through the eye of a needle before a rich man enters heaven - but it has become the rage that GOD wants you to be rich.... Just a question, because I never outgrew that stage.

Tim, Seems to me that your quote is a little convenient. According to your passage, we should just all believe, not ever question and certainly not ever think. Why would GOD form human beings and give them a great brain and then tell them just to follow some contradictory passages in a book - also interpreted by a Pastor or a Priest and not use the brain he gave them. Kind of an "It's OK, I'll take care of everything; look at the birdie, kind of thing......" Patting us on the head and telling us to go read our BOOK; but don't interpret it for yourself. Since when did being wise or learned or intelligent get equated with being of the devil? I do remember the Bible saying something about a camel through the eye of a needle before a rich man enters heaven - but it has become the rage that GOD wants you to be rich.... Just a question, because I never outgrew that stage.

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;

therefore, as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord."

Nixon was hated but Nixon could not hate; for hate was not in him, it was not of his being. Nixon is Love. You believe love is all, you believe love makes the world go around, makes the flowers bloom; love is in the air and is the very air you breathe in. Yet, Michael Savage gets on the airwaves and on to the bookshelves, so tell me this: How do you take the wurst, turn it into a brat, then grow it into a Giant Savage Wiener?

HJ:

**I guess my position as America's greatest literary critic is under no threat from Mr Thomas.**

Perish the thought, my dear. Cal's intellect is a birthday candle compared to the blazing supernova of yours.

Cal says that the Bible has a Unity that only a supreme being could effectuate.

Cal calls that mishmash "unity."

I guess my position as America's greatest literary critic is under no threat from Mr Thomas.

*chuckling a bit at Mr. Thomas' definition.*

Does sound just like Jesus and early Christianity, doesn't it? :)

"It is a book written by different authors over thousands of years but it has a unity that only God could have brought about, because He is the true Author, using human instruments."

At least two things are apparent here -- one, Cal Thomas has likely never read the Biblical texts in their original languages. Two, for a writer, Cal Thomas surprisingly ignores the most obvious fact about the Bible's "unity" -- to create the impression of unity, you don't need God, just an editor.

Johnny:

Don't hold your breath waiting for anything even remotely resembling objective proof from Cal Thomas unless you look absolutely smashing in purple.

"It is a book written by different authors over thousands of years but it has a unity that only God could have brought about, because He is the true Author, using human instruments."

Sez you.

Burden of proof is on the claimant -- always.

Prove it. We'll wait.

Yeah, he is a little surreal, no?

I am a Big Fan of Cal Thomas

because no one is able to illustrate the absurdity of such myths as Christ's Multiply-witnessed resurrection as well as Mr Thomas.

How can any reader who has a quarter of a brain in her head believe the same stuff that Cal makes so patently ludicrous by his laughable reiterations of the clearest nonsense.

Love you Cal. Keep comin' back.

Ryan Haber:

"If monotheism were so lucrative, why would the Emperors so vigorously oppose it for centuries."

Did they oppose it or is that a part of the scam? Were those fed to the lions Christians or Jews? Are Jews and Christians the same thing? There was a bounty on Jews beginning, 70CE and it's still on in the Mid east.

Where did the Bible come from, the original stories? Where did Josephus get the information to do his writings? There's no references.

http://www.hoax-buster.org has the origin of much of the Bible, the key parts Moses and Jesus stories. The "Garden of Eden" nonsense was copied from Babolyn or thereabouts, identical story including the snake that was God. But the snake that tempted another Eve was the golden cobra, the symbol of God, Pharaoh.

Both Moses and Jesus stories originated in Egypt. The Bible is the product of illiteracy, inability to read hieroglyphics.

It's easy to prove that wrong, the key Bible stories originated in Egypt. Let's see some original writings. You ain't got no stinkin' originals? Why? Constantine had them burned. And he dispatched a Legion to Egypt to destroy Akhetaten, said they were worshiping the wrong God. Akhetaten was a ghost town and had been for 1,600 years at the time. I thought ghosts were gods. Wikki, is that not so?

Constantine burned the originals because he was born again, saw the light, felt Jesus, was a complete freak or he simply wanted power, money? That would be unlike evangelical ministers that only serve God, live in poverty and sacrifice their lives. BS!!!

Bgone:

"Those selected contradict each other numerous places even after heavy editing and the originals destroyed."

Do you think that because they came before you, the Fathers of the Biblical Canon were dumber than you? Do you think that those men who literally had entire books of the bible committed to memory, whose every writings are littered with scriptural references and quotes, didn't realize that many of the books apparently contradict each other?

"Compare the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Bible. Where are the Gospels?"

The Dead Sea (Qum'ran) Scrolls were collected and stored by a Jewish sect - one wouldn't expect them to be very interested in preserving the gospels, would one?

"The difference in monotheism and polytheism is the ability to tithe at a single location. The Romans tried with the Pantheon but failed."

If monotheism were so lucrative, why would the Emperors so vigorously oppose it for centuries. Were they idiots as well as the men who selected the biblical texts? For that matter, why would the Emperors have to wait around for Christianity to pop up, or even Judaism, to institute compulsory monotheism. Mightn't they just have prevented the worship of all the gods but their favorite before Roman contact with middle eastern religions?

"Constantine converted to Christianity. Give me the power to hire, fire and set the salaries of the ministry - priests, bishops, popes et al and all the profit after costs and I'll convert too."

I thought you said that he was the real founder of Christianity. You're starting to lose me here. Or maybe you're just lost yourself. Do you have any historical evidence for any of what you've written, or do you just like Dan Brown a lot. You know, that was a work of fiction. He said so himself.

I wish Christians understood thier own religion better. Do the research. Learn the history. Use some common sense. There is something worthwhile deep down under all the B.S. The Gnostics had it right, before it was stolen from them.

Ryan Haber:

No, they didn't. They preserved as much as possible in monastery libraries and cellars, along with the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas and a ton of other writings.

Get your head out of your. Those Gospels were supposed to be destroyed. What we now have were found. They were hidden by criminals who didn't do what the authorities said, destroy them. Constantine, the real founder of Christianity ordered all conflicting documents destroyed. Those selected contradict each other numerous places even after heavy editing and the originals destroyed. Compare the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Bible. Where are the Gospels?

The difference in monotheism and polytheism is the ability to tithe at a single location. The Romans tried with the Pantheon but failed. The problem is that Pagans can create their own churches at home and did what Protestants do, created polychurch, difficult, impossible even to centrally control and tax. Christianity solved the problem.

The whole religion thing is a scam. Are you a scamer or a scamee? Are you a minister or a sucker "rendering to God?" Constantine enjoyed the double dip, "render to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is God's" MONEY. TAXES and TITHES both floated off to money heaven where the son of God, Caesar, Constantine was there collecting both.

Constantine converted to Christianity. Give me the power to hire, fire and set the salaries of the ministry - priests, bishops, popes et al and all the profit after costs and I'll convert too.

Mr. Mark,

"True, because the Xians systematically DESTROYED every non-Xian writing they could get their dirty little hands on, sparing only the works of Plato and a few other philosophers that they believed were good for instruction. Still, there are a few things extant, including myriad historical writings of the Egyptians."

No, they didn't. They preserved as much as possible in monastery libraries and cellars, along with the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas and a ton of other writings.

The ravages of time and barbarian hordes did plenty to destroy paper (how long does our cheap wood-pulp last?) without the help of too many Christians.

"I've recounted that lack of historical evidence for the NT on this blog too many times, and I don't intend to rehash it yet again."

If there is a LACK of historical evidence for the NT (other than, of course, the NT - which is used as historical evidence for any number of non-religious questions) then it should be fairly easy to recount. If you mean, "I've recounted how the NT is not historical evidence too many times..." well, yes, it is a fairly lengthy and convoluted argument to disqualify the best preserved writings from antiquity.

"Sorry, but I just don't have the time and energy right now."

That I can relate too.

"Maybe because if the sun had come down on the eyewitnesses as they said"

I don't recall - I've read the Fatima newspaper articles, but I am hazy - people saying that the sun actually CAME down. I recall all sorts of talk about the sun seeming to grow and change colors and dance around, etc. Because so many people saw "it" (whatever it is) one can safely conclude an objective event happened, that was not purely hallucinatory (THAT would be hard to explain). I know for sure that the Church, for one, while standing behind the story of Fatima, does not claim that the sun actually came down.

"The mind is a powerful thing. The chances that your "experiences" are a fabrication of your mind is a much more credible explanation than believing in some supernatural being."

Mightn't your mind be fabricating your experience of not experiencing Jesus? We cannot really rule out that possibility either, can we? But it seems to me that if a mind is meant to interact with the world by processing perceptions reliably and then responding to them productively, a mind that fabricates experiences with no connection to objective reality would not be a powerful mind, but a very weak one. Psychotic, really.

Of course my experiences with our Lord have (for the most part) occured in my mind. Most of them to an outsider might not even be noteworthy as experiences in the first place. For that matter, I don't think anyone outside of me has even noted them. None of that means that they aren't real; none of that means they were caused by me (or my mind).

"Perhaps you might consider that explanation?"

I do, daily. By nature I am fairly skeptical. I just try to exercise common sense.

"...but I think I understand you."

Not likely. I don't pretend to understand atheists either, so I'm not being snobby - we're just talking about two entirely different worldviews. It would be like a fish understanding dry land, for one of us to understand the other - especially as long we deal in abstracts. People don't come to religious belief, nor do they lose it, for abstract reasons - but because of concrete experiences, of which some they themselves might not even be aware. The arguments are true or false, don't get me wrong - but worldviews don't change because of facts, worldviews interpret facts. We change worldviews when we experience facts that our worldviews cannot interpret. When we change worldviews, our new worldview might very well leave unexplained some previously experienced fact - but the explanation-gap, if you will, is felt as smaller in the new worldview than it was felt in the old worldview when the shift was occuring. That's why we shift views. That is to say, an atheist becomes a Christian (or a Muslim or whatever) when he finds that worldview to explain the world, overall, better than atheism had, in light of his experienced facts. The reverse is also true. The past sinks into the background of our memory, becoming more firmly entrenched but less keenly felt. The facts that led to Christian faith are explained now in the new atheist framework (or vice-versa) and the experienced fact(s) that led to the shift (conversion) are more recent, and thus loom larger.

"Thanks again."

You're welcome. Thank you. I always appreciate a civil exchange on these boards - they're hard to come by!

Dear Ryan Haber -

Thanks for your comments. You wrote:

"(1) No Greek or Roman or Egyptian ever wrote a thing (that is still extant, at least) attempting to date, or even asserting the historicity of their story."

True, because the Xians systematically DESTROYED every non-Xian writing they could get their dirty little hands on, sparing only the works of Plato and a few other philosophers that they believed were good for instruction. Still, there are a few things extant, including myriad historical writings of the Egyptians.

I've recounted that lack of historical evidence for the NT on this blog too many times, and I don't intend to rehash it yet again. Sorry, but I just don't have the time and energy right now.

Why shouldn't Cal believe the 70,000 witnesses? Maybe because if the sun had come down on the eyewitnesses as they said, the Earth would have been vaporized. I don't know. You tell me.

As far as your "experience" with Jesus that you "cannot explain in any other way" - I had the same experiences when I was a believer. The explanation? The mind is a powerful thing. The chances that your "experiences" are a fabrication of your mind is a much more credible explanation than believing in some supernatural being. Perhaps you might consider that explanation?

And, no, I don't believe you, but I think I understand you.

Thanks again.

Mr Mark,

"Absolute hogwash. Mythology is teeming with resurrected gods."

True, mythology is teaming with resurrections. If men in all times and all places have yearned for, remembered, or speculated about resurrections, in what way does that imply resurrection is hogwash?

"In fact, death and resurrection are almost required traits for the Hellenic and Roman gods."

Broad exaggeration at best. I took my undergraduate degree in Classical History - I can think of a couple (one or two in Greek, depending how you count, with parallels in Roman; one in Egyptian). If you can name more than that, you have shown greater knowledge than I have in Greco-Roman culture. Otherwise, let's be a bit more precise.

"Jesus' story is just another cheap knock-off of a well-trodden theme. Look up Mithras, for starters."

There are some pretty critical differences in what everyone understood was going on between Greco-Roman/Egyptian resurrection myths and the Christian resurrection accounts.

(1) No Greek or Roman or Egyptian ever wrote a thing (that is still extant, at least) attempting to date, or even asserting the historicity of their story. The Christian claim from the earliest dates was precisely in the historicity and facticity of their account.

(2) The Greco-Roman and Egyptian (in fact, the entire polytheistic) view of gods is that they are plural, and are contained within a universe that also contains us. They are subsequent to and within the universe, and thus are relative to it in some way(s), just as we are. Resurrection, requiring death, is not such a freakish thing to hope for in such a god. Being relative, they are passible (they can change and even lose existence). Being passible, they can die, and in fact, in the Greco-Roman and Egyptian myth systems, there ARE plenty of stories of gods suffering and dying. Zeus eats his father, Chronos, for instance, then definitively ceases to exist.
The Christian conception of God, stemming from the later, more developed Jewish conception of God, is that he is not relative to anything, but that everything is relative to him. He is THE absolute. He is the great "I AM" whose existence is simplicter and without qualification, unchanging and impassible. For such a being to die is unimaginable. That's what blew the Jews away. That's why the Greeks, who four centuries before the beginning of the Christian period had neatly divided philosophy and truth from religion and old wives' tales, were appalled. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and their crew knew that if there was such a thing as an Absolute Being, and they could not explain the existence of anything else otherwise, that such a being must be impassible. For such a being to suffer and die at the hands of his creatures would be like a carpenter being cut up and hammered by his blocks of wood. Unthinkable!

(3) Again, all that is no big deal. The Romans stories were all very nice, because not even the Romans really took them very seriously. They provided nice occasions for festivals and helped hold the state together. The problem with the Christians, emperor after emperor discovered, was that they took their "story" very, very seriously - and changed their lives accordingly, and no longer fit in with Roman society very well. Other Romans had slaves to make them dinner. Christians had dinner with their slaves. Romans showed loyalty to the emperor with cute little acts of worship - trivialities really, unless for some bizarre reason one refused. The Jews were tolerated in their refusal because of their antiquity (of which Romans had a great admiration) until their rebellion in AD 67. But these Christians, upstarts and nobodies, their refusal made a difference. Plus, the Jews weren't really very outgoing, and these Christians - their numbers grew and grew, and without any power to force anything on anybody.
Scripture records the sentiment felt by many around them: "These men have turned the world upside down," (Acts 17:6) their accusers shouted while dragging Jason and some other Christians out of town.

"There were no witnesses, let alone hundreds. The Bible stories are stories, NOT history."

Problem here, Mr. Mark, is that you don't recognize that history is a compilation of stories - only they are stories that are more or less correspondent to factual events. That is precisely the Christian claim, that the gospel stories (in particular) are more or less correspondent to factual events. Have you anything beside raw assertions with which to counter their claim?

"And eyewitnesses are singularly unreliable."

Why is that? What other sort of witness is there? If three motorists view an accident and give slightly or even dramatically different accounts, at the very least we know there was an auto accident, don't we? More than we'ld know without eyewitnesses.

"Does Cal believe the 70,000 "eyewitnesses" who saw the sun dance in the sky and fall to earth at Fatima, Portugal, on Oct. 13, 1917?"

Why shouldn't he? Because such an event is bizarre and unusual? What other sort of event requires eyewitness proof? Nobody demands eyewitness (or any other sort of) evidence that the sun came up three days ago at quarter to seven. Seventy thousand people is a pretty large number - hard to fake that, or to bribe them all, or to get them all to more-or-less agree without it coming out sounded staged. If seventy thousand people told me that Princess Diana wasn't really killed, but was living in a secret hideaway, and that they had seen her - well, I'ld want to believe that they were more-or-less credible, in inverse proportion to the incredibility of their story. That established though, why shouldn't I believe them?

Why would seventy thousand people lie about an otherwise stupid thing like "the sun danced"? And why would nobody present - nonbelievers and uninterest people alike - deny the story?

How many people have told you, on eyewitness testimony, that despite all appearances to the naked eye, the earth actually goes around the sun? And yet, with MAYBE 1 or 2 of your sources being able to do the math or having looked through the telescopes, you believe them. I'm not saying that you're wrong to do so (someone will quote me as having said so, watch!). I am only saying that it is not wrong or stupid to believe SEVENTY THOUSAND witnesses who HAVE seen something I have not.

"As far as Cal asserting that no early Xians recanted their faith in the face of torture and death, that is an outright lie."

It is true that there was a great deal of apostasy, especially in the later persecutions. The imperial persecutions at the beginning of the 200s, the middle of the same century, and from 298-303/313 (depending who was in charge where) were very vicious. By that time Christianity had become trendy enough that a lot of people were joining on shallower accounts than, say, St. Paul had. Easy come, easy go.

"That's just sad and pathetic. To die for a lie, and a mythical lie at that."

It's possible, I suppose, that Jesus Christ is a lie. Or that Jesus of Nazareth was real, but not really God, and certainly is not alive. Those are, logically speaking, strict possibilities. But they don't match with my experience, experience I cannot explain any other way. You needn't believe me, and I'm not even trying to convince you especially.

"So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard," (Acts 4:18). I second what Peter and John said, I cannot but speak of what I have seen and heard.

TO CAL THOMAS: Jesus did issue an invitation and it was, "Come follow Me", what do you think that might entail? Think about it. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Here's an opportunity for you Cal.

There's a lot of easy money being made on "end of world" books. The most significant "end of world" scenario ever conceived is demanding to be written.

When the big fight between good and evil takes place which side is the Jesus gang really on, God's side or Devil's side? Let's examine the facts:

Lucifer wanted to take over heaven. Even declared Himself to be God.

Lucifer got thrown into hell. God created just for him and his fallen angels.

Lucifer fathered Jesus. Presented at the hoax buster site and unchallenged.

Jesus was recognized as the son of Devil by the Jews and crucified.

Cults sprang up as a result.

The promise was made by Jesus as He hung on the cross to the good thief, "this day you will be with me in paradise" (His father's kingdom, hell).

Upon His death Jesus "descended into hell" and stayed there while He was dead. He came back to life of course.

Many, lots of Christian mind-controlling cults believe Jesus was the son of God and the Christ, (unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior you're going to hell).

Reality - those who accept Jesus, join Jesus cults are going to hell.

With thousands of Christian cults getting tax money leading the multitudes to hell, hell fills up and Lucifer can raise an army with all those followers of Jesus.

In the end of the world scenario of the Bible good and evil will have it out. Lucifer should win this time with all the souls harvested by Christian ministers in His army to fight God. Lucifer almost won the last time.

Revelation really says that Lucifer with Jesus at His right hand will overcome "their enemy" God and take over heaven on the last day. The threat is that when Lucifer becomes God those who do not accept Jesus will be damned.

There's but one logical conclusion, Jesus is the great Antichrist.

"There you go again" Cal. Does the word cult require interpretation? $500/hr government lawyers hired by Kenneth Star argued over the ture meaning of the word, "is." Get it straight. It's not that difficult of a word.

Cult = Devil, always. There is no such thing as a God cult. Of course, (see Pagans) Devils are Gods too.

Jesus was/is the son of God. That's a given. Is Christianity just another cult? Was the God that fathered Jesus really a Devil?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says Moses sold his soul to Devil, that the supernatural being, (both Gods and Devils are supernatural beings) in the ball of fire was the most notorious of Devils, one that would be God, the Lord of hell himself, Lucifer. No one has yet to present a counter argument, one that makes sense or otherwise so that finding stands unchallenged.

The "Apostles Creed" which is the official beliefs of all Christians says that Jesus "descended into hell" upon His death on the cross. Just prior to His death on the cross Jesus turned to the good thief and said, "this day you will be with me in paradise." There's only one possibility, hell and paradise are the same place in the mind of Jesus and the kingdom of the father of Jesus. Lucifer fathered Jesus according to sacred scriptures.

One man's God is another's Devil. Adolph Hitler satisfies that truism. To Germans Hitler was a savior while to most of the world he was a Devil. So don't be surprised that the one you call God is proved to be Devil or that Devil promises paradise and delivers hell. Like the words cult and is, the word paradise needs some refinement.

A cult is a cult. Seen one, seen them all. Baptists are just anther cult earmarked by mind controlling, the minds of the mislead, the ignorant, the mentally deficient.

The one you rail against is yourself.

Also, it might be beneficial for you to take an introductory research methods class at an American University. A real university I mean, not Regents or Bob Jones or Hillsdale or Liberty.

Wow. Wow.
This guy is a syndicated columnist.
Who is not capable of writing a logical, reasonable essay.
Mr. Thomas, no offense or harm intended, but, please just move to the Middle East or Africa, because you are not American in nature. You are sectarian, small-minded, and dangerous to the freedom of Americans who dont believe exactly what you believe about the origins of the earth and morality.

With all due humanity,

Random guy that goes to Florida State University

SAJWERT writes:
"I've not yet read anything about the Moonies as a cult, which I believe is the poster child for the word 'cult.' "

Hmm. That wouldn't be because the Rev Moon is a HUGE supporter of Republican interests, interests that Cal Thomas also supports, would it? Who owns the RW Washington Times newspaper where Cal has a column running...er...TODAY on Cheating College Students? That would be the Rev Moon who says that he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. How about that, Cal? You're writing for the reincarnation of your beloved Jesus! That's the same Rev Moon who gives millions of dollars to Republican candidates, in fact, 97% of Moon's contributions go to Rs.

So, Cal - are the Moonies cultists, or religionists?

According to Cal, anything other than his particular brand of Christianity is a cult in the most pejorative connotation of the word.

Denotatively, a cult is simply a group of people whose beliefs or interests fall outside the mainstream.

All of the religious organizations I belong to are cults in the denotative sense of the word - outside the mainstream. I am Pagan, I belong to a Mahikari dojo, and I belong to a Unitarian church. All of these are outside the mainstream to varying degrees.

None of these are cults in the negatively connotative sense in which the word is used in the theme question and by many of the panelists. None of them demand that I surrender my possessions or income to them. None of them require that I cease contact with non-members. None require me to recruit others to join. None of them require me to profess a specific set of beliefs. I can quit any of them any time I wish with no repercussions or consequences.

I almost got physically ill reading this article.

A lot of money has been made in so called "God's Name." Cal is just on the bandwagon selling the same snake oil remedies. It is a shame educated people still think this way.

I am like Cal, I guess. Only I believe in one less god.

Sincerely

I almost got physically ill reading this article.

A lot of money has been made in so called "God's Name." Cal is just on the bandwagon selling the same snake oil remedies. It is a shame educated people still think this way.

I am like Cal, only I believe in one less god.

Sincerely

Cal writes:
"Third, only Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead, which no cult leader has done, or could do."

Absolute hogwash. Mythology is teeming with resurrected gods. In fact, death and resurrection are almost required traits for the Hellenic and Roman gods. Jesus' story is just another cheap knock-off of a well-trodden theme. Look up Mithras, for starters.

"The evidence for that is the hundreds of witnesses, none of whom recanted what they saw, even in the face of prison, torture and death. Human nature tells you at least one would have denied the resurrection if it didn't occur."

There were no witnesses, let alone hundreds. The Bible stories are stories, NOT history. And eyewitnesses are singularly unreliable. Does Cal believe the 70,000 "eyewitnesses" who saw the sun dance in the sky and fall to earth at Fatima, Portugal, on Oct. 13, 1917? ("In the eyes of the 70,000 a ball of fire thought to be the sun broke through the clouds, assumed a silvery disc appearance, began to spin first in one direction then in another, began to zig-zag out of its position in the sky and plunge toward the terrified thousands. The people thought it was the end of the world, they knelt in the mud, begged for mercy, recited their Rosaries. After perhaps ten minutes the fireball receded back to the position of the sun and the people began to regain composure. Then they noted that they were completely dry although they had been exposed to a night of rain, had knelt in puddles, been soaked through to the skin. The experience was neither mass hysteria nor optical illusion. Eyewitness accounts of the miracle can be read in the archives of the newspapers. Within a radius of thirty-two miles around the Cova neighboring people had seen and been terrified by the same experience, people who had neither the faith nor the curiosity to go to the Cova.").

A modern miracle, Cal. Do you believe the witnesses?

As far as Cal asserting that no early Xians recanted their faith in the face of torture and death, that is an outright lie. As Pliny the Younger recounted in 112CE: "Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ."

Cal writes:
"And still many give their lives today for Him..."

That's just sad and pathetic. To die for a lie, and a mythical lie at that.

Third, only Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead, which no cult leader has done, or could do. The evidence for that is the hundreds of witnesses, none of whom recanted what they saw, even in the face of prison, torture and death. Human nature tells you at least one would have denied the resurrection if it didn't occur. And still many give their lives today for Him because only He gives back life as it was originally intended.

This is absurd! The first hand "witnesses" all had "visions", not actually sightings and the so-called witnesses were a handful at best!! It is ridiculus to burden an eternal, omni-potent, omni-present God with a useless human body to lug around! What would be the point?? The idea of bodily resurection is pure hogwash!!

A cult is a religion with no political power.

- Tom Wolfe

Fidel is a man that is indeed needing to serve God instead of himself.

Serving God is more important than serving man, but in serving man we are also serving God.

Love your neighbor as yourself, and love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength.

Serving man is part of our service in serving God.

I've not yet read anything about the Moonies as a cult, which I believe is the poster child for the word 'cult.'
I have been around a number of religious groups over time and find that basically, whether they are considered mainstream or cultish, they have some mutual aspects in their teachings and behaviors which under close inspection would frighten away any right-thinking person.

Peace and Love in a Godless World!!

That's a good description of what Christianity was 2000 years ago, Cal. Al those martyrs dying for Jesus, new books being added to the Hebrew scriptures, claims of absolute truth etc.

Susan Jacoby got it right; religion is a cult plus time.

Regards

A Hermit

Ignorance is rampant in here.

I love how you ignore the vast quantities of research that have taken place in the last century about the historicity of your holy book and instead stick to worn-out, silly, willfully ignorant arguments for convincing yourself of your book's divinity.

I will not take your imaginary friend away from you, if you don't try to take the Mormon's imaginary friend away from them.