All Comments (126)

Ghostbuster,

if u still see this board, u can email me on c_mat@hotmail.com and then we can chat.

talk to you later.
c_mat

Thats cool. Hey, how did you break your addiction to these boards? I need to stop too (even though I've only been here maybe a month) but everytime I try to get out, they keep pulling me back in!

I wish I could get your email address somehow or vice verse. I don't know how that is possible on here though.

later.

Yeah, events like that take place pretty often in India. I myself have participated on several occasions.

c_mat

I heard him speak in front of a small group of people a few weeks ago here in the US. He brought a video with him showing a few large outdoor services he spoke at in India. Those events really looked quite remarkable.

God Bless
GB

Hey Ghostbuster,

Glad you had a good time at Easter. I haven't heard of Bishop Komanapalli myself, but I noticed (via Google) that he has a pretty vibrant ministry in Hyderabad, a southern Indian state...

c_mat

C_Mat,

Whew! Thanks buddy! I was just getting ready to post something elsewhere and I came back here to check to see what I would have to call myself.

I had a great Easter. I hope you had a wonderful Easter too! Hey, have you ever heard of a man in India named Bishop Komanapalli?

Just curious.

Hey Ghostbuster,

There's no way I'm going to let you change your name to gasburster because of me!

Have a Happy Easter (Resurrection Day!) everyone. It has been great talking to all of you!

c_mat

Dear Anonymous -

I can't keep all of you anonymi straight.

You're not going to score points by calling thinkers like Dennett and Dawkins "pop-thinkers," any more than other posters can dismiss atheistic arguments as being "old and tired...same old stuff," and the other variations of such pejorative posturing. It's a bit disenegnuous to limit the attacks on pop thinkers to scientists when you have the likes of Joel Osteen and others preaching a pop-Xianity that is growing in popularity.

In the case of anybody making the "same old arguments," it doesn't matter the age of an argument if it is still valid. Bertrand Russell's tea pot comes to mind. On the other hand, Pascal's Wager has always had a glaring hole through the middle of it (ie: it only works if god accepts that a non-believer is allowed to lie his way into heaven), so it's just as invalid now as it was when first proposed.

You are correct in saying that religious faith predates science and philosophy. It also predates the world's great *organized* religions by tens of thousands of years. Where were the Biblical god and Jesus 30,000 years ago? Did man not have a soul at that point that needed tending, or did Yahweh use the other gods that the Bible mentions to do his work for him back then?

As far as not questioning the value of the sun: that last I looked the sun isn't a religious object, it's a ball of gases. The belief that the sun is a ball of gases is valid. The belief that the sun is a god (a belief held by many religions) is invalid. There's no value in believing the sun is a god; there is value in treating it for what it is. What's your point?

Re: using the word "fact": I use the word in the scientific sense, a sense that does NOT carry the weight of absolutism of religious "facts," which are based (strangely enough) on myths, legends and traditions, ie: facts that are only begrudgingly open to discussion, even more rarely open to question, and never, ever open to revision.

I always find it interesting that people who use science and the products of science every minute of their lives feel compelled to equate the strengths and truths of science with the subjective "truths" of religion. You may be interested in what Daniel Dennett says about this dichotomy on pg 370-72 (paperback vers) of his book, "Breaking the Spell":

"Thus was science born out of religion and civilization's other projects, a very recent cultural phenomenon but one that transformed the planet like nothing else in the last 65-million years...science, and the technology it spawns, has been explosively practical, an amplifier of human powers in almost every imaginable dimension, making us stronger, faster, able to see farther in both space and time, healthier, more secure, more knowledgeable about just about everything, including our own origins - but that dosn't mean it can answers all questions or serve all needs.

"Science doesn't have the monopoly on truth, and some of its critics have argued that it doesn't even live up to its advertisements as a reliable source of objective knowledge...(however) I have yet to meet a postmodern science critic who is afraid to fly in an airplane because he doesn't trust the calculations of the thousands of aeronautical engineers and physicists who have demonstarted and exploited the principles of flight...every church trusts arithmetic to keep track accurately of the receipts in the collection plate...

"Scientists are not infallible, nor are they, as a rule, more virtuous than laypeople, but they do submit to a remarkable discipline that keeps them honest in spite of themselves, imposing elaborate systems of self-restraint and review, and to a remarkable degree depersonalizing their individual contributions. So, although it is true that there have been eminent scientists who were racists, or sexists or drug addicts or just plain crazy, their contributions almost always stand or fall independently of these personal failings, thanks to the filters, checks, and balances that weed out unreliable work."

Not bad for a "pop thinker."

Mr. Mark responds to Enrique as follows:

"You are wrong in suggesting that all of our anti-theistic arguments boil down to games and physiology. Is well-documented history a physiologic thing? How about scientific experimentation and the predictability of employing the scientific method? A change in my brain's chemistry wouldn't change the facts on the ground. If you're implying that a sick brain would fail - deliberately or otherwise - to interpret obvious evidence correctly, then you've provided a neat condemnation of religious faith that even I wouldn't suggest."

Mr. Mark does not seem to recognize that if his premises were correct, so called ´natural laws´, that is, the laws of physics and chemistry, must also be made of protons, neutrons and electrons. If not, what are they made of? Of nothing?

As Enrique suggests, ´meaning' itself must be made of something if one were to accept the premises of modern science, which Mr. Mark seems to have accepted religiously.

Protons, neutrons and electrons however can be manipulated. Thus, what I understand is an implication of what Enrique is saying is that if Mr. Mark's premise were correct, these so called laws could also be manipulated, as can everything else. Yet if that is the case, then there would be no objective truth, as Enrique has argued. That would mean that Mr. Mark's own arguments are not objectively true, if one were to accept his premsies.

Mr. Mark uses the term 'fact' as if it referred to some sort of inmutable entity. Howeever, in the world described by physics and chemistry, to which Mr. Mark pledges absolute allegiance, there are no such immutable entities. The notion of ´Inmutable' 'facts', if one were to believe that quantum physics has adequately explain existence (which I do not), is a fantasy.

It seems to me that Mr. Mark has read some pop-thinkers such as Dennett or Dawkins, and traded his faith, and the sacred mystery of Christ's redemptive love, in for them. Hopefully he will recognize his mistake, yet possibly he won't. The flawed arguments Dennett and Dawkins make were made far more eloquently decades ago, and debunked.

I suggest to Mr. Mark that he get himself a copy of an out of print title A.N. Whitehead's "The Function of Reason". It is not easy reading but he should be able to follow the gist of his arguments.

Whitehead was a british-american philosopher who taught at Harvard. His proposals (after said book) explain aspects of physics that Einstein or quantum mechanics don't do adequately. He is now being studied very seriously by physicists to help unravel the contradictions that end up finding their way to fundamentalist materialist arguments such are being promoted here as in the world today.

The sun is the oldest entity in this solar system and yet illumines us every day. No one questions its value because it is not modern.

Religious faith was there before philosophy and science.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it...

"He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

"John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

From John 1.

Mr. Mark
I really appreciate your reply, and did not feel personally attacked because we differ in our beliefs, that's refreshing to me because I half expected it. I do understand what you are saying, that your reality of salvation was every bit as valid as the reality of my salvation because in your mind we have both been decieved. (correct me if i understood that wrong). I guess that I understand your point, but I can't relate.

You want me to keep an open mind, and trust me this topic has definitely forced me into some deep thinking, I have actually studied different religions and some of their similarities to my faith as well as their vast differences, and you're right, I've found them lacking validity. I guess that's what I have in common w/ a Muslim or an Budhist or an atheist or someone else of another religion - we all think that our beliefs are the Truth. In other words, I truly do try to keep an open mind in terms that I know that when it comes to faith/religion/beliefs, there are others who feel every bit as strongly as I do but don't share my same view. Like I said before, I'm not ignorant or naive enough to believe that my words alone are going to change yours or anyone else's mind anymore than you are going to change mine.

So I try to keep an open mind, but in all honesty, it's my heart that rules. I am not a super intelligent woman, I am not interested in deeply studying different religions looking for truth, looking for "proof". I believe in God, not because my parents brainwashed me into it, I believe in God because of what He has done in my life, what he's done in my heart. That's real to me. I don't know how to answer someone who asks me how old our planet is, whether it be billions of years old or thousands, I don't know how to get involved in a discussion pertaining to evolution, but I do know without a doubt that God exists because I see it every morning when I see the sun rise over our mountains, or I watch how the seasons change today just like they did last year, how everything in our universe works together, I know when I see how He has taken my heart and changed it. I can't help but believe.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

Jmac wrote:

"Mr. Mark I just have to question the validity of your salvation, of the fact that you were ever "born again"...I am simply one human being who loves the Lord w/ all her heart, questioning another human being who claims to have known Him at one time, only to turn away from him at the age of 40. I truly don't get it, how you could know God, on a personal and true level, and then not only turn your back on Him, but deny His very existence?"

Hi, JMac.

Thanks for the question. It's an important question for many believers. It certainly was for me when I was believer, especially when one had the stick of the so-called "sin against the Holy Spirit" hanging over their heads, ie: the belief that the one unforgivable sin is to have known Jesus and accepted his promise of salvation and then to later reject him.

The short answer to your question is that the facts on the ground that I have described in other posts led me to the conclusion that my faith in Jesus and my belief that I had a personal relationship with him was, in fact, a delusional construct of my all-too-human mind. That delusion was fostered in me almost at birth, for my parents were Xians. My parents provided me with a similar delusion of Santa Claus, and I believed in him just as fervantly as I believed in Jesus, at least until I reached the age where one is supposed to have matured to the point where believing in Santa becomes an embarrassment.

Unlike Santa (who everyone grows out of believing in by the time they're 10 or so), our religious magic people have strictures against disbelieving them, what I like to call the "fig" principle of religion, ie: the lethal combination of fear, ignorance and guilt. Fear gets you into the religion (Oh no, I'm going to hell, what do I do?), ignorance keeps you going (that is, the ignorance that comes with not exploring options outside of your own faith, options that your religion actively and passively encourages you to avoid investigating because they're Satan's work...or worse) and the guilt associated with ever denying your belief in your religion's gods and promises (ie: the sin against the holy spirit) that keeps you from leaving.

You have a hard time imagining "the validity" of my salvation for the simple reason that you believe that Jesus is real, he was the son of god, and the salvation he offers is a tangible thing. From my perspective, Jesus didn't exist, there is no god, and the salvation promised is a nice myth. Seen from your perspective, my salvation wasn't valid because I have given up on a very real thing. Seen from my perspective, my salvation was just as valid as your salvation because both you and I are/were engaged in a delusion.

I know that it's difficult as a practicing Xian to even imagine a scenario where belief in Jesus is put on the same level as belief in Santa. It may give you a better perspective to imagine for a moment that your faith was Islam, and that your inerrant holy book is the Qu'ran, that the god you worship is Allah. Right now, you're saying to yourself, "but those gods aren't real, they're easy to reject compared to the *truth and reality* of Jesus." Such a position proves only one thing: you are a card-carrying atheist when it comes to all other religions, for you don't believe in any god outside of the Biblical god. The only difference between you and me is that I take one step more than you do, rejecting the reality of your god with the same surety that you reject all other gods except your one god.

I am sure that you believe all other religions are based upon lies and delusions, even if there are a few good moral precepts thrown in along the way. The Muslims feel the same way about your beliefs. Seen from an *objective* perspective, both of your claims carry the same level of validity...and the same level of delusion. You believe that all other religions are delusional, but you resist extending that belief to encompass your own religion.

I don't expect you to get where I'm coming from or to even contemplate the scenarios I've suggested above. Xianity often calls for people to "open their hearts." I'd ask you to "open your mind," and I mean, REALLY open your mind to the possibility that your belief is not based on reality, but on a convenient and pleasant construct of your mind.

Thanks for the chat.

Jmac & Ghostbuster,

I get what you're saying and agree, but to continually say the same thing in a different way just to appease or defend against those who refuse to even acknowledge you have a point is pointless. "There are none so blind as those who will not see..."

I've stayed out of the other debates and this one in particular partly because of their "addictive" nature :-) but mainly because C_Mat is doing such a sterling job... I just cannot take the absolute close-mindedness of those who, when confronted with the abject truth, still refuse to see it. It truly is a work of the Holy Spirit to convict the lives, minds and hearts of those who are in need of a Saviour i.e.: Jesus Christ.

I too would like to see C_Mat return to these postings as I have been encouraging and cheering him on from my side of the computer screen! But I understand your frustration (I have been frustrated right there with you!) I am also happy to call you "brother", and if all you accomplished in your intelligent debate is that someone out there who is truly questioning and searching for Truth will be affected by your postings, then you did in fact accomplish something wonderful.

I agree with Enrique's comment about "throwing pearls". I was tempted to respond with this a couple of days ago but didn't. The interesting thing is how well Mr. Mark knows scripture because Enrique didn't use the whole vers, he simply said "Why throw pearls at them". He didn't finish the scripture and call anyone "swine". So Mr. Mark obviously knows scripture from when he was a Christian. But this also boggles my mind.

I am not a biblical scholar in terms of any kind of formal education, and I think that I fall very short when compared to someone like C_Mat, but I do love the Word, it is life to me. So Mr. Mark I just have to question the validity of your salvation, of the fact that you were ever "born again". Now I need you to realize one thing, I am not trying to pull you into another debate that turns into a heated argument, I don't have the fortitude to do that! What I have learned in regards to debating/arguing about my faith is that I really need to examine my motives (I think that Ghostbuster alluded to this earlier). Am I arguing for the sake of just proving that I'm right and you're wrong, am I arguing just to hear myself spout my opinion, or do I have a genuine concern for the fate of another human being? I pray that the last is my intention. This isn't a matter of opinion, like whether or not country or pop or jazz is what you should listen to on the radio, or whether or not living in the country or the city is the best kind of life (these are also arguments I've been involved in!). Those are all a matter of personal preference, no one is right and no one is wrong. But when it comes to whether or not God exists and Jesus died on a cross for us, that's a matter of life or death. Whether I win this argument or not could lead to another week of debate! I am not ignorant enough to believe that you can convince someone of something because of a lot of pretty words, or heated arguments. We can plant the seeds, but God alone is able to save, so no matter how good of a debater a Christian may be the only way the argument is truly "won" is if the Holy Spirit draws a person to believe the Truth.

That being said, I don't want to argue; I am simply one human being who loves the Lord w/ all her heart, questioning another human being who claims to have known Him at one time, only to turn away from him at the age of 40. I truly don't get it, how you could know God, on a personal and true level, and then not only turn your back on Him, but deny His very existence.

I admit that I have never known a time when I didn't know the Lord, and I live in an area where more people believe in Him than don't. My experience w/ unbelievers who are so openly disdainful of my faith is limited, although not non-existent (I do have friends who do not believe in God/Jesus and we have had many lively "debates"!). What I don't understand is how you could have believed in the same God that I believe in, had a personal experience/relationship w/ Him and now decide that you have more "proof" that He doesn't exist than confirmation that He does. I've tried to put myself in your shoes and try to understand what it would be like to just throw in the towell and decide that God isn't there, that it's all been a nice fantasy that I've lived for 35 years, but it's just not true. I've tried to imagine what it would be like to live my life without God in it, and I can't even begin to try. This is why I question whether or not your belief was genuine, or if what you experienced was a "false conversion"; because if it was real, I don't believe that there is any way that you could have turned away from a God who loves you so much.

These are just things that I'm wondering, please don't take offense because like I said I am not trying to draw you into an argument or tell you that your experience was false, just questioning your understanding of what it really means to know and follow Jesus, to give your life to Him as you say you did at one time.

Praying that this comes across non-confrontational.
JMac

Yes, Ghostbuster - and I'm counting on the fact that people reading through this, whether or not they agree with my points of view, will still see that I'm a "serious person."

Phantom, C_Mat, Enrique: I understand your frustrations, but at the same time I think you guys are losing sight of the bigger picture. This is the Washington Post not a small post-it board nobody reads buried somewhere in cyberspace. You are not just engaging these 3 or 4 people. We really have no idea how many “ghosts” may be currently following this dialogue or who may stumble upon it someday. If I remember correctly, C_Mat said that one of the main reasons he was engaging Mr. Mark was for those who are not able to defend the faith for those who do no have the ability to do so themselves.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying we ought to go back and forth with the same closed-minded people about the same points forever. Maybe you’ve heard the saying, winners never quit, and quitters never win, but those who never quit and never win, are idiots. At the same time though, we shouldn’t all just throw in the towel on this board or any board where we will leave a void. If everyone does that the “Christian perspective” will be defined by our adversaries, well intended but ignorant Christians who need some help, or radicals who claim Christ but make us all look ridiculous.

Just think it over.

Aside – C_Mat, if you read this post please respond. I really don’t want to change my name.

C-Mat,

If I may, allow me to commend you on your incredible ability to proclaim and defend the Gospel in all it's aspects and facets. You are truly well-versed, intelligent and while we may never meet I am proud to call you a fellow brother in Christ.

The people on this blog you have been debating with (Mr. Mark et al.) don't have any new theories or bases for their arguments. The problem is, when you present them with evidence and truth, they denigrate it as "this or that" yet hold their own drivel to be truth. I saw another person who posted here a few weeks ago saying "it is like farting in a thunder storm"-you'll never be heard and they will never agree with you. I share your frustration and expereinced a smiliar level; that's why I stopped posting. This is my second one for a number of months now. I too am a Biblical academic but to waste your energy on this forum is a shame.

We know the truth brother, and we'd love to share it. Divert your energy to preaching the Gospel to those who want to hear; if you're not doing that already, which I assume you are. This post of mine may attract comment, but I doubt I'll be back to check on it...

God bless you brother, and may you truly experience His richest blessings on your life and the lives of your family.

Enrique -

Well, the throwing pearls at swine comment wasn't really necessary.

It's not really my fault or E Fav's or Ba'al's if you don't understand the basis of our arguments or our responses to your questions. You keep asking us to prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese. When we provide an answer, you posit that we've haven't provided an answer as to whether the moon is made of yellow cheese...and on it goes.

The answer you don't like to hear is the basic answer that we all provide: ie: that the moon isn't made of cheese. We have all reached a point in our lives where we don't believe in gods of any stripe, not the ones imagined by the religions of which you are a devout atheist yourself (Islam, for example), nor for the religion that you embrace as the one true faith.

If YOU were honest with yourself, you would admit that we have, indeed, applied the same premise to our arguments as we do to the religionists arguments. In fact, we have all arrived at our arguments by applying the same set of standards to religious and non-religious endeavors. It's religion's weakness that it can't stand the rigorous heat of the objective kitchen, not the weakness of the cooks.

You are wrong in suggesting that all of our anti-theistic arguments boil down to games and physiology. Is well-documented history a physiologic thing? How about scientific experimentation and the predictability of employing the scientific method? A change in my brain's chemistry wouldn't change the facts on the ground. If you're implying that a sick brain would fail - deliberately or otherwise - to interpret obvious evidence correctly, then you've provided a neat condemnation of religious faith that even I wouldn't suggest.

No, you are wrong in trying to define what you call "our basic premise." That is a strawman, created by you to preserve your own view of the world and to shelter it from examination by those who ask for more than fairy tales as a basis for viewing the world. Both you and our new friend c-mat don't offer "evidence," but religious bromides. You're saying it is evidence doesn't make it so, anymore than presents on Xmas morning is evidence that Santa exists. The reason that E Fav, I and others constantly invoke the Santa analogy is because it is uniquely apt in describing the foundational system of most religions.

Reagrding c-mat: you do a disservice driving him away from the site. I noticed that very few Xians rose to his defense in this thread (you were one who did). He seemed genuinely interested in entering a dialogue. It's a sad commentary that a Gaurdian of the Grail like yourself can give him his marching orders...and then have him follow them. I'd think you'd want to keep a few like minds around to support you in your postings.

As far as being serious: I can't speak for E Fav and the others, but I'm dead serious about my positions and what I post here. My views aren't made up of whole cloth. They are the sum of my years of searching, reading and learning. Maybe you can't fathom that for me, the writings and thoughts of men like Dennett and Dawkins put to shame the "wisdom" of the holy books you worship, and they're not even claiming to be demi-gods, let alone inerrant, omniscient gods.

I give you credit and appreciate that you haven't taken the route of the Xian poster Canyon Shearer who resorts to calling both atheists and Xians alike "idiots" if they don't agree with his narrow and vicious view of the world. I guess we should be happy that in your eyes, we're simply swine. At least swine have their feet to the ground and provide nourishment to people on occasion.

Gotta go.

If only it were that easy to walk away from an addiction...

I'll change my name to "gasbuster" for a week if C_Mat doesn't post something, somewhere on these boards by noon on Saturday.

Any other wagers?

Enrique,

thanks for your comments and observations. I really appreciate them. I'm just back from a class and am really tired. However your last sentence is extremely important. Thank you very much. I see that we are just going around in circles, and I see the truth of your observations. Thank you.

E-favorite, thanks again for getting back to me. You are wrong. Ravi, one of the foremost Christian philosophers of the day made only the point about evil, injustice, love and forgiveness converging on the cross. Sorry for that misunderstanding. The rest is all from the book of Romans...6th book in our New Testaments. Read it carefully with a dictionary and first century Judaism in mind. What I did was simply spell out Romans in 21st century English. Substitute injustice instead of sin (which I did because most people don't understand what sin is today) and you have the thesis of the Book of Romans.

Mr. Mark, I think Enrique is right. You do not attempt to answer the question at hand or contrary evidence in a scientific, methodical or logical way. Instead your method of defense is always to suggest that Jesus is a fairy tale or Santa Claus. You contradict yourself again and again.

Therefore, I have decided to quit. May God Bless you all. I have thoroughly enjoyed this discourse.

Ghostbuster, Enrique and others, I commend you on your faith and I encourage you to keep standing strong for the Lord in whom you have believed.

Thanks.

C MAT -- Mr. Mark and E Favorite are not serious people. They are playing games.

Consider that their basic premise is that anything that cannot be explained physiologically is magic.

C mat, the logical consequence of their premise is that if you change something physiologically, it is no longer what it was. Accordingly, their 'arguments', from a logical point of view, are suicidal.

If one were to accept their premise, then it would follow that a physiological change in their brain would change how either of them see everything. In their world, the only objective truth is one that can be explained by physiological laws. That is their basic premise, their religion, and it is beyond question, as far as they are concerned, or so it seems.

Mr, Mark and E Favorite, if they were honest, would apply said premise to their own arguments , but they don't. If they did, it would follow, that if we were able to change their brains phsyiologically, they would see everything differently; their very 'arguments' would change. Change it again, and they would see things yet another way. There is no objective truth in their 'logic'. For them, meaning itself is only a manifestation of physiology, an epiphenomenon.

Indeed, they have avoided my challenge to their premises by consistently alleging they don't understand what I've explained in previous posts. In an earlier forum, Ba Al, another commentator, also failed to respond out when asked to clarify his premises. They cop out once you call them on their premise. It's not that they don't understand it; it's that they can't afford to admit that they do, for they would be finished, and they know it.

Understand that if their premises deny the possibility of objective meaning (except of course, of their own premise) ,it also denies the possibility of God a priori. Why then even discuss Jesus or the gospels further with them?

Why throw pearls at them?

C-mat - Honestly, reading through your long post, what struck me most was how simple it would be if you didn't have to go to such lengths to justify Christ's sacrifice. And you explanation I'm pretty sure is nowhere in the bible - it's what this Christian TV preacher said.

You didn't try to justify the murder or cannibalism. Fine - I'm not asking you to address this. I am saying that to me it’s simpler and more sensible to reject the story as a first century construct than it is to try to explain it as worthy of belief and veneration in the 21st century.

Mr Mark – I share your sense of joy. I also feel a re-awakening and understanding and renewed interest in the world around me.

c-mat -

Thanks for the response. It would appear that we're now able to converse, rather than to shout at each other.

Re: your question about "real Xianity" and your further elaboration.

At some point, we enter into the realm of Xian hucksterism, the same type of hucksterism that feeds the diet, exercise and self-help industries.

The basic message is simple: "you've got BIG problems. You've tried to solve them, but you've been unsuccessful because you've never been told the TRUTH about how to lose weight/have a porn star body/find salvation. It's important to know that this ISN'T YOUR FAULT! It's the fault of all of those hucksters who lied to you to enrich themselves at your expense. But, FEAR NOT! I am here to finally tell you the REAL TRUTH and to give you a SIMPLE WAY to lose weight/look like a porn star/find salvation."

Strange how we can easily see such hucksterism when it is presented in a TV ad, or even in a religion/sect that we consider to be heretical or evil. Yet the moat is firmly set in our own eye when it comes to seeing the same hucksterism in our preferred version of religious belief.

Re: was Jesus a creation of Jewish mythology or of Roman/Greek/pagan mythology?

There's really no contradiction here as it isn't an either/or question.

The answer that unites all of these sources as possible origins for the myth of Jesus is humanity's early development of archetypes (villains, saviors, gods & demi-gods), a development that happened long before the Abrahamic faiths were developed. As the Abrahamic faiths all point to a common ancestor, so do all religions (even non-Abrahamic) point to a common ancestry - ie: the development in the human mind of a belief in the supernatural - that goes back tens of thousands of years.

I don't think that anyone can pinpoint where the Jesus myth originated, ie: as an imitation of Roman or Greek gods/historical personages or as an outgrowth of Jewish mythology. But one can with some confidence say that the "attractive attributes" of the savior-god Jesus are the same attributes that are present (to varying degrees of emphasis) in the archetypes of the sun gods, redeemer gods and the messiah gods of other religions. So, while you are correct in saying that "both can't be true" (ie: did Jesus emerge from Jewish or Roman mythology), it can be true that he is just another version of a well-established pre-historic archetype. In the end, it all depends on where you choose to draw the historic line.

One may well posit that Jesus is a better amalgam of the various attributes that defined these other gods, but that in and of itself doesn't make him any more real than history's also-rans, does it?

Re: the question: did you ever REALLY give your life over to Christ?

My answer would be a resounding, "Yes." The problem is this - Jesus is no more real than Santa Claus. Giving your life over to imaginary beings is - in the end - a construct of one's own mind, not a reality based event that involves a supernatural being's interactions with a sentient being.

We cannot prove that god does or does not exist, but we know as a fact that self delusion is a reality of the human psyche, a delusion that we engage in every day on every level ("I'm sure my wife isn't cheating on me...I just know I aced that exam, even though I'm really nervous about my grade on it...the Second Coming of Jesus WILL happen within my lifetime.").

Think of the sports fan who roots for his team. If his team loses, is it because, "you just didn't root HARD enough!", or was it because...all teams occasionally lose? How about little Susie, who's determined to see Santa comes down the chimney this year? She stays up until 6am, when her mom finally comes to take her to bed, and to wipe her flowing tears because Santa didn't come...only to have her shattered worldview restored at 7am when even-littler Billy comes bounding into her room to tell Susie that, Yes, Santa did come after all! Mom said he came at exactly 6:05!

Did Santa not come because Susie's faith in him was lacking the power to keep her up for another 5 minutes? Was her faith in him restored even though he failed to make that personal appearance that was so important to her less than an hour before? The answers are most likely "No" to the first question and "Yes" to the second. What's important is that the answers to those two questions have nothing to do with Susie's faith or lack of faith in Santa...and even less to do with the existence of a real Santa.

Faith is not a reality based proposition, and while some may find that to be its greatest strength, I can only agree with such a view to the extent that faith is now the world's most overrated commodity, what Dennett and others call the "belief in belief." (Distinguishing between "belief in belief" and "belief in god" is one of the themes tackled in Dennett's "Breaking the Spell," a book I just finished and recommended earlier in this thread.)

Nice chatting. Gotta go. Dinner time.

Ghostbuster:

I wanted to say thanks in both the above posts! I think your points are very well taken and I agree with you. It is scary to think that someone else could misuse our names. I wish they did have login names then. You also made some very interesting points when you talked about God's love earlier.

You were defending a Witch? Just joking! One of my friends is a witch-turned Christian and thank goodness for the loving Christians who led her to faith in Christ. We all need Jesus. We all need forgiveness. We all need love!

Thanks, c_mat

Dear Mr. Mark,

Thank you very much for responding. i really appreciate it. i did not mean at all that you should have to answer to me or anyone else, but thanks for telling us your story. We really appreciate it.

I think you bring up several important issues for our consideration and hopefully also for many pastors and priests. Since we no longer live in Christendom, we cannot afford to ignore non-Christian faiths, the early church, and pre-Christian times. As you are probably very keenly aware, there is an extreme dearth of biblical knowledge in our times. Most Christians are biblically illiterate. It is sad that you should have had to come across some of these questions when you were 40, even though you were born-again, as you claim at 18.

In my case, and I am sure in Africa and Asia, we are exposed to non-Christian philosophies from our very births. We see Hindus worshipping Christ, and so many different imageries, that dealing with some of these questions is an early-on issue.

I can fully understand the situation that you are describing between you and your family. That is hard, and I hope that you would be able to have a better time, despite your differences.

the 3rd issue which I thank you for bringing up is an important and interesting issue. I have come across these questions several times, and have on occasion even had to consider them with respect to other religions in India. I am not an expert on Mithraism but have heard all of the above claims and once listened to the Acharya woman on TV. Some of these claims have floated around under different names in India as well. Of course some of them can be easily explained away. Many of them are theories, similar to the Jesus went to Egypt and Kashmir kind of things. While I have no problems with where my faith stands on this issue, here's a site that I found that may help. Beware, you might have to do your own further research.http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

I want you to note that some Hindus in India have tried to draw similar parallels between Krishna and Jesus. Anyways...

The next issue you mention is that Jesus preached to the Jews while Paul took Christianity to the Gentiles. Here I contend with you! The gospels record Jesus on several occasions ministering and preaching to the Gentiles. He heals their sick, raises their dead, and speaks of them sharing in the Kingdom! In Mt, Mark, and Acts He commands the disciples to go into All the World and preach the gospel, to preach it to all creatures, and to preach in Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth. It is true that the early Jewish Christians were hesitant because of their Kosher laws. But the first Gentile converts recorded in Scripture were not made by Paul, but by Philip and Peter. Philip preaches to an Ethiopian and Peter preaches to Cornelius and his family. While Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, Peter and James were the leaders of the first church, and at the council at Jerusalem they put their stamp of support on Paul's ministry. If Peter and James had not done that, Paul's ministry would have suffered enormously. Isaiah and Jeremiah clearly talk about how Jesus would be a light to the Nations and Kings would come to Him. And God's promise to Abraham in Genesis records, that through your Seed, I will bless all nations.

Just a question. Earlier you contend that the Jews made up the story of Jesus. Now you say that it was the parallels between Mithraism (a pagan religion) and Christianity that shook your faith. Both cannot be true. So I am confused.

I think the final issue you raise is the most important one. I really did not mean by that question, Mr. Mark, as to which denomination you belonged. I am sorry if it appeared that way to you. I think all the denominations adequately have Christians and support Christianity. What I meant was whether you yourself had really given your life to Christ and to His message, which was "Deny yourself, take up your Cross and Follow Me"; "Whoever loves his life will lose it, but whoever hates it will save it" "Whoever follows Me must hate (love less) his mother, brother, father, sister...and even his own life" "Must leave everything and follow Me" "seeks the Father's will"...basically the 4 Gospels. While we don't hear any of this preached nowadays, this was truly Jesus' message and not the "accept Him in your heart and you will be Born-Again". Accept what? What he did on the cross for you, His death and Resurrection, His Holy Spirit, who will then enable you to live His message. This does not mean God is asking me to go right now and be a missionary in Iraq (it may very well be ...one of my wife's friends just died there recently ministering, and another is helping Iraqis and teaching young kids), but it does mean my life is one of humble submission to Him, to do whatever it is that He wills. Its hard, very hard, but only with the help of the Holy Spirit can I do it.
This then is true Christianity, to be baptized with Him into His death and resurrection. While it is a positional reality at baptism, the rest is a journey. Many early Christians gave their lives up for this journey.

OK thanks and God Bless.

E-Favorite,

Thank you for your post. I really enjoyed it. I think you bring about a very very important question, probably the most fundamental question of all. I can see where you're coming from, and to be honest with you, I had to confront with similar issues as well. I'm sure anyone who has really thought about, which at some point a Christian would have (hopefully), might have had the same problem.

Its funny, last night I happened to listen to Ravi Zacharias. I don't usually happen to watch too much of Christian TV, but he caught my attention. He was asking the 4 fundamental questions that people normally have are the nature of evil, the nature of justice, the nature of love and the nature of forgiveness. I had missed most of us his talk, except the end where he said all the above converge in only 1 single event in history, and that is the Cross, and its like a profound feeling of understanding just settled in. Started me thinking!

You know, if I commit adultery with my wife (this is hypothetical), someone is very badly hurt in the bargain. My wife is the immediate person who is hurt, my kids may get affected as well, and eventually down the bargain it may adversely affect me as well the person with whom I had an affair. If I get a divorce, things may badly escalate, and the level of hurt increases much more. In the middle of all this, hatred may build up, perhaps resentment might, anger, jealousy, gossip, doubting, etc, etc. The level of hurt may not just affect us who are directly involved, but it may spread to our family members, our church, our community.... Add to this that since so many events and people are involved, that someone may take it upon themselves to exact revenge (happened very often in ancient communities). the form of revenge may involve rape, murder, insult, and the list can go on. The level of hurt or injustice increases exponentially now. What is one to do about the level of injustice? If there is a legal system set up, somebody may be punished for the rape, or the theft, or the murder or in some communities even the adultery itself. But there's a lot of little injustices left in the middle that may never be taken care of or resolved this side of eternity.

It then brings about a very big problem. If God is truly who He says He is, that is pure, holy, and just, then He's got to do something about this injustice. Because someone has to Pay! If I commit adultery, my wife and kids pay. If I murder, the victim and the family pay. If I steal or am greedy, the poor or hungry may pay. In Hinduism, you have whole life cycles where you pay, in Islam all the injustice that happened is Inshallah, or the will of God. In Buddhism, there is no concept of payment. But if God is truly just, then who pays.

OK God decided according to Christianity, that since no man is exempt from causing evil or injustice, then every man should PAY! The only problem is that the cumulative injustice/evil/sin over our lifetimes is so high, that the severity of the punishment might know no ends. The other problem is God loves us too much, and knows that in reality we'll never be able to pay. He knows that if we really knew Him, we would not want to be part of the injustice at all! But God is JUST! Therefore there was only one solution! God said, He would pay! However the payment could not be easy, because just because He was God, He could not say the victims were all forgiven, that would not be fair to those who had been murdered or raped or treated unfairly.

For the punishment to be severe, God had to become a man. If you think thats easy or not severe, consider the thought of me becoming an ant and living as an ant, thinking as an ant for 33 years. Just not allowing the thought of me as a man to dominate me as an ant at all under any conditions. In fact, when all the other ants would come to make me their scapegoat, and my father man had all the power in the world to crush the other ants, to just submit to His will and let them destroy me.

God didn't just have to become a man, He had to have no evil or commit injustice himself in order to rescue those bound by injustice. So while the other ants goaded him on, tried to get him involved in their lifestyle of injustice, He had to resist it to the end, perhaps to the point of blood, to be a true deliverer. Of course this meant, the other ants hated him, because He was the complete opposite of who they were. Finally as the other ants completely destroyed him, his silent death, yet victory because he did not become what the other ants wanted him to become, would be the sacrificial offering that would match all the cumulative injustice of the world. For He would be the perfect, spotless, innocent Lamb, that would become the sin offering for the rest of us. His offering would be more perfect than a good man who may have sacrificed his life for his country, because He would be the only one who had resisted injustice without even a drop of it in him until the very end.

God's wrath upon His own Son would allow Him to unleash His love and mercy on the victims of injustice (which includes us all). Because His Son paid the price, God would be able to show mercy to both the victim and the aggressor. The price was enormous, you see, because from now on the Son would always be in a human body, resurrected because He defeated evil and the suffering and mortality that come with it, and in Heaven as the God-Man. The suffering was also enormous, because God who is One just like the atoms of our Body, who loved His Son so dearly, for that one brief moment in time, had to turn His back entirely on His Son and allow Him to become the sin offering! No miracles would come there, as people taunted Him, no deliverances as they beat Him up, no move from the Father, so much that He would cry "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

God now offers the price of His payment to all mankind. To those who believe and are humbly willing to accept it, their sins are forgiven. To those who refuse to accept the payment, there is only one option left : to pay it themselves.

Therefore Like Ravi said, Evil, Injustice, Love and Forgiveness converge at only one time: On the Cross, where God simultaneously deals with all 4.

The One who accepts the payment, agrees to from now on pursue the path of Jesus of Nazareth, the path of love and forgiveness, given a new heart by the Holy Spirit, hating his own life, but loving others, so that the Love of God may be manifested to as many people as possible.

While God is just, He will not go back on His own justice. Obviously those who have never heard of this good news of Jesus, may also participate in God's forgiveness. For the benefits of Jesus' atonement are to be applied to all mankind before and after Jesus' death (In God's eyes, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter). But the requirement for them then and now would be the same, to seek this God that has been revealed to them through Nature and confirmed in the inward reality of their conscience. We do not know how God will judge these, but Scripture is very clear, those with the Law will be judged by the Law, and those without it, by the Law of conscience. However, to all those who have heard, only two options remain: accept the Payment or reject it!

God loves you my brother and all of us.

C_Mat – forum boards are indeed addictive. I don’t know of a nicotine patch, but if I find one, I’ll let you and Mr. Mark know. I initially got hooked on these darn things a few years ago by defending a witch against a bunch of over-zealous and downright ruthless “Christians”. To this day I’m still friends with her, but I’ve yet to chat at length with anyone who shares my belief system, go figure.

Anyways, here are a couple of practical tips that I try to keep in mind when posting on topics related to my faith. Maybe you will find a couple of these useful.

1) Offer grace

2) 2 Tim. 2:23, Matt. 5:43-47, and the golden rule

3) It is good to question your own motivation when posting on a forum board. Why am I here? Is it to gain insight, teach others about your faith, encourage others, defend the faith, practice debate skills, add to a discussion – or – am I primarily motivated to feed my ego by proving myself superior to someone with a different view point. Am I pointing to Christ, or standing between them and Christ?

4) Keep in mind that when speaking, “as a Christian from a Christian perspective” one is held to a different set of standards than one who has not made that claim. It only makes rational sense. For example, lets say you all are having a discussion about nanotechnology. I enter the conversation touting myself as “a scientist with extensive experience in the field”. I list some of my credentials and post a couple links to various peer reviews that sound legitimate. But a few posts later, I ask you if a buckeyball is made out of cheese. Obviously, I have lost credibility, even if I am in reality a world renowned scientist.

4a) Credibility and consistency is even more important on this particular board because there is no log-in/password. Anybody can be C_Mat. If your witness continues to be effective, you will stop by these boards one day and see “C_Mat” the troll using your name to contradict everything you’ve said. It is a matter of time.

One final unrelated point. I think it is reasonable to be suspicious on an individual basis of a person who claims to have been a former Christian yet changes to. We both know that for many people what they had growing up was religion, not a relationship. I don’t think that is always the case though. Earlier in this thread I think you mentioned a book by Lee Strobel. Have you read Stobel’s interview in “A Case for Faith” with the late agnostic Charles Templeton? It is an interesting read. Templeton used to lead crusades with Billy Graham, but he began to have serious doubts about his faith. He eventually became an agnostic writing a book called, "A Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith".

Regards

C-mat wrote:

"what if you were never ever exposed to real Christianity at all?"

Sorry I missed that point in my last post.

Let me respond by saying that I was brought up Lutheran and became born-again at age 18. Being a performing musician, I spent years singing in churches of just about every denomination: Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, United Church of Christ, Christian Scientist, German Lutheran, Swedenborgian, Universalist...probably just about every denomination in the western church (not to mention years of singing the Jewish high holidays in temples in and around Manhattan).

I'm going to assume that each and every one of those Xian denominations extolled a version of "real" Christianity. In fact, the real similarities far outweighed the doctrinal differences.

Let me ask you: what denomination(s) do you believe extol "real Xianity?"

c-mat wrote:

"However, I would still like to put forth something here and ask you to consider this honest question (to yourself and not to us): Considering Jesus' calls to follow Him and discipleship in the gospels we have, do you honestly and truly think that you were a true Christian? That question is for you for pondering, not for us."

Yes, I consider that I was "true Xian" during that time. But like most Xians (at least those in America), I had no knowledge of any religions outside of Brand X American Xianity. It's easy to believe in the god of the NT when that's all you've ever been exposed to, and exposed to it from about age 3 forward. Hell, I went to a Lutheran church - when the nuns from the Catholic church at the end of the block walked by on a Sunday morning stroll, I thought they were witches and ran screaming to my Sunday school teacher!

The turning point for me came when I realized that the lifestory of Jesus reflected the lifestory of many pagan gods - Mithras, Apollo et al. When the "exclusivity" of Jesus being born of a virgin and resurrected from the dead lost that exclusivity, I realized that the Jesus story was just the newest version of an oft-repeated tale of the gods that man had invented for himself over the milleniae. Importantly to me, such knowledge gave me an appreciation of the power of myth in the human existence. Recognizing the myth as myth (rather than as an exclusive reality) was a big step in my development...and it led me to put away childish things, if you will. What's amazing is that I didn't stumble on this historical perspective until I was almost 40 years old, and I would vouchsafe that there are many Xians in the world who are never confronted with such information in the course of their lifetimes.

So, yes, I definitely feel that I was a true Xian, but a Xian due to a lack of information, not a surplus of information.

My question to Xians is whether or not they have done any research into these past deities, and if so, what do they make of all the similarities between Jesus and other ancient deities? Do they aver - as did early church leaders - that gods such as Mithras were fabrications of the devil, created by the devil in advance of Jesus' advent to confuse the Jews and early Xians when Jesus finally made his appearance? Or do they devolve such information into an historic haze, conveniently allowing themselves to claim historical information overload - and to dismiss such history as irrelevant to their claims of Jesus being the one true god? Or, do they take such info, fully digest it and come out on the other side with a compelling and factual argument for their claims of Jesus' exclusivity and godhood, an argument that will withstand the rigors of indepth examination and bias-free scrutiny? As Jack Webb used to say on the old Dragnet TV series, "just the facts, ma'am."

Let me say that my journey from Xian to atheist has only been painful in the sense of a certain degree of alienation from my immediate family, about 3/4s of whom are devout Xians. Beyond that, it's been an absolute joy. The freedom I feel at this point in my life I something I never experienced during my faith years. Home and family are a big part of that, of course, but it's also the freedom to delve into the fullness of life, and to take up causes that I would have never imagined to have held an interest for me (example: I am a big, vocal supporter of gay rights, even though there isn't a openly gay person in my immediate or extended family that I know of. It's an equality issue for me...and an issue I was on the other side of during my Xian days).

Finally, to answer your question about Jesus calling people to discipleship and to spreading his teachings: my belief is that Jesus was preaching to the Jews (ie: those with whom god had made a covenant), not the gentiles. It is Paul who decided that Xianity would be extended to the gentiles. The "world" that Jesus spoke of was the Jewish world. The brilliance of Paul was that he realized that the future of Xianity as a growth industry was pretty bleak if it was limited to the Jews, so he opened up "a new market segment," so to speak. It's worked brilliantly...but was it what Jesus intended?

Thanks for the discourse. Maybe we'll continue the same on this board for a bit.

C-Mat – I see the depth of your faith, but it’s not for me. I never felt that strongly, and when I started to actually think about religion, it simply didn’t make any sense that a father would have his son killed to forgive the sins of others. What kind of father would do that? He could have just forgiven our sins, or taken away the whole concept of sin. Besides, the sacrificed son was not dead long – just 3 days – then he supposedly rose from the dead and is now living bodily in heaven for eternity. Not that much of a sacrifice when you consider what others have been through. It’s a wacky story that I’m sure I’d never believe if I heard it the first time as an adult.

Then, on top of everything else, we observe this sacrifice via symbolic cannibalism – eating his body and drinking his blood. (Catholic children were taught it is the real body and blood, changed by the priest via “transubstantiation”).

Then there are so many people in the world (unlike me, Mr Mark, etc.) who never hear about this supposedly loving God, who is aching to forgive and welcome us into heaven. Those poor innocent, ignorant souls go to hell, according to Christian beliefs – so I can’t get excited about this God who wants to know us.

When I started to question and did my own research – everything started to make sense. Like many people, I had a child’s view of religion. No more. There is a wealth of information available – new scholarship based on 20th century findings, post reformation scholarship that’s been around a while, but that you’ll never hear about in Church - or in the mainstream media.

You’re right, this forum can be addictive. I’m hoping the some of the postings here can be a shortcut for people wanting an adult perspective on religion.

Dear Mr. Mark,

Thank you very much for getting back to me. I really appreciate that. I was actually worried that I might have really offended you, without meaning to, and was really praying and hoping that that may not be so.

You make many good points in the above post. I think I am getting ADDICTED to this blog. What is the cure? You also mentioned several times about the other On Faith Panelists. Since this was my first time, I didn't realize that you could somehow be a member here or something. Will have to do some digging there.

Oh my brother, yes, I have lost arguments several times. And the truth is, I really don't care. To be honest with you, what I was worried about, was that someone else's faith could be weakened without an adequate response (especially for instance if you challenged Paul didn't write 6 letters in the NT, etc), which is why I was getting frustrated. I mean I don't mind someone saying that I don't believe in miracles, therefore I cannot believe in His resurrection. I think that's an honest and valid question. But I was having trouble with you keeping on saying that Jesus did not exist, despite the evidence you didn't want to consider.

That said, I think the blogs are a good place to discuss the faith, and we certainly should ask our questions and make our points, but I think with a certain degree of humility. We do not know the answer to everything, and like you yourself said, we are not all scholars. In those cases, we could say that certain scholars speculate that this...etc, etc (provide a reference if we can, not all of us can), but there is no general consensus on the issue. I think that that is fair and balanced, and a true debate. Otherwise its just you preaching to me and me to you, and there is no real discussion or debate. Plus, we should keep in mind, that with our statements, we could affect the lives of someone or the other who may be reading these blogs.

I like your last point, and I do consider what it is that may have made you question the faith that you thought you believed in. I do believe from your statements and experience that you went through a valid phase where you were convinced that all that you were believing was humbug or not true. I do not deny that and I would be foolish to do so. I also admit that this experience may have been highly troubling and painful for you, and I am sorry for that. However, I would still like to put forth something here and ask you to consider this honest question (to yourself and not to us): Considering Jesus' calls to follow Him and discipleship in the gospels we have, do you honestly and truly think that you were a true Christian? That question is for you for pondering, not for us. The only reason that I am asking, is that what if you were never ever exposed to real Christianity at all. What if we make this proposition, that everything Jesus said in the 4 gospels was really true? In that context, esp Lk 9 and Mk 10, do you really think you were a true Christian? If you still think so, I think every argument you have made above is extremely valid.

I really appreciate this discourse.

"I think it's hard to have an open mind, when told up front that if you don't believe certain things, a supposedly loving God will cause you to suffer forever in hellfire and damnation."

That is a courageous statement to make. I can see how this line of rationalization would immediately put one in a defensive position. Posed that way, the whole thing sounds like nonsense to me too. A loving God sending one to eternal damnation just because one isn't 100%compliant...

I think the key to developing an open mind in your case is to address the points you made individually.

The first and most difficult step is to settle on the definition of God's love. How does God (not man) define love? Some research and even you own self introspection may help you find the answer. You may want to seriously ask yourself and God these questions: What is my own personal definition of love? How do I treat someone I love? Can love be mandated? Is love a free choice?

Then you simply answer the question, is God, by His own definition of love, a loving God or not?

And finally, will this "loving" God cause people to suffer eternally, or do we have a choice to accept his love and be with Him, or reject his sacrifice and live separate from Him?

Personally, I think that all too often, threats made by Christians of eternal damnation border on mind control. Do this, don't do that or you'll get it someday, you know? Where is the love there? I heard a joker one time announce that those who regularly skipped evening services were in danger of hellfire, more ridiculous was the fact that the few people I noticed between my nearly silent laughter said "amen" or nodded their heads. Despite some very encouraging signs, too many Christians still play silly games like this. No wonder so many people withdraw and sometimes become bitter or think we're all idiots.

I hope this all makes sense. If not, I guess it will give some people easy pickings which is fine by me. It is 1AM and I'm nodding off here.

Regards

Dear c-mat:

Sorry to have yanked your chain so badly. I've put you in a very foul mood. That wasn't my intention. My intention was to engage in a dialogue similar to dialogues I've had with others on this blog.

Your responses have been pretty good...at least if one ignores your screaming that I am a Bible- and Xian-hating person whose abandonment of his former "shallow" beliefs have led him on a life crusade to destroy Xianity single-handedly.

That's a pretty tall order for one person, and to be honest with you, I'm not up to the job, so don't worry about it.

You and I share one thing - the frustration felt when people talk past each other. I've had excellent conversations in the past with Xians at On Faith (even lost my share of arguments) and I'm sure that you will with atheists as well...if you can hang in there and give things a chance. Personally, I've learned to walk away from the keyboard for 30 minutes or so before posting a response of any length at this blog. It keeps the frustration in check, allows one to formulate a cogent response...and more often than not leads one to NOT respond at all...but that's me.

I admit that I never met Jesus or Paul, but I assumed that none of the bloggers here had either. 90% of the posts here are about Jesus. If meeting him personally is a prerequisite for holding an opinion about him, I guess this blog's days are numbered.

As far as being a Biblical scholar or an expert - that applies to the columnists here, not we lowly blog posters, and their scholarship has led them to beliefs than run the gamut of religious thought. I've never said I was an expert in the Bible. I'm somewhere between non-conversant and better-than-moderately informed. My posts draw upon the work of scholars in the field whose opinions - obviously - don't hold any favor with you. I wasn't under the impression that personally holding a credential in Biblical scholarship was a prerequisite for posting on this blog, and I don't think that's what you're implying, are you?

You might consider - CONSIDER - that a person like myself who was a Xian for decades and moved away from the faith did so for reasons that are just as real and compelling as the reasons that led you to embrace the faith.

BTW - I'm currently reading Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell." If you haven't read it, I recommend it (not that my opinion matters to you).

Gotta go.

Dear E Favorite,

Thanks for responding to that comment. I really appreciate it and I thank you once again for keeping me in check.

I think you ask a very important question and on this one, I am completely on your side. I don't think you need to fear in order to ask any questions about God, even if you do not believe in Him. In fact, the love of God is so very great, that hell is really the final final resort. I think the Christian community in general has done a great disservice to Christians and the non-Christian world. Really the reason hell is such a last resort is because God loves us so much, that throughout our lives He is wooing us to accept His love for us. In the midst of all our failures and misunderstandings, He is still patient and while we give up on Him, He never gives up on us. In fact His love for us is so great and His desire to keep us out of hell is so strong, that He gave up His One and Only Son, who was the dearest possession of the Father. God, who hates sin, allowed His Pure, spotless Son to become a Sin offering for us, and had to turn His face away from His Only Son. Through His Son's sacrificial offering, our relationship with the Father is restored and we are now able to enter the presence of this Holy God and fellowship with Him in the Name of His Son.

What is hell? The true Christian meaning of hell is Eternal Separation from God. Thats why its not really God who puts us there, but we who choose it eventually, when we have refused every invitation we have had to accept God's great love. We say God we don't you, and thus we choose eternal separation from Him. God does not cause us to suffer, but we suffer because we know through our own choice, we have eternally separated ourselves from Him. Yet God's love is so great that till our dying day, He patiently waits for those who would accept Him.

Therefore I agree with you. Have no fear. If you have questions, ask Him. If you disbelieve, seek. God is open to an honest and contrite heart. He said, "Seek Me and you will find Me". May you and all those who seek Him find Him even as He has promised.

Thanks again and God Bless.

C-Mat - thanks for responding. YOu say, "I am only frustrated because here we sit assuming we know all about Jesus and Paul as if we had met them yesterday and put a lot of junk on sites like this that most people can't refute because they have never considered it with an open mind."

I expect that people with opposing points of view about Jesus and Paul feel much the same way.

I think it's hard to have an open mind, when told up front that if you don't believe certain things, a supposedly loving God will cause you to suffer forever in hellfire and damnation.

If people can get past that fear, then I think it's possible to look at the facts objectively.

E FAVORITE:

I don't understand how you can say: Enrique - you lost me with the "Rock" comment."

There must be some natural law that explains what you are experiencing.

Surely you will be able to point out which one it is, and enlighten all of us.