All Comments (66)

fjyatgi wveyxbzu ltob sguq qjwpc hojup txpwldcr

As far as this article is concerned, the historical fact of Jesus's existence is irrelevant. What's at issue here is what the accounts given of his life - be they fact, fabrication or something in between - mean to the people who follow base their faith on the teachings in those accounts.

In their arrogance, dogmatic certainty and condescending attitudes, many of the atheists and religious fundamentalists on this forum reveal themselves as two sides of the same coin.

Independent Thinker You wrote:

"Guru Govid Singh of Sikhism - same stupid proclaimation - I am the last and best one. piece of crap."

Can you give us a proof where Guru Govind Singh said this. It's great that your are a hindu but why are you putting other faiths down that you know nothing about.

As a preamble I have no religion, but consider my self very spiritual. I have not found one religion that adequately describes complete ultimate truth and answers all the questions. However I find each religion quite interesting and each seem to have some redeeming qualities.

I know that “who Jesus was” is considered by many (most?) Christians to be core to their religion. I have always thought “why does it matter who he was”.

His message and example (be it real or fictitious) are what is important. Whether he is the actual son of God or some pan handling bum on the street I think the example he set and the message he preached would serve anyone looking to evolve spiritually.

Maybe because I am not Christian it is easier for me to see?

The best part of Mr. Wallis’ post is the last two lines

“To answer yes to the question is to, at the same time, admit our human failings, stand under judgment ourselves, and humbly seek to follow the one we say we believe in. And that might open up a wonderful dialogue with those who believe other things.”

We should not use religious difference to divide us from others. We should use them to evolve our understandings of spirit. That is the gift of religion. Who ever or what ever Christ was… I think he would like that.

Can those of us who consider ourselves Christian honorably believe that we have the only one true religion?? Isn't it possible that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., who are moderates (and are not radical or extremists who pervert their own religions into thinking that they are directed to kill others who do not have the same religion) -- and maybe even atheists --may well be pleasing in the sight of Allah-Jehovah-God the Father?? I believe that many moderate Muslims, Jews, non-churched Christians --even some atheists -- act more consistently with the teachings of Jesus Christ than do many professing "Christians," who are so sanctimonious that they actually (and thus arrogantly) believe others who do not agree with them entirely are damned.

Noteworthy is St. Matthew 22:14 where Jesus says, "...many are called, but few are chosen." And, while it is indicated in St. John 14:6 that "...no one can comes to the Father but by...." Christ, nevertheless, Christ also said in St. John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him;" see too St. John 6:65 where Jesus says: "...no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father [the Father must also be Jehovah or Allah]." The Synoptic Gospels are rife with Jesus' indication that "all things are possible with God." St. Matthew 19:26; St. Mark 10:27; St. Luke 1:37; and St. Luke 18:27. Christ even says it is not for Him to grant who will sit at His right hand or his left, "but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." St. Matthew 20:23.

So the One Father-Allah-Jehovah-God can "draw" anyone He "chooses" "by" or through Christ to Himself (or Herself). That must mean a lot of us who smugly think we're "right with God" are NOT and that many we think are "NOT right with God" actually are. And since I may possibly violate at least one of the Ten Commandments each day consciously or subconsciously, I tremble to think that I might ultimately find myself "on the outside looking in" where others of different religions may be welcomed (into the "bosom of Abraham" who was not only the earthly father of Isaac but also the older son, Ishmael, who is regarded as the sire of many Islamists).

imxepf tlanzi pqznmwd rcfxwam bdecx qjwkiv apugynihz http://www.tcevxjf.elifrph.com

ieqyhx hbjrki ufdn evxomwph vpyx dxgipawmk yxuz

Jesus is God Almighty and every person who has ever lived will one day kneel before Him and acknowledge His diety. He came and died for our sins so that we would not have to be eternally seperated from the Godhead. Anyone who puts their faith fully in Him by acknowledging their sin and asking Him to forgive them and come into their life will be born again and receive a new spirit. Amazingly, you have just read the truth of God's plan but how many of you will come to the Lord as you are and let Him apply to your life the gracious work He did for you at the cross?

Thanks, Jim Wallis, for your well-spoken words! But why bring in B. Graham,answering those red herring, softball questions about life after death? That's just pc rhetoric. Come on, you know that distracts from the real issue. The questions Graham should have been asked is why he so liked to hang around the powerful and wealthy. And why does he leave behind such a mammoth, monied organization.

And to the person who claimed Wallis' "Marx-Hermeneutic when reading the Scriptures:" Why not read Marx's tour de force - CAPITAL - and you'll see that most people who go to work every day are gradually consumed by their job. This may be the most horrifying book ever written, but you may be able to better understand some of Jesus' sayings.

Thanks, Jim Wallis, for your well-spoken words! But why bring in B. Graham,answering those red herring, softball questions about life after death? That's just pc rhetoric. Come on, you know that distracts from the real issue. The questions Graham should have been asked is why he so liked to hang around the powerful and wealthy. And why does he leave behind such a mammoth, monied organization.

And to the person who claimed Wallis' "Marx-Hermeneutic when reading the Scriptures:" Why not read Marx's tour de force - CAPITAL - and you'll see that most people who go to work every day are gradually consumed by their job. This may be the most horrifying book ever written, but you may be able to better understand some of Jesus' sayings.

sir you expressed some really high minded- non judgemental notions- really a call to humility and a chastising of christians who may be hypocritical but you were too grcious to say so-
its really all about intentions- and its obvious you had sterling ones when you wrote this.

mr wolfe you seem to hve the same answer every time.
if your mind is so closed- what is the point of your posts?
im not saying become a christian by any means-
maybe just sing a more interesting song.

who cares if he uses a marxist hermeneutic?
youre really stretching for a reason to criticize there mr disputatio

Mr. Wallis,

Why do you insist on using a Marxist-hermeneutic when reading the Scriptures?

The contraceptive issue is a good one to discuss, but I think you'll find that not all Christian denominations would agree with the Catholic position (if that really is their position).

Slavery was a pervasive fact of life among Europeans, but also particularly among the Arabs, Africans, and the Indians themselves. During the colonial period, we can see in the impassioned writings and sermons by Spanish Christians the same moral earnestness and reasoned appeals that were echoed by American evangelicals 300 years later in their crusade against slavery in the South. Rare is the European and virtually nonexistent is the Asian, African, or Arab writer who can be found to anguish about the condition and treatment of slaves.
Slavery was just another practice of a civilization that had not yet developed the sense of justice and mercy that came later. It is anachronistic and vindictively selective to indict Christians for failing to meet our modern standards of human rights.

Holy Cow!

I really like the way this is presented and I could not agree more!

I like the thought of a return to humility. And when we say humility, it's not weakness, it's the greatest strength.

This seems so much like the greats and saints that lived before.

It's time for the church around the world to return to kindness, compassion, quiet resolution, commitment, covenant, sacrifice, relevance, reality, connectedness, simplicity, transparency, gentleness, character, humility, friendship, friendliness, godliness, peace, yet not passivity, activity, outward-thinking, onward-going, overtly-loving and outreach-mindedness.

It's time for the mind of Christ to be restored in the living church and for church to be seen by the members as not a club with which to reject some or exclude others, but a family in which to connect, love and heal.

Just some thoughts.

And thanks again for the perspective!

pd

"The problem is not with Christianity, but with Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and deny Him with their lifestyle."

No -- the problem is with Christianity.

The Catholic Church leaders are being completely consistent with the Christian faith when they take every action possible to deny contraceptives to developing countries -- and yet their actions are entirely immoral.

The same can be said regarding those Christians who used to justify slavery -- it's the faith that is perverted -- not the people.

A fundamental issue in religion is the question of the origin of salvation.

- Salvation comes through divine means, which are external and omnipotent...we see ourselves as inherently tainted, part of the sickness of humanity...this view is the orthodox truth.

- Salvation comes from within, through introspection into the nature of the psyche...we can learn about the world and ourselves, and change what we believe is true.

I believe that the fundamental disagreements in religion are based on these fault lines, rather than denominational differences. Thus fundamental Christians and Moslems and Hindus and Jews appear to adhere to an orthodox truth.

Whereas more sensible and deliberative believers of all faiths are able to accommodate at least some amount of introspection and reasoning.

Yes, the Bible is filled with ghastly and intolerant core values. How anyone would want to live by these commitments is beyond me:

"He who walks with integrity walks securely, but he who perverts his ways will become known." (Proverbs 10:9 NKJV) - Demonstrated Integrity

"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." (II Corinthians 9:7 NKJV) - Joyful Giving

"Keep on loving each other as brothers. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:1-2 NIV) - Warm Welcome

"Be sincere in your love for others. Hate everything that is evil and hold tight ot everything that is good. Love each other as brothers and sisters and honor others more than you do yourself." (Romans 12:9-10 CEV) - Authentic Community

"But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it." (I Corinthians 12:24b-26 NASB) - Intentional Caring

It's the dumbest turkey alive...

Jesus inspires confidence. There is no one way connection between conficence and peace as the historical record clearly shows as well as the present condition of peace on earth.

The dunbest turkey alive has a version of what everyone should do, how they should live their lives, a way of life for all. No one has the formula of life style that fits all. Jesus is a fictional character through who's mouth a pack of conficence men spouted their version of how all must live. Odd how they get what they want, the good things of life at the expense of those who believe in, have faith in them.

Their book is a hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells us what their motive is all about. Those who lead others to hell shall get all the goods of earth, if not for their personal use then to be disposed of as they see fit.

Religion is the confidence scam that is unlawful everywhere but only enforced in a few places. Gifts to God are not to God but rather to men in whom people of faith place their confidence. Jesus preached peace through the words put in his mouth by criminals. No peace? Small wonder.

The missing element in these arguments is respect for freedom of conscience.

When you believe you hold the absolute truth, no matter what authority (whether the Bible, tradition, or science) you use to justify your claim, you become a danger to others when you allow your claim to deny the other's right to freedom of conscience, which FORBIDS coercion of any kind.

We should acknowledge and misuse of coercion - both historically and in our present culture -
and how to honor freedom of conscience before we dare to argue with each other.

The writer is merely reporting that Jesus is not a magician where one can become a leader when ever he/she feels like. Instead he refers to belief as practical work based upon pure principles. If Jesus is truth, compassion, and forgiveness, the believer practices exactly truth, compassion, and forgiveness. If you really want to know, try it out for a while and see for yourself.

I have tried it all the time and I have learned that some people take advantage of your belief to mislead you, and gain control over you, or profit from you. I don’t blame those who ask where Jesus is, or where is God among the crime and injustice in the world… You will begin to become doubtful.

After a while longer, I have also learned that there is absolutely nothing you can do about anyone else except yourself. You can make choices about your actions, and others do likewise. You cannot judge them or punish them either. You learn to accept reality.

Still a while longer, you become wiser about people’s behaviour and motives. People also begin to realise qualities in you. Some will still try to deceive you, but you know and feel sorrow for them. You must remain humble.

After all the trials and temptations, you will not be able to help but people will come to seek your help. People followed him to be healed, and some for the marvel in the stories and parables….
It is real

What becomes overwhelming as you review the posts is the contrast between the comments of those supporting the "Christian" position and those challenging it. Bill & Ambasador seem to calmly, methodically respond to the gauntlets thrown down by their opponents. No criticism, no put-down, no maligning. Can the same be said of their opposites? Their comments are flavored with anger, to say the least. Their dismay at the flawed views of Bill and others is far from gentle.

And isn't that what one seeks from his God? Calmness in a raging sea? Security in a dark night? This is what those of us who believe seek and somehow, miracuously recieve.

And, if we are wrong, who have I harmed in my attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus? If there is nothing at the end I will never know I was wrong anyway. But what if we are right?

EMM,

That is one interesting take on truth, as a dynamic evolving entity. The Greeks used to divide on this issue. On one side was Parmenides who claimed reality is unchanging, on the other side was Heraclitus who claimed everything changes. So you are closer to Heraclitus. But the idea that truth, the "claim" itself, is changing is an interesting take.

Plato was the most famous advocate of the Ultimate Reality is Unchanging view, hence the adoption of his philosophy by the early Christian theologians as the intellectual underpinning of Christianity. But he also harbored doubt later in life, his theory of forms hinders his even stronger belief in knowledge, the acquisition of which is itself an unending process, i.e., change.

A thinking Christian would of course claims God is both everlasting and everchanging. But that is theology which offers faith or as too often on this forum sacred text as "evidence", not philosophy which requires at least some logic, or science which demands reproducibility.

Now if the claim behind the claim is also dynamic, then you may get into an infinite regression which will violate Aristotle's most fundamental rule of logic. But that's another story.

Ashley: The human race can't afford a religious belief that requires every person on the face of the planet to convert or be butchered. I would agree with you that the Bible isn't an "easy" read, but even children can understand the fundamental precepts.

The problem is not with Christianity, but with Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and deny Him with their lifestyle.

As in all these "On Faith" threads, we see that the Christian bible, being an incoherent mess, can support hundreds if not thousands of mutually incompatible beliefs. They range from Wallis' "let's be humble and praise the lord while friendly bunnies hop about under a perfect shining sun" to poster Dave, who salivates at the thought of unbelievers being judged by his cruel and unforgiving daddy god.

We are entering an era where almost anyone will be able to cause destruction on a massive scale. Even if we have a million Wallises for every psychotic who wants to slay and torture the infidels, there will still be enough people in the world to annihilate us many times over.

The human race can't afford religious beliefs any longer. We've got to fight their lies if we wish to survive.

Its not just Christians and non-Christians.Many "Christians" consider Christian denominations other their own as if they were another religon.

Much of this lack of tolerance, and narrow mindedness, comes from an inability (or unwillingness)to look at ourselves from another persons point of view. If you listen to some of the more conservative Christians and then imagine if we heard the same words from,say, a Muslim: our first thought would be "Fundamentalist" or even" Fanatic"...

That is humanity are work. We are both good and evil.

Maybe Jesus didn't say he was the only way and the authors and editors of the Bible added this information.

To all you Christian Nazi deniers out there: Hitler was a Christian. He was a terrible Christian, but he was a Christian, and he proclaimed the ascendency of Christianity from the beginning of the Nazi nightmare to the end. Also, all those German soldiers, SS guys. etc. were Christians, and they murdered 11 million people in the camps including Jews, the disabled, the mentally ill, Roma (Gypsies), homosexuals, Slavs and others. They also caused the deaths of 50 million more people as the direct result of the war. These were your beloved Christians at work. You cannot escape accountability for the Holocaust, because it is directly on your head.

A couple of thoughts on “truth”:

1.) Suppose, for the sake of discussion, we were all willing to concede that a specific statement were absolutely true and that that one agreed upon statement was represented to us as a stake placed in the middle of a large circle, with each of us standing side by side along the outside of that circle.

-While each of us could physically see the “stake of truth” from where we stood, we would none the less each see the truth from our particular vantage point. This would not negate the agreed upon truth, but it would complicate our discussion about this truth.

-Additionally, we would each bring to our physical perspective the baggage of our previous experiences, our individual cultural and psychological histories etc… Again, none of this would negate the agreed upon truth, but would further complicate our discussion.

All of which is to say that when any of us make claims about the truth, even truth about which we were all willing to accept, we can only do so as a matter of our personal perspective. The truth might not change, but our perspective is always uniquely our own.

2.) Another possibility (one that I am inclined to personally) that could really complicate our discussion would be if the truth, already subject to the complications of our unique perspectives, were itself dynamic, evolving or even progressing. The truth, in this case, might be analogous to the curl of a wave, with us seekers, whether religious or scientific in perspective, riding that wave till its natural end. While we are in the curl all is well and good, but we would know our truth will, sooner or later come to its natural end.

Finally, what evidence is there that the truth, scientific or revealed, must be true for all time and from all perspectives? It seems to me that whatever our claims regarding the truth, a large dose of humility would serve us well.

Anon:

Have you actually read the Bible? Did you notice that a great deal of the people in the Bible struggle just like we do? The reason Jesus came to earth, to be the perfect sacrifice, was because the Jews were obsessed with getting their sins forgiven by ritual sacrifice. God wanted them to know that he could forgive them of it before they even sinned so that they could concentrate on what really mattered - loving God and each other. Sorry we are not perfect enough for you, but the entire New Testament is about just that. Mankind cannot be perfect. Only with God's grace can we even attempt to be good. We are all in this Rat race together just trying our best. Christianity is about trying to be the best we can be, not about being perfect.

Ok, so we are to be humble and let God decide what happens to those that don't believe - I get that. My question is this - Is this because of humility or trying to be politically correct? Humility is saying we don't know what happens to these other people, but was BG being honest? I don't expect someone of another religion to protect my feelings by being dishonest. If I respect them and trust God, I can let them say what they believe without feeling like I have been attacked. Let me ask this, why did Jesus say he was the only way? Religious tolerance does not mean we should hold back the truth. It just means that I can say what I believe with humility. Humility does not have to prevent us from saying what we believe because no one knows with 100% certainty that they are correct - thats why its called faith.

Dear Independent Thinker,

Thank you for your comments. As I stated in an earlier post, I have presented the evidence for why I adhere to the teachings of the Bible and I have attempted to share it with others so that they can think about it, study it, and draw their own conclusions as you appear to have done.

My only word of caution for all who put their faith solely in science is this: do you really want to put your faith in something that changes so rapidly? It appears that almost every study that comes out contradicts the findings of an earlier study.

Dear Andy,

You said, "Dear Ambassador of Christ, did you know that Paul was not an Apostle? You do know that don't you? Can you name the twelve Apostles? I can. Here they are. Simon, Andrew, James the older, John, Phillip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the younger, Thaddeus, Simon the zealot and Judas. There was another one after Judas death. Can you tell me who he is? His name was Mattias. You should be embarassed than an athiest knows more about your bible than you do."

If you check my post closely, you will notice that I never refer to Paul as one of the twelve apostles, but I do refer to him as an apostle because the Bible says that he was an apostle.

Romans 1:1 says: "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an APOSTLE".

1 Corinthians 1:1 says: "Paul, called by the will of God to be an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus"

2 Corinthians 1:1 says: "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God"

Galatians 1:1 says: "Paul, an APOSTLE - not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father"

Ephesians 1:1 says: "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God"

Colossians 1:1 says: "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God"

1 Timothy 1:1 says: "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope."

2 Timothy 1:1 says: "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus"

Titus 1:1 says: "Paul, a servant of God and an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ"

Thank you for your reply, but the Bible clearly states over and over that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ as I have shown above.

Quick ways to check if the Bible is true: do Christians believe the Bible is literally the word of God?

Do they reject wealth?
Do they choose to give all their worldly goods away?
When you hit them, do they offer the other cheek?
Do they serve or do they prefer to be served?
Do they hate their mother and their father, like Jesus told them to?

I'm thinking Mother Theresa. I'm thinking that most Christians look at you like you're nuts if you suggest they ought to live like she did. She's exceptional. She's different. She actually believed in that book. Most people would never consider throwing away everything to go live that life. They'd prefer to just use the book for their own ends. (Jesus had something to say about people like that, too.)

Anyone who posts to this thread in defense of the Bible - why aren't you busy living the life?

I feel very badly for Billy Graham - isn't he the one whose son has put up a moneymaking library in his name? As in, complete with Disneymatronics-style talking cow?

Dear Ambassador of Christ, did you know that Paul was not an Apostle? You do know that don't you? Can you name the twelve Apostles? I can. Here they are. Simon, Andrew, James the older, John, Phillip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the younger, Thaddeus, Simon the zealot and Judas. There was another one after Judas death. Can you tell me who he is? His name was Mattias. You should be embarassed than an athiest knows more about your bible than you do.

Monotheism, but not quite

No doubt Jesus was a sincere person who wished well for everyone - in fact he worked hard to show people the way to God. But people being what they are have seriously confused his message to the extent that the most precious taboo regarding wroship has been broken, i.e to worship no one except God.

Leading people to God from idol worship at one time required having them believe that Jesus was the son of God and to worship his statue. We are not living in age where majority of people are illiterate. There is nothing wrong in saying that Jesus was the son of God. As long as you realize that every individual is also the son of God.

WAKE UP PEOPLE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS

Jim Wallis has it right,
but Frozen1's comment today--"Hitler was a Christian"--is astonishingly ignorant: though he manipulated religion (as everything else) to the extent of his powers, Hitler was ragingly anti-Christian. He hoped to replace Christianity with his version of ancient German paganism.

Jim Wallis: You're one of my modern day heros! Keep up the fantastic work and message you're spreading. The World needs you!

You're in my prayers.

For Ambassador for Christ - I am even laughing harder now after reading what you have to say against my thoughts and your religious beleifs. Man, I thought only illetrate people beleive in God, but here you are in USA, talking these non-sense. Please get out of this slave mentality of praising Jesus w/t any scientific thinking and looking to Bible for all answers. Open your eyes, read latest scientific research about the origin of the universe, evolution of species and you will find out that everything in this universe is merely a collection of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now if you ask me where even these basic units came from, then let me tell you that now physics research has proved that even in perfect vaccum, these particles appear and disappear. Everything that you see in this universe is made up of these particles. God did not make them. How hard it is to understand this? You don't have to an authority to know all this. All you need is an open scientific mind. That's it.

Now, even after reading all i said, you still think God created universe, then answer me who created God. My answer - we human beings. When we don't have any explanation for anything, we think its mistical and immideately think it is created by God. People like you might never have beleived that a plane can fly before its invention and w'd have thought its being flown by God or Saitan.

Even though I don't beleive in any religion, the philosophy which is very close to science in terms of origin of universe is Hinduism. Read Gita and it will tell you the same thing the scientists know today about the origin of universe.

I am responding to your statement about Jesus- Jesus acknowledged that there had been other prophets of God, but yet he was the ultimte "prophet", the Son of God. May I ask you who gave him the authority to claim that. Does not that sound arroganr and stupid and prove whta I said in my previous post that these so called prophets were basically just extremely ambitious people who were only interested in getting publicity and fame.

Mohamed said the same thing - after me no more prophets. Guru Govid Singh of Sikhism - same stupid proclaimation - I am the last and best one. piece of crap.

You said - God reveals himself in many ways. Well, I just asked why he does not simply reveal himself in person instead of revealing indirectly in so many ways. Why does he need so many middlemen to say what he wants to convey to us, why not directly him. Why does not he chose to do so. what he is so scared or embarased?

Why God wants us to beleive in him if he created all of us. If he had been that powerful and shown himself directly, then everybody w'd have beleived in him without any prophet telling me to beleive him. If he w'd have been such a powerful creater, then we w'd have been doing things he w'd have wanted us to do. He can't even create a mind hard-wired to believe him.

Lastly, why God needed to create all this universe in the first place and bother about us believing or not believing him? Why he is not happy being alone?

I request you to think of facts and questions that i have raised w/t attaching yourself to any book. Back in old days,, people had lot of free time and no knowledge of science. Result - they wrote lot of stories about these so called prophets or son of Gods who were once again no different that Modern day Bhagwan Rajneesh. Remember him? Women were busier doing better things and so you won't find any daughter of god. So however wierd it may sound, we are nothing but aggregation of some basic particles evolved by chance. After few years or few hundread years, human race might become extinct and then there will not be anybody here to think about this anymore. After a few billion years, even this universe will be back to a finger tip of material from it originated in the first place only to explode again to evolve into universe. Cycle of temporary creation and destruction. going on forever.

But by me=My example. God is Transcendent. We see God as we need to see God based upon our own life experiences. This is meant to filter prejudices and insure clear, clean lines of communication without the noise of hate, fear or any other negative emotions. Negative emotions have no place in God's Kingdom. They offer no survival value. Quite to the contrary. So, unless we are so ethnocentric as to force our vision of God upon others, it works with Beauty and Clarity beyond the reach of man. When man does reach, when man does force God's work is corrupted into a device of Lucifer. Case on point, Hitler was a Christian. Thank you Jim Wallis for your centrist views. I have not had the pleasure of reading your work, but you are warm enough to melt ice. Stepping back now for my work is not done. God Bless and Keep you Always.

SMAFDY,

Thank you for a courteous reply. I've seen far too many discussions become heated and unproductive on this site, so I appreciate your kindness.

If you will permit me, I will direct you to the following link which can do a much better job of describing the evidence than I can. Here's the link:

http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/newtestament10/

A note about an earlier comment of yours:"Show some evidence that the "person" Jesus is not a fictional character. There is no physical evidence of his existence." The Jewish Talmud does document and recognize the existence of Jesus. Further, it even recognizes the miracles that Jesus performed, although it suggests that He did the miracles by the power of Satan. So, the question becomes, why wouldn't the Talmud (which was written at least in part to counter the claims of the New Testament) instead deny the existence of its enemy if Jesus never actually existed? But not only does the Talmud NOT deny that Jesus existed, it does NOT even deny that He performed many miracles.

SMAFDY: One example is Erasmus, mentioned by Paul in one of his letters, as a commissioner of public works. Archaeological ruins indicate the existence of Erasmus's name in that city, recorded as the very title he was credited with in the Bible.

Another example is the book of Daniel. Daniel predicts the arrival and dominance of Alexander the Great, but the book is dated hundreds of years before Alexander himself.

Another example is Isaiah 53. Go read it and see if you can't connect it to Jesus.

The whole idea that the Bible predicts itself is based on the fact that there were many different authors writing the book at many different times. You can tell there are different authors based on the style of writing, etc. as well as the language used. So it's not as if one person wrote the whole thing and that's the magical reason why everything fits together.

The Bible is the most well documented historical document ever, with over 5000 pieces of the Bible scattered across multiple countries and written in many different languages. That over 95% of the text is preserved indicates a strikingly high degree of accuracy. And you may claim that's not good enough to ensure it's a real document. But I would claim that we validate other books with far less hard evidence.

Sorry, it was the Harvard Faculty Club that Fidel exited. Even the Harvard faculty wanted to bask in Fidel's celebrity.

Mr. Wallis, I think you shouldn't have cited students' desire to bask in celebrity as a testimony to Billy Graham's supposed virtue.

Mr. Wallis,

You say that Billy Graham is "the world's greatest evangelist." Has it not occurred to you that "greatest" and "evangelist" form an oxymoron?

You recount that Harvard students lined up for hours to hear Billy Graham. I was a graduate student at Harvard when Harvard students lined up for hours to see Fidel Castro exit the Harvard club.

Celebrity, not virtue or merit, is the desired currency, even among Harvard students.

Bill:

The "church", as the political organization we now know (as well as it's political offshoots), was founded by the Roman Emporer Constantine at the Council of Nicea.

Since the number of a religion's adherents, by your logic, is evidence of it's devine truth, Islam is becoming more true, and Christianity more false, every day. Source: religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm.

Also, the number of Christians who "follow" Christ is incredibly small. Those who appropriate his name in persuit of power, profit, and social inclusion (tribalism) are multitude. So much for devine mission and/or devine will.

Ambassador for Christ:

You can't use a work of fiction to validate itself - just as you can't use a word to define itself. Pointing to the bible as evidence that the bible is true is a closed loop of validation. Furthermore, you state that the first books of the New Testament were written by the same people who had witnessed the events about which they wrote. Can you point me to a collection of historical documents or other evidence that would support this claim?

SMAFDY,

My "proof" as a person of "faith" is two-fold.

1. The church (followers of Christ) preceeded the written stories. The church did not form on the basis of the written stories you refer to. The written stories came out of the church which sprung from the throngs of people who followed Jesus before and immediately after his death and resurrection. They had first had knowledge.

2. I just can't believe for a moment that almost 2,000 years later that billions of people could be "following" anyone, much less a fraud, without divine intervention/inspiration.

Peace to you in your journey.

Did you know the Bible teaches that those who believe in Christ will not face judgement and condemnation. They will receive rewards based on their life at teh "Bema Seat" and salvation is guaranteed for them that beleive.

Un-belivers will face the "Great White Throne Judgement" and that is when they will all be allowed to tell God how they feel about him face to face. Then they will be judged accordingly.

I'm sure God can't wait to hear all those stories on how he's a child murderer and he was never there for them, not to mention how he is so unworthy to be God by all those that hate him and he will be so surprised at the secular human response that he never proved his existance to them.

To see the unbeliever say they are just so surprised that he really is there that they have changed their mind and now would love to have the opportunity to get into paradise will be so unexpected!

Good luck.......

There are different degrees of authenticity that we can give to historical events.

If we believe that the laws of nature haven't changed, then we say some events couldn't have happened because they are impossible.

Or we could say that scientific equipment hasn't been set up to gather facts from present-day occurances of those events.

Independent Thinker said:"Here is the ultimate truth about GOD and religion."

Respectfully, I ask on what authority do you make this claim? What evidence do you have to support your beliefs? I have presented in my 12/26 3:53PM EST post the evidence for why I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and why the Bible is valid. I would greatly appreciate if you would provide the support for your claims as well.

Having said that, I will proceed in my attempt to respectfully answer some of your comments with what I believe to be the authoritative Word of God, the Bible.

Comment #1: "All these so called prophets were actually very smart people who just wanted to be powerful and to be followed. They all claimed they were the ONLY messanger of the GOD."

Jesus Christ never made the claim that he was the ONLY messenger of God. In Luke 7:26 and 28, speaking of John the Baptist, Jesus says, "What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet...I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John." Jesus acknowledged that there had been other prophets of God, but yet he was the ultimate "prophet", the Son of God. Jesus Christ claimed to be God in human form, and that He was "the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." But, again, to specifically respond to your statement, he did not claim to be the "ONLY messenger of the God." He did claim to be the only way of salvation.

Comment #2: "Well, seems like GOD needs a middleman to send his messages. Is he that dumb? Why does not he simply come before us and say 'Hey here I am, now you better beleive me anf follow what I say'. Why it is so difficult for the almight GOD to do this?"

God reveals himself in many ways: (1) through creation (see Romans 1:18-20), (2) through the human conscience (see Romans 2:14-16), (3) through personal encounters (such as with Adam, Noah, and Moses), (4) through mighty acts (such as the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus 14), (5) through the prophets of the Old Testament, and (6) through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Regarding this last method, Hebrews 1:1-2 says that:"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." In response to your question as to why this is so difficult for the almightly God, Mark 10:27 says that "all things are possible with God." The reason God does not necessarily reveal himself through mighty acts or personal encounters anymore is because He chooses not to.

Comment #3:"Even if (God) exists it does not care for us. To him, there is no difference between a grain of soil and the Human being."

One of the most quoted verses in the Bible is John 3:16 which says that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." In this context, "the world" is referring to the human beings living in the world because they are the only ones with the mental capacity to "believe in him."

There are many other comments that could be refuted with Scripture, but I will stop with these three. Again, I have previously shown why I believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, and hence why I adhere to its teachings. It is up to you to examine the evidence presented and come to your own conclusions.

Mr. Wallis, you have it right. I am Baha'i who believes deeply in the ministry of Jesus Christ as both personal salvation and social reconstruction. It is important to remind everyone that the message OF Jesus isn't the same as rigid doctrine ABOUT Jesus. The Jesus I know walks with me every day, reminding me of how to act with people who would wish me ill or do me harm, what I should think and do about the poor, and how to be what God wishes me to be. That Jesus doesn't fit in a doctrinal box.

Mr. Wolfe: Your harsh feelings against religion mirror those of the Christian triumphalists you so strongly condemn. What does religion mean to you that you find it necessary to attack every panelist on this religion forum? If religion is simply nonsense and useless, and every panelist an idiot, surely you have better things to do than spend your time here?

How one defines fact, historical fact, myth, theory, and god play a large role on what they understand and believe.