All Comments (23)

Justin:

Thanks for the courteousness of your note. I have to concede that Palau has not explicitly indicated -- in his posts in this forum -- that he rejects the occurrence of evolution.

But it does seem most unlikely that he accepts its occurrence. You will no doubt be well aware of the Biblical phrase; "as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive." The Adam and Eve story, the life of Jesus and his death -- as a supposed sacrifice for our sins -- all hang (or fall) together. I certainly don't think that evolution and the age of the earth are "off the subject" in this forum. Palau does make reference to his interaction with an atheist from China and it seems most unlikely that these topics were not part of their discussions. I don't think Palau's book on these discussions is yet on sale but it might make for interesting reading once it is available.

Your description of heaven and hell does not leave me feeling any more attracted to the notion of hell or heaven for that matter. Jesus does seem to have accepted the existence of hell (Gehenna) as a place of punishment. Try Matthew 5:22:

"I say unto you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement, whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council and whoever says 'You fool' shall be liable to the hell of fire."

Since I do not accept Christian theology my denial of the Christian God must perforce assign me to hell --in your scheme of things. But, since I don't believe it exists, that does not bother me too much.

Mr. Swart,

I respect your opinion. At the same time, I believe you need to be careful what claims you put into the mouths of people like Palau. To get into discussions such as evolution in a forum such as this seems to be a little off the subject, and Palau himself leaves you very little to make the claims you do about his own personal views.

As far as the discussion of Heaven and Hell and why a truly loving God would have such “tormented” teachings (as you call them), we must look at what was really taught about the two places. In Scripture, Heaven is described as the dwelling place of God – where people go to spend eternity with him. In contrast, Hell is eternal separation from God. Whether someone chooses Heaven or Hell depends on whether or not they want life with or without God. I’m not sure who would outright choose Hell, but in denying God, one is innately choosing that destination.

I do need to clarify one thing. We can and should live tolerant and respectful to one another. It still must be reciprocated. I am afraid that if a person is wholly disrespectful to another, than I will have lost respect for them as well. Respect, however, that can be regained. We can turn the cheek only so far. We cannot afford to be stupid. We must afford to allow another chance, as we should, to a point.

I have to agree with Mr. Swart. If a person lives as Christ had thought we should, living in tolerance, compassion, understanding and respect of others, yet they did not believe that Christ was of the divine, only because they were not taught that to be true. Then why would they not go to heaven? Chrisitians need to begin to understand that a person does not have to simply say, or even believe that Christ is Lord to go to Heaven, but that living the way will gain you access to whatever may lie beyond.

To Jonathan Switzer:

You ask what drives us non-believers to criticize the likes of Palau. It is really very simple. It is just a case of loving the truth.

He (Palau) uncritically accepts the Bible as containing historically accurate truths and completely ignores some of the glaring internal inconsistencies. He quotes Jesus as having made claims about his supposedly divine status but does not mention the evidence -- right in the Bible -- that he (Jesus) regarded himself as a lesser being than God. What do you make of Jesus statement:
"Why call ye me good? There is none good but God".
(Matthew 19:17)
In any case, uncritical reverence for the Bible is not very commendable. Much of the New Testament was written long after Jesus death and the choice of which books should be included in the canon seems to have been largely arbitrary.

Furthermore, Jesus was -- as you well know -- inclined to portray God as a god of love. Yet, he appears to have believed in the existence of hell and eternal torment -- which hardly speaks of a god of love.

Palau says:

"I have yet to meet anyone who has completely written off Jesus. They may call him a good teacher, or even a divine prophet, but few, if any, would call him a fraud."

To make a statement like that is ridiculous. Rejecting Jesus as being the Son of God does not require us to "write him off" or regard him as a "fraud". All Muslims reject the notion that Jesus was the Son of God as do atheists and agnostics -- for different reasons -- so it would appear that Palau has not met very many people other than those who agree with him.

In any case Palau -- being as he is a fundamentalist Christian -- believes in indefensible nonsense such as the non-occurrence of evolution -- despite all the fossil and DNA evidence which establishes that the working of evolution is exactly how we came into being.

Those who accept the truth shall indeed be set free and the rejection of self-evident truths is not exactly the route to freedom.

I have been reading these posts for some time now and I have noticed that there are several of you out there who have a consistent passion for attempting to undermine all things "faith", no matter the religion. It feels a bit to me like an obsession. Nevertheless, you certainly are persistent and mocking in your tone. It is possible that you find your mocking tone effective at exposing the truth. However, it may be possible that your mockery reveals instead resentment toward "believers" of whatever ilk and a need to resolve issues you have toward such people. Whatever it is, the intensity of it screams from these lists. I guess I would like to personally apologize for anytime that I may have been responsible for the resentment that you seem to express. If I have ever been offensive to you, or one like you, I would like to ask forgiveness. I think you would probably define me and my beliefs as being fundamentalist and possibly driven by greed. Though I search my own heart regularly, I am sure that greed shows up more than honors God. (namely, it should never show up). Nevertheless, the intensity of your mockery drives me to pay close attention to you. Maybe there is no pain there for you. However, if there is, I wish it were not so. I have even wondered if you are aware of the loudness of the tone of your comments. As, if you are very concerned that no one is listening to you. Again, I am sorry if that has ever been the case. Though, I am a pastor and believe that there is no way to heaven but through Christ, who was born of a virgin and who has made a way through the cross for sinners to live forever with God...; I hear the volume of your comments and see the mockery of its tone and care that you know that I desire to understand what drives it.

It is important for one to realize that the term "faith" connotes believing in the unseen. To simply "prove" Christianity to be false is as entirely possible as being able to "prove" it to be fact. One can argue that respected theologians of the liberal persuasion see the Bible as simply literature with no spiritual backing. But, it is obvious that Christ implied that he was God incarnate. The important issue, however, is what one chooses to base their belief (or lack thereof) upon. Humanity's existance begs for something more, answers to the looming questions every person has. It is obvious that humanity has a 'sinful' nature, bearing in mind that sin has a plethora of names assigned to it. We see the evils of mankind everyday. The idea of an afterlife as real and direct consequences to the life one lives on Earth is an ancient and common belief throughout the annals of time. In this line of thought, humanity's sinful nature obviously separates them from a God of wrath and divine holiness, in whatever strand one believes. Many claim that God is all-loving, and that although we sin, he automatically owes it to us to go to a happy-ever-afterlife. On the other hand, some claim that God, upon seeing the ruinous ways of humanity, threw up his hands and severed his connection with his grand experiment. But Christ bridges the gap, in his divinely-human nature. He "[was] tempted in all ways, but sinned not." He chose to go through with living as a perfect human (as nobody else is) and going on to suffer and die as a criminal, which he was not. This is not only circumstancially supported by Biblical writings, but also secular texts of the era. I do not believe that simple words will convince an atheist of God's existence, nor will the opposite occur. Rational thinking has left us to re-examine our perspective of God. Does science and transcendental thinking separate us from a divine being? I think not. Instead, however, level-headed seekers of truth, and those who claim to have it should do less arguing and more to help humanity's woes. I believe this to be true with Dr. Palau, although I am not exceptionally familiar with the man. Athiests, agnostics, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and all persons in our pluralistic America need to learn the lesson that no progressive change occurs in fundamentalist arguments. Living a life that exemplifies the tenets of a given faith is the best way to convince anyone of the value of that faith. Research the subject. Instead of approaching faith objectively, allow the evidence to mold your assertions. Do not let presuppositions to do the opposite. Inasmuch as Jesus Christ is concerned, his teachings support what I believe all humanity should strive for: peace, love, rational thought, and hard work. Those who claim to follow Christ would do well to realize that he humbled himself, and they should do the same. Jesus loved the sinner, and yet hated the sin. He did not isolate himself away in a stained-glass temple, but rather associated with the people. We can all learn from the person of Jesus Christ, regardless of what we believe about his divinity.

To the panel: Is this meant to be a discussion on faith or just Christianity? Most panelists so far seem to be singing praises of Jesus and of course Christianity. You need to make it more diverse to call it a "discussion on faith" and please, why are you giving these evangelists more publicity than they already need?!

A poster wrote:
"Calling the devil God does not make the devil God. Calling the devil God makes the devil happy. Was Allah real happy with what happened 9/11/2001? The devil certainly was happy with that."

I think you have many grudges against Islam and Muslims. I am still not sure how this makes christianity a true religion or the bible an authentic source of God's word. Don't justify your faith or your laziness in researching your faith by painting a bad picture of everybody else.

To all Muslims:

Calling the devil God does not make the devil God. Calling the devil God makes the devil happy. Was Allah real happy with what happened 9/11/2001? The devil certainly was happy with that.

The Bible says Jesus was the son of Lucifer. Interpretation 1501 is a warning that one should not take litely, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Is the real God sending you a sign? Do you have the mental capacity to see it? Worshipping the devil and saying he is God will not please God. Is Allah the same God that Moses made the deal with, sold his soul so he could be the first king of Israel. That God like devils lives in the fire of hell.

{5. Thou shalt not kill.} Does Allah inspire his worshippers to kill? Does the devil inspire his worshippers to kill? Is Allah the devil? Please prove Allah is not the devil before asking me to worship him.

:) Mr.Palau, seriously, u made my day by claiming we either have to choose Jesus (PBUH), God forbid as son of God or reject him as a madman.He wasn't the son of God because God is One and Unique none is comparable or co-equal to him and nor was he a madman but he was a beloved and chosen Prophet of God.

35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of)God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
36. Verily Gos is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.

Quran: chapter Mary

1. Say: He is God,the One.
2. God is He on Whom all depend.
3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4. And there is none co-equal or comparable unto him.

Quran :112

No. If you believe in God, then we are all it's children. Christ was one of many through history who understood it.

Bob, you must not believe, have faith in the Bible. How can you ever expect to gain faith in God's representatives? You must have faith, the Bible is the word of God, God is represented by the better class of people who preach from the Bible, and if you have any faith left to spare, have some faith in God. Am I to understand your faith is spread a little thin in places, like a sorry splattering of mustard on your hot dog?

comment:

Mr. Palau says:

"As history shows through the Bible (the most reliable, accurate, and well preserved historical document of today) . . ."

This statement alone discredits Mr. Palau for any further consideration as a serious thinker. He is a propagandist and nothing more.

Back to the point:

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, who was he?"

No. Anyone who does must prove two assertions:

1. That God exists.

2. That God procreates and somehow produces a son.

The concept is meaningless. Therefore the bible is no more relevant (actually very much less so) than Greek drama, or Homer, to our world today.

Jesus was a Jew, possibly a revolutionary, who did not confine himself to doctrine and dogma, had some influence among the populace of his time, opposed the status quo and was affective enough to warrant execution by the religious and political power elete of his time. . . Today, he might be a simple Palestinian who might influence the Israeli public to such an extent that both the Palestinian and Israeli power eletes would simply kill him because he posed too great a threat to their status.

Have a warm and wonderful holiday!

All it takes to turn a lie into a truth is for enough people to have faith. All it takes to prove an improvable is for enough scholars from reputable universities to say it's so.

Reputable universities? Let's see, there's Liberty University, Orel Roberts University,

Tell you what. Let's go for reputable people. There's Billy Graham, Pat Robertson,

Naw. Let's ask the president. He knows everything. He is he reputable isn't he? 30 million evangelicals can't possibley be wrong. Well, I'm waiting. Can they?

Ho ho ho.

"I have yet to meet anyone who has completely written off Jesus," says Luis Palau. Meet Burton H. Wolfe, Luis. Burton H. Wolfe has written an ebook which PROVES, by massive and irrefutable evidence, that the major "Jesus" (Joshua) of the New Testament, the one called "christ" (messiah), is nothing more than an invention of ancient Hebrew scribes who rewrote stories of prior fictitious messiahs. The ebook is called "The Case Against "Jesus," and you will be able to look at a list of the contents, and try it out in segments, by going to http://burtonsbooks.com. (Type or paste that into your web address bar if clicking on it does not work.) You, Luis, keep ranting and raving about "Jesus" on the basis of what is in the scriptures, which no genuine scholar or historian or sane and rational person on this earth accepts as historical fact. My debunking of your "Jesus" is based on solid, documented evidence. The only kind of person who will believe you and not me is the kind of person who believes what is contained in scriptures without evidence to support it and who, at the same time, refuses to accept what evidence tells her or him is the truth of the matter.
- Burton H. Wolfe

It is the task of scholars with brains to prove that Christianity is a hoax. Good for them!

Mr Palau wrote:

"As history shows through the Bible (the most reliable, accurate, and well preserved historical document of today), "

The "most reliable", "accurate", "well preserved"!!! That alone takes away any ligitimacy or credibility you have in the christian world. Come on, not even the pope believes that. How can you say this when you know (I assume that you do!) that there is over 24,000 versions of bits and pieces of scripture, from which only 4 were "selected" to be called the word of God! How come you say such a thing when "no two in the 24,000 manuscripts were identical"?

Then you go along preaching to the ignorant telling them about Jesus being called this or that! Don't you know that all of the Israelites were called Sons of God, "in the bible"! Don't you know that God "Himself" gave Moses the word God, and told him to be God over the pharoe. Don't you know Jesus when accused of blasphemy for allegedly acting like God, he said isn't it written in your book (the Torah) that "Ye are gods!". Jesus is rediculing them and telling them, don't you know what it means??? The amazing thing is that you actually quoted the first verse (John 10:33)! Why don't you quote the next verse??? You have abused Jesus for too long. You claim to follow his true message, but you are not. No wonder on his second coming, you will tell him:
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Matthew 7:22

but he will reply with:
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:23

Your iniquity is that you call him God but he is not!

Sorry. My comment above was not supposed to be ANONYMOUS. I am John M.

The Jesus Seminar 'scholars' that Peter M. refers to follow a teaching called "Higher Criticism". It was born about two hundred years ago among liberal theologians in Germany.

The idea stems from Humanism. These people decided that, with modern science and technology, there was no way any rational person could any longer believe most of the claims of the Bible. So, they began to study the Bible 'critically' (read 'skeptically') and decided, among other things, that most of the Old Testament was mythical, that all of the fulfilled prophesies in the Bible were written well after the events they predicted, and that none of the New Testament authors were who they claimed to be. Those books were written long after Jesus and the other people mentioned in those book died.

I really think the motive here is to introduce doubt in everything believers had believed, almost unanimously, for eighteen hundred years, with the net result being that an individual can pick and choose what they want to believe.

I believe there are far more conservative theologians around than these shaky Jesus Seminar people. You have probably seen them. They are all over television specials about Jesus and the Bible. They say outrageous things that bare no resemblence at all to what the Bible says. And, they say it with authority, although they have no proof of anything they say.

I say, why spend your life studying the Bible if you are not going to BELIEVE it?

I am NOT saying they are not Christians, but I don't personally agree with their teachings.

Jesus' foes knew he was a misguided preacher. God did not intervene to save him. He died, Period. All the rest is fantasy.

Don't read Palau's stuff -- there are a lot of eminent theologians who doubt Christ's divinity

Read up on something called the Jesus Seminar, a large collection of theology professors from reputable universities, who have edited the New Testament without the made up stuff -- its books are widely available

Also, read Elaine Pagels -- her book "The Gospel of Thomas" talks about one of the most important of the "other" gospels; she also discusses why the accepted gospels turned out the way they did -- partly it was a desire to make the new religion more popular by emulating the pagan religions -- the divinity of Christ wasn't invented until the last Gospel, John, which was written about 70 years after Christ died (all those phrases in the early gospels like "Savior" "Messiah" don't mean "God" but must be read in the context of Jewish history)

Also, google "Bible contradictions" and you'll find lots of funny contradictions in the Bible -- the Christmas story, for one, is all screwed up -- e.g., the Wise men followed the star in the "east", but then had to ask Herod for directions (so the star went out? did God mess up?), and Herod supposedly ended up slaughtering the children; but then the star reappears over the manger --- huh? Ruth Green is very good in her book, which is also funny.

Also, lots of the Nativity and life of Christ stories follow incidents in Mithraism, a popular religion of the time -- the art of Mithraism shows those little circular halos over the head -- guess where Christianity got that concept?

Robert M. Price and Bart Ehrman are also good to read

This is not new stuff -- the debunking of the error filled New and Old Testaments occurred in the 19th century -- and the better informed evangelists know this but -- hey -- it's a moneymaker for them.