Bias against Christianity is real, wrong, and understandable

Hello Justtillthennow,

I hope you've had a good week end so far.

I realize we have our positions on our views of God are worlds apart, and like we have both have agreed before we can disagree without being rude or obnoxious to each other.

I wish there was alot more civil posts in some of the other topics that are out there, there is so much to talk about in this subject that posts alone are not an adequate means of communication.

Hope you have a great week!!

GTM

Thank you ThomasBaum for your last post to me. I appreciate your comments, and agree. That is a pleasure.

Peace to you.

justillthennow

I wrote, "Just how many "Christians" have you either heard or read make the statement that Jesus is the "Savior of All Humanity"?"

You replied, "Plenty, if you do not take the words as literal and more to their meaning. Generally Christian postulate, per their beliefs, that Jesus was the 'Only' Son of God and Is Saviour to All."

What plenty of "Christians" mean when they say that Jesus is the Savior of All is that Jesus is the Savior of some and that is what I said and tried to get across.

You then wrote, "Further, you hold that to be a true statement because of your belief in it. I can respect that. However there is no way to validate it as Truth, but subjectively."

God can and at times God does validate it personally to someone. As I have said before I used to believe in God but now I know that God Is and that God is a Being of Pure Love, as in Love not being an attribute of God but God's Very Being.

You also wrote, " Particularly when you add what comes next, which I stated earlier. None may come to the Father but by Me."

That is what Jesus said and if you notice Jesus did not say anything about the "ways" that someone may come to Him or the Holy Spirit, does He? Even tho God Is One, God is also a Trinity, I can't explain it nor would I even attempt to but I have met the Trinity.

You then wrote, "I, likewise, feel that I have met God, ThomasBaum. And 'God' is not just a Christian!"

God never was a Christian, God-Incarnate was born, raised and died a Jew. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were never incarnated.

God has a Plan and has had a Plan since before Creation and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello Greenstheman,

Nice to hear from you.

"I think we need to put into context why God would send someone to hell. That would be because the person has rejected God in this life by rejecting His truth as He has given it to us in the Bible."

I understand that Christian context, but I do not believe it in the least. I do not need it put into that context, for it is, to me, deeply flawed. Understand, it is both contrary and contradictory to my experiences of God, Spirit and Love. It is man made and outside of what I experience of the Creator. You tell me this story and the warnings against Satan and I appreciate your interest, but I have rejected that bitter pill.

God is Love, to me, and cares little to none at all what name I call That. For 'God' IS ALL. To suggest otherwise, or that there are other Gods that compete with Yahweh Jehovah, is to say that Yahweh Jehovah is NOT ALL.

That may well be, and fits my view as well as is congruent with human tendencies to align with regional masters and Lords over giving fealty to all ways, all peoples, all paths, Unity and Union.

Humans prefer tribalism and nation states. That is reasonable, but not the highest.

I respect your right to hold that eternal damnation is what the Father of all things has in store for those that do not utter THAT name as Lord. That is not the experience of God that I have or nurture. Mine is Unconditional Love, and I am thankful for that Blessing.

Peace again, Greenstheman.

Hello ThomasBaum,

"Just how many "Christians" have you either heard or read make the statement that Jesus is the "Savior of All Humanity"?"

Plenty, if you do not take the words as literal and more to their meaning. Generally Christian postulate, per their beliefs, that Jesus was the 'Only' Son of God and Is Saviour to All. There is no other way for humanity to come to the Creator God but by Jesus. You know all this, Thomas. Semantics.

"What I tried to get across is that when Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life...", if it is a true statement than it is just that, a statement of fact, and if it is not true then..."

And what I was saying is that the presence of truth in a position or statement does not erase the possibility that it is communicated in arrogance or humility. Hardly, as can be seen in life daily. Arrogance, or humility, is the tenor of a music, not the notes themselves.

Further, you hold that to be a true statement because of your belief in it. I can respect that. However there is no way to validate it as Truth, but subjectively. Particularly when you add what comes next, which I stated earlier. None may come to the Father but by Me. Now my doubtful and 'fallen' nature rears his ugly head!

I, likewise, feel that I have met God, ThomasBaum. And 'God' is not just a Christian!

Peace, pace, pax and santihom.

greenstheman

You wrote, "I think we need to put into context why God would send someone to hell. That would be because the person has rejected God in this life by rejecting His truth as He has given it to us in the Bible."

God sends no one to hell. If someone were to "wake up in hell", so to speak, they will come to the realization that not only are they and only they responsible for being in hell but that they built it themself.

You also wrote, "If we do not have Him in this life, we will be eternally without Him in the next."

Many people underestimate God. Many people seem to think/believe that if they get to the "good place" then that is Good News.

We are to "Proclaim the GOOD NEWS", if the Good News is not ultimately for everyone then it is not Good News.

At Jesus's birth the Angels proclaimed two different messages: This is GOOD NEWS for everyone and Peace to whom God's Favor rests, both true.

God's Plan is not for a partial victory but is for TOTAL VICTORY.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

The seventh day shall arrive but the night of the sixth day shall precede it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello Justillthennow,

To your:

" Definition of unloved is when God your creator and Father sends you to utter torture! Can not say that is love. Non computum!

You can say that God loves the fallen, but eternity as tortured by the commandment of God is no form of love."

My reply:

I think we need to put into context why God would send someone to hell. That would be because the person has rejected God in this life by rejecting His truth as He has given it to us in the Bible.

In the Garden of Eden, Satan's first weapon to get Adam and Eve to sin ( disobey God )was deception.

He said to Eve " Did God really say, you must not eat from any tree in the garden?

Satan was getting her to doubt the word of God.

Eve said " God did say, you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."

Even though God spoke to Adam and Eve directly she still fell for Satan's lie which was.

" You will not surely die" "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil."

Satan to this day is decieving people into not believing that God exists, that there is more than one way to get to heaven, that the fact that God created the universe is a myth.

God's word is specific, if you rebell against Him we will be cast to hell, so ultimately it is Satan that keeps you from God by closing peoples eyes to God's truth, and we fall to His deception by not allowing God into our hearts and minds because we think, we know, what truth is better than God. That is why we can end up in the Furnace.

If we do not have Him in this life, we will be eternally without Him in the next.

justillthennow

You wrote, " First is the assumption that the claims of Christians make that Jesus is Lord, Son of God, Redeemer of Sins, and Exclusive Savior of All Humanity are true."

Just how many "Christians" have you either heard or read make the statement that Jesus is the "Savior of All Humanity"?

I would say probably not many considering very few seem to believe that God's Plan is for ALL.

As I have said: If the GOOD NEWS is not for ALL then it is not Good News at all.

You then wrote, "Second is your assumption along with flaxseeds' that 'if it is true, it cannot be stated arrogantly'."

What I tried to get across is that when Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life...", if it is a true statement than it is just that, a statement of fact, and if it is not true then it is one of the most, if not the most, arrogant statements ever uttered by a human being.

Then, "You may consider my next statement as prejudiced, and it most probably is, but it is my experience that most of the Christians that feel driven to witness their faith to non-believers do so in arrogance."

I don't know if it would be "most" but there are many and Jesus, Himself, was not arrogant but as the Apostles said many times, "These are hard sayings" and I would say this is somewhat of an understatement by the Apostles.

Plenty of what Jesus said would be beyond outrageous if He were not God.

Some people, whether or not they believe that Jesus is God-Incarnate, seem to think of "Christianity" as picking up a "get out of hell" card rather than a continuation of Jesus's Work, which happens to be part of the unfolding Plan of God.

God has had a Plan since before Creation and if God's Plan is not for All of Creation which includes All of humanity, then it would not be much of a Plan.

It is rather sad that many who consider themself "Christian" not only do not believe God's Plan is for ALL but some seem to not want God's Plan to be for ALL.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello Kert1,

Well, if you are finished with this conversation, so be it. You are backing out just in time to avoid responding to what I think are some good questions or observations of mine towards you. Timing is everything, some say! And a shame, as we might have been getting somewhere.

If I may reiterate some of

I do not believe that anything in the manifest world is absolute. Absolutely not! Excepting: Change. The 'Law' of Recycling.

The common position that people and religions often take of belief in knowledge of truth and the exclusivity of that knowledge and truth is an illusion. No one knows, as you agreed, the afterlife, or even love. All is personally experienced but is likewise uniquely experienced.

The assumption that one knows the One Truth and Way is, and continues to be, a spiritual insult and cause of great and continuing pain and darkness.

We do all judge. It is a natural state of the human mind and psyche. It is what we do with our judgmental nature that determines a lot.

There is a bit more of my pom-postulating. It is nice chatting with you as well, Kert.

Peace to you.

justillthennow,
Well some good things to think about anyway. I could disagree but I think I will end with an agreement.

I agree we can not know we have a good afterlife in the way we know some things here on earth. I suppose that is the way it is supposed to be. Although, Can I really know my wife loves me? I believe she loves me from the way she treats me. I believe that God has saved me because it is the best answer I can see.

Thanks for the conversation and God Bless.

Hello Kert1,

"Absolutism is not only found in Christianity."

My point if you did not understand it is that the manifest world is NOT one where Absolutism exists. All is transitory and maleable, at some point or for some reasons. Nothing remains the same. Nothing is absolute. There is no environment that cannot be altered, no relationship that does not and must not transform. A personal relationship with God is not exempt, even if you could prove and define and determine God, or his part of the relationship. Ours certainly is subject to constant change!

"Someone maybe right but these ideas are generally mutually exclusive and therefore everyone can’t all be right. Even saying multiple people are right is ultimately an absolute."

You have a very non-standard definition of absolute. But the mutually exclusive part that you bring up is a problem. Perhaps it is in the notion that different factions are deeply attached to the notion that they, somehow, are completely right about their presumptions of Truth. Now THERE is a spiritual disease! How could anyone, of sane mind, presume to know the truth of all that is, and the nature of the Creator of All That Is? It is preposterous!

Kert, cont.,

"Your ignorance of the Bible is a little hurtful and shocking, although I doubt this was intended. Please learn correct doctrine."

Well now, that assignment could be a bit tricky as there is not a lot of agreement of what is correct doctrine. Depends on the branch of Christianity that you follow. However it is generally held that unless you accept Jesus, and only Jesus, as Savior that you will spend eternity in Hell. Descriptions vary of the experience of Hell, but there are no good ones offered up by any of the denominations. God sends us there, for not calling out the 'right' name of God.

Definition of unloved is when God your creator and Father sends you to utter torture! Can not say that is love. Non computum!

You can say that God loves the fallen, but eternity as tortured by the commandment of God is no form of love.

"The disease is one you’ve made up."

I respectfully disagree. This one has been around for a long time.

"I completely reject the idea I am judging. I simply preach what I know to be true."

Oh come now, Kert, at least be honest here. We all judge, all the time. We make choices and postulate what will happen when what we judge to be right or good or correct or truth is not agreed with by others. And no one "knows" any philosophy of the supernatural and the afterlife to be true. Even if they were to have extra corporal experiences, there is no guarantee that it is not some form of self induced hypnosis, or some such. My meeting with spirit does not always concur with your experience of it. Truth is subjective, at least regarding most personal experiences, as we ARE our conditioning. We run our own personal programming.
"It is much easier to claim that there are many ways to God and often I am tempted. It’s certain what’s in style these days."

Hello Kert,

I did read your post and would like to respond later if I can. These last days have been more than full and have not afforded me the time to wax philosophically on these esteemed boards.

Till then, peace.

JustTillthenNow,
You probably won’t read this but I must try.
Absolutism is not only found in Christianity. As I pointed out it is in Science and many other religions. Muslims believe in their God, Atheists believe in no God. Someone maybe right but these ideas are generally mutually exclusive and therefore everyone can’t all be right. Even saying multiple people are right is ultimately an absolute.

I can’t prove the Bible in a blog. It stands for itself and I would encourage you test its authenticity.

“I believe that anything that claims it is the Only Way is false by observation of the manifest world.”
Nice absolute.

“the Bible preaches, (and preachers all the more!), that we are Fallen and unloved by God without swearing fealty to His messenger Jesus.”
Your ignorance of the Bible is a little hurtful and shocking, although I doubt this was intended. Please learn correct doctrine. I understand there is much bad doctrine abounding but in the end, I don’t think this an excuse. I agree we are all fallen but there is no doubt God still loves the fallen.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8 NIV)
The disease is one you’ve made up.

I completely reject the idea I am judging. I simply preach what I know to be true. To do any less would be dishonest and worse given the nature of the consequences. Be careful what you say, since you are simply doing the same thing back to me in rejecting what I say. It seems you are “judging” me as rejecting your philosophy.

It is much easier to claim that there are many ways to God and often I am tempted. It’s certain what’s in style these days. It’s easy any way you think about it but I must be faithful to what I believe is true.

Hi Persiflage,

You are right about so many theories, and then you get into conspiracy theories, then the spam really hits the fan! man oh man!

Greenstheman:

'While most people see Christianity as a western faith it is really a middle eastern faith that has spread to the west.'
______________

A lengthy discussion on this very topic has been ongoing over on the JohnMarkReynolds thread - to which I offered my two cents here and there. There is evidence that Christianity was shaped by many disparate influences other than exclusively by the commonly presumed Judaism.

We can see cross-fertilization from Greece, Egypt, Rome, ancient Babylonia and beyond. There is a theory that the secret monastic order of the Jewish Essences may have been harboring Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30, where he was being schooled in the ancient Eastern esoteric and tantric arts, in preparation for his emergence as the messiah.

In fact, many tantric masters have been touted as having great occult powers, performing many of the magical feats attributed to Jesus i.e. walking on water, raising the dead, turning water in to wine, the loaves and fishes, and even flying through the air and returning from the dead. It could be that all this is possible. Who could say with absolute certainty??

Oh well, everybody's got a theory......

Persiflage

Hi Persiflage,

While most people see Christianity as a western faith it is really a middle eastern faith that has spread to the west.

This has nothing really with what we have been replying back and forth about, this was just a passing thought. Rest assured that with that tidbit of information I AM sure YOU will sleep much better tonight... LOL Regards GTM

Greenstheman, I appreciate your close reading of my posts! Regarding belief, while we can't function without them as social creatures, I think we need to recognize that beliefs are not at the heart of the mystery of life.

Within the esoteric field of study that interests me most about religion, inner 'spiritual' discoveries transcend beliefs and often convey direct knowledge that runs counter to conventional religious beliefs.

These involve the contemplative/meditative traditions and practices found most often in Eastern religions, but not exclusively. While beliefs and/or faith get us part of the way on our quest, there comes a time for direct experience.

If there is underlying spiritual truth to be found, it cannot be different from one religion to the next. Calling it by different names and reaching various theological conclusions based on teachings handed down for generations is quite limiting in my view.

Real spirituality is a frontier that must be approached empty-handed, as it were. That's why beliefs of the religious kind need to be left behind at some point.

And of course I don't subscribe to the conventional Christian view of life and death or what comes after, either. All of this is based on 40 years of personal research, so we will no doubt both continue on in our own fashion - and we will get where we're going with or without the necessary prescribed beliefs.....or so I believe.

regards, Persiflage

Hi Persiflage,

You said in a previous post,

" I believe in mysteries and you don't. "

and in your latest reply to me you said,

"Beliefs are not what gave rise to us as individuals, nor are they directly keeping us alive from moment to moment. Beliefs are both secondary and expendible, not to say changeable and transitory. And they are often wrong......so why bother? "

I guess I am missing something here, I do agree that some beliefs we have may be secondary and even expendible and even changeable and transitory.

But I do think as individuals there is a core belief that shapes our lifes our thoughts etc. otherwise you or I would not stand strong by our beliefs mine is Christianity and yours is in mysteries.

I think people by and large have a good idea of what God calls Christians to be like.

Over history, False teachers, church leaders, have taken Christianity hostages to their own selfish ends, as in the time of the crusades and killed in God's name.

Priests that have abused children and the Church leaders that bury that truth etc. those are not true Christians by any means although they say they are, God holds those whom have used His name to commit such attrocities accountable and will pay for that.

As a Christian I find those false Christians repulsive, and more damaging to the way non-christian people see the rest of Christians who are truly and sincerely to be what Christ want us to become through Him, believe it or not there are Christians whom are actually likeable.

Like I said before it's ok to dis-agree.

Greenstheman sez:

'I believe one of us is right and one of us is wrong and we in our own time will find out after we die.'
__________________

Beliefs are not what gave rise to us as individuals, nor are they directly keeping us alive from moment to moment. Beliefs are both secondary and expendible, not to say changeable and transitory. And they are often wrong......so why bother?

Living a righteous life, practicing the rule of ahimsa (doing no harm) and otherwise following the Golden Rule faithfully, will ensure that you secure what you deserve in any life to come - religious beliefs are an impediment to this goal, often as not.

The whole redemption/salvation scheme in Christianity is only one of many - and not the one that makes the most sense to me, by any means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

regards, Persiflage

Since the article mentions Buddhism, here's some Buddhist metaphysics to ponder:

Dependent Origination

What some consider the original positive Buddhist contribution to the field of metaphysics is pratītyasamutpāda. It states that events are not predetermined, nor are they random, and it rejects notions of direct causation, which are necessarily undergirded by a substantialist metaphysics.

Instead, it posits the arising of events under certain conditions which are inextricable, such that the processes in question at no time are considered to be entities.

Pratitya-samutpada goes on to posit that certain specific events, concepts, or realities are always dependent on other specific things. Craving, for example, is always dependent on, and caused by, emotion. Emotion is always dependent on contact with our surroundings.

This chain of causation purports to show that the cessation of decay, death, and sorrow is indirectly dependent on the cessation of craving.

Nāgārjuna asserted a direct connection between, even identity of, dependent origination, anatta, and śūnyatā. He pointed out that implicit in the early Buddhist concept of dependent origination is the lack of any substantial being (anatta) underlying the participants in origination, so that they have no independent existence, a state identified as emptiness (śūnyatā), or emptiness of a nature or essence (sva-bhāva).

Interpenetration

'Interpenetration' or 'coalescence' (Wylie: zung 'jug; Sanskrit: yuganaddha; Chinese: 通達).[9][10] This doctrine comes from the Avatamsaka Sutra, a Mahayana scripture, and its associated schools.

It holds that all 'phenomena' (Sanskrit: dharmas) are intimately connected (and mutually arising). Two images are used to convey this idea. The first is known as Indra's net. The net is set with jewels which have the extraordinary property that they reflect all of the other jewels.

The second image is that of the 'world text'. This image portrays the world as consisting of an enormous text which is as large as the Universe itself. The 'words' of the text are composed of the phenomena that make up the world.

However, every atom of the world contains the whole text within it. It is the work of a Buddha to let out the text so that beings can be liberated from suffering. The upaya[citation needed] doctrine of interpenetration influenced the Japanese monk Kūkai, who founded the Shingon school of Buddhism.

The upaya doctrine of interpenetration is iconographically represented by Yab-yum.[citation needed] Interpenetration and Essence-Function are mutually informing in the East Asian Buddhist traditions, especially the Korean Buddhist tradition.

Hi Persiflage,

to your reply in part:

"Real evidence can be witnessed by anyone at any time - belief and/or faith is not essential to the apprehension of what is real. "

I BELIEVE what Gods word say's in the Bible, that's all. As far as evidence, humm let's see. When a prosecutor presents evidence to a jury some will either believe the evidence presented to them and some won't correct??

Just as I believe in the Bible, you believe in your view. I am not pushing or forcing you to believe as I do. God gave us FREEDOM of choice, and the choices we make have eternal consequences we will find out those consequences when we die.

I believe one of us is right and one of us is wrong and we in our own time will find out after we die.

I understand that there is nothing I can say will change your mind as to what you believe, by the same token nothing you say can change my mind away from Christianity. I am perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree.

Have a good night.

Interesting website below:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm

Justilthennow:

Here's a synopsis of the idea of one essence, and I know you will be familiar with it.

Ken Wilbur is a pretty good modern representative of the discipline of Transpersonal Psychology, and his work is replete with Eastern Religions and their concepts.

As far as causality goes, you may be familiar with Huang Po, who maintained that ultimately speaking, cause and effect remained motionless - nothing moves other than pure Mind, nor has anything ever actually existed (Hui Neng). Thus has it always been, otherwise nothing at all could even appear to be existent.

The idea of emptiness/shunyata is at the core of this paradox, and is the very thing one needs to get ahold of. And granted, is a couple steps removed from the current scientific view!

http://www.spiritandflesh.com/Ken_Wilber_One_Taste.htm

Hello Persiflage,

One and only one essence is compelling intellectually but I struggle with it functionally. And if there is an original or singular causality, or a Causal Unity or Oneness, (hello, hello, hello god, is there anybody in there, just nod if you can hear me,....), does that "essence" translate directly into manifest form and molecules and bones and awareness? or does it disappear? Was it ever an appearance, or an apparition?

Love the idea of the whole of the galaxies inside the pinprick of an atoms dreams...

Hi Justilthennow, and thanks for your kind remarks! You said:

Perhaps 'God' was not 'outside of' the Creation, but Creation was and is inside God. Or through, betwixt/between, parallel.'
_____________

This is a far more reasonable pantheistic premise, and I'm of the school that says reality consists of one and only one essence, but with infinite forms. What that essence is will remain elusive and unknown for the foreseeable future. But I don't believe it is 'something or somebody'. Or like you said, maybe it's both and neither.

While religious cosmologies have their limitations, the scientific view is completely impersonal, and much harder to fathom - which has it's own kind of appeal!

Imagine the entirety of our universe, comprised of some 100 billion galaxies plus the vastness of dark energy and dark matter, and contained in a primal atom many trillions of times smaller that the nucleus of a atom.

And now imagine all of this unfolding at a particular moment when time begins, exploding outward at unimaginable speeds into what may be not one universe, but an infinite number of universes (by some theories).

By some calculations, the quantum states that make up our material world continue to change with the same hyper-speeds, so that underlying our slow motion world the wavelike foundations of reality shape change at a speed reckoned in attoseconds -
no wonder we never catch a glimpse of all that 'solid matter' melting and re-assembling itself!

Of course, this is the stuff of myth and metaphysics - something science at the cutting edge is not completely free of by any means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attosecond

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA/PLANCK/include/report/redbook/142.htm

OK, Kert, we are clearly speaking in different dialect, but clearly not finding common ground with even the basics. You began with the claims of absolutism that is only found in the Christian version of God. Christians have self administered blinders on regarding this. They, like you, love to claim knowledge of the absolute truth, something they alone have and others lack, but can offer no explanation but "it says so in the Bible". Is this what is absolute? Proofs?

"You still must understand that there are absolutes and those are the things given us by God. Your examples do nothing to diminish this."

What seems to me as absolute is that everything changes and no pathway for any living entity is the same as the pathway of any other. Yet you claim that, regarding spirituality, this is false.

I believe that anything that claims it is the Only Way is false by observation of the manifest world.

"Without some absolutes, we have nothing."

Curious. I believe in commonality at the core of life, but await deeper human knowledge for explanation. The Bible, in this regard, is incapable of clarifying this in a satisfying way, for me. That is fulfills you is a boon to you, I am sure. It no longer does for me.

I am painfully aware that the Bible preaches, (and preachers all the more!), that we are Fallen and unloved by God without swearing fealty to His messenger Jesus. Ahhh. Comfort for the ranks. I am in total rejection of this crippling concept. It is a spiritual disease, and worse to spread that disease. We are not rejected by God, but Loved by Him. Regardless. Believe your Bible as you wish.

One may "follow God" without aligning to or becoming a Christian. This I Know!

Illusion, arrogance and elitism, as well as spiritual lethargy and laziness, easily accompany the delusion that ones "feet are already planted in Heaven”.

"Again, no judging, so I am leaving this to God."

I do not believe this statement of yours for a second. Judging is what you are doing, and condemning in your own mind and with your words, those that follow a different path to their relationship with God than you do. It is one of the greatest insults that is perpetrated by fundamentalists upon the more liberal and freethinking among us. 'Tis true!

As always, peace and pax! Thank you for your inputs.

"The Bible does clearly teach that Christians need to follow him."

The issue is not whether any particular religion is true or false. That makes the mistake of treating the issue as one of acceptance or rejection. The issue is why one religion would be true and all other religions would be false.

Imagine a Martian coming to Earth to learn about terrestrial religions. Each religion in the world sends a spokesperson who gets, say, 5 minutes to make his case as to why his religion is true and the others are false. By "true and false," I don't mean whether the religion leads to happiness or whether the religion has any useful insights into the human condition. I mean whether the religion's claims of fact are accurate.

Persiflage, thanks for the explanations. Mysticism fits my criticism of arguments from incredulity. My point about metaphysics was limited to the claim that other realms of reality exist. And the universality of archetypes or symbols doesn't empirically establish the existence of such realms because the hypothesis is not falsifiable.

"People see purpose and meaning wherever they look, and this seems to be a natural consequence of being alive - could be evolutionary in nature because it certainly has survival value...except when it doesn't of course."

Good point. What I'm criticizing is the claim that purpose and meaning are ontologically real. We have no evidence that they have such existence. They appear to have conceptual existence, where they require humans to conceive of them. People can act upon the meanings and purposes they create, but only the actions themselves and the effects of the actions appear to be ontologically real. The best definition I've been able to determine for what constitutes ontological reality is that reality that would continue to exist if humans ceased to exist.

How this relates to religion is that the various religions define their gods as being part of ontological reality, yet they insist that the existence of these gods is a matter of belief. That effectively amounts to a do-it-yourself reality. Or else they insist that belief itself leads to knowledge of the existence of the gods. That sounds like a claim of extrasensory perception. Neither of the claims are testable or falsifiable. In the case of mysticism, one cannot verify whether someone else has actually had a mystical experience, or whether the experience was caused by some aspect of ontological reality that could not be perceived with the senses.

Just,
I really have no clue where you are going with you points about Absolutism and science. My suggestion is go talk to scientist.

You still must understand that there are absolutes and those are the things given us by God. Your examples do nothing to diminish this.

Of course I haven’t proven Absolutism. I don’t imagine anyone can. It still remains the best idea and relativism doesn’t work. Without some absolutes, we have nothing.

“God already loves us, always has, always will, regardless of what you may call Man's Fallen Nature.”
This may be your opinion but the Bible preaches against this considerably. There are sobering warnings for those who don’t follow God. You can’t claim ignorance on this.

“What gets easier than accepting Jesus as Saviour? And at the core of it, that is the single requirement. To give yourself up to God.”

Again, not the easy way but the only way. It has to be “easy” in one sense, since God wants all to come to him. If it were “hard” then no one could come to him.
It is also clearly not easy for many who refuse to accept it.

“I have a number of issues with this dynamic which I have already spoken on, not the least of which is the fostering of spiritual lethargy as result of the delusion that my feet are already planted in Heaven.”
I’m not sure how you can see the security of Heaven as being a bad thing. Personally I like it. If you are concerned about undeserving people getting there, then rest assure we are all undeserving. We are also not to judge. God knows and we don’t.

You may have the concern that many that claim Christ don’t follow him in any way. The Bible does clearly teach that Christians need to follow him. Those who do not may not be saved. Again, no judging, so I am leaving this to God.

Carstonio,

Metaphysics is very far from supernaturalism - I'm employing the concept of metaphysics in the broadest possible sense, because in the end, every branch of human knowledge is a human creation and an artificial construct - and is not in any way reflective of actual reality (which can only be apprehended in it's entirety, or not at all). All is therefore in some sense metaphysics. This is of course only my personal understanding.

Mysticism of course implies that certain inner experiences transcend these natural barriers to real and direct knowledge of the nature of reality, but that's another discussion.

Science reduces reality to observable bits and pieces, and deduces larger (relative) truths by assembling and understanding the factual evidence presented by the bits and pieces - and by repeating the process, etc. The construct of mathematics is obviously widely used in these processes.

Until Einstein and Neils Bohr came along, all of science assumed that the universe was a very large Newtonian clockwork machine....but since the discoveries of relativity and quantum mechanics, we know differently.

Quantum mechanics states that the observer is part of the observation, and invariably effects whatever is observed - some go so far as to say that observation/measurement creates what is observed through the collapse of the wave function i.e. Schrodinger, et al. But this is another discussion.

As far as the role of awareness goes, consciousness preceeds experience - otherwise, nothing is experienced and nothing exists that is not experienced in some fashion.

All that we know, is what we're aware of - so this makes conscious awareness primary to all sentient experience (without going into the discussion of unconscious functions, the actual nature of consciousness, etc).

I believe Francis Collins resorts to a very tired teleology, when he attempts to make the case for the supernatural origins of human morality, meaning, purpose, and so forth. He may be a brilliant geneticist, but that doesn't mean he hasn't fallen under the sway of religion!

People see purpose and meaning wherever they look, and this seems to be a natural consequence of being alive - could be evolutionary in nature because it certainly has survival value...except when it doesn't of course.

As far as I'm concerned all discussions are open-ended, as long as we're breathing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Hello Persiflage,

I love your posts! Insightful and well crafted writing! I am beginning to think I might be able to learn something!

"You actually believe that you 'know' God existed outside of time and space and created the universe we have today..."

I do not know the bounds of the universe, or if it is limited to the 'manifest' reality and to physicality. I tend to superimpose these layers on each other ie the physical body 'within which' appears thought and feeling and whatever else one may inject. But my suspicion is that the physical aspect of 'Reality' is really tiny, as in solar systems and constellations.

Perhaps 'God' was not 'outside of' the Creation, but Creation was and is inside God. Or through, betwixt/between, parallel.

"....will pay an awful price on Judgement Day."

"Here we couldn't disagree more, because each and every religion says pretty much the same thing, one way or another...whether there's a deity involved or not. So either they're all true, or none are true."

Or both.

"In my view, the truth must be, has to be, very far beyond religion - which was an intermediate developmental step in man's evolution toward higher knowledge....or as the Buddha referred to it, the higher evolution."

Yes. But then 'religion' is an essential step, probably for some while to come. It WILL be a pleasure once we get past the conflict of religions though!

Hello Kert1,

"While there are many ways to do things in the human world, I was talking more about things in the basic world that God created. Like 2+2 or the water molecule."

The examples that you give here in support of absolutism are not referencing absolutes. Yes, water is 1Hydrogen + 2Oxygen, and that does not change, while those elements remain bonded. Yet that is the point. They do not stay bonded. They change and transform, water never stays Absolutely Water. It becomes two gasses. An amazing transformation, yes? Yet the gasses are not absolute either, even if they are elemental.

2 + 2 = 4, up until One comes or goes, then it changes. Indeed, IF there is an absolute operating in the world that we can see and agree with, it may well be the Law of Change. Everything DOES transform, nothing remains the same, or absolute. Perhaps this is the Absolute: All in the manifest world is Transitory.

Everything is born and then it dies. Is there something that is Everlasting inside Life? I think so, but there is yet to be validation for that belief. That is why it is a belief as opposed to Truth.

The sum WILL ABSOLUTELY fail one day and go dark. We will die. But, what is it that WE ARE? These are some of the large questions that you suggest are absolutes, but all that you hold is, outside of you at least, unproven and so unvalidated.

To go back to your numbered answers:

I do not believe, personally, in your concept of Man needing to secure God's acceptance. To me this is utter bunk, designed to maximize guilt and self-loathing that is common in the dark side of human consciousness. It enslaves us and imprisons us. I believe we need to secure OUR OWN acceptance, allowance, compassion and forgiveness. This is why Jesus was said to speak so much on these issues. God already loves us, always has, always will, regardless of what you may call Man's Fallen Nature. Just as a father would continue to love his children even as the children are in rebellion against him. It is us that need to find acceptance, God is already there.

To 3, the argument that humans would take the easier path to God if available, I believe that you missed my point. Although no real spiritual path truly followed would be 'easy', Christianity has made promises that say breezy. Seriously. What gets easier than accepting Jesus as Saviour? And at the core of it, that is the single requirement. To give yourself up to God. How utterly easy for the ego to play that game! Much harder to do, certainly, if one follows all the dictates of what a Christian Life may be, but then we get into lots of interpretations there. Just accept Jesus is as easy as it gets.

I have a number of issues with this dynamic which I have already spoken on, not the least of which is the fostering of spiritual lethargy as result of the delusion that my feet are already planted in Heaven.

"With Plato, Socrates, Jung and Corbin, et al - most if not all believed these realms were established as both ontologically real and empirically established, based the universality of shared archetypes or symbols - but I believe we have to realistically limit these ideas to the realm of metaphysics."

The concept of metaphysics sounds suspiciously like supernaturalism in a lab coat, although I acknowledge that my knowledge of the subject is probably lacking.

One of my criticisms of Francis Collins is that his explanation for human morality involves the argument from incredulity. Collins blindly rejects the possibility that human morality may have originated as an evolutionary adaptation, insisting that there has to be a supernatural or metaphysical explanation. A similar argument from incredulity is involved when people see the universality of archetypes of symbols as proof that those things are ontologically real. Again, that rejects the possibility that the universality may be a product of natural selection.

I caution that I'm not asserting natural selection to be the cause in either case. Instead, I'm pointing out that metaphysical/supernatural explanations are really one-size-fits-all nonexplanations, like filling in the missing pieces of a jigsaw puzzle with putty. Claiming a metaphysical or supernatural explanation for something amounts to an attempt to exclude the explanation from any sort of scruitiny, even when that isn't the claimant's intention.

"Curiously, many mathematicians are firm believers in a separate pre-existing archetypal sphere of numbers that is very reminiscent of Platonic ideal forms."

Why do they reject the idea that numbers are merely references? Again, I'm not arguing that they are.

"what we do know is that nothing real can be established without some level of consciously reflective self-awareness - so in my mind, that remains the 'first cause' for any established reality."

Would you explain?

"Observers can believe that they're separate from their observations all day long - but that doesn't make it so. Einstein demonstrated the relative interdependence of time and space, and quantum physics stirred the pot by adding in uncertainty and the role of the observer."

It doesn't matter whether the observer is separate from the observations. The real issue is that observations are all we have to work from - they're our only source of data.

"And I firmly agree with you on arbitrarily kicking Pluto out of our pantheon of planets because he was a wee bit on the puny side. Of all the gall! That fellow is no mere asteroid :^)"

I hope that means you find the criticisms of the scientists to be baseless. I was implying that we shouldn't be emotionally attached to Pluto having any sort of designation. The issue there is that any system for categorizing celestial bodies has to be useful and logically consistent.

Greenstheman - here's the long and short of it. I believe in mysteries and you don't.

You actually believe that you 'know' God existed outside of time and space and created the universe we have today, and that everyone will stand before God on judgement day.

And of course this presumes your belief in the bodily resurrection, atonement, etc. And we know this is true because it's all in the bible somewhere, thanks to someone's interpretation of what's been written and re-written 500 times.

How is the entirety of this belief system not based on rampant supernaturalism and superstition, without a shred of empirical evidence?

This is not even good metaphysics, because in order to get to where you are, you have to choke down a gigantic ball of Christian dogma in one gulp. You 'know' this and you 'know' that - but where is there any evidence to back up this knowledge?

Real evidence can be witnessed by anyone at any time - belief and/or faith is not essential to the apprehension of what is real.

Understanding what we see and experience is another matter - and this is where religion gains great latitude. Because religion purports to have the explanations and the answers - and by your standards, those that don't subscribe to those answers will pay an awful price on Judgement Day.

Here we couldn't disagree more, because each and every religion says pretty much the same thing, one way or another...whether there's a deity involved or not. So either they're all true, or none are true.

In my view, the truth must be, has to be, very far beyond religion - which was an intermediate developmental step in man's evolution toward higher knowledge....or as the Buddha referred to it, the higher evolution.

Carstonio:

'Since the existence of those dimensions is neither testable nor falsifiable, they amount to interesting exercises in speculation. I'm no expert in Jung and I don't know if the collective unconscious idea was intended as a metaphor or a literal claim.'
________________

With Plato, Socrates, Jung and Corbin, et al - most if not all believed these realms were established as both ontologically real and empirically established, based the universality of shared archetypes or symbols - but I believe we have to realistically limit these ideas to the realm of metaphysics.

Curiously, many mathematicians are firm believers in a separate pre-existing archetypal sphere of numbers that is very reminiscent of Platonic ideal forms.

Apart from physics, metaphysics, mathematical functions, and hypothesizing of all kinds, what we do know is that nothing real can be established without some level of consciously reflective self-awareness - so in my mind, that remains the 'first cause' for any established reality.

Observers can believe that they're separate from their observations all day long - but that doesn't make it so. Einstein demonstrated the relative interdependence of time and space, and quantum physics stirred the pot by adding in uncertainty and the role of the observer.

The establishment of quantum gravity is seen as the theory that ties the very large and the very small together through a unified theory.

And I firmly agree with you on arbitrarily kicking Pluto out of our pantheon of planets because he was a wee bit on the puny side. Of all the gall! That fellow is no mere asteroid :^)

Hi Persiflage, you said,

"As a famous quantum physicist said, everything that is real must be contained within this universe. There is nothing outside the universe, nor can there be. Of course the extent and real nature of that universe remains a mystery - but that's no surprise. "

I reply: this is an oxymoron

In the first part of this argument you say that everything real MUST be within this universe AND then it says the extent and real nature of that universe remains a mystery.

God as a supernatural being created this universe, that in it's self means He was outside this universe before He created it.

Look, there are two types of science, the practical science, medicine, electricity, etc. and also scientific Theory such as the Theory of evolution, theory how the universe began. Given the choice of accepting mans version of everything or God's version of everything I choose to place my FAITH in God. Yes God does not do a fly-by everynow and then to let us know He is here.

In reply to your:

"Religionists such as yourself want all the answers in a single lifetime, and that of course is quite unreasonable not to say impossible. "

That's a negative, please do not assume to know what i think. I know better than to think I am capable of wanting all the answers in a lifetime. I am not arrogant. I leave that to the scientists.

to your :

"If you and I encounter one another in the afterlife, you'll wonder how we managed to end up in the same place at the same time ..... and it will be because beliefs mean nothing in the end. What is - that's the only truth. "

Here's what I believe, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. When you stand before Jesus during judgement (as we all will) I wonder what you will say to Him, how could your disbelief be justified?

You see there is only one truth and that is God's truth.

Just,
“Why is that? There are many ways to skin a cat…”
You are missing most of my argument. Please be sure to read the whole thing. While there are many ways to do things in the human world, I was talking more about things in the basic world that God created. Like 2+2 or the water molecule. Imagine a world where there were multiple answers to everything. We can’t understand much of science with only single answers. God has kept things simple so we can understand them, in science and in religion.

“I am interested in how you show me there is only one answer to all equations”
I don’t think you definition is quite right. Absolutism is any theory which holds that truth or moral or aesthetic value is absolute and universal and not relative to individual or social differences Compare relativism. This isn’t completely related to what I was talking about above but they do tie into each other. It is basically the opposite of relativism. The point is that there are answers to the questions we ask and we can find the answers to important ones. You seem to follow this practically but seem reluctant to accept this.

Yes of course it is a Water Molecule (H2O). I’m sorry I didn’t edit my writing well. I am also sure I can’t prove all basic things have one answer but it seems to be widely accepted. Scientists don’t expect to get completely different answers to simple questions.

Most of my points from 1-5 were statements of Doctrine and Faith, so there isn’t much to argue with. You mostly have to believe or not but I will clarify some things.
2. God does accept his creation but not those in rebellion. This seems rather obvious and we getting into Free Will, which I’m not going to do. He also makes a way back for those in rebellion when shows how much he wants to accept his creation.

3. a. In Christianity this is actually a bit more complicated. This is actually the only way to get to God, not simply easiest. But this makes the word “easy” obsolete when you get to this point. It only matters if there are many ways.
b. It was not really easy. Christ coming and dying and taking all sin upon himself was not easy and can’t be described as such. It was the hard and only way.
c. It is only easy in the sense that anyone can come to believe in Jesus but most will not. The hardest thing is often admitting that we need God to help us. Most people, including some who claim Christ, are unwilling to do this. Keep in mind that Pride is the greatest sin.
d. The Christian life itself is not easy. We pretty much guaranteed some types of hardship, although with God’s help. We told to “count the cost” of accepting Christ because it will not be easy.
5. Certainly we have free will, since this is the way God made it. Christians have long held this as our gift from God. But keep in mind this isn’t a virtue. Free will simply allows us to make choices that have consequences: good and bad.

"This of course pertains more to psychology and mysticism as compared to hard science, and is currently outside the range of physics, but perhaps not permanently so!"

Since the existence of those dimensions is neither testable nor falsifiable, they amount to interesting exercises in speculation. I'm no expert in Jung and I don't know if the collective unconscious idea was intended as a metaphor or a literal claim.

You're right about absolutism, although there are secular ideologies that also exhibit that tendency. In my experience, absolutism is often commingled with authoritarianism, where knowledge is treated as if it is determined by authorities instead of through intellectual questioning and scientific inquiry.

My favorite example is the controversy over Pluto. Without going into the details, new discoveries required an update of the classification system for celestial bodies. But many critics seemed to assume that "planet" was an inherent quality of a celestial body and not a human-created classification. They acted as if scientists were self-appointed gods of knowledge, kicking Pluto out of the planet club just because it displeased them or something.

Carstonio:

'Persiflage, you make some good points. Unlike the quantum physicist you mentioned, I won't dismiss the possibility that there may be other planes of existence.'

Like you, I'm quite open to the idea of other planes and possibly other ontologically real 'universes' - in fact these invisible dimensions known variously as the 'imaginal realm' and 'collective unconscious', have been proposed and written about by Plato, Henri Corbin, Carl Jung and many others.

This of course pertains more to psychology and mysticism as compared to hard science, and is currently outside the range of physics, but perhaps not permanently so!

The problem with religion is the tendency towards absolutism of all kinds - being persuaded by absolutes closes all doors to reality and reality testing, since change is denied....and this is the only characteristic of the known universe that we can definitely be sure of.

Paradox is one thing, but absolute certainty tends to nullify what it certifies as true.

Persiflage, you make some good points. Unlike the quantum physicist you mentioned, I won't dismiss the possibility that there may be other planes of existence. My criticism of the natural/supernatural divide is that it's a tautology based on the argument from incredulity. The assumption is that anything unexplained has to have a cause that's untestable and unfalsifiable. What that means is that anyone can potentially assert the existence of anything supernatural without having to prove the assertion - it's almost a do-it-yourself reality. That's not how science should work that's not how knowledge should work. The concept of the supernatural ignores the possibility that our understanding of physical laws may be incomplete, where events that seem miraculous may have explanations rooted in some aspects of the universe that we haven't yet discovered.

What do you think "finding God" is supposed to mean? Does that mean determining the existence of a particular deity or set of deities? Is it a metaphor for achieving inner peace or discovering insights into the human condition? My criticism of the term is that it's too vague, where it could potentially mean anything that anyone wants it to mean. With some uses of "God", it's not clear whether the intended meaning is literal or metaphorical, and that lack of precision can be misleading or even dangerous.

Greenstheman sez:

'In other words you can say this universe was created Supernaturaly. Science cannot verify God because He is a supernatural being, a natural man cannot explain or understand God whom is Supernatural.
God has revealed Himself to man through the Bible. We can agree to disagree as to where each of us stand in our beliefs about God.'
_________________

What you're saying here is that you're perfectly willing to buy into the completely unprovable and perpetually elusive 'truth' of God, because you consist of one thing and God consists of another i.e. natural vs supernatural essence. How do we know? The bible tells us so.......nope, I don't think so. As you said, we can disagree about these things, and we do.

As a famous quantum physicist said, everything that is real must be contained within this universe. There is nothing outside the universe, nor can there be. Of course the extent and real nature of that universe remains a mystery - but that's no surprise.

We've only been thinking about these things for a few thousand years, and conducting real scientific investigations for the last 400!

The fact that science currently proposes the emergence of the present universe from a singularity or infinitesimally small point of enery only means that is the extent of our knowledge ends today. Religionists such as yourself want all the answers in a single lifetime, and that of course is quite unreasonable not to say impossible.

And yet, that is what conventional religion offers - all the answers to all the important questions in a nutshell....no wonder the appeal!

If you and I encounter one another in the afterlife, you'll wonder how we managed to end up in the same place at the same time ..... and it will be because beliefs mean nothing in the end. What is - that's the only truth.

regards, Persiflage

Nikos sez:

'If you are interested in learning about the age of the earth and the history of mankind, I suggest you devote your studies to reading the Bible and to websites that promote creation science.'
______________

The bible is a factitious collection of legends, fables, borrowed myths, and all in all, a huge enterprise based on hearsay and confabulation. The actual psychic value of the mythology contained therein is completely lost on true believers.

To me it's a peculiar adult mind that accepts bible school fairy tales told to children as the hard truths of history. The appeal of creationism over established science is mysterious to me, but it seems to indicate a lack of emotional self-sufficiency, among other things. In the end, it's the lazy way out.

The fact is, the tenets of creationism are an insult to the mind of modern man, and defy the mountain of real scientific knowledge acquired by the strenuous labors of many over 300 years - there is no easier or better way to establish facts and determine how things work, than by the scientific method.

The bible is absolutely the last place to look for facts, and of course it can be entertaining for children.

Hello Kert1,

Thank you for the replies to my posts.

We start off on rocky ground.

"I suppose there is no reason in theory to think that there are many ways to God."

Why is that? There are many ways to skin a cat. to learn italian. to find happiness. to get drunk. to relax. to get to rome. to leave your lover. to hate. to find love....

Shall I go on? Which leads me to:

"I’m not sure what world you live in but this world has absolutes."

Two plus two is not an absolute. It is a mathematical equation with a single answer. Absolutism is where there is only one answer for all questions. So I respond in kind :-)

"I’m not sure what world you live in but..." there are no absolutes.

I am interested in how you show me there is only one answer to all equations... Even how there is only one way to make a "water atom", (damn, and I always thought that it was a water MOLECULE!).

I could and should stop here with the atom/molecule equation, but am compelled. Forgive me!

I shall respond to your numbered statements.

1). Your statement that it is easier to have one way to God is irrelevant, especially if in fact God created a Universe that is COMPLETELY unique and individualized. I am not sure if you comprehend my statement, but each entity in this Created World is unique. Why on Earth would there be only one way, when in manifestation there are no single ways that are the same?

2). I do not buy your paradigm for 'ways to God'. You suggest that either God makes a way for us to come to Him, or we insinuate ourselves upon Him to realize our relationship. OK, I am interested so far. But you stipulate that this is all dependent on finding Gods acceptance of us. HOW IN GODS NAME DO YOU THINK OUR CREATOR DOES NOT ACCEPT US?????

3). "If there are many ways to God, everyone will take the easiest paths. Why do we need the hard ways." OK. Shall we now talk about Christianity, that states that all one must do is accept, (there is that word again!), Jesus Christ as Saviour and acceptance into Blessed Eternity in Heaven is Assured! One needs do NOTHING ELSE! How is THAT for an easy path?

4). Death on a cross is nothing for Divinity, Greenstheman. But how on earth does it make any sense? Death is not the hardest way! It IS for humans, though! Believe what you will, and bless you for it, but this fundamental assumption is not only nonsensical, but it is supremely destructive.

5). As to five, I bow to your sovereign choice to find your own way to God, and I applaud it! Free will rocks!

Allow me the same...

Done! Peace, Greenstheman!

I appreciate that the writer referred to all religions including his own as traditions and not truths. Accepting that religions are traditions and have not truth is the first step to toleration and plurality.

PERSIFLAGE:

My use of 150 billion years ago was an exaggeration not a typo. What's the difference between 1 million years or 150 billion? Anything before recorded history is mere speculation and therefore a theory and not fact.

True geological science points to a young earth age of about 6,000 years. The dating of fossils is also speculation. The fact that trilobites and Tyrannosaures Rex existed doesn't disprove Creation. If they are no longer around, it simply means that they are now extinct.

True science is composed of facts, not theories. God even knew that and had the apostle Paul pen the following verse in 1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" So, you see, there is true science and false science.

Prior to the great flood, there was a great canopy of water (or maybe ice crystals) that encircled the earth a short distance above the earth. This canopy provided an ideal environment that allowed earth's inhabitants to live to be nearly 1,000 years old. During the flood, the canopy was destroyed and, along with the rain and the waters of the deep, earth was totally under water. The geography of the earth was changed when the waters receded and created the strata and buried the fossils that they are finding today. It was the burying of all humankind (save Noah and his family) and vegetation that provides us with fossil fuel today. So, next time you fill up your fuel tank, thank your great, great, great+++++ grampa.

After the flood, we see in the bible that the age of man drops dramatically from 900+ years to 500 to 400 to 300 and so on until we get to where we are today, mostly under 100.

If you are interested in learning about the age of the earth and the history of mankind, I suggest you devote your studies to reading the Bible and to websites that promote creation science.

I am taking a course on Christian Theology and let me tell you, it's pretty incredible. Lots of fighting about the trinity. What bunk. The only thing that matters is the so called Golden Rule, which is a precept shared by Judaism. I think though I am not sure that Maimonides said that the only important precept is "do unto others as you would have others do unto you..." and that all "all the rest is commentary." I consider myself a Christian by heritage-just as I suspect a lot of Jews may think of themselves as Jewish even though they cannot accept all of the theological precepts.The fact that I refuse to accept Jesus as my "personal savior" or that "God has a plan for me"-a difficult concept if you are an atheist. These people are NOT Christians, they hate other people, they are judgmental. Jerry Fallwell apparently just announced that Hait got what it deserved because they were a lot of devil worshipers. Is this person a Christian!!!! I doubt that if there is a Jesus sitting on the right hand of the father up there, he would not be pleased with Rev. (from what denomination) Fallwell's pronouncement. Remember, if the sermon on the mount was meant for anyone, it was for the people of Haiti. My only concern, is why is the Catholic Church AWOL. I know their archbishop was killed but you'd think some shepherd would be on the ground to give some spiritual leadership. God knows everyone else seems to have vanished. The PM was last seen at the airport. Pres Obama has tried to contact him but he is "unreachable". Probe on his way to Switzerland (or whatever these hideous people use now to hid their ill gotten gains) to check out his bank accounts.

huguenotklj

Most scholars of even moderate education concede that a man Jesus of Nazareth existed. Was he the Son of God? That's rather more debatable.
-------------------------------------
A great deal of "pressure" has been placed on scholars by Christianists attempting to halt research into the possible nonexistence of Christ.

Nevertheless, some intrepid souls interested in truth have continued to do the required work. I've posted several bibliographies on this blog.

Below are some web sites worth perusing, and a book recommendation. All of Doherty's books on this theme are worth reading. The video is quite good, worth seeing.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

http://www.thegodmovie.com/

Freke and Gandy. Jesus Mysteries

Hi Persiflage,

Scientists can only theorize about the age of the universe, the big bang itself when they break it down, they boil it down to a singularity. At the singularity all laws of physics break down and they cannot explain what happens.

In other words you can say this universe was created Supernaturaly. Science cannot verify God because He is a supernatural being, a natural man cannot explain or understand God whom is Supernatural.

God has revealed Himself to man through the Bible. We can agree to disagree as to where each of us stand in our beliefs about God.

When each of us dies one of us will be right and one of us will be wrong, I wonder if you are wrong and you are before God, what you might have to say to Him.

I did not happen to read the Bible one day and accepted it as truth, it took alot of studying tha bible and learning about Jesus and found out that He is whom He claimed to be. There is plenty of proof if you are willing to accept it rather than suppress it.

Most scholars of even moderate education concede that a man Jesus of Nazareth existed. Was he the Son of God? That's rather more debatable.

A resident fundamentalist declares:

'As far as Jesus not being a historical figure, that's an old, old argument. It always amuses me that you folks don't know what happened 2000 years ago, but, as a rule, swear by what evolutionists tell you happened 150 billion years ago. Ahhh, the wisdom of the natural man.'
______________

Assuming our poster actually meant 150 million rather than 150 billion, there is far more fossil evidence for both trilobites and Tyrannosaures Rex as compared to hard evidence for the historical presence of the actual One and Only Jesus, Son of God, and savior to mankind. The closest we've come is the Shroud of Turin, and that hoax was debunked as a scam ages ago........

Since the universe has been calculated to be about 14 billion years old, 150 billion must have been a typo.......but by some calculations, this could be the approximate diameter of the known (and mostly unknown) universe i.e. 100-150 billion light years across.

There is something to be said for the natural man, as opposed to the supernatural man - in the year 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

Danielinthelionsden,

" Christians push their point of view very hard on others; then they get all huffy and bent out of shape when there is a push back? But, when you think about it, what else would you expect? "

It's like the pot calling the kettle black, read the other posts on this site, they are not exactly tolerant of Christians right. Just because we are Christians does not mean we don't have feelings or that we have to let people walk all over you. We are humans just like you.

Religion is broad speculation on what is true.

Mathmatics is a rigorous method of descerning patterns and solving puzzles.

These two distinct and separate pursuits do not relate to each other and are not comparable.

Religious people who assert that their religion is true are mistaken, pure and simple; not that I say anyone's religion is not true, only that it is speculation on what may or may not be true.

When the many religious views assert that their own speculations are really true and that the speculations of others are not true, then they show their religious traits of intolerance; for of course, all of these conflicting claims of truth cannot all be true, can they?

Is that so hard for religious people to understand?

I feel that many Christians do not really want to save sinners from Hell, but that they want to savor their condemnation to Hell. That is the distinct impression that many of them give, that they are in fact in raptured collusion with Jesus Christ and God, to assign a just and deserved suffering to all that do not believe as they do.

Christians push their point of view very hard on others; then they get all huffy and bent out of shape when there is a push back? But, when you think about it, what else would you expect?

JustTillThenNow,
“For how could one believe that perception?”
That isn’t really my perception. Your basically telling me to show you perfection when it comes to treating all men equally, and then you’ll believe. Well, I can guarantee that you won’t find perfection or anything even close (You can also check the rest of the world and see how they’ve done.). What I am saying is people knew this was right and made it the foundation of our laws. The people of this nations (mostly Christian) could have never added it or removed it at any time, but they never did. This shows something that I don’t really see elsewhere.

As for the practical application of this in laws and practice, that is a completely other issue. And here’s a bulletin for you: we are still fail with this ideal more often then we care to admit. And personally, I know I’m not supposed to lie, covet, or be selfish, but I still do them. I’m sure there are many more like me who try but fail to do what is right and the rest who don’t even bother to try.

This in fact is the basis for the Gospel of Christ. We know we need to behave and we have an idea how to do it but we are incapable. Christ is the only hope and even then it is still hard to do what is right. That is why I put my hope in him and his redemption on the cross.

“But as you have often said on these posts, you believe this is a Christian nation.”
I don’t believe I have ever called this nation Christian. Only people can be Christians. You could as easily convert a watermelon or any other inanimate object. But the nation was founded on Christians principles and has largely occupied by Christians (at least in name). Why would we change what has made us the greatest nation on earth.

JustTillThenNow
I suppose there is no reason in theory to think that there are many ways to God. That is the furthest I can go though. Theories are nice but we must go further.
I personally believe that there is only one God, the God of the Bible. We have disobeyed him and there is only one way back to him, through his Son Jesus. There are many ways to find Jesus, through the Bible, nature, acts of kindness, philosophy, but there is still only one Savior. Here are the reasons I believe this from generic to specific.
1. You seem to believe that there are ways to God, which also implies there are ways to go away from God. I believe having many ways to God would just cause confusion. It becomes much easier to think you are on a path to God when you are actually on a path away. One path removes this unneeded confusion.
2. I don’t really believe all of these “Paths” are different. People have said there are basically two religions in the world. The first says you have to do enough to earn God’s favor and then he accepts you. Does it really matter that the list of things can be different? In the end, it is really just the same thing. The second says God makes a way to him and you accept it.
3. If there are many ways to God, everyone will take the easiest paths. Why do we need the hard ways.
4. From a Christian perspective, many ways to God makes no sense. If Jesus death on the cross wasn’t essential it would take an idiot to do it. It was the hardest path (see 3). It was something that only God could imagine and so I must believe it is the way.
5. I understand, as a Christian, that I can’t get to God myself, so I accept the way he made for me. This is the perfect path to God and anything less will not work.

“Absolutism. Doesn't exist in this Created World.”
I’m not sure what world you live in but this world has absolutes. This is especially true of the Basic and important questions. There are absolute answers in math, science, philosophy and religion. There is only way to make a water atom and there is an answer to whether or not there is a God.
If we don’t have absolutes, we don’t have anything: facts, laws, morals, or even a reality to live in. I realize this is fashionable to believe but it falls apart quickly and has real consequences.

Nikosd99, part of the problem is that Islam asserts eternal damnation for people who do believe that Jesus was divine. Neither Christianity nor Islam can both be right on this. So the burden is on each religion to prove that not only is an afterlife, but also that the other religion's assertion about eternal damnation is incorrect. The same would be true for any other religion that asserts the existence of an afterlife. The flaw in Pascal's Wager is that it assumes that the only two positions are Christianity or atheism, as of other religions didn't exist.

"Truth is defined as reality and a fact is a verified truth. There is nothing subjective here. Statements about God or arithmetic are either true or false and it would make sense for us to figure out which ones are true."

I'll make my point another way...The distinction here is between assertions of fact and assertions of value. "Hendrix played at Monterey" is an assertion of fact, while "Hendrix was the greatest guitarist" is an assertion of value. Value wouldn't exist if humans didn't exist to assign value to things - the value doesn't have inherent existence. Money as a concept would cease to exist if humans disappeared - bills and coins would simply be objects.

When a religion asserts that one way to live one's life is better than other ways, or that individuals should live their lives that way and not some other way, that's an assertion of value. Now, one can argue that some ways of living have more success in producing happiness for individuals than other ways, and that could hypothetically be verified through surveys. But asserting that the more successful ways are better, or that people should live those ways, amounts to a subjective value assertion. The claim of "better" rests on the assumption that happiness is good. I'm not arguing that happiness is bad, but merely pointing out that deeming happiness to be good is a subjective assertion of value.

FARNAZ:

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the reason you keep getting the same response as to why Christians proselytize is because it's the truth? We do care where people spend eternity. Do you want us to lie and come up with unique reasons just so you can have a diversity of responses?

Let me try a modern day scenario to show the absurdity of your statement, "..... that those who don't adhere to your faith are doomed, that in holding this view, you implicitly diminish the worth of others."

Mother tells Johnny, who is 5 years old, to quit running and playing out in the street or he will be killed (doomed). Johnny, who is highly intelligent with a vocabulary to match says, "You know, Mother, by insisting that I play in the yard only, you are implicity diminishng my worth." Mother says, "No, Johnny, it's because I love you so much and you are worth the finest gold and silver to me, that I implore you to listen to what I say. Johnny retorts, "Hmmph, that's what I hear all mothers, without exception, say to their kids."

Quite absurd, wouldn't you say? But that's exactly what you are saying.

As far as Jesus not being a historical figure, that's an old, old argument. It always amuses me that you folks don't know what happened 2000 years ago, but, as a rule, swear by what evolutionists tell you happened 150 billion years ago. Ahhh, the wisdom of the natural man.

I guess I have to stick with circular reasoning, since I KNOW that the bible is TRUTH. Sorry that I can't play by your rules. But, to be honest with you, Farnaz, your reasoning, as I have pointed out, seems to have some serious flaws in it. No offense.

Carstonio,
I suppose if you can change the meanings of words then you can argue for about anything. I think you should probably ask for a refund on your education.
Truth is defined as reality and a fact is a verified truth. There is nothing subjective here. Statements about God or arithmetic are either true or false and it would make sense for us to figure out which ones are true.
" If truth doesn’t exist we have much greater issues." How so?
If truth doesn’t exist we can know nothing and all our beliefs are useless. (By the way this is an extremely self defeating argument.)

"If truths are subjective, then why do I get the same answer every time I do arithmetic. In fact, how can we know anything at all if it is all subjective? Have you ever tried applying this theory to life?"

Your post confuses truths with facts. The result of an aritmetic problem is a fact. A truth is a subjective conclusion that relates in some way to human existence.

" If truth doesn’t exist we have much greater issues."

How so?

"Besides why argue. If truth is what I make of it then you just proved I’m right."

Because absolutism doesn't recognize the right of individuals to create their own subjective truths about their own lives.

"I would also like to know how you can prove a religion 'accurate' if there is no truth to compare it to."

A religion would have accuracy if its gods existed in the way that the religion claims, and if its miracles happened exactly as the religion claims. This has nothing to do with the religion's claimed truths. Whether or not gods exist is a question of fact, not of truth.

NIKOS:

Below is my original post to you, followed by a paragraph from your reply. You answered true to form, i.e., in the same way I have heard every Christian Fundamentalist answer, sans exception. If I go on, you will reply in circles.

That is a problem, Nikos. You cannot "convert" most people with circular reasoning and NT quotations.

Btw., there is considerable evidence that Jesus Christ may never have existed. I've posted bibliographies on this blog by highly reputable scholars.

Evidence has been adduced that Paul probably existed but was always Paul, never Saul

Christianity is more syncretic than many other religions: the resurrection motif is directly taken from other religions in the region, as is the "eucharist," unthinkable among Jews.

Jews have never been permitted to ingest blood.

I'm just sayin'....
------------------------------------

Nikos:

In reading your post, I think I understand you better. If your faith brings you peace and comfort, if you enjoy the fellowship of like-minded others, I am happy for you, and I mean that sincerely.

I wonder if you could entertain the notion that there is nothing humble in insisting that those who don't adhere to your faith are doomed, that in holding this view, you implicitly diminish the worth of others.

I suspect your immediate response would be that it is because you value the lives of others that you would like them to see the light. Could you, perhaps, think past that, if just for a moment?
-------------------------------------------

sn't that a sort of oxymoron? I mean, if I have a diminished view of the worth of others, why would I care if they are doomed? Wouldn't I just say, "Good, they're going to get what they deserve"

Hello again Kert1,

If you felt insulted by me I apologize. I thought I was reasoned, but the psychoactive smoke comment may well been over the kind-spirited line. I guess I just didn't get it.

You were presenting your argument as if Christians have been all magnanimous with power sharing, and I find that exceptionally naive, if honestly believed, and more likely delusional. For how could one believe that perception? We could start from the bloody and treacherous relationship of whites towards the indigenous peoples, not to mention murder and treachery between Christians of different sects. Part of the point of independent colonies was that they could not get along, but banded together to forge a nation.

I disagree completely with your rosy picture of Christian generosity in the formation and history of America. That is not to say that we have not been generous, or that Christians particularly have not been generous. But as you have often said on these posts, you believe this is a Christian nation.

I do not believe that. Various versions of Christianity have been deeply formative, but there is no religious ownership of America, and the concept that is was and should continue to be Christian is as relevant as the idea that is is and should remain the land of white ex-Europeans.

'Tis another form of Elitism and Exclusive Arrogance, and is deluded. Not to mention racist.

I have some more to say, but commitments call. Perhaps later. Till then, peace.

JustTillThenNow,
Let’s keep the insults to a minimum. I’m not going to converse with people who feel they need to insult people they disagree with. I’ll over look for now.

Christians are the majority only in as much they are the biggest religious group but I don’t think they are actually a majority of people. Besides there are so many denominations that disagree on things that the majority isn’t that cohesive. Other’s claim Christianity as a religion since they relate best to Christianity but don’t practice it. Historically we are based on Christianity but it matters much less today.

“I think that you look at history with rosy colored glasses,”
And you are looking for prejudice so you can blame others. I think the US history is quite clear. I have acknowledged that people in power (some who were Christians) have at times tried to keep power through wrong means. The truth is Christians established that all men were equal and this has stuck throughout US history without question. The general direction of this country hasn’t wavered. The founding fathers knew what they were saying and laid the foundation of nation that would come the closest to meeting this ideal. No one has ever come close to removing this fundamental concept.
“Kennedy caused an uproar going into the Presidency as a Catholic, in the '60's!”
Not much of an uproar since he got elected. If you haven’t noticed presidents always get questioned about everything. It generally doesn’t prevent people from voting the way they want.
Have you seen a Buddhist President yet? Even an Jewish one.
Why would expect to see a Buddhist President Do you think this some kind of diversity exchange program. We have Jews, Muslims, Women, Catholics, Mormon, Atheists and every other group well represented in office of some type. We also have an African-American with a Muslim ( I know he isn’t muslim) name. I don’t understand what kind of person you think votes for a person that has completely different ideals than you. In a country that is largely Christian (by name at least) we will most certainly elect Christians. Do you know of a country that votes for people they don’t agree with?
Please don’t get into Stereotyping Political parties. It just shows how ignorant of the issue someone is. You’d be amazed how many soldiers, missionaries, teachers, nurses, pastors, police, etc bear that title, serving God and country. It doesn’t make you look smart when you insult them so you make fun a rick cheat who also bears the title.
By the way the Heath care Bill is bad legislation that is opposed by more than half the country and is being hidden from public view. It is impossible for it to be mostly Republicans or WASP’s (another endearing term)

CARSTONIO,
If truths are subjective, then why do I get the same answer every time I do arithmetic. In fact, how can we know anything at all if it is all subjective? Have you ever tried applying this theory to life? If truth doesn’t exist we have much greater issues.

Besides why argue. If truth is what I make of it then you just proved I’m right.

I would also like to know how you can prove a religion “accurate” if there is no truth to compare it to.

hello Kert1,

Apologies for the muddled post. In my previous post please read from:

"I think you must have more than a majority to claim any type of tyranny."

To complete my inputs to you:

"Suggesting that your religion is right or better is not wrong but is actually essential to that religion."

"If you don’t believe your religion is right, my advice is to drop it."

You believe that religions must present themselves as the "right way", as if it is black and white. Perhaps that is because of your immersion in Christianity which is very definitely a black/white thing. But the world is not black and white, it is the spectrum of light. There is not even an absolute exclusion of light, so no utter black, (assuming black IS the exclusion of light, of course).

To force either or into a continuum is wrong headed, but that is what Exclusive religions, and their adherents, do.

It is more than reasonable to me, essentially a Buddhist, to perceive and believe in multiple paths to spiritual realization and redemption, and reunion with the Creative Source, (if you forgive me for using a more generalized name for what you call God).

The essential difference to note here between what you present and what I am suggesting is individualism vs. absolutism. You say "the right way" with the assumption that there is only One Right Way for All. Absolutism. Doesn't exist in this Created World.

I am saying "the right way" for the individual. Only makes sense, and is congruent with the Created World. To each their own way, as IS THE CASE, with spiritual matters as well as those of the physical, emotional and mental needs of that individual organism.

Peace, and santihom, Kert.

hello Kert1,

"Suggesting that your religion is right or better is not wrong but is actually essential to that religion."

If you don’t believe your religion is right, my advice is to drop it. Losing Religious Freedom is actually just the opposite of what he said. If religions can’t promote themselves as “the right way” then we have lost religious freedom and freedom of speech.
I am not only a believer of capitalism of products but also of ideas. The good ones live on (that’s why we should always look for ideas that have been around awhile) and the bad ones die out (only to be replaced by other bad ideas some day). Saying that a religion is worse is not different than Consumer’s Report saying a product is worse. Of course, no one besides God has the final word but we can learn much from the discussion. I believe someone will find the right way and it makes sense that that person should be able to speak freely.

"I think you must have more than a majority to claim any type of tyranny."

" In fact, I wouldn’t even call Christians a real majority now."

Christians constantly claim that they are a majority, especially when arguing that this is a "Christian country" and such assertions. It is far too common that Christian arguments and their supporting data are malleable based on the moments need, not based on the truth.

"Christians have always given others (even Christians with different beliefs) the ability to have power."

" Christians could have made this a Christian country and forced those in power to be Christians but they didn’t."

I think that you look at history with rosy colored glasses, Kert. There is long history of prejudice and elitism with those in power, as well as in the populace. Have you seen a Buddhist President yet? Even an Jewish one. Kennedy caused an uproar going into the Presidency as a Catholic, in the '60's! Senators, congressmen, mayors? How many are 'minorities'? It is only recently that minorities are breaking these ranks, and their numbers are pathetically small. Women? How many of that species have political (or religious!) power?

Not one of those very few minorities would ever have gotten into office if they were other than mainstream Christian, Kert!

What psychoactive are you smoking, with this pretty world? Shall we talk race relations now? Economic parity? Education opportunities for minorities?

Every advance of minorities had to be pried out of the grip of the majority WASP gunholders, who would jump to a fight rather than give up yardage.

Example the health care debate. It was monied special interests that won the fight. No one is happily giving ground, and power, if it means they have less.

I bet all them guys are Republican Christians, Kert! Whad'ya think?

BOSCOBOBB:

You stated, "Nikos, you don't seem to comprehend that such certainty represents ego." You, of course, were criticizing me because I said that a Christian KNOWS that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation.

Will you let me off the hook if I LIE and say that I don't know for sure that He is the ONLY way? Do you know for sure that He isn't the only way? And if you do know that, aren't you being egotistical for knowing that? And, if you don't know for sure, then what are you doing about it? Or are you just hoping that you know the way? I suppose you are of the school that figures that as long as a person is sincere, that's good enough.

The apostle Paul was previously known as Saul of Tarsus. Prior to becoming a Christian he was persecuting the followers of Christ. He had this to say about himself in Philippians 3:4-7 "Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ." In other words, once he met the Lord he knew that all his religiousness was for nought.

Paul further stated, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge (Oooh, there's that word, 'to know'). For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (Romans 10:1-3)

As I said in an earlier post, if being knowledgeable makes us egotistical, so be it. I guess according to you, to be humble and unegotistical is to know nothing. Do you qualify?

"Suggesting that your religion is right or better is not wrong but is actually essential to that religion. If you don’t believe your religion is right, my advice is to drop it."

Why does it have to be a comparison? Why do religions have to make claims of universal truth in the first place? We have no evidence that truths are anything but subjective, and ultimately only the individual can or should decide the meaning and purpose of his life. Why couldn't an individual conclude that a particular meaning is right only for his life, and not necessarily right for anyone else?

"I am not only a believer of capitalism of products but also of ideas. The good ones live on (that’s why we should always look for ideas that have been around awhile) and the bad ones die out (only to be replaced by other bad ideas some day). Saying that a religion is worse is not different than Consumer’s Report saying a product is worse."

Any evaluation of ideas as good or bad is purely subjective. We shouldn't assume that the longevity of an idea is an indicator of its inherent quality. Some routes to happiness may be more effective than others for many people, but again this is subjective - there cannot be one single route to happiness for everyone. Besides, the issue isn't about which routes to happiness are more effective, the issue is whether the claims of fact made by the religions are accurate.

It’s good to see Mr. Hirschfield see’s the biases but I do disagree with a couple of his points. He always seems to try to make each side a little happy so maybe it’s more of this pandering.

“suggesting to people that their current faith tradition is insufficient or less than able to help them deal with life, as Hume did, is often the first step on a triumphalist path which undermines religious freedom and even destroys lives.”

Suggesting that your religion is right or better is not wrong but is actually essential to that religion. If you don’t believe your religion is right, my advice is to drop it. Losing Religious Freedom is actually just the opposite of what he said. If religions can’t promote themselves as “the right way” then we have lost religious freedom and freedom of speech.
I am not only a believer of capitalism of products but also of ideas. The good ones live on (that’s why we should always look for ideas that have been around awhile) and the bad ones die out (only to be replaced by other bad ideas some day). Saying that a religion is worse is not different than Consumer’s Report saying a product is worse. Of course, no one besides God has the final word but we can learn much from the discussion. I believe someone will find the right way and it makes sense that that person should be able to speak freely.

“tyranny of the majority”
I think you must have more than a majority to claim any type of tyranny. Christians have always given others (even Christians with different beliefs) the ability to have power. This is the exact opposite of tyranny when people freely give power to others. It is the basis of this country and it started when the country was much more Christian than today. In fact, I wouldn’t even call Christians a real majority now.
I’m sure there are isolated cases where people took a step back on this but I’m talking about the path as a whole. Christians could have made this a Christian country and forced those in power to be Christians but they didn’t. Now, most of those in power aren’t Christian or at least don’t act that way.
In closing I’d like to point out that no person should have to apologize for sharing their honest faith with other, and people shouldn’t let their biases tell others how to act.

nikosd99 wrote
"A Christian proselytizes because he KNOWS that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. We do not do it because we are on an ego trip, nor because we feel superior."

Nikos, you don't seem to comprehend that such certainty represents ego.

Have you ever observed two people of religions different from your own proselytizing that each KNOWS the ONLY path? Did this leave you angry or enlightened?

My observation is that silent humility goes a long way in proselytizing. By silently demonstrating an exemplary life such a person is more likely to attract rather than repel potential followers. For some reason this lesson is lost on far too many US evangelicals, who believe their boorish behavior should be accepted and mirrored.

"As a Christian, I do not stress nor gloat that they deserve their punishment, but rather that they choose their punishment."

I wasn't saying that you believe the punishment is deserved. I was saying that the theology itself in both Christianity and Islam equates to the punishment being deserved. No one deserves to suffer, and the idea that eternal suffering could be warranted is repulsive. There's no moral justification for such beliefs as Jews being doomed to hell from birth.

My other point is that Christianity and Islam disagree on what would doom people to hell. They can't both be correct on that question, so how can either side prove that it is correct and the other side is incorrect?

Also, many strains of thought in Christianity reject a literal hell in favor of a metaphorical one, an emotional torment that people go through before finding Jesus. How can those Christians prove that they are correct and the literal-hell Christians are wrong, or vice versa?

CARSTONIO:

Where you err is that I did put a condition in that phrase. "....to put aside all other means and physicians and to make an appointment to visit that physician?" That means that the Yankee and Red Sox fans have to become Orioles.

As a Christian, I do not stress nor gloat that they deserve their punishment, but rather that they choose their punishment.

John 3:18-20 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. AND THIS IS THE CONDEMNATION, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."

Hello justtillthennow,

In response to your reply to my post,

"But one does not need Jesus to enlighten their relationship to God, or to Light their way back Home. One needs nothing but the Self."

This is where The bible ( new testament ) say's otherwise, and why I say God's truth is exclusive.

If you would indulge for a minute. If Christ is who He said He is, God incarnate and He came to this world to fulfill the scriptures, live a perfect and sinless life and gave His life willingly to offer humankind the only way of forgiveness for our sins by God the father, if we reject that truth and say that there are many ways to get to heaven, then that would mean Christ died in vain, right?

" Yes, and is it not wonderful to Hear! And all the better for the fact that it is available anytime and anywhere, and through any Way!"

It puts this statement in a different context does it not? ( for a Christian that is )

"How on Earth do the Christians think only they get to have a True Relationship with Our Source, God?"

You have to define wich God to whom you are refering to, there is the god of this world (satan) or if we are refering about the God of the Bible The great I AM.

Chritians have come to Christ and accepted Him as our Savior in that sense our relationship with God is different than say the Muslim,Buhddist,Atheist,Satanic,New age or any other religion.

I appreciate your reply being non-agressive or attacking in a meansirited way
as a Christian I do respect other peoples choice of beliefs even though they are different than mine and this is too big a subject to cover on a post. I wish you well.

"If I knew a physician who had a 100 percent cure rate for all types of cancer, would you consider me arrogant and egotistical if I went about telling and imploring people to put aside all other means and physicians and to make an appointment to visit that physician?"

That's not comparable to either Islam or Christianity, because those religions assert that believers in other religions deserve their punishment. A better comparison would be if the physician was deciding to cure only patients who were, say, Orioles fans but not Yankees fans or Red Sox fans.

FARNAZ:

You stated, "I wonder if you could entertain the notion that there is nothing humble in insisting that those who don't adhere to your faith are doomed, that in holding this view, you implicitly diminish the worth of others."

Isn't that a sort of oxymoron? I mean, if I have a diminished view of the worth of others, why would I care if they are doomed? Wouldn't I just say, "Good, they're going to get what they deserve" That, to me, would be arrogance.

If I knew a physician who had a 100 percent cure rate for all types of cancer, would you consider me arrogant and egotistical if I went about telling and imploring people to put aside all other means and physicians and to make an appointment to visit that physician?

I'm sure there will be some who will state that Jesus doesn't have a perfect record; that they know some who are anything but Christian in their actions. My answer to them is, that if a person truly repented and was truly "born again", then Jesus will surely pull them through. They might come out scarred and belittled as Jesus purges them of "self", but they will one day know peace and joy, unspeakable. Even a good physician sometimes leaves scars as they eradicate the cancer.

"The uproar over his suggestion that Tiger Woods turn to Christian faith in order to deal with his personal troubles was directly related to the fact that Hume invoked Christianity and not Buddhism or Hinduism."

Wrong. The uproar was caused by Hume trying to convert Woods publicly. It didn't matter which religions were involved. It would have been just as wrong for, say, Sarah Silverman to publicly urge Hume to convert to Judaism. If Hume thought that Woods should change religions, he should have gone to Woods in private. But an individual's choice of religion should not be a matter of public debate, ever.

I neither fear hell nor desire heaven, either of these places as described by christians are just the latest myth to me. I am completely comfortable not believing these things.

I find this troubles many of the christians I know. How can you not fear hell? How can you not desire heaven? Apparently their indoctrination is complete - but some of them do have doubts.

My very existence as an unbeliever, and my comfort with my state, troubles many of the believers. I don't have to ridicule their faith, I don't have to make fun of them, I just have to be happy without their religion - this troubles them more than any unkind thing I might say about them.

They aren't proseltyzing to help me, they are asking me to help them. If they can get me to believe it, maybe they can help themselves to keep believing it.

I know for sure that many of you believers know what a crock it is to believe much of this stuff. You're the ones making the most noise, demanding other people have your faith, insisting the government implement your religious rules ... you're the ones who need the most help.

How about this: Either study this stuff yourself, spend your time with comfortable believers who don't have your difficulty with this faith - or just s t f u.

Nikos:

In reading your post, I think I understand you better. If your faith brings you peace and comfort, if you enjoy the fellowship of like-minded others, I am happy for you, and I mean that sincerely.

I wonder if you could entertain the notion that there is nothing humble in insisting that those who don't adhere to your faith are doomed, that in holding this view, you implicitly diminish the worth of others.

I suspect your immediate response would be that it is because you value the lives of others that you would like them to see the light. Could you, perhaps, think past that, if just for a moment?

Hello greenstheman,

"This is a nation divided because everyone wants to believe that God is the problem."

God is not the problem, (outside of the belief that He is ever-present and yet can't be found). It is humans that are the problem, and in particular their competing beliefs about the nature of God. That and ownership of God, of course.

"Religion without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is worthless, religion does not get you in heaven, accepting Jesus Christ does."

This is standard fare indoctrination and conditioning of the Christian mind. It is false, but it is the rejection of that reality that is the purpose of conditioning, don't you think? One only needs themselves and their own connection to the Divine. For Christians, their own spiritual lifeline to the Truth and Life that they are is beautifully embodied in Jesus, and He represents then what they call the Trinity, yet in manifest form.

But one does not need Jesus to enlighten their relationship to God, or to Light their way back Home. One needs nothing but the Self.

"God's truth is Exclusive otherwise anything goes."

Yes, and is it not wonderful to Hear! And all the better for the fact that it is available anytime and anywhere, and through any Way!

How on Earth do the Christians think only they get to have a True Relationship with Our Source, God?

Speaking of arrogance, of course!

A Christian proselytizes because he KNOWS that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. We do not do it because we are on an ego trip, nor because we feel superior. Actually, to be a Christian, one must humble oneself and give up the lordship of self. We do not THINK we are right. We KNOW that we are right. We have met the Risen Saviour. We were once slaves to sin, but have been "Born Again". That is not to say that we don't occasionaly slip and fall, but we pick ourselves up and ask the Father's forgiveness through Christ. Our desire to sin has been replaced with the desire to please the Father.

I was on the other side for 40 years and then I met the Lord. I am now 74. I KNOW of what I speak. God's Word (the Bible) opened up to me and I began to understand it for the first time in my life. Until you are born again you cannot begin to understand it. In 1 Corinthians 2:14 it says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." So, it's all quite simple. Until you realize that you have a sin problem in your life and you need to get it fixed, you will not have a desire to turn to the only one that can fix it - Jesus Christ! If, and when, that happens, then you will know what we Christians are talking about.

If that makes us egotists, so be it. We proselytize because we don't want to see anyone on the wrong side on the Day of Judgment. Mark my words. The day you draw your last breath, you will know that what I have spoken is TRUTH. And if you think that I am resorting to scare tactics, well, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom...." (Psalm 111:10)

In the meantime, we expect to be mocked and ridiculed. That's part of our calling.

Hello Thomasbaum,

Thank you for your interest in my post to flaxseeds but I do not believe that I missed his point, or yours.

Two parts. First is the assumption that the claims of Christians make that Jesus is Lord, Son of God, Redeemer of Sins, and Exclusive Savior of All Humanity are true. Well, there is no proof or evidence or compelling rationale that it is beyond doubt true. Indeed, from my sitting position there is better evidence, and common sense knowing the tendencies and failings of the 'Fallen', that it is a man made and manifest creation of the human disciples of Jesus that came up with the quotes to brace up the mythology that they were writing.

Point is that this is unknown and unproven, so the rational and thinking mind, as well as the astute spiritually focused disciple, to regard it as unknown and so "without full merit".

This is unacceptable to Christians, and to Christianity.

Second is your assumption along with flaxseeds' that 'if it is true, it cannot be stated arrogantly'. This is patently untrue. One can be arrogant about certain and clear knowledge that is unassailable, as well as humble and in awe of such. Likewise one can be arrogant in offering lies, or do so with little affront.

You may consider my next statement as prejudiced, and it most probably is, but it is my experience that most of the Christians that feel driven to witness their faith to non-believers do so in arrogance.

Hey, it is built into Christian conditioning, since many centuries.

This is simply a play from the oldest play-book around. If someone disagrees with you, or questions the rationale of your argument, claim a media bias against you and your beliefs.
The premise of this piece is ridiculous. If the media in this country has a religious bias it is in favor of Christianity as that is the dominant religion based on the history and evolution (yes! evolution :)) of this country.
Many religious people seem threatened because it is becoming more accepted for people to genuinely question the accuracy and factual basis of these historically protected belief systems.
Religion thrives in places where fear and superstition are protected from factual scrutiny and rational thought. It also thrives because it is the ultimate business model.
Ever wondered about the economics of religion? Try looking at it through this lens:
- Cost of goods sold - virtually zero: No tangible product.
- Cost to support/replace product: zero - anyone ever claimed a refund from their church/religion because the after-life didn't materialize for them?
- Qualifications required to start a religion or be a preacher: often zero.
- Taxes paid on income: often zero.
- Income for one hour of preaching non-original material - pretty good, if you can get the believers.
- Barrier to business entry: virtually zero: just need some sheep/followers to be a Shepherd.
There's a reason why there are so many churches around your town. It could be due to the piousness of the people, or maybe it's the economics of the "business"?

by reading this posts i get the feeling that it's OK to be spiteful,mean,condecending,judgemental as long as it is directed towards Christians. HUMMM let's see if there where no Christians in the world tomorrow when you all wake up, how many of you think that automaticaly there would be no crime, no wars, no bigotry, no jihad against infidels? I have a hunch all those things would still be there.

This is a nation divided because everyone wants to believe that God is the problem.

Jesus is not the problem, the problem is the rejection of who He is. The fact that the only standard of truth is what God in His word says it is. Just because you don't believe in God does not mean He does not exist.

Religion without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is worthless, religion does not get you in heaven, accepting Jesus Christ does.

God's truth is Exclusive otherwise anything goes.

Britt Hume was recommending that Tiger Woods behave like that widely respected evangelical Christian, Bill Clinton.

Of course, Britt didn't realize he was being hypocritical.

Brit Hume is right. The uproar over his suggestion that Tiger Woods turn to Christian faith in order to deal with his personal troubles was directly related to the fact that Hume invoked Christianity and not Buddhism or Hinduism. There is often deep suspicion of, and even hostility toward, public displays of Christian faith, especially in the general media.
---------------------------------------
"Hostility" is not toward Christianity, but toward Christianism, the imposition of Right-wing Christianist values on other Americans, Christian and nonChristian alike.

Christianist tampering with healthcare reform, marriage rights, etc., come to mind.

That said, if another interviewer had suggested to a different guest that he from, say, Methodism to Buddhism as a better guide to his personal troubles, the ensuing uproar would have been far greater.

The relevant issue here would remain that which you have identified: presuming to tell someone that his/her religion is in some sense superior to another's.

But, then, Right-wing Christianists have a much stronger hold on the media, government, and business than do secularists of all faiths, Christians, of course, included.

justillthennow

You wrote, "Hello laxseedsrgood,

"Not strangely, Christianity is viewed as an arrogant faith."

"It is a fact, just as Jesus is the only way."

You exemplify your first statement in this one.

Flaxseedsrgood wrote, "Why? If Jesus was God and claimed to be the only one, then what is the arrogance in it?"

You missed the whole point of what he said by misquoting him.

Am I arrogant by saying that I have met God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus?

Therefore I have met the Trinity and I am not being arrogant about it, I am just stating a FACT.

By the way, Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the FATHER except thru Me".

If you notice and it does not matter one way or the other what you believe, what Jesus is suppose to have said, does not say that there is only one way to Jesus but one way to the Father.

I agree with what flaxseedsrgood said, IF true, then it is not arrogant at all and I would add that if not true than it is all meaningless, there is no middle ground.

It is about GOOD NEWS for ALL, not good enough news for some. See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

BRAD, YOU POOR IDIOT. The uproar was not that he suggested that Woods turn to Christianity. IT IS BECAUSE HE SAID THAT CHRISTIANITY OFFERED A BETTER WAY THAN BUDDHISM TO ATONE FOR HIS SINS....... HE MADE A DIRECT COMPARISON AND SUGGESTED THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS BETTER.

WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE CORRECT AND FACTUAL CONTEXT OF HUME'S REMARKS THEN YOUR STUPID ARTICLE BECOMES INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

I have found Evangelical and other Right Wing Christians among the most biased and racist people I have ever met.

They hate blacks, Muslims (esp Secret Muslim Pres Obama (lol)), anyone left of Centre, welfare (except when it goes to Israel- that's permitted by the bible?), Hispanics, Sikhs, and mostly satan's little buddy, the Liberals!

Yet, they get all wound up when Liberals, Muslims, and other minorities attack them. What do they expect in return?

As for Jesus being a perfect role model- look at the evidence:
his discussions are contradictory (e.g. condemning violence while often supporting it);

his known accomplishments not really incredible (did he invent the car or heal the millions starving in Africa- not that I can recall);

his life sounds like a foregery of Mithra or Horace- the virgin birth on the 25th of December, the healing, the disciples, the ressurection, etc.

How so many people can base their entire lives around a man whom some say never existed and whose known life appears to be based on other religious figures from that time is perplexing?

I appreciate the comments of Garoth,

"They distrust claims to absolute truth and authority, as well they should. Evangelicals see this as "persecution" and "intolerance" (I have always found it amazing that the first ones to cry about intolerance are the intolerant)."

Indeed, it seems anytime that evangelicals are not received at their word that Christianity is the only true way they view this as an affront and an attack. How immature, spiritually speaking!

And for good reason! They have nothing that backs these claims up but their own belief in the literal nature of the Bible, and of course their own interpretations of the words of the Bible.

Self manifest and self fulfilled prophecy.

Hello laxseedsrgood,

"Not strangely, Christianity is viewed as an arrogant faith."

"It is a fact, just as Jesus is the only way."

You exemplify your first statement in this one.

It is arrogance to claim something as true what cannot be demonstrated as true, and is a greater arrogance yet to claim that it is not only true but singularly so.

This assertion is, in fact, an insult to those whose path is right for them and is different than Christianity. In fact, contrary to your faith based claim, the only fact is that Christian assertion of singular truth is, at it's core, an insult.

That is why Christianity removes itself from real spiritual evolution, because it is not based in fact but in arrogance and presumption. And it's insistence on those assumptions is the root of a great deal of pain in the world.

"Brit Hume is right. The uproar over his suggestion that Tiger Woods turn to Christian faith in order to deal with his personal troubles was directly related to the fact that Hume invoked Christianity and not Buddhism or Hinduism."

Wrong. The uproar is over Hume's arrogance in suggesting that his (christer) religion was superior to Woods' (Buddhist) religion.

Chagasman, well said! I've got no problem with Christians who accept others for who they are and acknowledge them as decent people instead of denouncing them as "sinners" and "evildoers" simply because they happen to follow a different religion or live their lives differently than the evangelical types do.

Call it proselytizing, call it evangelizing (which are merely two words for the same thing), either way it is RUDE, and if kept up, is religion-sanctioned harassment. Nobody has the right to tell another person that your religion is right for them and theirs is wrong. That is what got everybody all riled up at Hume's comments, his attitude of "Tiger needs to turn to Jesus and that'll make everything right." Freedom of religion means ANY religion, and even freedom FROM religion. I don't go running around telling everybody they need to turn to my religion-all I ask is that people please return the courtesy and don't shove yours in my face. That goes double for my family. if you do keep harassing us in the name of your God, then don't be surprised when we get hostile about it! Your right to practice your religion stops where our right to be free from yours starts.

As RJ24, SUX123 and Chagasman have pointed out, Christians (especially right wing xtians) have a lot of nerve complaining about criticism of their hateful, divisive demagoguery. Is it any wonder people are getting fed up?

On the other hand, I have no problem at all with Garoth and Joe_Allen_Doty. But I think that Garoth misunderstands the evangelicals. They do not want to use seriousness or intellectual rigor. They prefer fear and hatred. Mr. Doty has the far better idea. Ditch everything pre 325 (if not earlier) and start over. And stay out of politics this time.

Not strangely, Christianity is viewed as an arrogant faith. They claim that only through Christ can one have salvation. And this arrogance is seen by agnostics, atheists, and people of other religions are unacceptable. Why? If Jesus was God and claimed to be the only one, then what is the arrogance in it? Obama claims to be the president of USA. To make such a statement is then not arrogant? It is a fact, just as Jesus is the only way.

Government regulations are biased against the use of Christian-based techniques in therapy but overtly support methodologies based on Buddhism and Hinduism. Why this bigotry may I ask?

I would not say that there is media bias against Christianity - as a pastor and a public person, in over thirty years of ministry, I have found that the media is generally very friendly to Christianity, and to religion in general (blogs on this site notwithstanding!). What the media has trouble with is arrogance and triumphalism in the name of religion - a great problem especially among evangelicals and among fundamentalists of every stripe, but also found among many mainline churches. The media has taken seriously the idea of America as a "melting pot," and a place where ideas should be free to compete in the marketplace. They distrust claims to absolute truth and authority, as well they should. Evangelicals see this as "persecution" and "intolerance" (I have always found it amazing that the first ones to cry about intolerance are the intolerant). If evangelicals wish to be taken seriously, they need to speak with seriousness and intellectual rigor. Good models would be Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo(among evangelicals).

Evangelical Christians make money by fanning the flames of fear and hatred toward gay men and women, feminists, scientists, doctors, atheists, secularists, Muslims, Jews and liberals generally. They have lobbied heavily to spread misinformation and pseudo-science in public health education classes. They have tried to restrict our access to birth control, condoms, and legal abortions. They have tried to have their religious beliefs thought in schools in the place of biology. Is it really a surprise that the majority of Americans not impressed?

Christianity has become a political party and a business so it can no longer be considered a religion. There are some who follow the teachings of Christ, but they should probably call themselves by a new name (Jesuarians) since The Church and the GOP have sullied the "Christian" label. Islam has become a tool for control, brain-waching and terrorism - peacefull followers of Islam should also take a new name.
Nobody fears Buddhists because they are pacifist, non -violent and do not try to convert anyone. Buddhism is more of a philosophy that a religion since The Bhudda was not a God and did not claim to be one.

Not all evangelizing Christians are pushy and worthy of disdain.

I have an friend that is a leader in the Jehovah Witnesses (the group Hitler had murdered in mass) and he talks like a normal interesting person. On the other hand his old-lady says she just cooks and does his laundry for him...

He's an old man. The kind you might like to die before to prevent the your grief of his death even though he's just an acquaintance.

"There is often deep suspicion of, and even hostility toward, public displays of Christian faith, especially in the general media."

If you "Christians" would just keep your dang religion to yourself and quit trying to force it on others maybe the rest of us wouldn't be so suspicious or hostile. Attempts to inject religion into politics and create a religious dictatorship in the US just naturally make people hostile. Assertions of superiority just make people resentful. Attempts to redecorate public property with your religious symbols and monuments get people upset with you.

Unlike you evangelicals, most of us are happy with our religions and resent your proselytizing. Nobody is stopping your from going to church everyday of the week if you so desire. Nobody is stopping you from praying silently to yourself every minute of every day if you so desire. Its when you demand that we pay attention to your conceit and your self-righteous gobbledegook that we get hostile.

Go away.

Did I mention that the best way to solve the Israeli problem is for them to convert to a Christian State?

When each side can be more aware of the truths which animate those with whom they disagree, we will all be safer to discuss our faith or our lack of it and that should be welcome to all.
-------------------------------------------If it became safer to discuss it or the lack of it that won't make it any less boring for the person being preached to.

The religion of Christianity was started in Nicea (now in Turkey) by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. Before Constantine, no evil was done to people in the "Name of Christianity." There were no wars in the name of Christianity before him either.

Jesus' wouldn't approve of what has been done in his name to people since 325 AD. Jesus' and his disciples became the faith movement called "The Way."

I am biased against the religion of Christianity because it is a political organization created by a political head of a country.

I am a Believer (correct name for Jesus' followers in the New Testament) and I believe in Jesus' The Way. It was called "The Way" because Jesus said, "I am the Way."