Bible More Than Sufficient

towner levin grumphy grubbiness compliment hoarsen washroom fruitwood
http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/97/0307/newsmap/china.html >Asiaweek
http://cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/11/11/anthrax.post.offices/index.html

Yeah, you remind me of Molly Ivins. She was a liberal, but at least she wasn't a fuzzy-headed liberal.

Well, hopefully, at least you now know one Christian (me) who thinks much differently. And, not only that, but I stand on the Bible, which does not tell me to railroad anyone, but to love them.

It's true that atheists have been more active recently in bringing court cases. But it isn't always atheists, and it was hardly any on the earlier cases.

I don't think a cross on a war memorial is something a reasonable person should go to court about. There must be something more important to spend their money on.

"Hopefully you can see why it makes no sense to force my faith on people; I CAN’T force my faith on people because THEY have to believe on their own. I can’t do it for them. And, I could choose to force my moral convictions on people, but what would that accomplish? If we are not ‘saved’ by our good deeds, what difference will it make if someone is forced to live a Christian lifestyle, but they have no faith, no relationship with God?"

Damn well said. Unfortunately, there is a large, organized movement of Christians out there who haven't thought of this. And probably don't care. I don't think they care about bringing people to God. I think they're burning with power lust, and a war on homosexuality is merely a means to an end.

Why do I care so much about the assault on homosexuals? A: Because they're fellow human beings, and there's a wave of destruction crashing down on them. B: Because a disproporionately large part of the arts are created by homosexuals (I have a theory why this is so), and I remember what happened to the arts in the 1980s when so many gay men went under the earth. C: Because a number of people I care about very much are homosexual. D: As it happens, I swing both ways myself, so I'm a target.

Persecution of Christians: You can't go by Eusebius. Something I read recently traced out the history of persecution by the Romans, and found that active persecution came in three periods that totaled about five years. This, of course, is more than bad enough, but not nearly as bad as the Church would have you believe based on Eusebius.

The murderousness of Christianity: I stand on history: The persecution of the Gnostics, burning of heretics, witch hunts, crusades, murder of the the Taborites, the arrest of Wencelaus IV (one of the best kings there ever was), it goes on and on. It's a curious thing: most people are really nice and really decent, and concerned with pursuing their happiness, but religion can turn them into Hell on wheels. It can make them torture, pillage, and murder, because they _think it's right._ I believe Christianity is ancient, mumbling evil, and you won't convince me otherwise, any more than I'll convince you.

Hi, John Conolley:

I'll start with your last point. On that issue, we agree completely. Well...almost. As I wrote in my last post, I oppose Christians forcing non-Christians to live Christian lifestyles. The Holy Roman Empire was a great example of what NOT to do. Believing in Jesus is a choice. If God gives us this choice, who is man to force it on people?

Here's where we disagree: It was not always this way. If we go back and look at the first three hundred years of the church, we see persecution against Christians. All but one of the apostles was put to death. Christians were fed to lions, crucified, stoned to death, and burned at stakes, by the Jewish leadership or by the Roman government. In 325 AD, a Roman emperor adopted Christianity and began to force it on people. BUT, it was not biblical Christianity he was selling, it was a brand new religion - - - Catholicism. I can speak freely, because it’s pretty much just you and me here on this thread now. Catholicism is recycled paganism packaged as Christianity. From your previous posts (and your last name) it seems you were raised Catholic. So was I. If I am right, we have both come out of that system (which shows that some things have changed since the Dark Ages, since no one executed us for it).

This is no small distinction. Catholicism, like every other religion on the planet, is a system designed to get the believer to heaven, or Paradise, or Nirvana, or oneness with God, or some higher state, through careful obedience to set laws or rituals or principles. Now, if you believe that, then you can force these religious laws on people and think that you are doing them a favor. You are bringing them salvation. If you kill them for refusing to follow your rules: Hey, they were going to hell any way. BUT, Christianity, as defined by the earliest believers, as recorded in the Bible and the writings of the earliest (pre-Catholic) church leaders (“fathers”), does not work that way. The Bible is very clear in saying that no man can ever satisfy God by doing good works, following laws or living life a certain way. It is by faith and trust, and by establishing a personal relationship with God, through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, that we are ‘saved’ and that we inherit eternal life.

I know you don’t believe all of this, but I want you to hear it so you can understand the problem more fully. What I have just described is pure biblical Christianity. Hopefully you can see why it makes no sense to force my faith on people; I CAN’T force my faith on people because THEY have to believe on their own. I can’t do it for them. And, I could choose to force my moral convictions on people, but what would that accomplish? If we are not ‘saved’ by our good deeds, what difference will it make if someone is forced to live a Christian lifestyle, but they have no faith, no relationship with God?

I know what I am about to say has been rejected all over this website, on many threads, whenever Christians say it, but I have to do it: Christians who are willing to kill, steal people’s rights and force them to live as Christ did, are not living like Christ themselves. I really believe that a minority of those who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. I rarely am willing to discuss homosexuality, but you repeatedly mention it, so I will tell you why I haven’t addressed it. First, as I just described, I cannot make someone become a Christian by forcing them to conform to a Bible-prescribed lifestyle. I would prefer to love them as Jesus did, and let HIM change the person as they get to know Him. The other reason is that sin is sin. And, God sees sin as it is. Unlike humans, He does not consider one sin worse than another. Sin can be defined as rebellion against God, and any rebellion against God is bad, and separates us from Him. (Again, I know you think this is ridiculous, but I want you to see my perspective). If that is true, what does it make me if I tell a homosexual they are sinning, but I myself am having an affair with another woman, or divorcing my wife, or sleeping with my girlfriend, or watching pornography? Answer: it makes me a useless hypocrite. A hypocrite because I am also disobeying God. Useless because God cannot use me; I am giving a bad witness. I try really hard to practice what Jesus preached when He talked about removing the log in your own eye before being able to help others with their tiny little splinters.

This is why I have to disagree with your contention that Christianity has always been evil and murderous. For three hundred years, it was not that way. In fact, for two thousand years, it has not been that way. In every generation, there have always been at least a small number of biblical Christians who lived as Christ did, and resisted the legalism of Catholicism (and now Fundamentalism).

What I am sharing with you is not something the mainstream media covers. There are many of us Christians who feel this way, and there is a movement under way to turn the tide back from forceful judgment to true Christian love. But, you will only experience it one Christian at a time, as you are now. Here is my advice for you: whenever a “Christian” judges or condemns you, show them that you understand true Christianity better than they do, and say something like, “Don’t you have sins to deal with yourself? Does God take your sins any less seriously than mine?”, or quote Jesus on removing the log from your eye (chapter 7:1-5).

Now, some smaller points:

- By “banning any mention of God”, I was referring to the removal of “God” from the pledge to the flag in classrooms. I was not referring to teaching Christianity in our public schools.

- You say these laws are generally brought by members of other religions, not Atheists. That case in California involved the Atheist father who is still trying to get God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. (“Christ” is not mentioned in the pledge, so why would Jews or Muslims object?)

- Attempting to remove that cross from a memorial was not an act of vandalism. I was referring to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial in San Diego. There was a court battle to prevent the cross’s removal by those who felt it was inappropriate to have a cross at a war memorial.

(These misunderstandings are my fault. I did not give enough details to be coherent. Sorry!)

" If we believe Christ will return to set up His kingdom, what are we doing trying to run the government now, without Him?"

That's an excellent point. Let me think about that.

"[T]here are many atheists who are trying to remove the rights of American Christians to share their faith in public."

There are people (I don't have the details on whether they're atheists or not; most of the relevant court cases are not brought by atheists, but by people of other religions) who seriously go too far, such as trying to prevent school kids from having prayer meetings at recess. There are other case of unnecessarily monkeying with symbols, such as taking after creches in public places, or renaming the Easter Bunny. Taking a cross off a war memorial is simple vandalism.

On the other hand, bringing a ten commandments statue into a courthouse is an attempt to conflate temporal law with Biblical injunctions, and is a clear case of violating separation of church and state.

Atheists (or Jews, Hindus, what have you) frequently shoot themselves in the foot, confuse what is essential with what isn't, and confuse Constitutional issues with opinion issues, which gets Christians so upset that they do likewise. Then reasoned discussion stops and war begins.

Now.

About banning the mention of God from any classroom. First of all, it isn't any classroom. It's government classrooms. It's an important point that public schools are run by the government. Teachers discussing God in class therefore has the appearance of a governmental endorsement of religion. It looks to me like a clear violation of separation.

Also, as an atheist from the age of fifteen, I can tell you it's upsetting and oppressive to people who don't believe as the teacher believe. It's also scary, because it reminds you that you're one among many, and seems to point that out to the many. Remember, atheist children (Jewish children, Muslim children, Mormon children) are forced by law to be there. I don't think it's fair to force them to listen to even the shortest sermons, or to call attention to their very small minority status. Nor is there any pedogocical need for it.

Going back to a previous point:

"You, at the very least, hate the IDEA of God, don’t you?"

Absolutely not. I'm fascinated by the idea of God. That's why I've been immersing myself in the history of religion. I'm positively jolly toward the idea of Sufiism. It's cool as anything. Wrong, of course.

What I hate is the idea of Christians forcing me to keep my mouth shut, forcing me to conduct my sex life by their lights, forcing me to go to church, forcing me to give money to their causes... forcing me to do anything. And don't tell me they wouldn't. Did you ever hear of the Cristeros War? 90,000 people lost their lives over the question of what the Catholic Church had the right to force them to do. In 1844, Catholics and Protestants fought each other with cannon fire in the streets of Philadelphia. Christians burned or crushed seventy-some people to death in Waco because they wanted to live outside Christian society.

Christians have been violently forcing their beliefs on people for 2000 years, and it's time it stopped.

Conolley:
Things just got interesting. I disagree with A LOT of what you just wrote, but I am intrigued, and I would like to discuss some of this further, if you are willing.

Before we do, I like to request that you refrain from insulting me by calling God my "imaginary friend". I would like to have a more civil conversation, and I know we are both capable of it.

You said: "And "moderate" Christians, such as yourself, are in the same positions as moderate Mohammedans...If you aren't educated about what's going on in your religion, and if you aren't speaking against it, you look like part of the problem."

I don’t think I am a “moderate” Christian. My faith in Christ is the center of my life. It is who I am. I read the Bible in a way that most people would call “literal”. But, I do not agree with the people you are criticizing. And, I am vocal about it.

While Christians are called to share their faith with everyone around them, I do not see where in the Bible I am told to demand that the entire world live according to God’s principles. In fact, quite the opposite, believers are told to obey the government. We are not called to control the government, picket, boycott, go on Larry King, threaten candidates with our social agenda, lobby politicians, govern from the pulpit, or even judge those who live apart from God. We are to live a loving, selfless life and give ourselves to those around us. If asked why we do so, we are to explain the love of Christ that motivates us to act this way.

On the one hand, I strongly disagree with what some people who call themselves Christians are doing. They are off target. If we believe Christ will return to set up His kingdom, what are we doing trying to run the government now, without Him? This, I believe, is the crux of every problem throughout history involving the “church”. The Holy Roman Empire forcing its citizens to be Christians, Crusaders killing non-Christians, Catholics persecuting Protestants, Inquisitors murdering non-believers, Catholic Ireland at war with Protestant Northern Ireland, Imperialists and Colonists owning and trading and abusing slaves, are all examples of Christians exerting power over governments and their people. This is not biblical. We are to live such good lives that those around us see our faith at work. Christians are called to be good, obedient citizens, obeying the authorities, respecting our leaders and paying our taxes.

On the other hand, Christians are called to witness, regardless of the consequences. The only time when I see the Bible endorsing the act of defying the government occurs when a believer is asked to stop worshipping God, or when asked to worship other gods. Daniel refused to stop praying to His God, and he was thrown to the lions, willingly. Daniel’s three friends refused to bow down to a statue of Nebuchadnezzar, and they were thrown into a fiery furnace, willingly. Peter and John refused to stop preaching Christ, and were thrown into prison and beaten. They thanked God for being considered worthy of suffering for Jesus. Paul spent time in prison for spreading Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. He considered himself blessed for it.

I really hope you admit, John, that there are many atheists who are trying to remove the rights of American Christians to share their faith in public. Removing a cross from a war memorial, banning the mention of God from any classroom, taking Christmas trees out of malls, renaming the Easter Bunny the “Spring Bunny”, and other recent actions get most Christians worked up over their right to openly practice their faith. I, myself, am not worried. Like Daniel & his friends, John & Peter, Paul, and scores and scores of martyrs over the years, I’ll go to jail and die if I have to. I won’t whine about my rights being violated by you atheists. Jesus never whined.

Some misguided souls? This is a highly organized movement. And "moderate" Christians, such as yourself, are in the same positions as moderate Mohammedans, who are being asked to speak out against the fundmentalists in their religion. They don't do it, so the assumption is that they actually support the terrorists, whether they do or not. If you aren't educated about what's going on in your religion, and if you aren't speaking against it, you look like part of the problem.

You further look like part of the problem for statements like this: "[T]he MAJORITY of Americans do not support legalizing gay marriage." The majority of Americans, according to polls, until recently supported equal rights for homosexuals. With the huge activism by Christians, this number has gone to a minority. It looks like hate to me. Here's something Goldberg has to say on the subject:

"And you see the gay people in these areas, where these anti-gay measures were used to get out the vote, and what they're feeling is real terror. They're looking around and thinking, these are my neighbors. They've always been nice to me. We've always smiled at each other. Who are these people?" (from an interview at buzzflash.com)

I blame you because I think all Christians (all monotheists?) are blinded to reality, and pursue dangerous, hurtful, destructive, even evil, paths, because they think it's right. And no one can tell you anything, no one can educate you, and when reality is shown to be against you, you go away resenting it an mumbling about conspiracies. Where's "David" right now? Did he concede the evidence seemed to be against him? No, he just vanished. I think this is willful blindness, and I blame anyone who commits it or is party to it, because that road leads to death.

Even if you are right, if there are some misguided souls claiming to be Christians, why blame me and the other true Christians on this thread?

I think this conversation has degenerated into random assertions, but your last question is legit, so I'll answer: Who is trying to take away the constitution? Christion Dominionists. Christian Reconstructionists. Dominionists are a small movement, but they've had significant influence on government policy in the current administration. Christian Reconstructionists aren't so small.

No bills have been introduced in Congress yet, but there are most distinctly Christians who want to and will if they get a chance. Or bypass Congress altogether, if they get a chance.

For details, read _Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism_, Michelle Goldberg, Norton, 2006. If you do love the Constitution, this book will scare the living crap out of you.

Conolley:

Your latest rant was hard to read, but I want to be respectful, so here are my answers to your points:

"I can't hate an entity I don't believe in.” You, at the very least, hate the IDEA of God, don’t you?

“Do you think Hindus came to the hills of West Virginia and made me hate Christianity?” Cute, but you did not understand me. I am saying that because you hate the idea of God, you hate the idea of Christianity.

“And if Christians don't hate homosexuals, where did all the hate legislation suddenly come from?” Hate legislation? I think SOME Christians want to limit marriage to heterosexuals, but the MAJORITY of Americans do not support legalizing gay marriage.

“You have to turn a studied blind eye every day to the myriad evidences from science, history, archaeology, patristics, textual analysis, and plain common sense to protect your belief in your invisible friend.” Funny, I could say the same of you. You ignore the obvious existence of God whenever you enjoy a sunrise, are amazed by nature, witness the miracle of birth, or gaze at a canopy of stars. You ignore the obvious fact that the size of the earth, its distance from the sun, its distance from the moon, its gravitational laws, and its speed of rotation are too perfect not to have an intelligent Agent behind them. (Even the great minds who discovered them admitted that.) You ignore a Designer when you cut yourself and don’t bleed to death, when you feel pleasure, when you experience love, and when you inherently discern between right and wrong. You ignore the parallels between the Bible and science, the Bible and history, and the Bible and archaeology.

“Christianity has always been a vile and hateful religion.” You won’t see that in the New Testament, which details the beginnings of the Christian movement. SHOW ME.

“You aren't going to tell me you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Augustine or Aquinas, are you?” Well…umm…actually…I might be. Neither of them read the Bible faithfully. They both interpreted the Scriptures allegorically. Everything was always a picture of something else. I’m sorry, but I choose what the Bible plainly says over some dead guy’s vivid imagination.

“I don't know how many Christians have threatened to beat me down for simply remarking that I'm an atheist.” That’s unfortunate. I am truly sorry to hear that. That doesn’t happen here in the Rust Belt.

“And the Hebrew Bible is an atrocious, murderous, hateful document if ever one was written.” You are ignoring all of the loving things God says in the OT. You are glossing over His promises. You are oblivious to His mercy and kindness, mentioned all over the Hebrew Bible.

“I do seriously resent the concerted effort by Christians to force him on me, and even to take away the laws of the United States and replace them with Leviticus. Stoning women for not being chaste? Stoning children for disobedience? Come on.” Who is trying to take away the Constitution? I love the Constitution. The Bible tells us to follow the rules of our government, not change them. And, you are making MY point with your Levitical list. What Christian is introducing bills in Congress to stone women and children? YOU come on!

"You hate God. You resent Him. You want Him to go away."

To quote Va.Tech. Professor Mapantsula (approximately, from memory), "I can't hate an entity I don't believe in. This is not the high school silent treatment."

"Weak and manipulative answer"

You asked my about my emotional state. Ask a personal question, expect a personal answer.

And if I can't blame my hatred of Christians (actually, it's my hatred of Christianity; there is a difference) on Christians, where does it come from? Do you think Hindus came to the hills of West Virginia and made me hate Christianity?

Christianity has always been a vile and hateful religion. I don't know how many Christians have threatened to beat me down for simply remarking that I'm an atheist. And, as Sam Harris, among others, have pointed out, Augustine found reason in the Christian Bible to torture heretics. Aquinas found reason to burn them alive. (You aren't going to tell me you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Augustine or Aquinas, are you?) And the Hebrew Bible is an atrocious, murderous, hateful document if ever one was written.

And if Christians don't hate homosexuals, where did all the hate legislation suddenly come from? It wasn't Muslims. It wasn't atheists.

And no, I'm not about to admit that you're right. You're from insanity. You have to turn a studied blind eye every day to the myriad evidences from science, history, archaeology, patristics, textual analysis, and plain common sense to protect your belief in your invisible friend.

Now, I'm not interested in taking your invisible friend away from you, if that's what gets you through the night, but I do seriously resent the concerted effort by Christians to force him on me, and even to take away the laws of the United States and replace them with Leviticus. Stoning women for not being chaste? Stoning children for disobedience? Come on.

Conolley:

What a weak and manipulative answer you just gave. The Christians I know don't want to murder judges, don't hate homosexuals, don't teach that God hates people, don't feel bound by the laws in Leviticus and don't want to subject an unbelieving world to God's law against their will.

We make good comments, and always try to show why we believe what we believe. We have made many good arguments on this thread, but you are predisposed by your hatred to reject every one of them.

You can't blame your outright hatred against Christians on us. Be honest, John. Your disgust goes much deeper than strangers on the internet. You hate God. You resent Him. You want Him to go away.

I don't know your story, but you are not alone. We all, at one time, lived selfish lives apart from our Creator. I personally can tell you that my life was not complete, my life was not hopeful, my life was not at all meaningful, until I stopped running and faced the God who wanted to erase my past and give me a future.

I can't see you admitting that I am right. You may not even know it. Your selfish hatred may go so deep that you do not even understand it. But, it can all go away in the blink of an eye, when you're finally ready.

Lest you think I am judging you, let me ask you this: Would I be judging a man if I observed he was drowning and I threw him a life jacket?

I am praying for you, John.

To David:

D00d (_) vv323 pwn23/)!!11one

Admit it.

What makes me so "aggro?" I'm talking to Christians, in an era when Christians are openly advocating the murder of federal judges. When Christians have to be bought off from picketing a funeral with "God Hates Fag" signs. When Christians are teaching two-year-olds to sing "God Hates the World." (Go to http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/specialav/2007/20070407_ghtw.html Watch it all the way to the end. If you can stomach it.) When Christians are advocating that the American Constitution be replaced with the laws of Leviticus. Why am I aggro? Because YOU can't face an argument directly, never admit when you're defeated (just stop talking, see "David" above), weasel about in all directions, and argue about Wikipedia when all your other arguments run out. I think you are invincibly ignorant, I think Christianity is evil, and I think you're parties to it. That's why I'm aggro.

Anyone who calls Dawkins an 'idiot' is my friend! Who made him an expert on theology?

No really now,

Re: John Conneley:

True true re: the English lessons; and free lessons mind you!

Also, this garbage that he alluded to when saying that anyone who is a Biblical scholar cannot argue (or is not qualified to argue) in a scientific manner about God etc. due to bias!! I mean COME ON, does this dude make the rules as he goes along? The facts for intelligent design etc. far outweigh anything darwin or evolutionists have to offer and him and other just simply refuse to acknowledge that this evidence exists.

On what basis does he dismiss scholars etc? I have tried getting into the mind of this individual but it is a wasted effort. And then there are the insults etc. when you don't agree with him and the dismissive attitude he adopts. Just try and insult him in turn; then just see what happens!!!

Look, I debate, and have done so publicly before and never have I encountered such puzzling behaviour from an individual such as this.

He's almost as bad as that total idiot Richard Dawkins. I'm more amused than anything else...

Phantom:
You may have to tell Conolley what AGGRO means. Remember...he thinks only Americans know how to speak English. (hee hee)

John M,

I agree with you.

John Conneley,

Why ARE you so aggro? If someone doesn't agree with you, you seem to go slightly ballistic! Come on man!

Wikipedia is not reliable, and neither is Carbon Dating. I did err (sorry) - the dried lava at Mt. St. Helens was obviously not dated with carbon. But, carbon dating is one of many similar systems. My point with Mt. St. Helens is that we cannot reliably date rocks, and very often this 'technology' is used to date achaeological objects found with the rocks.

We obviously are talking about the existence of God. If the Old Testament is true, it goes along way to showing that He exists. We can't forget that the book is full of predictions of events that subsequently happened. And, no human could make so many accurate predictions of the future.

"The discussion was on whether the OT stands up to archaeology. It's generally acknowledged by scholars Jewish, Christian, and secular that it doesn't. Previously, it's been held that anything before the United Kingdom is a mythical story disproved by archaeology. Now, it's beginning to look like the United Kingdom doesn't stand up either."
- These statements are simply not true. "Christians", at least, know that many of the places, customs, and peoples mentioned in the Old Testament have been verified, often by secular researchers. Only a minority of 'scholars' hold that the Old Testament is mythical. The United Kingdom is not under question by the majority of scholarship.

The problem is that a small group of dissidents (mostly the Jesus Seminar people) has spun up some tall tales. They are the ones who appear on every television special on Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity. They have no proof of what they teach, and they are the source of the nonsense Dan Brown lists in his silly DaVinci novel.

Listen, bubba, I'm not one of your students, and I'm not interested in your opinions of Wikipedia. And I expect I've read as many books as you have. Kindly get down off your high horse.

In any case, the discussion wasn't on whether God exists. Every proof of the existence of God was shot down long ago. The discussion was on whether the OT stands up to archaeology. It's generally acknowledged by scholars Jewish, Christian, and secular that it doesn't. Previously, it's been held that anything before the United Kingdom is a mythical story disproved by archaeology. Now, it's beginning to look like the United Kingdom doesn't stand up either.

And I still don't know what you were talking about vis a vis Mount St. Helens. Do you?

If wikipedia is not good enough for a HIGH SCHOOL paper, why would I respect it to help in these discussions on whether or not GOD EXISTS?

Get off the internet and read some REAL books and REAL research papers!

I looked it up in Wikipedia (we aren't writing research papers here, for God's sake). Carbon dating goes back about 60,000 years.

What's all this about Mount St. Helens? It seems utterly incoherent to me. How can you date a volcanic cone? It's not an entity; it's a mass of stuff. I suppose the stuff could be arbitrarily old.

Also, isn't Mount St. Helens all cone? It's a volcanic mountain. It's been around a long time.

And no scientist has ever claimed to date anything to 2.4 million years ago using carbon dating. Carbon dating goes back, what, 50,000 years, tops?

Help up out here. What in the world are you talking about?

Here are my two cents:

My daughter is not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference for any project at her high school. It is not a reliable source. My university students know not to quote wikipedia to me; I will laugh. So, Conolley: "Ha, ha, ha!!!"

The walls of Jericho fell at least four times.

Carbon dating is not reliable. Scientists have dated the cone at Mount St. Helens to be 2.4 MILLION years old. And, we know that it went off in 1980, so that cone is only 27 years old. OOPS!

Notice your argument is refuted by a site with "Biblical" in the title. If even the Biblical sites are against you, it really doesn't look good.

As for the Hittites, "general direction" is pretty general.

The radio carbon dates used by Wood were provided by the British Museum, which later retracted the dates because their machinery had been out of calibration. The corrected radio carbon dating confirms Kenyon's dating.

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php

Wikipedia says: "Bryant G. Wood is currently the Creationist Director of the Associates for Biblical Research."

This means Bryant Wood has no respect for science, and thus should not be adduced as a support for any kind of scientific conclusion.

John Connelie, :)

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/jericho.html

I think this is a fair and unbiased site about Jericho. You tell me to read about Kenyon and I did. Her conclusion was what you said it would be. But at the end of this article archaeologist Bryan Wood re-evaluates Kenyon's claims. Using carbon 14 dating, his conclusion is that the Israelites under Joshua could have had a conquest of Jericho. There is no way either could come to a solid conclusion on this due in fact to the walls of Jericho have been destroyed and rebuilt several times in history. So neither does this suggest the story was true or false. It is inconclusive. But the last evidence to come out with carbon 14 dating suggests the timing of Joshua and Jericho were correct. Did he have a conquest over Jericho?? No one knows and may never know. But there for sure is no evidence that suggests without a doubt the story in the Bible is false.

Here's a quote from the wikipedia site you said you read about the Hittites.

Moreover, in the account of the conquest of Canaan, the Hittites are said to dwell "in the mountains" and "towards the north" of Canaan — a description that matches the general direction and geography of the original Hittite empire, who had been influential in the region prior to the Battle of Kadesh.

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

There's the site. I suggest you read the whole thing. It's pretty convincing that the Biblical Hittites were a real people.

By the way too. I didn't look up any of this in Josh Mcdowell's books. Have a great day.

God bless

P.S. to David:

Looking it up in McDowell doesn't count. McDowell quotes Garstung, whose work has been superseded by the great Kathleen Kenyon. Kenyon's methods at Jericho (the "Wheeler-Kenyon Method") are now the standard of archaeology.

P.S.

You guys see my name every day. It's not hard to spell. It's only 8 letters. It's CONOLLEY.

David:

Very well. I looked up the Hittites. I didn't have to go far. This is what I found at Wikipedia:

'Genesis indicates that the "Hittites" (sons of Heth) were descendants of Ham through his son, Canaan. However, it is uncertain, and there has been some debate, as to whether this designation was intended to signify any or all of: 1) the original Hattites of Hatti, 2) their Indo-European conquerors (Nesili), who retained the name "Hatti" for Central Anatolia, and are today referred to as the "Hittites" ..., or 3) a Canaanite group, who may or may not have been related to either or both of the Anatolian groups, and who also may or may not be identical with the later Neo-Hittites.

'The Biblical Hittites are said to be a great power who dwell "in the mountains" and "towards the north" of Canaan. Some scholars, on the basis of the Documentary Hypothesis which holds that the Hebrew Bible was redacted well after the fall of the Hittite Empire, assume these Biblical references may be to the "Neo-Hittite" (Luwian) polities.'

In other words, nothing solid.

Now.

If you're actually interested in intellectual discussion, rather than assertion, please look up the fall of Jericho. Archaeology asserts that Jericho fell about 2400 BCE, which is 900 years before the supposed time of Joshua. When Joshua was supposed to have "fit the Battle of Jericho," Jericho was an abandoned heap of stones. Don't believe it? Look it up. Then tell me what archaeology proves about the Bible.

Phantom:

Apology accepted.

Hey!!! John Conelly is back!! How bout those Hittites huh? I'll give you a word of advice Mr. C. How about looking up both sides of the argument. Infidels.org??? The name just says it all. Real non-biased site ya have there buddy. So, last time I talked to you, you told me to "go to hell!" I hope your feeling a little better. So anyway, just wanted to say hi and I hope you found that the Hittites were a real people in one of many confirmations of the OT. Take care

God bless

John Connely,

Ok, peace then. Let's stick to the topic at hand and leave the personal remarks out that both of us are guilty of.

I'm sorry, and I mean it.

John M:

I assumed you _had_ read it for yourself. And the site doesn't trash the book. It started out as trash.

I refer readers to that site because I don't want anyone to get the impression that the book hasn't been answered, because that might lead to the free-floating feeling that it's unanswerable.

Phantom:

My wit is dim? I refer you to your "top lip" remark.

My my my John Connely,

Grouchy old man aren't you?! Why don't you try and take me on with your intellect as opposed to your wit, dim as it is.

And, I'm only 14 but most people say I look AT LEAST 18...

Idiot...

David:
I will put together a summary of what I have on Miller and that aspect of evolutionary theory. I will also give you references and a link to a useful website.
Stay tuned...

Conolley:
Why send people to a website that trashes McDowell's book instead of inviting people to read it for themselves? Don't you want people to think for themselves? Are you scared that they will not think it is 'half-baked' and actually like what he has written? Do you really need to control people to that extent?

Incidentally, for those who don't know Josh McDowell, he wrote a book called _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_. My "page 94" reference above was to _The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict_, in one volume, from Nelson, 1999.

The book is a collection of half-baked mythologizing and hand-waving, and is the source of most of the goofy arguments the fundamentalists come up with. You can see it very thoroughly refuted here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

Phantom:

"And by the way; the smell you're smelling is not green cheese; it's your top lip!"

My apologies. I thought I was talking to an adult.

Listen, kid, you're on the wrong site. Grownups meet here. Your brain is not yet matured to the point you can discuss ideas at this level. Come back when you're fifteen or sixteen.

Incidentally, since English is not your first language, let me make a friendly correction: It's idiomatic English to say _upper_ lip.

David:

"Ha Ha Ha!! That was the funniest comment ever. I really cant stop laughing."

Thank you. That's very enlightening. I'm now prepared to sum up the argumentation methods of fundamentalist Christians:

Begin by quoting whatever canned answers you can remember from Josh McDowell.

Ignore any and all points your opponent makes.

Jump on any little word that can be misconstrued.

If you have an extraordinary memory (for a fundamentalist), quote more McDowell.

If worst comes to worst, actually go and look up something in McDowell (the Hittite reference comes from page 94 of the Nelson single-volume edition).

If all else fails, babble nonsense ("Ha, ha, ha"? Dude, you typed a false laugh) until no one will talk to you anymore, then declare yourself the winner.

Try to make some kind of a show of superiority:

"If you decide you want to know more about God and the Bible let me know." As if you're some kind of Biblical scholar.

Well, it worked. I'm not talking to you anymore. You're the winner. Revel in it.

John M,

Thanks John for the compliment. Since I am sure you are way more knowledgable than me in the sciences, I was hoping to ask you a question. I continue to look for origen of life sciences and I find conflicing reports. But I was curious if you know, or heard, about Stanly Millers experiment in 1953. Supposedly it was tainted in favor of his findings. But the closest he got to creating a livving cell from chemicals were 11 of the necessary 20 amino acids needed for a living organism. I know there were no needed nuclei found and then the process would have to be repeated 100 times to make a protein molecule. Do you know if this is the closest science has come up with on creating living cells out of non-living cells? And if so wouldnt you conclude that mathematic probabilities would be so overwhelming against a particle to people theory? I'd rather ask a fellow believer so I know I dont get lied to.

thanks

God bless

E. Favorite:

Why is it that when I post what I believe to be the truth, you say I am trying to 'inspire others', but when you post what you believe to be the truth you say you are trying to educate people? WOW. You really do employ a double standard. At least I am being honest enough to say that there is no absolute proof on either side, and each person has to choose what they believe.

And, yes, I have a degree in Molecular Biology and Genetics, and I am a doctor and a professor at a large university. Each year, when I give a presentation on the problems with evolution, I get a lot of accolades (and thank-you's). (And, I live in a BLUE state, NOT the Deep South!)

David: the last post was mine!

David: the last post was mine!

David:

Thanks for the input. (I'm not sure, though, if science even knows how God did it. That Chinese scientist concurs with other findings I have seen that show that organisms pop into the fossil record fully formed. Sounds more like special creation to me!)

Einstein has been quoted as saying:

Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.

Also, Darwin was know to be agnostic, recognizing that he even knew someone must have created all this.

I must admit that the majority of the science community recognizes the theory of evolution as fact. But more and more evidence is pointing against and not for evolution. Ex: gaps in the fossil record. The Wall Street Journal reported this:

A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin 's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."[13]

Ah, so true. Eventually, this theory will most likely be found false. As we search deeper into the fossil record, more and more evidence is being shown that it could possibly not be true. Is it inconclusive? Yes, but so was this theory since its inception.

I think people use science as a means of TRYING to prove there is no God. But in time science has just shown how God did it.

John M -

Speaking of quacks, I hope you are one and not a real biology major. I hope you're a just another fundamentalist "hothead blowing smoke” (to borrow your phrase relating to atheists) thinking that your arguments here will inspire others to your way of thinking.

E Favorite:
I did comment on the Exodus. All you have is no evidence. I spoke to that.

So, the fact that there is no evidence for evolution - the very evidence its founder said would be necessary - is acceptable to you. Creatures have been evolving and changing and morphing for BILLIONS of years and we have NOT ONE fossil to document it, but, no evidence for people wandering BRIEFLY through an inhospitable desert, and it must not have happened?

There is a double standard here. And, to set the record straight, it is the evolutionists who have ruled our classrooms and the media since the 1950's. The scientists are the ones who are misleading people. I have a degree in Biology, and I was lied to. Period. I was told we had a lot more evidence than we do. All we have is a well developed myth that never happened. 'Because people are made of the same elements as animals, we must be related.' That's about it.

So, when faced with no evidence, each person has to choose what to believe. So, please stop making it sound like Christians are denying science and believing in myths as reality, since those who believe in evolution are doing the same thing. Just like you, I have researched this very throroughly. When the theory of evolution crumbled in front of my eyes, I decided to embrace Jesus, whom I had always rejected in favor of the 'quack' science that had been sold to me.

Hi, John M - I don't believe I've mentioned my views on evolution, but of course, it is not disproved, though there are some people who don't believe in it - or anything else that in contrary to bible stories.

Also, what you say about Jesus and the gospels simply is not so. There is no solid evidence for Jesus and the gospels were written much later - Mark was the first, written in the late 60's. Most people in those days died before reaching 50.

Dan Brown's book is not an issue, since he clearly labeled The Da Vinci Code as a work of fiction.

You didn't comment on the information I provided about the Exodus story. That's your option, of course, but I hope other people see it and think about it and notice the difference in how you and I present information. I also hope you stop by a conservative Temple some Friday night and check out the reference I mentioned.

We do each have a choice about what road we travel. We don't really have a choice about was is a fact and what is not, though. I hope you give that some additional thought.

Thank you for sharing too.

E Favorite:

Thanks for explaining your story.

You know, no one has EVER found any fossils of transitional forms as evolution would require. Darwin said his theory would be disproved if millions of transitional fossils were not soon found. So, he would have abandoned his theory by now. By contrast, modern evolutionists are making up new theories to hang on to the idea that evolution could have somehow happened, even though THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

Funny that you abandon the idea that there was an Exodus but you are okay with a disproven scientific theory.

And, what about Jesus? He was a real person, and the gospels were written and distributed while most of his contemporaries were still alive. We have the writings of early second century Christian leaders, in which we see that they had the same theological beliefs as modern-day evangelicals. (Dan Brown and CCNL are wrong about a Roman Emperor making everything up a few centuries later.)

So, you have made a choice. And, IMHO, you made the wrong choice. I so wish I could change that. But, the choice is yours and I respect it.

Thanks again for sharing.

John – When I became curious about religion in general and the Bible, I started doing research – on the internet, in libraries and bookstores. I was thorough, weighing the quality of the information, because I became aware early on that some things are written to push a particular point of view and others are written objectively. I would never settle for one source of information and would always be sure that my sources were well referenced. In my search, I heard about the book, the Bible Unearthed (mentioned above) and then found it at the local Border’s and bought it. It is written by respected professors from respected universities. They happen to be Jewish, so have no reason to want to disprove Exodus. I read several reviews of the book, including one from the NY Times, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00EEDE173FF937A35751C0A9679C8B63
which said this:

“In expounding their view of the Bible as a national epic that shaped and sustained a people, Finkelstein and Silberman juxtapose this narrative with the discoveries and interpretations of archaeology. They say their predecessors tended to use archaeology to argue for the historicity of the biblical record. By contrast, they use archaeology as an independent source to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel. Yet respect for earlier scholarship, especially when they reject it, lends integrity to their own work. It sends the salutary message that the new vision of today inevitably becomes the old vision of tomorrow. Drawing on new methods, excavations (even of old sites) and assumptions, they turn the traditional argument on its head. Archaeological studies, they argue, undercut rather than support the historicity of biblical traditions about the origin and rise of Israel. Their detailed analysis yields conclusions that are startling to the uninitiated: the search for the historical ancestors has failed; the Exodus did not happen as described; the violent, swift and total conquest of Canaan never took place; the picture of judges leading tribes in battle against enemies does not fit the data; David and Solomon existed in the 10th century B.C. but as ''little more than hill country chieftains.'' There was no golden age of a united kingdom, a magnificent capital and an extended empire.”

In another review, http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
Finkelstein, one of the authors, says: During our Pesach seder, my two girls, who are 11 and 7, didn't hear a word about the fact that there was no exodus from Egypt. When they are 25, we will tell them a different story.

Then I learned, here on the “On Faith” forum, actually, that the Conservative Jews had added a section on this Biblical archeology to their Etz Hayim book. I went to a Friday night service at a conservative temple to see for myself. There were several of these big, red books in every pew and I found the reference on page 1343.

I also attended a 10 week church-sponsored Old Testament class taught by a Wesleyan seminary professor.

So I think you can see how serious and dedicated I am about this. Archeology, like any science, is always changing as new evidence is found and new technology to assess it is developed, just as some evidence for David ( a small plaque) was found in the 1990’s. Obviously, they’re not suddenly going to find a temple where none existed before, or tons of pottery remains in a desert that has been thoroughly examined for centuries.

In terms of my own faith, it was always just there – born into a Christian family, went to church and Sunday school, didn’t think or talk about religion much with family or friends. It was just a part of life. I never had a strong need for it, was never pushed into it and it was never tested by tragedy. I never believed that I or anyone else had been singled out for blessings. There were things about that religion that didn’t make sense to me, but it didn’t bother me much -- I’d just stop thinking about it. When I realized recently that I only had a Sunday school knowledge of religion, I decided to think about it as an adult and make a study of it. It’s been a fascinating journey.

John M – I hope this helps and I hope that even if you can’t really relate much to what I’ve said, that you don’t perceive me as “another atheist hothead blowing smoke.” Like many non-believers, I’ve given religion careful thought and consideration. Personally, I’d like to see Christianity survive and thrive – there is much good to it – the music, the ritual, the good works and the message of love, but not the supernatural beliefs, the exclusivity and the threats of hell for people who choose another faith, or no faith.

E Favorite:

How are you sharing facts? I am not arguing. I really want to know how you recently found out that the Exodus never happened. You speak about it like its an undeniable fact. What's the proof?

And, how strong was your faith if you walked away so easily?

I really want to know. I want to understand what you are saying, because without that information you really look like just another atheist hothead blowing smoke.

John Connely,

Hotshot??!! Ha ha, thanks bro! No no no, you don't get away with it that easily. I WAS debating the historical voracity of the Bible and the archaelogical findings and others that comprehensively PROVE the Bible and not disprove it!

Where do you get your evidence? At the 5 cent store down the road with some seriously shaky dude behind the counter offering you discount on that price too? The reason I discard your evidence out of hand IS EXACTLY BECAUSE I've considered it and found it wanting. Do you think I'll argue these things without at least knowing a small bit about what I'm supposedly defending? I give you and other debaters more consideration than that.

You said:
I'm the one asking you to take notice of research, scholarship, archeology, history, science, and the far-ranging intelligence of Man.

Reply:

That's exactly what I'm doing and it all points to God and to the voracity of the Bible. If you want a debate then have it, but dude, you then need to follow the rules of debating and accept that you can be wrong, so called scholars and all.

And by the way; the smell you're smelling is not green cheese; it's your top lip!

Hey, Dude - I'm not "preaching against christianity." I'm not preaching period. I'm stating facts.

You're preaching. People can say anything they want when they're preaching -- it's all about enthralling the crowd. Facts don't count at all.

John C,

Ha Ha Ha!! That was the funniest comment ever. I really cant stop laughing.

Well, I would have given you a reference but you dont seem to trust my references so I wanted you to research it yourself.

But, guess not. Have a good night. Get some sleep grumpy old man!

If anyone has ever needed God more on this post, I definately say it would have to be you. Youve shown some terrible anger through your responses. Well, good luck John. If you decide you want to know more about God and the Bible let me know.

God bless

Thanks for the laugh too. :0

David:

You know what? I'm done chasing your story. I was up till 3:30 last night trying to educate you, and you haven't shown any interest in anything I've had to say. Now itt's eleven p.m., and I have to get up at 5:30. To Hell with the Hittites, and to Hell with you.

John C,

OT archaeology:

Look up the Hittites. A.H. Sayce was the discoverer of the hittite kingdom as in mentioned in Genesis.

It was earlier believed that the Hittites were a mythical culture until this discovery which was a great find for biblical arhaeology.

My above post is garbled. The sixth paragraph, "I searched the internet...," should appear after the third paragraph, "Ok so you want me to find...," as a reply.

David:

"Thanks for acknowledging the archaeological evidence and achknowledging your sources are not credible."

I never questioned the arcaeological evidence. Just your wild interpretation of it. And I certainly did not acknowledge my sources were not credible. Did you read my previous post at all?

"Ok so you want me to find "biblical archaeology" but to make sure they dont say the word Bible in it?"

"They dont claim to be archaeologists. 'Nuff said."

You don't have to be an archaeologist to research and write about archaelogy. Are you an archaeologist?

I searched the internet on the artifact in question for three hours last night. The only way I found out anything was by carefully bypassing the sites that had "Biblical" in the title. If I can do it, you can do it.

Incidentally, Freke and Gandy are not atheists. I only mention it because they're not here to defend themselves.

"Please just admit to yourself that archaeology has proven many things in the Bible as correct. Maybe not all.....YET. But enough to say that's its credible."

You haven't read anything I've posted, have you?

I'm sure there are some things in the Bible proven correct. There's too much in there for it not to happen. Now, kindly admit that archaeology has proven most of the old testament to be mythical.

Phantom:

"You argument could be equated to 'the moon consists of cheese and that for hundreds of years people have accepted this as fact.'"

Incredible.

How could anyone reverse the truth so completely and so obviously, and still expect any credence?

Listen, hotshot, you're the one asking us to believe the Bible because people say it's so.

You're the one asking us to accept your opinions with no evidence.

You're the one asking us to believe ancient twaddle and ignore everything that has passed since.

I'm the one asking you to take notice of research, scholarship, archeology, history, science, and the far-ranging intelligence of Man.

You're the one offering green cheese.

I'm the one that says it smells.

John Connelly,

Thanks for acknowledging the archaeological evidence and achknowledging your sources are not credible. You mentioned "the house of David" could have been translated to "the house of beloved" Did you know that in Hebrew David means beloved? I know this because of my name. Anyway, as far as the evidence goes, more and more are pointing towards God. You and I both know this but you fail to accept it. That's cool though bro, because it's hard to accept truth when it differs from your opinion.

You said once,

Here's a hint: if you want to know what's going on in archeology (or any secular field) stay away from sites with "biblical" in the titles. They will lie to you.

Ok so you want me to find "biblical archaeology" but to make sure they dont say the word Bible in it?????????

Ok maybe I'll look up McDonalds on the internet and hope they dont mention burgers.

You also said,

As for Freke and Gandy, I've read enough of their work to be pretty sure they aren't clowns. They do popular pieces, and they are a little sketchy on fine details, but they annotate their sources, who definitely aren't clowns. And they don't claim to be archeologists. And so what if they're atheists? I'm an atheist.

They dont claim to be archaeologists. 'Nuff said.
And I can't have sources that deal with biblical archaeology that say bible but you can have sources from two atheist who are "a little sketchy" and are not archaeologists? Well, thats not very fair.

Please just admit to yourself that archaeology has proven many things in the Bible as correct. Maybe not all.....YET. But enough to say that's its credible.

God bless

E Fav:
Dude, you can play word games all you want, but your most recent post CLEARLY shows that you are preaching against Christianity. Go for it, if you want to, but don't be upset when I call it what it is.

Wow, John M – You spent a lot of time pulling my quotes. I’m impressed. Still, nowhere do I see where I “verbalize” that I’m trying to “Free Christians” from their “silly myths” or “convert” you back to your “former way of life.” I didn’t notice your comments on your former life, but at any rate, don’t see it as anything to convert you back to. If I were going to “convert” you, it wouldn’t be from Christianity, it would be from close-mindedness.

The friend I “got through” to was already a non-believing Jew (as I mentioned) who thought Exodus was history rather than a story. Many people think that, I know. I did too, until about a year ago. I don’t think myths are “silly” at all, so would never say that. I think myths are very valuable and I love reading them and studying them. I said there are “myth truths” and “fact truths.” Both are useful. The problem only comes when one is confused for the other, and people believe as fact, something that is a myth.

I stand by what I have said here and on other threads. Thanks for repeating some of it. I hope people read it and start thinking about all the things about religion that they have just taken for granted, just as I did starting a couple of years ago – and it sounds like you did too, at some point. Our journeys have taken us in different directions. We both have a right, especially on a public forum like this one, to express our views. I’m hoping people will be influenced away from what I see as your unappealing perception of Christianity.

Anonymous,

If it's His soverign will then He will. I don't expect you to understand-the ways of the Lord seem foolish to those who don't serve Him.

Next...

C

Phantom,
Putting you face on a pizza is cool but why doesn't god heal amputees?
www.whydoesntgodhealamputees.com

John Connely,

Nice try. I on the other hand doubt the sanity of someone like yourself who cannot believe the voracity of Biblical truth. People harp on about how the Bible written by so many people over so many years, and then try and impress me with the "hundreds of years" of scholarship about the Bible. I'm not impressed! I am a Biblical Scholar myself, and what I've encountered is by far more resounding than anything you can present me. I've seen ALL the arguments for and against the Bible; I've played devil's advocate trying to prove these arguments but to no avail. The Bible still comes up trumps.

You argument could be equated to "the moon consists of cheese and that for hundreds of years people have accepted this as fact." Even IF people accept it is fact, it still isn't. The moon is a planet. You can throw volumes of work at me stating how fallible the Bible is and I can throw even greater volumes back at you of how it has been proven as fact. The crux comes down to this: despite my volumes and your volumes, what is the truth? I'm afraid the burden of proof is far in favour of the Bible.

Sorry my friend. That's just the way it is!

E Fav:

You wrote:
"I must say, I missed this part: "some have even verbalized that they are here to ‘free’ Christians from our silly myths and convert us back to our former way of life." And I didn't realize you had ever been anything but Christian."

How did you miss it? You yourself are doing it!Here is one of your posts on this thread:
"Thanks, Concerned, for continuing to post the info about the OT to new readers. Hopefully some people are reading it and being enlightened. Here’s some good news – I’ve been informing my friends and definitely got through to one of them."

You also wrote:
"It's clear to me that your beliefs are set and impermeable to facts or new information, but I'm hoping that others reading through this who are not so set, will see the holes in your way of thinking."

You also wrote:
"I’m sure it’s shocking to hear that a lot of what is in the bible isn’t factual. It was shocking to me too, when I learned it and I didn’t have much of a stake in it being true. I felt simultaneously punched in the stomach and enlightened. I just assumed a lot of the stories, especially the ones about Jewish history and military conquests were based on fact. You hear so much about it growing up – not just at church but in the movies and on TV and everyone talks about it as if it’s absolutely true. There are books, articles documentaries about the archeological findings out there, but they never seem to make big news. Hopefully, that’s changing. Certainly the internet is a big help in accessing and sharing information.
I’m doing my part, and as I’ve said elsewhere in these discussions, I think clergy has a huge responsibility to educate."

And, what about this?
"I’m sorry, Anon, I really am, that you and so many others have been deceived and misled about these stories. It is a travesty that clergy, the people we trust the most, have treated us this way. It makes me sick."

It's not just you. John Conolley wrote this to Pablo, a Christian:
"Another thing you can find in other religions is new ideas, growth, awakening from the sleep of frozen, petrified, immutable religion that was cooked up to support the policies of a declining Roman Empire. I suggest it's time to give up rigidity, give up deceased politics, give up totalitarianism, and look around for some creativity and enlightment.
Try it, Bubeleh. You might like it."

And, what about the poster named "Concerned the Christian Now Liberated"? Doesn't that very name (along with everything he writes) imply that he is trying to move people away from the way they currently read the Bible?

Regarding my former way of life, I wrote:
"I lived 38 years for myself and I never felt so free as I do now. I would call changing only one variable a scientific experiment. And, that's what I unconsciously did when I altered only one parameter in my life: the presence of God. So, the result of the experiment I did not realize I was performing is that a strong faith in Christ provides peace and joy at a level I have never experienced."

I wrote to Conolley:
"There must be some part of you that senses that the rest of you is out of touch with your Creator, and you are fighting it. I know; I used to live there. I have been both places, and I truly wish you would choose to have what I now have (by absolutely no effort of my own)."

Also, when Conolley accused me of getting my theology from my "mommy and daddy", I responded that they did not teach me anything. I was not raised with the Bible.

I think Deb is a great example of someone who found Jesus without being raised that way, since she is Jewish.

This runs contrary to what some would like to think, that Christians have been misled and indoctrinated at a young age, but the thruth is that many, many of us went looking for the Truth as adults and found it without the influence of our parents or clergy.

David:

Tel Dan Inscription:

I've stayed up well past my bedtime doing an internet search on this topic, and, so far as I can find without actually subscribing to any journals, everything is disputed. The site notes by the archeologists seem to be sketchy, so there are questions about the location of the "house of David" fragment and whether it could have been planted, there is a dispute about how the fragments are glued together, there are disputes about what the actual letters are on the stele, and about the interpretation of the inscription. I have found interpretations of one line so different you have to wonder if they're looking at the same stone. Interpretations of the "David" inscription include, "beloved" and "Thoth," and "House of David" is also interpreted as "Jerusalem" or an unknown toponym. In other words, the inscription is nothing solid and shouldn't be offered as proof of anything.

As for Freke and Gandy, I've read enough of their work to be pretty sure they aren't clowns. They do popular pieces, and they are a little sketchy on fine details, but they annotate their sources, who definitely aren't clowns. And they don't claim to be archeologists. And so what if they're atheists? I'm an atheist.

Phantom:

"The Bible is the absolute, inerrant truth so when we quote it we are basing our arguments on something much more substantial than your arguments. Give it up dude, just give it up!!!"

Do you see there is nothing substantial in this claim? It's nothing but an appeal to authority, and a dumb authority at that. My claims are based on hundreds of years of scholarship about the Bible and archeology. It's true that I'm new to this area of study, and am not steeped in it in depth, and probably make beginner errors, but I know enough to know your Bible was scraped together over hundreds of years, and is full of evil, and I have to seriously wonder about the mental health of anyone that would call it the inerrant truth.

Hi, John M - Nice pep talk. I must say, I missed this part: "some have even verbalized that they are here to ‘free’ Christians from our silly myths and convert us back to our former way of life." And I didn't realize you had ever been anything but Christian.

Perhaps you're projecting and it's you who are trying convert non-believers?

I'm just hoping that the more moderate readers here, irrespective of their current religious beliefs, will read over some of what you and your fellow missionaries have written and think twice about the benefits of fundamentalist Christianity.

John M,

I just want to say that you had the best response regarding the "tempt" "test" translations. I think after that response, you have shown that that subject should come to an end. Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent input.

God bless

David, Deb, Pablo, Phantom & the other Christians on this thread:

As this thread winds down and a new one begins tomorrow, I just want you to know that I am encouraged by your comments. I, in turn, would like to encourage you to continue in this mission to share and spread the Gospel. We know we are right in doing so; Jesus Himself asked us to do it.

Many on these threads would like to stop us, and some have even verbalized that they are here to ‘free’ Christians from our silly myths and convert us back to our former way of life. But, we have to remember what Paul told the Ephesians: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (6:4, NIV) Let’s pray that we keep remembering that non-believers are not our enemies; they are our mission field.

So, let’s continue, in love, to share what we have been given with those around us. God bless all of you!

Hello all,

Please accept my and my countrymen's condolences for the events at Virginia Tech. It is really terrible and no one deserves to lose their life or to get maimed or injured in that way.

Please know our prayers and thoughts are with you!

Anonymous,

Tell me; do you still regard Darwin's views as relevant? Einstein? Sir Isaac Newton? While I regard Darwin's theories as utter nonsense I do think Einstein, Newton and others still have a point and are relevant.

Now, to quote and believe the Godly inspired, inerrant Word of God that has survived thousands of years and not yet been proven to be wrong is perhaps wiser than going along with some modern fad or pop psychology or wiser still than to be blown by the winds that change every couple of months.

In His Word God says He is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. Also, there is nothing new to God. What the Bible says goes...and that's just it! You do, however, have to interpret it in it's correct context, although I know most so called Bible debunkers regard that as a cop out. But hey, it's my faith and belief (and the faith and belief of millions, if not billions of others), not yours. Go and become one with Mother Earth or go hug a tree or worship fire, ice and wind or go chant some spell or whatever floats your boat. Go do that and see where that gets you.

David: You say, "If I should be here to spread the Word of God, I should give of piece of scripture for them to ponder on."

yes, I agree, it probably would be better for you to quote scripture. It's possible that quoting scripture might cause some readers to think that fundamentalist Christians have no original thoughts or having dificulty engaging in 21st century conversation. Still, reading back over your comments, I think repeating words from 1,000's of years ago might be more effective than expressing your own current thoughts, or even the thoughts you've been inculcated with in the last several decades of fundamentalist Christian thinking.

To expand on John Conolley's point, the parts of the Bible that deal with purely human events (as opposed to miracles) could possibly be historically accurate. However, if archeology did prove that, it still wouldn't mean that God exists or that Jesus rose from the dead. It would only demonstrate any ability by the Bible's authors to transcribe human events.

Cal once again shows he has a closed mind. The "what more does one need than my belief system" begs the question of what Cal would be doing today if he had been born say 3000 years ago. Considering that "Thomas" is of Arameic origin, I'm guessing he'd probably be writing about how all one needs is the Avesta.

David,

RE History Channel - I believe they attributed their findings to natural causes.

Sorry,

The previous post to Mavaddat was actually mine. I have NO IDEA why I wrote anonymous in the name section of the post!

Mavaddat,

Don't use my supposed attitude towards your very apparent haughtiness and dismissiveness to strengthen your so called argument that Christianity has failed...yadda yadda yadda etc. You made that so called on this issue "informed" choice all on your own and needed no help from anyone, least of all me.

You just don't like my admonishing your attitude! If you're going to get involved in a forum such as this take the good with the bad dude, otherwise stay away! I am an apologist yes; you don't even know half of it! I would sit and chat/debate with you for hours on end, but, if you exhibit the attitude you did then I WILL take you on about it. But, anyone who has seen me on this forum know I will have a CONSTRUCTIVE debate with anyone, anytime.

Pablo,

Reading through your responses has taught me something. If I should be here to spread the Word of God, I should give of piece of scripture for them to ponder on. This is something that you have consistently done and I have not. Thanks for doing it the right way and I truly believe God has used you to teach me on ways to show His word. Thanks my brother in Christ.

And please keep in mind John 3:12 as you continue to witness to the non-believers on this post.

12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

I keep finding that verse to be so true as I try to express my faith with others. It's no wonder why the Trinity can no be understood by non-believers.

Phantom,

With all your self-righteousness and airs of superiority, you are greater evidence that Christianity is a failed religion than anything paltry claims about contradictions that I could ever produce.

By the way, I never said that the Bible contradicted itself. I merely said that it SEEMED to contradict itself. If one takes the distinction between test and tempt to be the one that Deb suggested, I think that one could resolve the ostensible contradiction between James and Genesis.

Anyway, thank you for redoubling the strength of my beliefs about haughty Christian apologists.

E fav,

The other one says this: 'Conclusions: We can conclude that the external test of archaeology/ancient history has shown the Bible to be completely reliable and accurate. Not once has an archaeological discovery contradicted a Biblical reference! Once again, this demonstrates the incredible reliability of the Bible

True that homie. True that. The Bible is indeed an historically accurate document. It's the divine inspiration aspect that people have a hard time with. But to argue the historocity of the Bible would not go well in favor of the opposer.

E Fav,

"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap" (Galatians 6:7).

David: Here's what I found at the end of two of your websites - not exactly unbiased:

"We have all sinned and deserve God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Jesus, the creator and eternal Son of God, who lived a sinless life, loves us so much that He died for our sins, taking the punishment that we deserve, was buried, and rose from the dead according to the Bible. If you truly believe and trust this in your heart, receiving Jesus alone as your Savior, declaring, "Jesus is Lord," you will be saved from judgment and spend eternity with God in heaven.

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus ||| Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus ||| I still have questions "

The other one says this: 'Conclusions: We can conclude that the external test of archaeology/ancient history has shown the Bible to be completely reliable and accurate. Not once has an archaeological discovery contradicted a Biblical reference! Once again, this demonstrates the incredible reliability of the Bible."

Well, that settles it, I guess. (Caveat Emptor)

Pablo, you say," did not trust Christ until I was twenty five years old so you are wrong."

???

and please don't keep telling me I'm going to bow down to Jesus - it sounds kinky.

John,

Another reference for you from clemson university. That might be a little less "biased for ya"

http://www.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter5.html

Also, try watching the History Channel once in awhile. I just watched a program recently about Sodom and Gomorrah. Not only did they find it and it was right where the Bible said it would be. Then they found high traces of sulfer and evidence of major fire such as the Bible said too.

John,

Terrible reference for your information. These two clowns are not recognized as outstanding archaeologists. Not only that but their freakin atheists!! My sources are credible. And maybe you should look up F. L Albright and his findings. He's well known and considered the master in biblical archaeology.

Sorry john, your the one who's been lied to.

Hello John Conolley,

Please explain to us all the following. What is the source of relationships? Tell us where love came from? Tell us the source of the laws of nature? Did life come from non-life?

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God" (John 3:18-21).

Pablo

Dear E favorite,

I did not trust Christ until I was twenty five years old so you are wrong. I studied and weighed the evidence for myself.

So you quote someone who supports your unbelief. There were plenty of skeptics just like you who questioned many things in archeology that have now been shown to be true. You know that God exists but you suppress that truth because you want to be in control of your life and do not want to bow your knee to God. As I have already said you will bow your knee to Jesus Christ and call Him Lord. It will be either as a fool or as a worshipper. All the looking for excuses not to believe will not be able to save you in that day. Skeptics have been trying to punch holes in the Bible since its inception and it has stood the test of time.

"All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever" (1 Peter 1:24-25).

Pablo

David,

Those websites you suggested are disingenuous. The first one uses real findings, but tells lies by omission.

The Israel Stele: All it says is, "Israel is desolate; its seed is no more." It's still disputed whether "Israel" refers to a people, or and individual. In any case, he, or they, are reported as deceased.

The inscription at Tel Dan: It's six letters scratched on a stone: "bytdwd." The word "king" has been reconstructed from one letter, and the word translated "David" could also be "beloved," "uncle" or "kettle."

The other inscription the site mentions is in different Hebrew from the first, which is strange if they're contemporaneous. Both inscriptions are being investigated as possible frauds by the Israeli Department of Antiquities.

(My reference for the above information: Freke & Gandy, _The Laughing Jesus_, Three Rivers Press, 2005. This is a thoroughly footnoted book, if you want to go into it in depth.)

The other website you suggest doesn't offer any evidence, it vaguely mentions findings.

Here's a hint: if you want to know what's going on in archeology (or any secular field) stay away from sites with "biblical" in the titles. They will lie to you.

Pablo:

It's true that we non-believers don't understand the Trinity. But you're getting a little above yourself to pretend that, as a Christian, you have some special insight. It's the standard Christian position that the Trinity is a mystery, that it can't be understood, and that you shouldn't try.

Indeed, if Karen Armstrong can be believed, worshippers in the Greek Orthodox church use contemplation of the Trinity as a way to turn off their minds and enter a transcendental state. Which is to say, if you think about it long enough, the mind goes on strike.

From the point of view of we non-believers, the Trinity can't be understood because it's meaningless jibber-jabber.

A little history: you will find that the contradictory "mysteries" in Christian kerygma were cooked up to oppose multiple "heresies." The Trinity opposed Arianism, which held that Jesus was created (which could be proven by scripture), and at the same time opposed numerous confessions that held there were more than one God. Thus, a contradiction.

Another example: The idea that Jesus was wholly human and wholly divine was created to oppose Docetism, which held that Jesus wasn't a real man, but an illusion created by God, and to oppose the Adoptionists, who held that Jesus was a natural man, born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary, who followed the law so perfectly that God adopted him. The virgin birth mess grew out of this same brouhaha.

John,

I think you have been misinformed.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/biblical-archaeology.htm

http://www.allabouttruth.org/history-of-israel.htm

Yep your right its easy to look up....in favor of the Bible at that.

David,

I can see that my last post to you was argumentative to the point of being silly. Sorry. I was too tired to have good sense.

I stand by my fundamental points, however.

As for your statement that the Bible is historically accurate as proven by archeology, that's just a wild assertion. Archeology has not found the flight from Egypt, the ancient Hebrew kingdom, any return from captivity in Babylon, any evidence of Abraham, Joshua, King David, Solomon, Jesus Christ, the slaughter of the innocents, Nazareth before the time of the Crusades, the crucifixion, the resurrection, or much of anything else. The kingdom of Saul was empty hill country with a few random farms and farm villages, Nazareth was a garbage dump and a mausoleum, the Jews came from Canaan, and the rest were just stories. This stuff isn't hard to look up.

One more thing: why do you Christians assume that I hate you? (You, David, aren't the first one to come up with that.) You're pretty much just text on a screen to me.

Deb,

I didn't want your definitions of test and tempt; I wanted to know how you understood them in the context of the Bible in such a way that kept the Bible self-consistent. Discussions of free will aside, I think you provided that distinction for me and I find it satisfying. Whether God caused the Devil to tempt Jesus or Adam is not clear (there is more to be said that your simplistic response, "acts of free will cannot be caused"), so it's also not clear that there is a contradiction between James 1:13 and the rest of the Bible. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Deb, you say: "My point in using him [Dever] at that time was to show that even someone who doesn't believe in the Bible was able to 1)find archaeological proof for some of the history in the Bible, and 2)show fault in Finklestein and Silberman's findings."

Very weak, Deb. In saying that he found archaeological proof for some of the Bible (which he didn't, by the way) you tacitly acknowledge that there is not archeological proof for other parts of the Bible.

It's clear to me that your beliefs are set and impermeable to facts or new information, but I'm hoping that others reading through this who are not so set, will see the holes in your way of thinking.

I’d like to share something on the Tempting and Testing debate. I don’t rely on the study notes in my Bible often, but I like what it says next to Genesis 22:1 –
“Tested. Not ‘tempted’, for God does not tempt (James 1:13). Satan tempts us (1 Corinthians 7:5) in order to make us fall; God tests us in order to confirm our faith (Exodus 20:20) or prove our commitment (Deuteronomy 8:2).”

So, applying this concept, Job was tempted by Satan to give up on God when hard times hit. God allowed it as a test, to show Job and everyone else (including us who read his story) how deep Job’s faith was. The same events were used to tempt into sinning by the Devil and to show Job what he was made of, for spiritual growth, by God.

Jesus was tempted by Satan, in the desert, to try to make Him fall. But, He used it as a test, to show who He was, and as an example to us of how we should react when tempted/tested.

The words usually translated ‘test’ and ‘tempt’ are identical in both Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew “nassaw” can be rendered ‘to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test’. The Greek “peirazo” has almost the same list of words associated with it. So, the context is what separates the meanings and the translations.

James says, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.” (James 1:2-3) Here, the word “testing” is ‘dokimion’, which means ‘proving, trying or testing’. This clarifies that God uses our trials to provide spiritual growth. Later in the chapter, James writes, “When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” (James 1:13-15) To me, this sounds like we should not think that God is tempting us to sin, in an attempt to blame Him if we fall. James tells us here that it is our own sinful desires that lead to trip and fall.

When God tested Abraham, He was showing Abraham how strong Abraham’s faith was. That’s what the Bible says, also in James (2:21-22).

I hope this helps. At any rate, it helped me as I researched it. Thanks, David!

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” – Romans 8:28

Friend,

I dont know either. I just know the Bible and thats what I live on. You dont have to if you dont want to but I choose to. I choose Jesus, you choose......??? I really dont know.

God bless ya

What are the odds that an omnipotent god gets spontaneously generated?

What are the odds that primitive life began to reproduce?

I don't know the answers.

Are you guys still arguing over "test" and "tempt?" Wow, I started that one too. I wish I kept in touch about it. You got it right on the nose Phantom. Just remember people who don't wanna believe will find every excuse possible to TRY to discredit God. But as you and I know, that will never happen. Keep this in mind as you pass on the word to non-believers

John 3:12

12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Mavaddat,

You're a bit "high and mighty" taking Debs on about her interpretations of test vs. tempt. She does correctly draw a distinction between the two because there is a distinct difference between the two and that is a fact, whether you like it or not.

In the Biblical context a test can consist of temptation but not necessarily. I'll keep the definition of temptation simple: it is the desire to commit sin that is contrary to the Word of God and to holiness. This desire more often than not comes from the individual since we're all sinners.

A test on the other hand can consist of what Job went through i.e.: lost everything yet remained faithful to God. God allows tests, since we will not be tested (or tempted for that matter) above what we can handle, since the Lord knows what we can handle and what we can't. God does not tempt us since temptation consists of sin, and God is not the author of sin and will never tempt us to sin. We give in to these temptations on our own accord.

I'm not going to get into a theological debate with you on this issue! Accept it as fact, keep quiet or come up with a better argument! One that makes more sense, although I'm afraid most everything you try and use to justify your views will fall well short!

Now, I didn't read Debs' definitions but these differences exist. It is only the ignorant that reject the fact that differences in words exist, and you've proved yourself to be top of the pile in the ignorance department my friend.

Well done!

Friend,

Great reference and great article about Miller's experiment. I'll take a piece out of it for you to ponder on.

But James Ferris, a prebiotic chemist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., doubts that atmospheric electricity could have been the only source of organic molecules. "You get a fair amount of amino acids," he says. "What you don't get are things like building blocks of nucleic acids." Meteors, comets or primordial ponds of hydrogen cyanide would still need to provide those molecules.

Also, this article doesnt provide if all 20 amino acids were found which are needed to create a protein molecule. The original experiment could only come up with 11. Then to seperate the L's and the R's and then there's the assembly process which is the hardest to do of all. Considering all conditions were right over a 100 million year time period then maybe these amino acids could form into a protein molecule. This process was noted to be as likely as "a tornado going through a junkyard and taking all the pieces and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747 jet." Good luck with the assembly process scientists.

Marco Polo noted (on Ms Taylor's commentary page):

"Victoria:

No offense, but the Koran is as much a work of fiction as the Bible is. Both religions have gotten the message wrong. The followers also seem to have lapsed into a spiritual coma when it comes to expressing their faith in a positive way.

I say take all religious bibles(Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.,) and combine them to form one all powerful do-it-yourself book that we can pay 20 bucks to read once and never look at again. "

Bravo to this suggestion as long as we clean up the Koran by removing its references to "pretty wingy thingies" delivering messages to the "prophet", any prophecies made by said prophet and all of his dictated thoughts about killing non-believers and plundering and looting the world in the name of Allah.

Professor Crossan et al have done a great job in cleaning up the NT and the Conservative Jews along with historians and archeologists have done a great job in cleaning up the Torah. Time to "Crossanize" the Koran (and Victoria/Jihadist/Sunnis/Shiites/"Talibaners").

Tonio:

Agreed. :)

"Like I've said before, if you don't agree with the basic beliefs, then you shouldn't call that religion yours. "

You have a valid point about nomenclature and orthodoxy within a given religion. Beyond that, if an individual follows his or her own path when it comes to religious beliefs, that's no one else's business.

Tonio wrote:

"Most Christians depart from a literal reading of Genesis and accept the evolution hypothesis - what is wrong with them doing so?"

I don't have numbers, but I would tend to disagree with you on the word "most". At any rate, what's wrong with them doing so? Well, that would mean that they are not following Christianity as it was originally being taught. Which means they are following a changed or updated version of Christianity. That is all the more reason why all Christians cannot be lumped together into one group. If their basic beliefs about the Bible are different, then there's almost nothing keeping them together at all. Like I've said before, if you don't agree with the basic beliefs, then you shouldn't call that religion yours. I don't believe in picking and choosing which pieces you like; you can't say "oh, I think God said this part over here, but I don't think he really meant that part over there."

The "How did something come from nothing" arguement can start with the beginning of matter/energy or god.

"It always was and will be" applys to both also.

There was an update in the news on Miller's and new experiments.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479&sc=I100322

Deb, it's not about "picking" religions. I'm trying to make a case for testing and evaluating the natural world in a religion-neutral manner, for separating the world we can perceive from any world that we cannot perceive. Otherwise, we end up with people being forbidden from contradicting the Bible or the Koran or whatever, such as the trouble that befell Galileo. Most Christians depart from a literal reading of Genesis and accept the evolution hypothesis - what is wrong with them doing so?

David,

I know of no scientist who claims that "science has proven God not to exist." It's more accurate to say that science cannot deal with claims about the supernatural since such claims are untestable. So science simply cannot take any position on the existence of supernatural life. As I said before, anyone who sees science as godless is imposing his or her interpretation on science. Of course science cannot currently explain how life began - that doesn't prove anything about deity.

I have several issued with the ID theory. First, it attempts to use scientific methods to prove the existence of God. Second, it assumes that complex elements of life forms could only have been created by an intelligent being. Finally, it serves as a Trojan horse for pushing a religious belief on public schools under the guise of science.

(An aside: Recently I ran across a children's book by Duane Gish, "Dinosaurs by Design." The book offers the hateful and thoroughly unscientific notion that humans and animals began eating meat only after sin came into the world. I can easily imagine a child reading that and feeling sinful and guilty for eating hamburgers.)

Russell:

I'm going to assume you were writing to me when you wrote "I will ask no more questions, just make an observation. It seems that as a gron woman, you may have learned, yet regressed into a state of fantasy. The world we live in being populated by a man and woman who only had sons is just a tad bit hard to believe."

Here is the same answer I always give to this, since as you can imagine, it comes up often. Just because it is not mentioned, does not mean that God did not make anymore people elsewhere. Obviously, he would have had to, otherwise where did Cain's wife come from? There are many people in the world who were not mentioned in the Bible, and many things that happened daily that were not mentioned. What was the most important for us to know; that's what is there.

Tonio:

I wish it were that simple; I really do! But there are other religions (or philosophies) for that, right? Like Buddhism? And people are free to make up their own religions if they want. The Abrahamic religions traditionally believe in God the Creator. If you can't bring yourself to believe that, then you've got to pick another religion or no religion. It makes it easier to pick that way.

Read this:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/STS/techne/Fall2002/srinivasan1.htm

Stanley Miller was the closest to coming up with creating life from non-living chemicals in a lab.

Here's a quote from Stanley Miller after his experiment failed.

It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began. It is generally believed that a variety of processes led to the formation of simple organic compounds on the primitive earth. These compounds combined together to give more and more complex structures until one was formed that could be called living. No one should be satisfied with an explanation as general as this.”[37]

—Stanley Miller

So until scientists can create life out of non-living chemicals I think it's fair to say that the ID theory is reasonable. I encourage everyone who chooses not to believe in God to seek truth in science as well. And science has shown that they cannot figure out how the origen of life began thus, you should not say that science has proven God not to exist. Science has not proven He exists either, but it definately cannot prove that He doesnt. Please answer me this one question:

How can something come out of nothing? It can't. Even if chemicals can be made into living organisms, what (or who I should say) made those chemicals?

Victoria;

I will ask no more questions, just make an observation. It seems that as a gron woman, you may have learned, yet regressed into a state of fantasy. The world we live in being populated by a man and woman who only had sons is just a tad bit hard to believe. I mean, it's practically the first question asked in Sunday school by children when it is taught to them. Still have yet to find a good answer.

I won't belittle your beliefs, yet I will say that maybe you should learn a little more. I know I am always searching for more knowledge. And the more knowledge I gain, the more religion seems trivial and false.

Russell:

Yes, I do. Why? Because I believe that the Bible is the truth. And I don't believe that we evolved from one life-form to the next. I used to believe in evolution, when they taught it to me in school. But the older I got, and the more I learned, the less sense it made to me.

So, your next question might be "if not evolution, why creation?" That would be my next question if I were you. It is unfortunately a difficult thing for me to explain. I feel a certain truth and understanding in the Bible. I feel a compulsion for closeness with God. I feel like my life has been changed for the better since God has been a major part of my life. And I feel like it was the right decision.

Deb, I didn't assume you were arguing with me. I was simply saying that claims about the natural and claims about the supernatural are two vastly different things. It's not necessarily about evolution versus creationism, although that's a good example.

What I'm saying is that there should be no such thing as a "belief system" when it comes to natural phenomena. Any conclusions about the natural world should be grounded in scientific principles. We can't attribute natural phenomena to actions by supernatural beings because there's no way to test that idea.

Why couldn't "beliefs" be strictly about the supernatural, a topic which is purely subjective? Or failing that, why couldn't spirituality focus strictly on moral principles and a purpose for life, and not even presuppose supernatural existence? It's one thing if a religion presupposes a deity, but it's quite another when it claims that the deity created the world and everything in it. I'm suggesting that religion focus on "why am I here" and leave "how did I get here" to science.

E Favorite wrote (regarding Dever):

"So, he doesn’t seem like a very strong corroborating source for your beliefs."

That is exactly why I used him as a source. It is the very same book of his that you cited that my reference came from. My point in using him at that time was to show that even someone who doesn't believe in the Bible was able to 1)find archaeological proof for some of the history in the Bible, and 2)show fault in Finklestein and Silberman's findings.

DEB:

Question: do you believe the creation story in Genesis? Do you believe the story of Adam and Eve? If you do, I'd like to know why.

Tonio wrote:

"I regard creation stories in all religions as allegories rather than literal histories."

Well of course you do; that's your "belief system" right now. That's ok by me. And other people think just the opposite of you, and that's ok too. And by my just mentioning evolution and Genesis, I wasn't saying those were the only 2 choices, it was just an example. I can't list all the choices all the time!

As for evolution, some would argue that no one has actually "seen" an ape-like creature evolve into a man, or primordial ooze evolve into a living, breathing being, but people accept it as "proven fact" anyway. These people say that the billions of different living things on this earth that no one can show how they were created from nothing are proof of God.

I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you Tonio. I guess I'm just trying to show some validity to a differing opinion.

Here we go again - debating the inerrancy of the Bible. The problem as I see it is that one must demonstrate some objective criteria for assuming that the Judeo/Christian Bible is the "Word of God" as opposed to other words of god - i.e. the Koran, the Hindu writings, the Buddhist writings etc. Arguing over whether something was mistranslated or whether "test" vs. "tempt" was intended misses the point. If the entire book is a fiction, then it isn't any more important than the differences between two translations of Caesar's Gallic Wars. The argument that Faith is needed to "see" the Truth begs the question - whose Faith and how is this Faith acquired? Using miracles to demonstrate the "Truth" of the Bible is meaningless - Roman Emperors were credited with miracles - Vespasian is supposed to have cured a blind man, and Vespasian is orders of magnitude more historical than Jesus. And, no I am not claiming that Jesus didn't exist. Finally, I agree with Bertrand Russell [at least I think he said it] when asked what he'd say when confronted by God about his atheism - "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence."

"But I think you could say that some people would say that their belief in creation is as much 'fact' to them as someone else's belief in evolution is to them. And belief in either one of those for yourself automatically means belief in that for all of mankind, for the believer."

That's not a valid comparison, in my view. Evolution deals with natural causes and effects, with observable phenomena. It can't address supernatural explanations because those can't be tested. Moreover, evolution doesn't claim to make judgments about people. True, some religious people see evolution as godless, and that's their choice, but it doesn't mean that evolution is inherently godless.

Whereas with any religion's creation story, the religion asks that people simply accept the religion's word for it that some deity or deities were responsible. And the stories impose judgments on people, such as the Original Sin doctrine which defines humans as sinful and saddles them with the guilt for a crime they didn't commit.

In other words, the difference between evolution and any religion's creationism is that the latter asks people to not only deny any contrary evidence from their senses, but also to be defined in a negative way.

Also, I criticize the notion that it's either evolution or Genesis, as if no other religions had creation stories. I regard creation stories in all religions as allegories rather than literal histories.

Deb - evolution is a scientific theory, based on huge amounts of scientific evidence. Creation is based on a story in a book written 1,000's of years ago.

It is possible to distinguish between beliefs and facts. For instance, you might believe that someone is rich, because they told you so and because they act rich - driving a facy car and spending money freely and telling you about all the homes they own or places they've been. However, if their assets are checked and found wanting -then your belief is not warranted by the facts.

Mavaddat:

You have finally divulged yourself to be the type of poster I find extremely annoying in this forum. You are the type who will go out of your way to ask purposely leading or seemingly innocuous questions as a form of entrapment. The problem is, I didn't fall for your trap, and instead we went round and round. If all you wanted was MY definition of 'test' and 'tempt', you should have asked. But even that shouldn't have been necessary, because those are very basic words, and we all know what they mean, even though you continue to insist otherwise.

Your final argument is flawed. All of God's actions are not indirect. "Free will" cannot be "caused" by anyone, not even God. The rest of your argument then falls apart.

Tonio,

You are right. But I think you could say that some people would say that their belief in creation is as much "fact" to them as someone else's belief in evolution is to them. And belief in either one of those for yourself automatically means belief in that for all of mankind, for the believer. It doesn't mean you have to preach it to people, but you can't help but "know" it's true.

You asked "When someone claims to know what God has planned for me, why shouldn't I regard such plans as coming from the person instead?" Of course, it depends on who's saying it and why, but they might be referring to what is written in the Bible about that. You'd have to ask them where they're getting their info.

I wasn't trying to bias anything in favor of Christianity; I simply meant that it's everyone's right to choose and no one's right to condemn, in all things - whether you choose to practice any religion at all, or you follow the philosophical teachings of so-and-so, or you sit outside every night and wait for the Venutians to land (did I spell that correctly?).

Anon- what is the name of the just-published book? and what is the source of the info you posted above? Thanks

Also, Dever, while he tends to interpret some archeological findings differently than most of his colleagues, still says this:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Contra_Davies.htm
"My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed “stories,” often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information."

In his book, “What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?” a positive review states:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_2_32/ai_94332346
"He also admits, however, that traditional biblical archaeology and its goal of finding tangible proof of the central events of the First Testament failed."

So, he doesn’t seem like a very strong corroborating source for your beliefs.

Deb,

Your lament, "I honestly did not think I needed to go so far as to give you definitions of simple words here," expresses precisely the naive attitude that I referred to earlier. You think that there is some objectively true distinction between the words "test" and "tempt" that I am simply failing to understand by my asking you to explain why you think that there is an important difference between the two words. However, what I am interested in is your understanding of the distinction, so even if there was a truth of the matter regarding the true distinction between the words, it doesn't matter to me since I just want to know what your understanding of it is. However, it is completely meaningless to think that there is some objective distinction between these two words, since they can be used synonymously in certain contexts and not so in other contexts. It all depends on what we mean by the words.

The lesson being this: The fact that you think there is a distinction doesn't make it so. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because you have an idea of how to understand two words, that your understanding is somehow closer to the "objective truth."

Now back to the topic: I think I understand your distinction between testing and tempting. You seem to think that tempting implies some enticing, whereas testing merely is a kind of proof. Thank you for clarifying your understanding of the difference between these words.

Now, there is only the vagueness of whether the Devil's tempting Jesus in Gethsemane or Adam in Eden can be said to be God tempting them as well, since God created the Devil and knew with certainty what he would do beforehand. People speak of free will, but if God set the order of the universe (thereby determining the motion of every atom) and knew what the Devil would do, then in a sense God caused the Devil to tempt Jesus, which means that God indirectly tempted Jesus. However, since all of God's actions are indirect (through some intermediary), we cannot discount the indirectness of the temptations as somehow reconciling them with the verse from James. Thus, we arrive at the same contradiction through a longer route, thanks to your clarification of your understanding of temptation.

To Pablo and Deb and others who read my posts above:

I’m sure it’s shocking to hear that a lot of what is in the bible isn’t factual. It was shocking to me too, when I learned it and I didn’t have much of a stake in it being true. I felt simultaneously punched in the stomach and enlightened. I just assumed a lot of the stories, especially the ones about Jewish history and military conquests were based on fact. You hear so much about it growing up – not just at church but in the movies and on TV and everyone talks about it as if it’s absolutely true. There are books, articles documentaries about the archeological findings out there, but they never seem to make big news. Hopefully, that’s changing. Certainly the internet is a big help in accessing and sharing information.

I’m doing my part, and as I’ve said elsewhere in these discussions, I think clergy has a huge responsibility to educate.

"It is our choice whether or not we want to believe it"

Deb, translations aside, the existence or nature of any supernatural life or an afterlife is not a fact, it is opinion. The choice you describe is biased in favor of Christianity, or at least in favor of the theistic religions. Since no claim about the supernatural can be tested, there is no reason for me to regard one claim has having more validity than the others. When someone claims to know what God has planned for me, why shouldn't I regard such plans as coming from the person instead? Anyone can believe anything about the supernatural, but those beliefs do not constitute fact for everyone else.

E Favorite:

King Rehoboam of Judah was besieged by Pharaoh Shishak according to 1 Kings 14:25-28, and archaeology corroborates the text’s recollection of Egyptian conflict with an historical, tenth-century Judean state. Shishak’s incursion against Solomon’s son and successor left behind destruction layers at several sites in Palestine—including a destruction layer at Gezer, a city fortified by Solomon in buttressing his kingdom (1 Kings 9:15-17). Two extra-biblical artifacts, a triumphal relief of Shishak (the Egyptian Sheshonk) at Karnak and a fragment of a stele at Megiddo, assure us that these destruction layers connect to the Pharaoh’s campaign into Palestine in 926 bce.

Monumental city walls and gates at Gezer from King Solomon’s period further document the rise of the monarchy in the tenth century. They attest to Solomon’s royal fortification efforts before Shishak’s raid. Although Finkelstein and Silberman want to move the date of these fortifications some decades later than Solomon’s time (to the early ninth century), Gezer’s excavator, William G. Dever, maintains their tenth-century provenance in a just-published book. According to Dever, excavation at Gezer revealed clear evidence that Shishak destroyed the fortifications soon after Solomon’s death.

Tonio,

Sorry, that was me. I just can't remember to put my name!

Pablo, Archeologists didn’t “scoff at what the Bible said.” They are scientists looking for facts, who gladly adapt their thinking to new information. They found some evidence of David in 1993, however, it did not point to him being the great King depicted in the Bible. Here are excerpts about King David from the Amazon review site of “The Bible Unearthed," mentioned above:

“There is an inscription from Tel Dan from the ninth century BCE that mentions the southern kingdom by the name of `the house of David.' So it stands to reason that they existed, but the question is whether they ruled a large empire, and about that there is not the slightest hint. All the evidence is against it.”

“While there is evidence that a historical David existed, and founded some sort of ruling dynasty known by his name, there is good reason to believe that he did not rule over the powerful united monarchy described in II Samuel. One reason for doubt: Jerusalem, portrayed as the great capital of a prosperous nation, was during the time of David little more than a village.”

“One of the major questions plaguing the field of biblical studies is the one concerning David and Solomon. Do they really exist? Finkelstein and Silberman unequivocally state that both David and Solomon are historical beings. The magnitude of their kingdom, however, is the issue at hand. Based on the archaeological evidence, the authors suggest that the biblical account of these kings is a mixture of both fact and some embellishment by later authors, most likely writing during King Josiah's reign in 7th century Judah.”

Tonio,

BUT, if people translated the Bible properly, there would be no need to "use it against" anyone. It is not something to be used against people. It is for people to learn about where we came from, and learn about God and what he wants for us, and about what he has planned for us. It is our choice whether or not we want to believe it. If we believe it, we can use its lessons in our own lives. But if someone decides against it, that is their right, and it is NOT our right to in any way use the Bible against them.

Deb, although I appreciate your reply, I think you are missing my main point. The problem of mistranslation is not the root cause of the Bible being used against people. That problem is only a symptom. The root cause is the claim that the Bible is the word of God. Since that claim relies solely on personal opinion, people will never agree on what God said or what God might have meant. The disagreement reaches deadly proportions because people believe their afterlife destinations are dependent on adhering to a certain view of what God said. If we were talking about the Iliad or the Elder Edda, the problem of mistranslation would be simply a matter of scholarly debate.

Mavaddat:

I honestly did not think I needed to go so far as to give you definitions of simple words here. Test - to try or put to proof. Tempt - to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain.

As you can see, there is a major difference between these two words, so they are not simply interchangeable, as you seem so willing to imply.

Again, the verses in Genesis do not show any sign of speaking of temptation of any kind. They are definitely talking about testing. God tests our faith.

James, on the other hand, speaks of tempting, specifically because that verse is in opposition to the testing that the chapter speaks of earlier on. God does not tempt us.

I don't think I can be any more clear than that. Sorry if you still don't get it.

The Bible tells us in many stories that God tests (or tempts) people in order to ascertain their faith. Adam and Eve, Abraham, Job, and Jesus are four common examples of this, but the whole thing is really one story after another about God testing (or tempting) people's faiths.

The author of James, however, did not like this idea of a capricious and haughty God, so he imagined that the truth of the matter was that it was our own passions (and not God) that were "truly" testing (or tempting) us.

Thus, there is apparently a contradiction between the conception of God as an inactive participant in the testing of people's faiths as presented in James, and the conception of God as an active participant in testing (or tempting) people's faith as presented elsewhere in the Bible (both OT and NT).

You have not resolved this apparent contradiction by merely suggesting that the context is important or by merely asserting that "tempt" and "test" are somehow importantly different. All you have done is expressed some hope that this contradiction (and the numerous others in the Bible) is resolvable. Hope is not equal to argument, however.

Tonio wrote:

"did the Bible's authors do that deliberately, or was it simply habit like the Greeks?"

No, I think just about anything written at length can have pieces taken out of context and misunderstood. I truly think the biggest problem we have with understanding the bible is the language that was used so long ago. It just doesn't translate into the way we speak today, and if you can't understand the way they spoke, then you are left with having to make due with a translation of a "meaning".

The problem of the Bible being used against people over the years is directly related to mistranslations that then lead to skewed meanings and teachings (along with certain political figures who had specific agendas). It is an extremely sad part of our history, but we are now lucky to have much more precise translations to follow and study.

Deb,

Do you see that all you are doing is repeating over and over again that test and tempt are importantly different without telling us how they are importantly different? I don't care whether you render the word "test" or "tempt," because either way of looking at it retains the original contradiction, which is that God both does and does not test (or tempt) his followers.

Furthermore, the fact that I know the context of James does not mean that your understanding of the context will be the same as my understanding of the context. Do not be so naive as to think that when someone tells you that they have read something and they understand it, that it necessarily means that their understanding of it will be the same as yours or that yours is somehow the "truer" understanding that they would have achieved if they had "truly" understood it.

Wiccan wrote:

"Seems like awful shaky ground to lay your soul on."

So, just dismiss it altogether, just because you haven't found out which translation is right? That just made me want to know all the more. If I was going to be reading something, I wanted to be reading the right thing. I spent a lot of time making sure I was getting the right information. And sometimes I still always go to other sources to double-check things, just to make sure.

Mavaddat:

In Genesis 22:1 - God was "testing" Abraham's faith. Reading the chapter it is clear there is no temptation going on there..

In James 1:13 - the beginning verses in this chapter speak of having your faith "tested" by various trials, as opposed to being "tempted" as in verse 13.

Sorry, since you said you were familiar with the context, I didn't think I needed to explain it here.

"The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."

Mark Twain

Mavaddat and Andrea-

Thank you. That was my point. If you tell me the Bible is the absolute word of God, then tell me it's been mistranslated, which words am I supposed to trust? . Seems like awful shaky ground to lay your soul on.

Mavaddat,

You and Wiccan are making a very good point. How can we be sure of what the "absolute word of God" even is? It could have been lost in translation a LONG time ago.

I worked with a student from Sudan a few years back and we got into this discussion. Their interpretation of the Bible is so far off from what American Christians believe. Two instances:

"Turn the other cheek" to them:
It was illegal in those days to hit a man on a certain side of his cheek, so if someone hit you one the "legal" side, you turn the other cheek to taunt him because he cannot hit you there.

"Go the extra mile" to them:
Again, dealing with legallity, it was illegal to carry a load for a neighbor over one mile (insert Biblical measurement here), so if you went the extra mile, they would be punished, and quite possibly (if you carried it a mile past their home) would have to carry it back.

So, who's interpretation is the correct one and thus the "absolute word of God"?

Deb,

Since you cannot tell me what the important difference between "test" and "tempt" is, nor can you tell me how the context of the phrases solves the apparent contradiction between Gen 22:1 and James 1:13, I am just going to assume that you don't really know how to solve the problem but that you merely have hope that someone can do it for you. I hope that is not an ungenerous conclusion of your understanding from your words.

I thank you for your sincere attempt to discuss these matters with me, and I bid you adieu.

Mavaddat wrote:

"The idea of an absolute word of God cannot be separated from the proper interpretation of that ostensibly blessed word."

That is absolutely correct. The only absolute way that I know of accomplishing that is to either study direct translations from Hebrew and Greek, or study under someone who has studied this. I have been fortunate enough to have done some studying under a professor who had specialized in Hebrew translations, and I gained a lot of insight into the OT that way.

Anonymous:

The words are not interchangeable; there is a "better" choice. For instance, in the sentence "the man cannot see her," what does "see" mean? It could mean lots of things. It probably wasn't a good choice of words, since it's one of those words that has more than one meaning, and if you can't figure it out from the context, people are going to choose whichever meaning fits their needs.

Wiccan is actually making a very profound and deep point that I think all of us are missing:

The idea of an absolute word of God cannot be separated from the proper interpretation of that ostensibly blessed word.

For example, if I say that nature is the absolute word of God, how is that helpful unless I can (at the same time) provide for you an interpretation of nature that tells us something important?

The phrase "the absolute word of God" is simply (and literally) meaningless apart from some interpretation of the relevant text in question.

"And that's what you have to do with the Bible. You have to read everything around the text in question to know what was meant."

Deb, did the Bible's authors do that deliberately, or was it simply habit like the Greeks? Is this true of both the Old and New Testaments? Or are you saying that God wrote the Bible with that deliberate contextual approach? My concern is with how the Bible has been used by some people against others. Would the contextual issue be less critical if the Bible was regarded as a historical artifact with some value for spiritual exploration, instead of as the words of a deity?

Deb,

You seem to think that I have not read the Bible or the context of James 1:13. The reason why I quote James 1:13 out of context is that I think that the context of James 1:13 does not help its case.

In general, it is not seemly that one commend for others some work that is properly one's duty to complete. In this specific case, you should refrain from recommending that we take this in context when you yourself cannot tell us why the context is important.

Look, I'm sorry for being so dumb, but if God's words are mistranslated, "a change from the original meaning", then how can the Bible contain "the absolute word of God"?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Deb,

You seem to think that there is some important difference between "test" and "tempt"; however, according to Strong's Biblical Concordance (which includes both Greek and Hebrew lexicons), "tempt" and "test" are synonymous (and thus interchangeable).

Therefore, either word can be used in the context of either James or Genesis. Thus, the ostensible contradiction between James 1:13 and Gen 22:1 (not to mention the other places in the Bible where God tests its followers) is not removed by suggesting that we take "tempt" to mean "test," since the words are interchangeable.

Mavaddat:

It is unfortunate that the Greeks made a habit of using words for more than one meaning (we seem to have kept up that habit). You'd never know what anyone meant to say half the time if you didn't keep everything in context. And that's what you have to do with the Bible. You have to read everything around the text in question to know what was meant. If you do that, generally you will know which meaning of the word fits. You also have to remember that some words aren't used the same way now as they were then. That is why Biblical study is necessary if you really want to know what the Bible is saying.

Dang, forgot to put the website. My bad. Take a look at this Pablo. And read it before you say it's wrong. READ IT

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Hey Pablo,

Take a look at this, maybe it will give you some clarity when saying that the Bible is true.

Russell B, excellent post.

Wiccan, I had always read "inerrant" as a synonym for "absolute word of God." I had assumed that for Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the issue of translation was irrelevant. Is that accurate?

Dear E favorite,

Archeologists did not have any proof for David not too long ago and they scoffed at what the Bible said until they unearthed evidence that he really did exist. The word of God is infallible and inerrant. You just want to be your own God so you will not bow your knee. But you will bow your knee I just hope it is as a worshipper of Christ instead of one who will be judged by Christ. You will either face Him as your Savior or your judge.

"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Pablo

Mavaddat:

That sure does sound like the definition of "test" to me...

The word tempt from the verse in James 1:13 that is rendered, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man," comes from the Greek word peirazo (pi-rad'-zo), which means both to try whether a thing can be done, and to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself.

If we take the "tempt" of James 1:13 to mean the latter (i.e., to make trial of for the purpose of ascertaining his quality), then it seems to clearly contradict Gen 22:1 (among other places) where God is said to test or tempt the faith of his followers.

that last one was mine Wiccan.

Wiccan:

Inerrant and mistranslation do not speak of the same thing. Inerrant speaks of the original meaning. Mistranslations are simply that - a change from the original meaning.

As for which is "correct"; many are correct in many places. However, I have found the NASB to be the closest to original translation while still being fairly easy to understand. I know that many people like the NIV, and while it is very true to original meaning, my feeling is that the NASB goes one step further in being truer to actual original wording (meaning the NIV still gets the original meaning while being a little easier to read by using slightly more modern wording in places). Since I want to be as close to original as possible, my choice is NASB. However, I do look to literal translation of Hebrew and Greek text at times to get better understanding.

According to Strong's Bible Concordance, the Hebrew word that is translated as "tempt" in Gen 22:1 is nacah (naw-saw') which means to try or to prove anyone as in "God is said to try or to prove men by adversity, in order to prove their faith."

The word is translated as to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test.

Deb-

If the Bible has been translated incorrectly, then how do you know what the original wording and meaning are? Which Bible is the correct one?

The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Latin Vulgate
Jerome's' Latin Vulgate
The English Standard Version
The American Standard Version
The New Living Translation
The World English Bible

Either the Bible is inerrant, and there are no mistranslations, or there are mistranslations and the Bible is not inerrant.

David and Pablo -

Here’s back-up for John Conolley’s “Oh Please” comment on Biblical archeology. It’s
the Amazon description of archeology scholars Finkelstein and Silberman’s “The Bible Unearthed” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller=

Here’s the first sentence of the review: The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon.

Here’s a link to an article about how this information is now included (since 2002) in the “Tree of Life” books found in all Conservative Jewish temples: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Wiccan:

Of course they can both be true. Just because someone translated ancient words incorrectly doesn't mean the book in its original wording and meaning is wrong. If you truly want to know the meaning closest to the original, then you have to find out which translation gives you that. KJV is NOT the one.

"The word "tempt" should be translated to "test" in Gen 22. By the way, I encourage everyone to read the NIV Bible due to mistranslations in the KJV. If you know the story of Abraham you will know that his faith was tested through his son IsaaC."

"The Bible is the absolute, inerrant truth so when we quote it we are basing our arguments on something much more substantial than your arguments. Give it up dude, just give it up!!!"

Okay, I'm no Biblical scholar, but both of these statements can't be true. So which one is it?

Russell:

My Christian teaching has been to spread the Gospel to those who have not heard, and to show love and kindness to all. Of course, I don't know what denominations the others belong to, so I can't speak for them. I like to call mine an "evangelical lite". :) We put a lot of our time into really studying the Bible and scholar lectures and worship, and we do a lot of non-religious community participation.

Ok. I am gonna fill you guys in on a little secret. Maybe you have heard it, and you just don't want to admit it. The Bible was written by men. Men who had no correspondence with each other, resulting in the varoius contradictions in the books, especially the four main books.

Even in Genesis, when describing how God made woman, there are two versions.

I realize that to most of you the Bible is a history book, but it's not. It is a nook of stories and tales that have been borrowed from other cultures and recycled to get a point across. Some of the stories are metaphors for the relationship with Rome at the time (see Revelations).

I am not saying this to make anybody pray for my soul or to piss anyone off. I say it because knowing what you read is alot different than just reading it.

I may not believe in the Bible or God, but I do find that it is helpful to try and live by some of the basic principles that Jesus set forth. He made some good points, but you must also realize, that he probably only said about a half or fourth of what was even written.

Why focus on a book? focus on what the book is trying to say. Don't use it to further your own agenda, use it to better your own life. Don't use it to push the way you believe onto other people, use it to become frineds with other people. It seems to me that alot of you, Pablo and David included seem to think it is their duty to keep informing us and saying we should accept Christ. Wrong, it's not your job, becaue you know why? We already know about Christ and we already know about God. Whether or not we choose to believe is totally up to us.
Isn't that what your God gave us free will for? Let us keep our free will and take your holy conquest eslewhere.

Pablo,

You're wasting your time and energy on people who will not listen. I agree with you just by the way.

John Connely,

The Bible is the absolute, inerrant truth so when we quote it we are basing our arguments on something much more substantial than your arguments. Give it up dude, just give it up!!!

Everyone,

The Trinity is God in one essence or substance evident in three persons. If you don't understand the Trinity then you don't. Any non-Christian trying to understand or make sense won't, because that's just the way it is; rather learn your Bible before trying to make comments on things you know nothing about. Or, better yet...reserve comment!

And,

I agree 100% with Cal Thomas. Christianity does not need to dilute the Gospel or the message in any way with syncretism or adopting Eastern approaches and beliefs! To do that is to say Christ's death and resurrection was not enough, which it was, MORE THAN!

God is a merciful and JUST God. There IS right and wrong in this world; we know it, and God knows it. And while God is a very loving and merciful God, there come times when justice must be done. We have our infinitely outrageous court system; and even though it doesn't work well, it shows that we do know that sometimes punishment is necessary. Why keep getting hung up on mercy? How many times should God show mercy to, say, a murderer? God shows mercy to all of us daily. There must certainly come a point, as there does in our court system, when enough is enough, don't you think? God is our Heavenly Father. When you were a kid, how many times of you fighting with your brother or sister did it take before your father punished you?

Re: Contradictions

A text that is full of profound contradictions is probably more likely to survive than one which is completely consistent for three reasons: one, the purely aesthetic reason that it is thereby more interesting to interpret; two, it is thereby more widely applicable and accessible, since it more potentially has some text that can be used for anyone for any purpose; three, when contradictions arise in a system, anything can be proved true.

For the third point, consider the following: either God is merciful in all its works or it is not merciful in all its works. By logical addition, any proposition 'P' can be added to the end of any true proposition or true sentence composed of propositions. So we can say either God is merciful in all its works or it is not merciful in all its works (which, as a compound sentence, is always true) or 'P'. Since the Bible supports both that God is merciful in all its works and that it is not merciful in all its works, we can infer both 'P' and not 'P', where 'P' can be any proposition whatever.

Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Faith, is a very insincere attempt to give a good foundation for religious faith. He gives very weak arguments for easily refuted positions (such as his section against Darwinian evolution) and doesn't indulge himself to answer the more difficult questions. His book is more of a conversation starter than a case for faith, per se.

John,

One more thing. I encourage you to read The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist turned Christian. He answers all those difficult questions regarding Chrisitanity with interviews of different scholars, scientists and other professionals in theology. You might find the answers you need if you choose to accept them. Also, I encourage you to read this:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3983

It will give you techniques on how to study the Bible which obviously you havent done. Take care "Bub". Oh and one bit of advice. If you want an intelligent debate with someone, give up the sarcasm and the short unintelligent responses Ex: "Oh, please." Obviously your on the defensive which only shows your lack of confidence in your own knowledge. I know you'll find everything I'm telling you offensive and frankly I dont care. I call it constructive criticism but your pride will lead you to believe something else. Have a great night John. God bless you in all you do and I hope you can accept Him before it's too late. And if you want me to prove the Bible historically to you just ask and I will. Otherwise I choose not to debate with someone who is, how should I say, defensive and arrogant? Later.

John Connelly,

I can tell by your response that you really do have a lot of hate in your life. Yep respond to that please as I know you will. A lot of sarcastic responses let me know of that.

You took several verses out of their contextual reference and compared them to call them contradictory. You dont seem to understand that do you? Taking them out of there contextual reference is a no no johnny. Let me give you an example:

If I had a recipe for cookies that needed a cup of sugar and wrote like so

1 cup sugar
1 tsp vanilla
2 cups flour etc.....

then the recipe said "dont add the sugar." That sounds like a contradiction right? But if I read after that it said "dont add the sugar....until you mix the flour" then it makes sense. That is what you are doing john.

I agree with you on how catholics have made religion into something it should not be. They have perverted the Word of God so drastically over time that I cant blame anyone for not believing. They are the ones who made it a crime to not be able to read it personally. They love power more than the truth.

I love your response to:

The Bible has been an historically accurate piece of ancient literature and proven by archaeological finds.

and you replied "Oh, please." I guess I shouldnt take you serious with that kind of unintelligent response.

Well, John sorry you hate me so much and I dont know what caused that. Your sarcasm really shows your true character and all I can do is pray for you. Hope you can find happiness without God because it seems you sure havent. Am I offending you? Sorry, but its what I see through your unintelligent, sarcastic remarks.

And by the way, the Lord is good to ALL. He gives them plenty of time to repent before judgement. That's goodness to me. And that's the meaning of that verse.

David:

"The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."

This, if I understand English, includes ALL contexts. And it doesn't look poetical to me (a poet). It looks like a straightforward assertion. Ergo, contradiction.

"I will dash them one against the other," sounds like someone who takes pleasure in destruction. Otherwise why not just put them to sleep? And what about those tender mercies?

"Yes Jesus and the Father are one, confirming the Trinity. What Jesus means blah blah woof woof woofy." You didn't address the contradiction: "My father is greater than I." Either they're one (equal), or one is greater. Pulling a miracle out of the hat doesn't change the meanings of the sentences.

"This again contains no contradictions." Yes it does. In one, He hangs the earth in nothingness, in the other, he sets it on foundations. As someone in the trades, I can tell you, boy, what a difference.

"You should read the book of Ecclesiastes"

I know the book of Ecclesiastes as well as you do, Bub. I also know that, "therefore get wisdom" CONTRADICTS "wisdom is much grief." It's plain English.

'The word "tempt" should be translated to "test" in Gen 22.' Yes, and the BBE translates James 1:13 as "test." I don't read Greek. Do you? I think we have to mark this one as undecided.

"Remember, scripture has to back up scripture in order for it to be correct." This sounds like a recipe for begging the question (petitio principii). Scripture is correct, ergo, no contradictions. But whether scripture is correct is the question to be answered. Therefore you cannot assume that it is to prove there are no contradictions. It's a logical house of cards. To my eye, the contradictions seem proof that scripture is not correct.

"I can promise you that if the Bible were "FULL" of contradictions it would not stand up to the test of time." One of the reasons the Bible has stood up to the test of time is that for many centuries, it was a capital crime to be caught reading it. After the printing press was invented and vernacular versions began to circulate, Catholic totalitarianism was broken, the Reformation came about, and a whole lot of scholars zeroed in on the contradictions PDQ. By now, the Bible has pretty much lost its grip on Europe, and the time is coming in the US.

"The Bible has been an historically accurate piece of ancient literature and proven by archaeological finds." Oh, please.

Pablo,

I think you are mistaken about your standards of true belief in Jesus. Saying that I didn't "truly believe" in Jesus unless I come back to him is like saying that, for people who believed that the Earth was flat, they didn't "truly believe" unless they come back to their belief later in life.

In general, any belief is sincere when the life of person who holds the belief is lived by that person as if what they believed was true. In effect, your standard is just unfalsifiable nonsense. You can say that no one "truly believes" in Jesus unless they go to their grave believing in him, but that is a ridiculous standard of "true belief."

I can just retort that if you truly believed in the true Jesus, you would not be a Christian anymore. Since you are still a Christian, I can only infer that you do not truly believe in the true Jesus. That is an equally ridiculous standard of "true belief."

Hello Pablo

I am now applying Buddhist meditation :

There is no god but God
There is no god but God
There is no god but God
ad infinitum

For the atheists who meditate:

There is no God
There is no God
There is no God
ad infinitum

We are all finding salvation by what we belief in.

Hello Mavaddat,

If you truely believed in Jesus you will return to Him. If you do not return to Him you never really repented towards God and placed your faith in Jesus in the first place.

Like I said faith is only as good as the object of faith. If you trust in the things that are limited to your time on earth your meaning will die with you.

"And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6).

Pablo

John Connelly,

No contradictions, only misinterpretations.

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Psalm 145:9 is poetical and therefore just a statement without reference to a particular subject. Note the word "mercies" in this verse. And look at Ezekiel 33:11 "Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

In regards to Jer 13:14 the context calls for judgement on Israel due to their wickedness. God has given everyone due time to repent their sins and finds no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. Noah even preached to his people 130 years to repent before God brought the floods.

So, no contradiction here. Two different contextes.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Yes Jesus and the Father are one, confirming the Trinity. What Jesus means about the Father in John 14:28 is the Father in heaven. How can Jesus be on earth as God and the Father be in Heaven and they are one in the same? Because that is God and all things are possible. Jesus in human mortal flesh is less than the Father (himself) when He is in heaven. Yes, this theory goes against all human scientific reasoning but this is spiritual reasoning which is the Creator of science. Jesus lowered Himself to be human like us. When He is in Heaven He is the Father. On earth He was the Son. Once again no contradiction, just proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Pro 4:7 is once again a statement fitting to the context. You should read the book of Ecclesiastes to get a better understanding of what the author is saying about wisdom. Once again nothing contextually similiar with Proverbs or 1 Cor. How about reading the preseding verse: 1 Cor 1:18

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Now does the next verse make sense. And how are all these verses contradicting? I sure can't figure that out.

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Please read the surrounding context. This again contains no contradictions. Please explain to me how these verses contradict one another. And I advise you to get your information from a different and more credible source.

These verses show that God created the earth. Job is praising God for his miraculous creation of the earth in Job 26. God is repremanding Job for questioning God's judgement in Job 38 by showing how Job is not God and God being the creator of all things. Once again no contradictions. Only someone pulling verses out of context.

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

Here you have a KJV translation of these verses. The word "tempt" should be translated to "test" in Gen 22. By the way, I encourage everyone to read the NIV Bible due to mistranslations in the KJV. If you know the story of Abraham you will know that his faith was tested through his son Isaac. Temptation is a different word and different meaning. God does not tempt us, he tests us. Through the whole story of Abraham he was never tempted by God. Only satan does the tempting, but God does test Abraham as He tests us too. Here's James 1:13 in NIV

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;

Different meaning here because of course God cannot be "tempted by evil" and if it were translated "God cannot be tested by evil" that would make no sense since God has power over evil how could He be tested by it.

So once again, not a contradiction, just a misinterpretation. It's unfortunate that the numerous translations cannot be exactly accurate as the original language but there are words in ancient hebrew and ancient greek that cannot have an exact translation to english. But refering seemingly contradictory verses to other verses by how each word was used in similiar context, one can find the correct translation. Remember, scripture has to back up scripture in order for it to be correct. And be careful not to pull verses out of context to try to contradict other verses. Read the whole passage to get a better understanding. Keep in mind if the verse is poetical, prophetical, literal, symbolic or historical.

I can promise you that if the Bible were "FULL" of contradictions it would not stand up to the test of time. I am in no way leading my life in blind faith. The Bible has been an historically accurate piece of ancient literature and proven by archaeological finds. It is unfortunate that so many people who know nothing about the Bible or who just read and not study the Bible come to false conclusions. Hope I helped you in a way to realize that these verses are not contradictory and if you have any more supposed contradictions please let me know so that I may clear that up for you. Thanks.

Mavaddat:
I appreciate you trying to be logical and reasonable, not to mention kind, as well. It makes it easy to talk to you. Thanks for that.

I worship the same God as millions of people. He is described in the Bible, and when we discuss Him (Bible studies, church services, mission opportunities, this forum, etc.), we affirm that we ascribe the same characteristics to Him.

But, we are not actually ascribing anything to Him. He certainly is not a product of my imagination. I did not invent the name "Jesus". I did not write the Bible. In fact, it is not even me who interprets it when I read it. If we all had different gods, I would not be able to sit through a sermon and agree to worship a god my pastor invented. Quite to the contrary, I could meet a Bible-believing Christian stranger in another country, and we would agree on our views of God, because God Himself is our source of information on who He is.

Sorry if that sounds crazy, but that's all I have to offer.

John M.,

Do you think the adjective "Herculean" is less meaningful if Hercules did not exist?

The idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being is generally common to popular conceptions of God. So we can imagine a God-like being (one that shares these properties with the popular conception of God) without necessarily thinking that God exists.

In general, the existence or non-existence of an entity does not in anyway diminish from our being able to ascribe whatever properties we want to that being. That is why it is possible to make up stories.

John M.,

I can understand why you think so, but unfortunately there is no way to discern the difference between an imaginary God-like being and the God that millions of have been worshipping.

Also, may I submit for your consideration that, in fact, none of those millions of people is worshipping the same God, but that each of them is worshipping the product of their own imaginations. Each person exalts his own ideas of virtue to the station of perfection and so creates his or her own idea of God.

So why should my conception of an all-powerful, God-like being be any less valid? It seems to be all empty hypothesis anyway.

Mavaddat:
And, how would a being be God-like if there were no God to be like? :)

Pablo,

By the way, I used to believe in Jesus and God when I was younger. My life is much better now that I do not believe in God anymore. I feel like my life is more meaningful now that Jesus is not the main focus of my life. But I don't think that that proves that Jesus was not who he said he was, because I don't think that the importance of a belief in improving my life proves anything about the truth of that belief.

Yep.
I think putting an imaginary God-like non-god in the same sentence as the God who has been worshipped by millions of people for thousands of years is really silly.

By "your ideas," I just meant the ideas that you are suggesting. By the possessive "your," I didn't mean to imply that they were originally thought of by you. Is that what you are worried about?

Mavaddat:
Dude, they are NOT MY ideas!!!

John M.,

I'm glad you could see how crazy that was. I agree. You now understand how many of us feel about your ideas.

Cheers!

Pablo,

I still don't seem to understand your answer. I must apologize. You see, I am asking you why anyone should believe that God's existence is true. I suggested that a good criterion for deciding whether a belief could be called knowledge (and therefore truth) was that that belief could give us predictions about the world. You keep telling me, however, that belief in God makes you feel good. This is what confuses me.

Are you suggesting that a better standard of truth is the degree to which a belief makes one's life better? But there seem to be many beliefs that both us could have (for example, that there is a million dollars in our backyards or that Jesus was our Lord and saviour) which might improve the quality of our lives and give them more meaning than they now possess, but would not be any truer in virtue of that. So I am confused why you keep mentioning that our lives might be better if we believe in God or Jesus.

Do you accept my standard for true belief (the predictions and usefulness of a belief determine how true we believe it to be), or are suggesting that your alternative standard might be better?

On a side note, the Prussian philosopher, Immanuel Kant, thought that he solved the problem of how we perceive order in the world without appealing to God: that is, we impose order on the chaos of the world as a fundamental part of our abilities to reason. In modern day language, we might say that we have evolved the ability to see order as a result of natural selection. I.e., those creatures that saw the world in an orderly way tended to survive better than those who saw it chaotically. But that is just an aside. I just thought it was interesting.

Mavaddat,

When I look at all that God has created it causes me to praise Him. His creation tells me about Him. To know Him is to give more meaning to your exploration of what He has made. The fathers of science like Sir Isaac Newton knew that science was not even possible without God. They knew that they could not expect things to act with any level of predictability if the source of all things was chaos and chance. This is what the naturalist believes so yes the scientist can make observations while at the same time rejecting the God who made it possible for him to make those observations but all his futile musings will not help him when he is on his deathbed about to face the God whom he has rejected.

Pablo

Cutting and pasting passages from the OT and NT, two books full of more myths and embellishments than history are not proving anything other than the simplistic acts of copying and pasting. Show the archeological and attestation evidence to validate claims.

Mavaddat:
That's so crazy it made me laugh!!

John M.,

You ask Russell to imagine if God exists, but what if there is a powerful being (God-like, but not God) that punishes people who believe in God after they die? Can you imagine it? What if this God-like being makes life much better for people who do not believe in God? You would be missing out on a far more fulfilled life without Christ if this was the case. Embrace atheism today and you may still have a chance to save yourself!

Russell D,

God is allowing you to breathe His air right now. He could take your life at any moment. Who will save you when your time comes? I pray that you will trust in the infinite loving God Jesus and be saved before it is too late.

Pablo

David:

"But it is all still water just water for different purposes. I guess you can use that analogy to describe the Trinity."

I guess you can't. Water is not both water and ice at the same time and in the same respect. The Athanasian Creed goes to some lengths to explain that the Trinity is one and three at the same time and in the same respect. As does the Catholic Encyclopedia. As does the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, which says,

"God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God."

"And there are NO contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretations."

This sounds like someone who gets his information about the Bible from somewhere besides reading it. The Bible is FULL of contradictions. Here are a few from absolutely the first web site I came to (Infidels.org):

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
__________________________

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
___________________________

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
___________________________

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
___________________________

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
____________________________

And on and on.

Russell:

I can see the validity of your points, from your perspective. If there were no god, then you might be free to live for yourself. And, I might be wasting my time developing a spiritual life that does not exist.

However, I would like to ask you, if you would, to imagine for a moment that God might exist. What if this God were a personal God who cares for everyone He created and wants to have a relationship with them? If this were so, you might have wasted your life on yourself, when you could had a rich life with your Creator.

You say you are living life to the fullest, but you really have no idea what a full life you could have in Christ. I am not sure why you think we believers are stripped of our human liberties and bound by rules. Maybe you have been exposed to legalistic religious people who act like martyrs and show little joy. I know people like that, but that is not God's plan. Interestingly, Jesus said He wanted to offer you a full life: "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10) Not only do we have a full life here on earth, but we have the promise of a rich eternity, something you can't get by living for yourself.

I lived 38 years for myself and I never felt so free as I do now. I would call changing only one variable a scientific experiment. And, that's what I unconsciously did when I altered only one parameter in my life: the presence of God. So, the result of the experiment I did not realize I was performing is that a strong faith in Christ provides peace and joy at a level I have never experienced.

That's just my story. I really hope it helps you see Christian faith in a new light.

Pablo,

Thanks for your encouragement and I do appreciate your enthusiasm to help guide those who are in need of spiritual healing.

Regarding Acts and the apostles teachings:

I 100% agree. We must preach the Word in its whole form and not just give people the loving aspect of God. They must know about repentenence and God's judgement. I in no way intended for my comment to mean anything else than to show non-believers the love of God. I must point out something in Acts as well.

Acts 2:42-43

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.

Also, refer to Acts chapter 3 as peter heals the crippled beggar.

Many non-believers (if not all) have heard of God's judgement for not believing and know the consequences. Unfortunately for us we cannot provide miraculous signs in their presence as proof of God like the apostles did. But we can share the message of the gospel. All I'm trying to say is to we should focus on all things written as you say but let's not forget the most important....that Jesus died for us to be saved and resurrected to prove his divinity as being God.

Keep up the good work Pablo. Let's continue to share God's word with all who seek. That is about all we can do. But God's love is so strong he gives us freewill to choose and so many will not choose unfortunately. God bless you.

Your brother in Christ,

David

Pablo,

I'm not sure I understand your answer. You said that life with belief in God is much better than a life without such a belief. But why did you mention that? I asked you why a belief in God is important for making predictions or doing new things that you could not do without such a belief, not whether it makes your life better.

In general, I think there are many false beliefs that could make my life better (like that all the women I meet find me attractive), that is why whether a belief improves the quality of my life or not is a bad standard for deciding what is true or false.

"I am glad you do not want us to bring reproach on the gospel by acting un-Christian but remember that we are called to tell the truth of the Gospel even if it offends others."

So, Pablo - after all that, are you defending being offensive whilst spreading the Gospel?

To readers who might feel swayed by Pablo's PR for Christianity, here’s my alternative perspective: The Bible is a fine old book of stories and myths from thousands of years ago. There is some great wisdom in it (like “love one-another”) and some really awful stuff (like collect a hundred foreskins, murder all your enemies and sacrifice your children).

In many cases the Bible is really hard to understand – in part because it’s been translated so many times (original languages were ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek) and in part because ways of thinking and behaving have changed so much since it was written.

I think the Bible is definitely something to cherish, but certainly not something to believe in. Don’t worry about bad things happening to you if you don’t follow what the Bible says. If it was ever meant as a rule book, it was for people living in the desert many, many years ago.

Follow the laws and the moral code of your culture today and you should be fine.

Dear Mavaddat,

Knowing God and walking with Him is the best life to live. When you enter into a relationship with God you will understand your reason for existence. You will know the one who made the sun, moon and the stars and set them in their courses. Trusting in naturalism is limited. Trusting in human reason, materialism, and human relationships are all fleeting. But trusting in the one who is the source of all these things is the place to find eternal life. Faith is only is good as the object of faith. The sun, moon, and stars will all pass away but God will be for eternity. I trust in the Triune God, Who is, and Who was, and Who will always be.

God Bless You!

Pablo

Hello Russell D,

Could you please refresh my memory and articulate what those arguments were? I think this is your way of avoiding the issues because I do not recall brushing any arguments aside.

Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy (Proverbs 27:6).

Pablo

John M:

"So, what do you think about my comment regarding trying to share my faith out of love? Does that do nothing for you?"

It may seem like love to you, but to me it seems like someone trying to trap me back in the horror house I got out of when I was fifteen.

"I get the feeling that you resent me or maybe even hate me. You told me I don't know when to quit, so maybe you want me to go away."

I resent your arguing by saying one thing then saying the opposite as if you had always said that, by claiming I said things I didn't say, by getting personal while carping about me getting personal, and by weaseling instead of facing a rational discussion.

"You don't know when to quit," is idiomatic for, "You're here again? I've already mopped the floor with you once."

And not one time, on any single point, have you admitted you were wrong. You merely stop talking about it. I don't want you to go away. I want you to show up in honesty.

As for your love, I don't want love from strangers. That's creepy.

Pablo,

I think that a belief can be called knowledge when it helps us achieve our goals in important ways. For example, I believe that the moon orbits the Earth because that belief helps scientists actually reach the moon. I also believe that the Earth orbits the sun because we can infer from the useful laws that describe the motion of the moon that the Earth should be orbiting the sun.

When it comes to belief in God, however, I fail to see how such a belief can be useful to make predictions or allow us to do more things than we could if we didn't believe in God. Could you help me understand why belief in God is important?

Dear David,

I am thankful that you want to be a peace with all men as far as it is possible.

The book of Acts is the record of the Holy Spirit’s initial work of planting the church among the nations. One thing that I have observed in reading the book of Acts and the Gospels for that matter is that when God's people preach the Gospel there are one of three reactions. First there may be scoffing, second, people may become interested and want to hear more and third, some people believe and are added to God's kingdom. In each of these cases the Christian has accomplished God's purpose because He alone is responsible for the results. We all are nothing but God's vehicle for delivering the message. In the book of Acts there are examples of preaching that God is going to judge those who refuse to repent. For example the Apostle Paul preached that God was going to judge all men on Mars Hill. He said,

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31).

I have been reasoning with many of the people on these threads for a while. I truly care for their souls and want all of them to experience the same love and forgiveness that I have received that I do not deserve. I feel that I was moved by God to share that they are going to be held accountable for their actions and their unbelief. My sister shared that I would be held accountable for my actions when I was a non-believer many years ago. My initial reaction was anger because I thought how she dare judge me. But it was necessary for me to reject and get angry with my sister because I was confronted with my true condition before God. In the end God used what she shared with me in love as part of the process to bring me to Him.

I am glad you do not want us to bring reproach on the gospel by acting un-Christian but remember that we are called to tell the truth of the Gospel even if it offends others. The truth is that God uses us to bring people to Himself even when we make mistakes. I am glad to stand with you in cause of the Gospel and I am glad that you have asked us to be careful.

Note the reaction Paul received in Athens:

“Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them (Acts 17:32-34).

Only by His Grace,

Pablo

Pablo:

There have been numerous agruments made that refute yours, yet you have yet to recognise them. When they come about, you call them wrong or brush them off syaing that they are silly religions that don't count.

When it comes to Christianity and God, let the person make up his own mind whether or not they choose to follow. Why do you feel the need to constantly persuade them to?

Religion is a choice. No matter which religion you coose to follow, or whether you even choose to follow. I myself like depending on myself.That is who I believe in. Myself and my family and friends. That is why you saying that I am finite and dependant is basically wrong to me. I stand up high on my two feet and you choose to kneel.

You are the one who is dependant. Because without God, you'd have nothing. I don't have God, and I have everything I need and almost everything that I want. So who comes off better in the end? The one who follows a set of rules that basically take away all liberties of being human, or the one who lives his life to the fullest and doesn't let a book tell him what to do?

I getting jealous of you and that Pablo guy

John M,

Well put.

A Hermit,

Maybe you should refer to the Book of Romans for more clarifications about how we are saved by grace and not by the law. Paul gives a detailed description of how that works.

To "A Hermit" -

I think you are right and also Cal is right. If you look at the passage you quoted, someone who breaks the law and teaches others also to do so is called "least in the kindgom of heaven". That means they made it to heaven. So, while you are right in saying that Jesus wants us to follow the law, the Bible also teaches that none of us will be there because we followed the law. None of us, as sinful humans, can keep all of the law. We are made righteous only by God's act of kindness, His grace, displayed in His love for us on the cross.

We will not be judged on how well we followed the law; we will be judged on whether or not we knew Jesus and trusted completely in Him.

Now, of course, we are instructed to follow God's commands. And, the Bible tells us that we should not sin intentionally. But, we don't have to worry that our salvation is on the line if we slip here or there.

I hope that helps.

Norrie Hoyte:

Are you biased towards Eastern religions when you write, "Buddhism's ethical precepts ("rules for living a good life") are superior to Christianity's"?

Cal says "Christians are no longer under "the laws of the God of Abraham."

I think cal just called Jesus a liar...

Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

What an arrogant, narrow minded attitude is expressed here. "My faith is best because I say it's the best." Cal is like the man who says " I don't need a library card; I already own a book..."

Pablo,

Yes I have read the book of Acts. Is there something you would like to point out to me? No matter how hard I study the Bible I always seem to learn more and more each time and I hope that what you have to say can bring me even closer to God than I am today. By the way Pablo, thanks for defending Christ in this column and I will surely be by your side in His defense. I look forward to teaching those who do not believe in the truth of the Bible and the love of Jesus Christ.

John M,

Good to stand with you brother. "Do not be weary in well doing for in due time you shall reap your reward"

Pablo

Dear Russell D,

I have given the moral, teleological, and presuppositional arguments for the existence of God throughout my threads. None of the arguments have been refuted by one person on these threads. I have been called names but that is all. Do you have something to refute these arguments which are all grounded in the word of God or are you just going to call me judgmental. I say the same things because they have not been refuted. God’s truth does not change like man’s created philosophies and religious systems.

By the way I do not condemn you the word of God says that you condemn yourself by your unbelief. I would be condemned too had I not trusted in Jesus the one who was condemned in my place. I do not deserve His forgiveness I only deserve His wrath. Jesus took the wrath I deserve. He took it for you also if you would just humble yourself, repent, and trust Him and what He did for you on the cross.

By the way I am secure in the arms of God the giver of life. In what do you find security? Yourself? You are finite and dependant.

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).

Pablo

David,

Do you read your Bible? If so have you ever read the Book of Acts?

Pablo

Liberated...

I am rading the Jesus/Buddha Parralel sayings. Very interesting. As I said in my post I though we might be surprised at how similar some of the deeper meangins are. More similar than I would ahve thought.

I would recommend this book to anyone.

Thanks again for the link

David:
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I agree with everything you wrote.

Realist:

It is nice that you replied.

"The described caste/laborer system sure looks like it resides in Hinduism."

Caste system resides in Hinduism as much as segregation resided in Christianity 40 years ago. Ancient Hindu scriptures recommended Varna system as a system of social classification. It was very different from caste system and there was easy vertical mobility for all groups.

The caste system is not mentioned anywhere in ancient Hindu texts. There are reasons why it became like what it is today, but let us not get into that. The caste system as Hindus know it today is not more than 500 years old. I challenge you to bring out a quote from any anceint Vedic Hindu text that supports caste.

"Hinduism needs a similar return to reality."

Totally agree with you. Hinduism is not based on any text that is cast in stone. It is very adaptable to change and turns and twists with modern times.

The strides Hindus have taken in the last 150 years -- from Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Vivekananda to Gandhi to Vinoba Bhave -- to reform Hindu social practises are phenomenal.

Sati, female infanticide, untouchablility, dowry, polygamy -- all have been banned by law with stiff prison terms. And these measures never faced any resistance from the society. They were actually welcomed.

"Maybe we should have members of the lowest Indian castes make commentary here to see what their views are?"

Since you do not live in India (I do), you have no first-hand idea about reality of the caste system. To tell you the truth, Hinduism was invented by what are today considerd low caste Dalits. Our sacred scriputres from Mahabharata to Gita to Upanishads -- were all written by low castes who would be considered untouchables today. They actually hold copy right of all Hindu sacred literature. That is why you will find that dalits and backward castes are even today fundamentalist Hindus, even more funadmentalist than Brahmins. (In fact, most of Indian communists -- anti-Hindu to the core -- are Brahmins!!)

Some low caste people may hold similar views to HInduism today as black slaves would have held about christianity in 19th century. But caste system is dissappearing from urban areas of India. Intercaste and love marriages have become common. As urbanisation spreads, caste system will crumble as it is incompabtible with modern lifestyle. I do not know the castes of most of my friends or office mates and no one asks my caste either.

Hindism is quite capable of chaning with the times. We just need a few more leaders like Vivekanada who can shake off the dross that collected over Hinduism in the medieval ages because of muslim invasions. Caste system became rigid to protect Hinduism during this time and prevent the Hindus from converting to Islam.

In my view, the most fundamental problem with semitic faiths is the division of world into believers and non-believers and preaching eternal hostility or contempt of the latter. Eastern religions have no such concept and are inherently more peaceful and concerned with individual upliftment. While a Hindu is concerned with his own spiritual salvation, the followers of semitic faiths are concerned about the spiritual salvation of others. This is the main difference. Islam and Christianity keep minding other's business of spiritual salvation. All problems arise from this. They are always focussed on others, not on their own selves.

I would like to give some advice for my Christian brothers:

First how are we to bring those who do not believe, to Christ? Surely by not enforcing the fear of God and condemning them before their time of judgement has come. We have to be careful as Christians to let God do the judging. I have seen too many debates with the Christian side automatically condemning the non-christian side. How about letting people know what they can get from God instead of what God will do to them if they don't believe. Too many Christians hold their faith as a boarding pass to heaven saying "ha ha, I have one and you don't." That's not the way to go.

Non-believers. Why don't you believe in God? Instead of claiming we have no evidence of God why not ask us the evidence? And ask yourself questions that oppose your beliefs and maybe you can find truth. And how about studying (not just reading) the Bible so that you can have a better understanding of our faith?

To clarify something John Connelly said,

"The Trinity: Christians believe that God is one person and three persons. That's a contradiction."

The best way I can describe the Trinity in our mortal minded terms is this: First we have water. Water can be in gas form, liquid form and solid form (ice). But it is all still water just water for different purposes. I guess you can use that analogy to describe the Trinity. And there are NO contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretations.

Conolley:
You just wrote:
"I don't know what's going on in your head, but from my side, it looks like this: "Damn. He's got me again. I'll change the subject." "

Again, very inventive of you. Maybe you should put all of the posts on this thread. You can speak for all of us, and we'll just watch. :)

Not my thought at all. And, I am not changing the subject. It has always been sharing my faith.

So, what do you think about my comment regarding trying to share my faith out of love? Does that do nothing for you? I really mean it.

I get the feeling that you resent me or maybe even hate me. You told me I don't know when to quit, so maybe you want me to go away. Guess what? I don't feel that way about you. I love you. Go ahead and trash that now.

I found this flower http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=ED1D1446-E7F2-99DF-3CBF8B2F66C0C5D4&chanID=sa022

BENHUR,

See the major Hindu information site to see the source of my information: http://www.hinduism.co.za/founder.htm

The described caste/laborer system sure looks like it resides in Hinduism even though the site scribers try their best to say otherwise.

And please review my synopsis of all the founders of religion to include Christianity. Great strides have been taken to bring Christianity back into reality. Hinduism needs a similar return to reality. Maybe we should have members of the lowest Indian castes make commentary here to see what their views are?

John M:

You're smoke-screening and weaseling again. I've threaded all the way back to the beginning, and don't see where I called you angry and upset. At one point I said you were pretending to be upset, and that was an exaggeration to set up sarcasm.

As for trying to start a fight, I give you this:

"I don't see Pablo judging anyone.... Keep it up, Pablo!"

Now, having made all this smoke, you undertake to make personal statements about me:

"There must be some part of you that senses that the rest of you is out of touch with your Creator, and you are fighting it."

This is as offensive to me as anything I've said about you. Also utterly untrue. Never, ever, have I had a feeling that there's a creator. I am utterly at home in the world, and love it very much.

And what do you call this:

"I know; I used to live there."

I call it projection.

And what about the subjects that were being discussed? Contradictions? Judging? I don't know what's going on in your head, but from my side, it looks like this: "Damn. He's got me again. I'll change the subject."

Norrie Hoyt:

"Isn't this just the same as an electron's being both fully a wave and fully a particle?"

I'm not up on particle physics, but the last I heard, granted, a long time ago, was that sub-atomic particles had wavelike characterisics and particle-like characteristics.

In any case, waves and particles are macro phenomena. At the quantum level, these words are more poetry than prose. We're discussing phenomena that can in no way be directly observed.

On top of that, scientists tend to be concrete bound. When you tell a budding nuclear physicist that the vibration of a particle resembles the vibration of a string, he immediately concludes that the particle is a string. He goes of and devises wild-eyed theories that claim eleven dimensions, some of them rolled up. (This completely violates the concept of a dimension. A dimension is a way of measuring things. It's an abstraction. Abstractions can't be rolled up.)

Be careful never to take anything said about particle physics literally. In the words of Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes), "That's the problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."

Conolley:
I don't see how you can make personal statements about the people on this thread without ever meeting us. You said recently that I was angry and upset. I am neither. I choose to be here.

Now, you say that I am trying to start a fight between two people so I can watch. Not true. You do not know me.

Your impatience with, and hostility toward, Christians is proof of what Pablo is writing. There must be some part of you that senses that the rest of you is out of touch with your Creator, and you are fighting it. I know; I used to live there. I have been both places, and I truly wish you would choose to have what I now have (by absolutely no effort of my own).

Here I stand, while you continue to throw false accusations at me, hoping and praying that you would come to know God. You can call it whatever you want (I'm sure you will), but I call it Love. My intentions are good. I am not here to argue; I am only here to share His love. (Sometimes I am better at it than others, but I am just human.)

John M:

You don't know when to quit, do you?

"I don't see Pablo judging anyone.... Keep it up, Pablo!"

Do you think we can't see through that?

And what do you call this:

"[Y]ou are simply a non-believer and will die in your sins and pay the just penalty for your sins. All your intellectual arrogance will not save you in that day. You will be humbled and judged."

"When you stand before God you will not be able to say you are innocent...."

I call it judging.

As for you, I call it, "Let's you and him fight." Speak for yourself, buddy.

"So, when we say that non-believers are condemned,... We are not judging."

And this is a man who claims to have a problem believing contradictions. Hey! It's judging! Hello?!

Russell D:

I don't see Pablo judging anyone; he is just quoting the Bible. And, that is the best 'solid argument' he could make. But, most non-believers would never accept any Bible verse or excerpt as a solid argument for anything, which gets back to Pablo's quote about the truth looking foolish to those who are perishing.

What some people don't realize is that every believer in Christ came to a point in their lives when we realized that we were helpless sinners on our way to eternal separation from God, whom we had denied and ignored our whole lives. So, when we say that non-believers are condemned, we are actually IDENTIFYING with them, and hoping, with all that we are, that they would also come to know the Lord and experience the indescribable peace that we now have. We are not judging. And, we do not think we are better than anyone else.

Keep it up, Pablo!

Pablo:

Hello again Pablo. I was wondering when you would show up. I have seen your posts and have thought about what you have been saying in them.

It's amazing how you can say so much yet still make no solid argument for anything. You are recycling the same thing over and over again, yet getting no use out of it. Why do you even bother? Are you so insecure in yourself and your faith that you need to condemn everyone else in order to make yourself feel better? I wonder why that is. I guess we'll never know because you refuse to allow a shred of reason into your thought process.

If I were a betting man, I'd be safe to assume that you were a more likely candidate to go to hell than anyone of us.

John Conolley,

I do not judge you the Word of God judges you and your conscience if it is not completely calloused by sin tells you that you have sinned. When you stand before God you will not be able to say you are innocent and that you did not know. Your conscience will be a judge against you. The God of the Bible is clearly seen in all that He has made that includes you. You will be without excuse. The word of God says that unless you repent you will face God's wrath. Because you have broken God's law and have rejected the only payment for your sins you will get what you deserve. God's justice, God's divine wrath. I pray that you will see the truth and believe on God's Son and be saved. My hope for you is that you will turn to God and be saved.

God's Wrath on Unrighteousness Romans 1:18-23

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Pablo

John Conolley,

Reverting to your discussion of last evening over whether Jesus could be both fully human and fully divine:

Isn't this just the same as an electron's being both fully a wave and fully a particle?

If this is good enough for the natural world, why not for the supernatural world?

As you know, I'm not a Christian. I have no koala bear in this fight. Just weighing in on a discussion point.

Regards.

Tin ear.

John Conolley and Pablo sound the same to me.

Sorry. Made a typo. The last line should be read as:

"When we discuss the merits of Hinduism, leave out the caste system, like when we leave out slavery of the blacks while discussing the merits of Christianity."

It is quite self serving to omit social classification (slavery of blacks or racialism) from one's own religion (Christianity) while tagging it (caste) with another religion (Hinduism) to prove its inferiority.

As social classification, Hindu scriptures do no mention caste anywhere but the Varna system (which is a different animal altoghether with total vertical mobility of classes).

How Varna system degenerated into various rigid castes is a different story. (It all started with the time when Muslims invaded India.)

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

You say:

"Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God."

Why? Why should it be founded by God. I am a Hindu myself. Nowhere has anyone claimed that Hinduism comes from God Himself. This talk of "our religion is direct from God through a messenger" is a characterisitic of Semitic faiths only. No Eastern faith claims this.

Hinduism is a collection of spiritual insights about the nature of the ultimate reality compiled by ancient sages. That is all.

Most of its scriputres -- Upanishads, Vedas, Gita -- are anonymous. No one has a clue who wrote them. Individuals waived off their identity and instead concentrated on transmission of spiritual insights that arose from their deep yogic meditation.

"The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

Caste system is a traditional "social" system, not a religious system. You are binding the mundane with the sacred.

By that logic, no fair and rational God could have founded Christianity because of slavery or segregation of the Blacks. Even today social discrimination in the form of racialism is rampant in the land of White christians.

Caste system is a way of social classification (which has now got perveted and became full of discrimination), like racialism or segregation.

How does that reflect on Hindu spirituality? Take away caste system today and Hinduism is not harmed in any way.

One has to differentiate between religious system (ways to attain salvation or enlightenment) and social system (caste / racialism / segregatio / ethnic hatred).

Incidentally, cows are not "worshipped" by the Hindus. They are only revered and not killed because of their contribution to the prosperity of rural households. All this "cow worship" thingy is missionary propaganda.

This kind of logic can be twisted any way. We can say Christianity is a death cult that worships a dead body and symbolically drinks its blood in ritual ceremonies. And there is no way a dead body with his face twisted with the agony of torture should be shown to children with impressionable minds.

When we discuss the merits of Hinduism, leave out the caste system, like when we leave out the slavery of the black while discussing its merits.

Hi, Anon – (are you the “Deb” Anon?)

Regarding miracles, as far as I know, they are things that happen supernaturally, (for instance, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven), right? That would not include things that did not happen at all (for instance, slavery in Egypt, wandering in the desert, a tribe returning to a place it never left). So, even your “miracles- are -possible” stance doesn’t account for the utter lack of archeological evidence for the Exodus.

Regarding the Pharaohs, think about it -- if they were so thorough about striking things from the record, how do you now know about any of the things they so thoroughly removed?

I’m sorry, Anon, I really am, I that you and so many others have been deceived and misled about these stories. It is a travesty that clergy, the people we trust the most, have treated us this way. It makes me sick.

Still, I doubt that most clergy have a negative intent – but it sure has a negative outcome. I wish they would search their souls and find a way to stop it.

Hi, Deb!
Thank you for your posts. They have been very informative. I don't know that I have seen any other Jewish Christians on this forum, so welcome!

(I spent this morning at a Messianic synagogue. The congragation seems on fire, and the Rabbi's message was so encouraging.)

Again, thanks for your comments on this thread.

Pablo:

"If you reject this you are simply a non-believer and will die in your sins and pay the just penalty for your sins. All your intellectual arrogance will not save you in that day."

Oh, Pablo. I was going to let you slide, until you started in with the threats.

A: Yes, I'm a non-believer.

B: I will certainly die.

C: You think I'm a sinner? You think you know what the just penalty for my sins is? Talk about arrogance.

D: Your threats don't scare me. I'm a non-believer, remember? But then, the point isn't to scare me, is it? The point is to make yourself feel better. That is incredibly weak, man.

"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?"

And where is Christianity? It's already just about gone in Europe, and it's fighting a rearguard action in the U.S. And who killed it? I believe it was the wise, the scribes, and the debaters.

As for you, you look fair to live and die in narrow-minded rigidity, and to get the just punishment for it here on Earth. Good luck.

John M:

"P.S.- I used to be like you (scary!)"

And to think I could be like you, getting my beliefs from books scraped together by military dictators (New Testament: Constantine, Council of Nicea; Old Testament: the Hasmonean Dynasty, after the Maccabean Revolt) to prop up their murderous regimes.

I could be like you, believing any number of contradictions, then pretending someone is asking me to believe a contradiction and I'm so, so upset.

I could be like you, throwing up a smoke screen and weaseling in all directions when someone calls me out.

Talk about scary.

P.S. You don't know what mean is.

John M.,

Oh, and by the way, the post to you about not being a rational logical thinker was NOT from me. :)

Now I know why you want me to use my name. :)

John M.,

My step out of Anonymity! Actually, my problem is that I can never seem to remember to use the "Name" field, so remaining anonymous was a default pleasure. I must admit there is a bit of "safety" in anonymity, even if no one here really knows me.

I will try to remember to use my name from now on (I didn't want to think up some witty name instead). Thanks for being even slightly interested in my postings here; I always hope that what I have to say makes a difference to someone somewhere.

To "Anonymous" the Jewish Christian:
I have enjoyed your posts, but I would like to suggest that you find a name for yourself, because some other people also post anonymously, and it is not always clear which posts are yours.
Thanks again for your uniquely Jewish comments about our faith.

E Favorite,

I know what I have to say here will just be more "stuff THEY say to cover things up" to you, but I'm going to say it anyway.

The fact that you don't want to believe in miracles doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Just because there is no evidence of things like the sea parting or other miracles doesn't mean they didn't happen. They were miracles. There doesn't have to be evidence; it was a miracle that things returned to their "normal" state afterward. This argument holds no merit for those who believe in the miracles of God.

The other point I want to make is that the ancient Pharoahs were very vain, and when anything happened that they did not agree with, or that put them in a bad light, or that they just didn't like, they had them stricken from history. They were usually very thorough. There are many things in ancient Egyptian history that we have not been able to find out about, simply because of how thoroughly information, artifacts, etc. were removed. The Pharoahs felt that this erasure made it as if the people never existed or events never occured; and it seems to have work

ha ha
that's cute.
actually, I think more clearly now than ever.

John M;
You used to be a rational, logical thinking person? I doubt it :-)

Anon – thanks for the Rabbi Dennis piece on Jewish Myth. This is a good example of how people become misinformed and confused and how clergy perpetuate it.

My friend is very sophisticated and understands very well what a myth is. She knows there are different types of truth and that myth is a type of universal truth that has broad application in life, without being factual. She knows that another kind of truth, the kind for which we most commonly associate with the word “truth” is something that is a fact – it happened. There is historical evidence for it. It can be proven.

The problem with the Exodus story (and other Bible stories) is that it is not presented as a “myth” truth – it’s presented as a “fact” truth: The Jews were captive in Egypt (no evidence for this, though there is a lot of evidence of other peoples being there). They fled and somehow the sea parted, allowing them to escape the oncoming Egyptian army (no evidence of natural cause for the sea parting and no evidence of hundreds of dead Egyptian soldiers). The Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years (no evidence and scholars have been looking hard for a long time), until finally they entered the promised land (actually it looks like the Jews have been there all along – no difference between the Jews and the Canaanites who were there when the Jews supposedly came in).

Rabbi Dennis perpetuates the confusion and deception when he says, “Myth is not ‘something that never happened’; a good myth is about something that happens all the time.” Dennis and other clergy know that different people hear that differently. A dedicated believer in an Abrahamic faith could hear, “The Rabbi said it happened – it’s true.” This is what they want and expect to hear. Anything else would be quite shocking. If, in fac,t a person hearing that has doubts about the Rabbi’s meaning, they may hesitate to ask because 1) they don’t have the nerve to question clergy, 2) it seems disrespectful 3) They don’t want to know the answer if it’s, “Sorry – no Exodus – it’s just a nice myth.” That would be hard to absorb. They block it out.

So he offers the religious version of “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus,” with the cover of his expertise and reputation for integrity, just as the New York Times did when it cleverly answered a little girl’s question about the existence of Santa Claus while avoiding both disappointing her and telling her the cold facts.

Of course, little Virginia learned soon enough that Santa was just a story. Rabbi Dennis’ flock – and countless completely grown-up and otherwise mature adults are not so lucky. When it comes to religion, they are stuck in the second grade. They can find out the facts on their own, if they’re determined, but if they simply ask a trusted authority, chances are they’ll get a story instead, a “good myth” – presented just cleverly enough that they’ll think it’s a fact. And the deception goes on.

"In the Old Testament account of the Creation, the spirit of God hovers like a bird above the primeval sea, wafting with its wing-beat the breath of God into the slime from which the world was made (Genesis 1:2). So Pliny speaks of 'that famous breath (spiritus) that generates the universe by fluctuating to and fro as in a kind of womb.' It is much the same IMAGERY that portrays the Holy Spirit fluttering down on the head of Jesus at his baptism (Matthew 3:16), making him, too, a 'Bar-jona', 'Son of a Dove'."
- John M. Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross

"And a voice came from heaven: 'You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.'"
- Mark 1:11; (Matthew 3:17; Luke 3:22)

"Most scholars agree that the Aramaic or Hebrew word behind 'son' is servant'....So although Mark 1:11 and 9:7 affirm that Jesus is called by God to a special messianic task, the emphasis is on Jesus' role as the anointed servant, rather than as Son of God. In any case, the words are those of the voice from heaven, and are not a direct reflection of the self-understanding of Jesus."
- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 225

More prophecy turned into history rather than history remembered?? i.e.

"The heavens shall be opened And from the temple of glory shall come upon him sanctification
With the Father's voice...
And the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him."
- Levi 18:6 (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs)

"And the heavens shall be opened to him
To pour out the spirit, the blessing of the Holy Father."
Judah 24:3 (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs)

We are beasts and not gods. This will bury us one day.

We cannot save the world, you can only save yourself.

John Conolley,

God is three distinct persons yet one God period. Jesus is God who put on human flesh to pay the debt of death on behalf of man and to rise from the dead to defeat the penalty of death for humankind. If you reject this you are simply a non-believer and will die in your sins and pay the just penalty for your sins. All your intellectual arrogance will not save you in that day. You will be humbled and judged.

"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Corinthians 1:20-25).

Pablo

Conolley:
P.S.- I used to be like you (scary!)

Conolley:
You're getting a little mean. Mommy and Daddy did not teach me anything. I had a mid-life conversion experience, and I get my beliefs from the Bible.

Pablo:

"All other religions and their practices are feeble attempts to justify oneself by mysticism and self righteousness. Jesus ... is all one needs."

This is invincible ignorance. You obviously have no idea what other religions offer, and if Jesus were "all one needs," Christian churches wouldn't be losing their congregations in droves.

The main thing that the mystical religions have to offer is spirituality, which is something that mainstream Christianity discarded long ago. (What is spirituality? We can discuss that if you want. I'll go with Feuerbach's definition.)

Another thing you can find in other religions is new ideas, growth, awakening from the sleep of frozen, petrified, immutable religion that was cooked up to support the policies of a declining Roman Empire. I suggest it's time to give up rigidity, give up deceased politics, give up totalitarianism, and look around for some creativity and enlightment.

Try it, Bubeleh. You might like it.

Sorry about the hanging "Point A" above. I had a point B, but I deleted it.

John M:

You said, and I quote, "His body was human and His soul is divine."

Excuse me for thinking you meant what you said.

Now you say, "Jesus was fully human and fully divine." Point A: This is a contradiction. In the words of Aristotle, "Nothing can be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect." Human is not divine. Divine is not human. Ergo, a contradiction.

The doctrine of Perpetual Virginity is accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches. This is by far the bulk of Christianity, and nothing is believed by all Christians. I go with the majority.

As for the miraculous virgin birth, I know you Christians are used to believing nine impossible things before breakfast, but I'm not. It's impossible, and in standard English usage, a contradiction.

The Trinity: Christians believe that God is one person and three persons. That's a contradiction.

Your problem isn't that you can't believe in contradictions. Your problem is that you only believe in the contradictions that mommy and daddy told you were all right.

Anon: I don't think it says "person" in the bible either. It definately doesn't say "entities", that's why I felt it necessary to clarify.

Thanks for keeping it real.

Terra,

My responses to you come from a person born and raised Jewish - me. In all the years that I spent learning the ways of my people, with my large family, in Temples, in Hebrew schools, at studies with Rabbis, and now in the Christian community as I have accepted the belief of Jesus as the Messiah, I have never been presented with the Shekinah as being the feminine side of God. Not once. Qualities like liveliness, joy, splendor, elation, etc, were thought to be more "feminine", and so the word to describe the glory of God that instilled these feelings in a person was given a name which ended in "ah".

I would never be so short-sighted as to use only one source for any of my information, as you seem to be accusing me of. If I have to agree with you to show tolerance, then our idea of tolerance is different. As for understanding, I think I've given pretty thorough explanations with my postings. I could have gotten "pissed off" by your attacking anti-Christian posts to me earlier, but I chose to ignore those rants for a little while. So you really shouldn't throw stones.

As for this series of posts, I am reminded that years ago they used to say about the newspapers "don't believe everything you read." I think the same should be said for the internet...

All other religions and their practices are feeble attempts to justify oneself by mysticism and self righteousness. Jesus is the only way to have true life and He is all one needs. To believe there are other ways to know God other than through Jesus is to reject Him by trivializing what He has done for us. He is all-sufficient.

The Preeminence of Christ

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Pablo

Well said Cal!

Pablo

John Conolley:
You misunderstood me. You really misunderstood me. I am not a heretic. Jesus was born of a virgin, fully man and fully God. God is Father, Son & Spirit, and He is one.

I am sorry if I was not clear. The points I made were specifically intended to counter your comments regarding Christian inconsistencies. Let me try again.

First, a baby from a virgin: I don’t have a problem with the virgin birth. It was a miracle. You are wrong in asserting that all Christians believe that Mary remained a virgin. That is strictly Catholic, and it is not supported by Scripture.

Next, the God-man: I was not saying that Jesus’ humanity is limited to His body, or that His divinity is limited to His soul. I was trying to say that His human body proves He was fully human. (He died, didn’t He?) And, the resurrection is proof that He is fully divine. (He didn’t stay dead.) Jesus was fully human and fully divine. That is not a contradiction.

Lastly, the Trinity: There are NOT three gods. God is Father. God is Son. God is Spirit. But, God is one. I showed that Jesus said He and the Father are one. I noted that the Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ. I mentioned that Father, Son & Spirit created the universe. God is one.

I think we get into trouble when we try to stick God in a box. We do that when we demand that He fits our descriptions of Him.

This is really the best I can do. God is God, and we cannot define Him completely in our terms or understand Him fully with our minds. And, we shouldn’t try to. (That is not a convenient cop-out. It is the truth, since God is so much bigger than us.)

Anon...
Ok I will try to make myself understood in your terms...because I truly believe that quite often there are disagreements because we do not share the same definitions.

Ok - you are Christian...you are used to a male god only mind set.. Many folks that are not Pagan think that we see Goddess and God as Ladies and Gents in togas. You know nothing of our mind set or how we see things...and I have been replying to you in my terms without letting you know what those terms mean.

I have been online researching Shekinah. I have read what orthodox Rabbis have said about Shekinah. I resent your "well you are not jewish so you do not know." Like you are jewish???or is it that I am Pagan so i must be dumb as dirt?

In the Torah...Shekinah is the Feminine part of God. I named that part of God as Goddess...because to me that part is. Most Pagans see God as the All...That all is a living energy.That All is male/female energies, not genders...which it seems is how the ancient jews thought.They simplified by calling that Feminine energy as Her.

The Torah calls Shekinah the Feminine part of God. To me She is the Goddess. She is the Feminine energy as the other half of the Male energy. That is where my religion takes me. The balance of the Universe, of life; male/female, active/passive, god/goddess.

----

Q. Why is the Hebrew word for the divine presence - Shechina - feminine?

Dear Rabbi Erkin,
Why is the word for the divine presence which ascended upon Mt. Sinai, the Shekinah, a feminine and not a masculine word in Hebrew? As I read Jewish writings I understand that the Mt. Sinai encounter, under the leadership of Moses, is considered as a betrothal. Thank you for your invitation to ask questions.
Brian
A. Dear Brian,

You are correct - one of the many interpretations of the Divine Revelation at Mount Sinai - and the accompanying descent of God's presence, the Shechina - was a form of betrothal.

God, being infinite, is comprised of all valued and attributes that are to be found in this world - including both the male and female characteristics.

It was at the Revelation that the Jewish people were formally solidified as a nation bound to the laws of the Torah.

I know this is but a super brief analysis, but questions of a Kabalistic nature are subject to pages and pages of answers!

Rabbi Ari Enkin
Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel

http://judaism.about.com/od/orthodoxfaqenkin/f/shekinah.htm

Among the Hebrews one of the traditional names of God is the Shekinah, and, interestingly, it is a feminine gender noun. Many Hebrews saw her as the mother or feminine aspect of God. The early scribes (later called rabbis) added Shekinah in biblical verses where the verb shakhan is used in relation to God. Shakhan literally means "to dwell" or "to live with", or even "to pitch one's tent." The Shekinah means the God-Who-Dwells-Within, and developed primarily after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon in 587 BCE, especially as it proffered hope to a people lost in bitter exile. To console an Israel in Diaspora, the comforting, forgiving and loyal presence of the Shekinah emerged. In the Talmud it says: "They were exiled to Babylon, the Shekinah with them. They were exiled to Egypt, the Shekinah with them." And, it says in Lamentations 1, 5, "Her children are gone into captivity," and immediately after (1,6), "From Zion her splendour is departed." (Note the use of "her" for God and "splendour" is also one of the ways to describe the Shekinah). Other terms referring to the Shekinah are "the glory" and "radiance", and she was the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night that led the Israelites through the Sinai wilderness. She is also closely related to the Sophia tradition in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Proverbs and other books. Sophia (a Greek feminine noun) is the Wisdom aspect of God. As a Wisdom Teacher Jesus was very closely related to the Sophia Tradition.

http://shekinah.elysiumgates.com/

Now there is much I do not know...and it is true I certainly am not jewish, but when I have spent time online going to, who I thought were knowledgable about the subject...do not belittle me simply because you disagree with my findings.

Just because you can not find the info in the Christian bible or the King James version, certainly does not mean it is not true.

I will not reply to you on this again..it is not bringing tolerance or understanding, and its just pissing me off.

E Favorite,

You might also want to offer this write-up to your friend:

Myth is not “something that never happened”; a good myth is about something that happens all the time. Like Ginsburg, I think myths are fundamental to human thinking (and therefore both important and useful). They tell us great human and cosmic Truths couched in the form of stories. One of the supreme examples of this that was mentioned earlier is the story of the Exodus. On one level, the Exodus is a story about a specific event that happened to a specific people (us, the Jews) in a specific place (Egypt), though it happened long, long ago in a civilization far, far away (another quality of most myths). But the story is really about the eternal human experience of exile and homecoming, of being trapped and being liberated by the power of spirit. That’s why people love the Exodus story so much – not just Jews, but Christians, and Muslims, people in America, Africa, and Asia, have all embraced the Exodus, often using it as a paradigm for their own struggles, personal and collective. In a different context Gershom Scholem writes that the Exodus mythically becomes “an event which takes places in ourselves” and “…acquire[s] the dignity of immediate religious experience.”

There are, of course, problems associated with myths. Like all impulses human, myths must be viewed carefully, even critically. Jews especially have been the victims of bizarre and hateful myths, as have minorities and aboriginal peoples all over the world. Mythic language also has to be used with care. Take for example the rhetoric of the Vietnam war. Many times we have heard it said that veterans were “spit on” upon returning from Vietnam. It has become a pervasive part of our mythic understanding of that war, the 60’s, and what it means to be a civil society. Jerry Lembecke, a professor of sociology and a Vietnam combat veteran, has written a book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam that explores the reports of protesters "spitting upon" Vietnam vets. He finds that the stories have little basis in fact. The fact is that few (if any) veterans were ever physically spit upon by their countrymen, but that many felt as if they had been. Yet because of the way this myth is told, I am sure that are people who imagine there were once ranks of hippies hanging around army depots waiting to spit on discharged soldiers. The overly - literal application of this myth is not helpful to us today.

But if we use our myths with care, applying them in order to help ourselves make sense of our world (but not to explain away or devalue others), our myths speak Truth (with a big “T”) in the way few other things can: they bless us with meaning, consolation, even healing.

Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis (Texas) has studied in Jerusalem, earned a master's degree in Hebrew Letters, and was ordained at Hebrew Union College. He currently teaches Jewish studies courses at the University of North Texas and is the rabbi of Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound, Texas. His articles can be found in Parabola, CCAR Journal, and other publications.

Thanks, Concerned, for continuing to post the info about the OT to new readers. Hopefully some people are reading it and being enlightened. Here’s some good news – I’ve been informing my friends and definitely got through to one of them. She is Jewish and even though she doesn’t believe in God, she observes the high holy days and is raising her child to have a Jewish identity. She thought I was crazy when I told her (and gave her the articles and the reference in Etz Hayim (‘Tree of Life’) found in Conservative Jewish Temples about there being no archeological basis for the Exodus, etc. She knows I’m not one to pass on hearsay, but she couldn’t fathom that stories she heard her whole life would not be true.

But then she asked a good friend of hers who was finishing Episcopal seminary, who responded blithely that the Bible was filled with wonderful “mythologies” and was a great “marketing tool” for religion. Then my friend made it clear to the seminarian that it was not a good thing to continue such a deception - she been misled her whole life (in part by family who were themselves misled) and did not intend to mislead her son.

Her impression was that the seminarian didn’t really relate to the problem my friend presented and I wonder (and suspect, really) if that’s generally the case in seminary. If something happens there that causes these budding ministers to see things differently than the general public and to justify not only keeping this vital information from their flocks, but actually disceiving and misleading them.

Ghostbuster,

Ok, you really had me confused there for a minute! I'm not even going to tell you what I thought you were saying! I have to say though, that I don't recall seeing the Holy Spirit being referred to as a "person" in the Bible. I know PEOPLE usually say "the 3 persons", which I think is weird, but I don't think the Bible says it anywhere. I am very content with the Holy Spirit being spiritual in nature, hence His name.

"as soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Matthew 3:16-17

Aside - Usually the trinity is described as three "persons", not "entities".

Ghostbuster,

I noticed something in one of your posts that confused me. You wrote "why at the baptism of Jesus are three distinct “entities” present?" That is something I don't recall. Can you tell me where that is referenced?

Anon,

Thanks for the history lesson that I was finally able to read! And that heated discussion regarding goddesses is rather fascinating...I've always found Christianity a little too patriarical.

Another view of Abraham et al:

From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "

And let us not forget the "necessary accessories" for the foundations of Christianity:

i.e. the whims of Pilate, the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, Paul's false prophesy of the imminent second coming, Gentile money and the sword of Constantine. Take away any of these foundations/"necessary accessories" and there would be no Christianity as we know it today.

references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years

Terra wrote:
"those who called themselves Hebrew came most likely from Persia."

Most of my studies have shown Abraham's lineage to have come from Mesopotamia, which covered parts of today's Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. What's important about this area at that time is that it's religion was very polytheistic, so it was quite a big thing for Abraham to publicly declare belief in one God (which would probably also explain why God had him get outta town!)

I apologize for being harsh earlier; my migraine is gone now...

Ghostbuster.

Correct since we are defintely not all going to agree! The beliefs are too diverse on a large subject area for that to happen.

Thanks Rob. I always enjoy reading your comments too.

I am more hinting at "how" one makes a point than the validity of the point one is trying to make. You know?

I don't get it. I see you guys bustin on people all the time for saying things are fact without having any proof to back it up. All the time. Then I see this Terra Gazelle, going on about some Hebrew Goddesses, and Anonymous callin her on it. And Anonymous showed where Terra's claims had no proof to back them up. And now you're all rippin on Anonymous? Is there some kind of double-standard here that I don't know about? Terra sounded pretty rude to Anonymous, but no one seemed too busted up about it. Looks a little fishy to me...

Nice post Ghostbuster...

I think you are right in that the idea is not to prove who has the best religion. I don't know that there is such a thing.

If we are not learning or gaining understanding then I think we are missing the point.

Terra,
You seem to be the person of day on this thread. Though I have a different definition of grace, I can see where you are coming from.

"...you assume that we do not even have an acquaintance with any of the finer points that Christians have taken ownership of. Love, Charity, personal sacrifice, balance, harmony, connection with God..."

I think you are right, I think many christians often claim sole ownership of the moral traits you mentioned just as many others seem to claim ownership of points such as tolerance, reason or intelligence. In reality, I think these are human traits ALL of us possess to one degree or another no matter our belief system. There are moral christians and moral atheists. There are unreasonable muslims and unreasonable pagans. But, in an argumentative culture such as the one we live in, many feel they must use their moral, intellectual, spiritual (whatever) high ground in order to “beat” the other side. If your point is moral, the other’s position, or the other person in many cases, must be immoral. If the point one person is making is the reasonable, then you opponents point is not reasonable. Would you agree?

I don’t know about you the rest of you, but I still haven’t won a trophy or convinced anyone about anything by speaking down to someone from a moral or intellectual perch, calling names, demeaning belief systems, or setting up a straw man. It just makes someone defensive. If one addresses people with respect, one is much more likely to open someone else's mind or even (here is the scary part) learn something yourself! Of course, in course of debate, some people will claim one is self-righteous, ignorant or worse by just stating a fact or an opinion disagreeing with another’s said position. In those cases, which are all too common especially in a place like this, I think its best to remember:

“We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us.”
-Francois de La Rochefoucauld

John M: A couple questions for you, (assuming that you believe this story is true) if the body of Jesus was human and his soul divine, how could he, as a physical man, walk on the water? Also, why at the baptism of Jesus are three distinct “entities” present? Just some food for thought.

Because I'm not talking strictly about a belief. I'm talking about interpretation. Terra is looking at the exact same interpretation of Proverbs as I am, as proven by her posting of verses, and there is no mention of goddesses. Similarly, there is not mention of a "Divine Mother" named Chochmah in any interpretation that you will find. There is simply use of the word chochmah, which means wisdom. The fact that chochmah has a "feminine" ending means nothing, just that it has a certain ending on it. We don't have our entire language built on masculine and feminine words in the Englinsh language, but other languages do. It doesn't mean that they refer to deities; maybe that's what people don't understand.

Anon,

I just don't understand how you, a rational person, can seriously claim a person is wrong on the basis that the person is stating something you don't believe or you disagree with.

And there is no "obvious" when it comes to religion.

I would have to say that when you directly quote something, and say it refers to something that is very obviously not there, then you are wrong.

Anon,

How do you know she's wrong? There is no wrong or right here, because, as someone put it (and I am paraphrasing here) "we won't know the truth until we're dead, and by then it will be too late." What she says is as true to her as what you say is to you.

On the crying foul bit, perhaps I have you confused with another Anonymous...

Technicolordreamboat,

First of all, I don't ever "cry foul" like others on here. I try to discuss things rationally, the way we're supposed to. Secondly, if you'll see, I have tried any number of ways to explain the background of some of these things to Terra. It is not my fault that she has been given incorrect information. It is also not my place to sit back and have her dispense this incorrect information as fact to all who will listen, without correcting it. That would make me just as wrong as she is. Why am I wrong for telling her she's wrong, and explaining why?

Anon,

Way to attack Terra and everything she believes in...and then claim foul when anyone does the same to you.

Terra,

Truly, you are embarrassing yourself by constantly referring to female Jewish goddesses that didn't exist. Where in the world do the verses in Proverbs that you posted reference goddesses? Proverbs does not introduce us to any "Divine Mother" named Chochmah. Chochmah is a word that means wisdom. That's all. People have spun tales around these things to make them into stories of goddesses and mysticism. Proverbs speaks of wisdom and kindness and strength and love and knowledge and faithfulness and many other things, not Goddesses who represent these things. How in the world does this become so twisted?

Confused.

You do raise a good point. What is sufficient?

In response to my comment “if the bible is sufficient then why haven’t we achieved world peace?” you commented no qualification for sufficiency was given so then my comment did not make sense. I get that.

My assumption was as humans become more enlightened or closer to God, what ever term you would like to use, an end result one may expect to see is world peace; or some semblance of. Is that at least a reasonable idea for one form of measurement on whether any religion is sufficient?

So while world peace may or may not be the goal of a given religion can one expect that as a result of spiritual evolution?

Christians (31%) and Muslims (19%) make up roughly 50% of the population in the world. 9 of the top 10 religions in the world make up approximately 82.5% of the population. The secular/nonreligious./agnostic/atheist group makes up 16% and comes in at #3.

That’s a lot of people theoretically engaged in getting closer to God. One would think that given the high percentage of the population working on this we would see some progress. I’m not really seeing it. That was my point.

If someone has a better idea on how we should judge sufficient I am all ears!

John M,

"She was not a virgin AFTER the baby was born, since he exited through the birth canal"

Do you know what virginity is?

Anon,
words ending in el had to do with light....so though ah was a female ending for Shekinah they changed it? and who said Shekinah was God's wife? Do you think all Goddesses have to be some more powerful beings wife and not a deity on Her own? She was a consort, a partner, She did not take a second place. When you call your male god you are going to get His other half...

"She so pervades this lower world ...
that if you search in deed, thought and speculation,
You will find Shechinah
for there is no beginning and no end to her."
Rabbi Joseph 13 th-century.

"Whoever is humble will ultimately cause the Shekihnah to dwell upon this Earth.
Whoever is haughty brings about the defilement of the Earth and the departure of the Shekihnah.
The glow of lovers is a reflection of her presence
She is the flaming jewel of the Torah and the Holy Queen of the Kabbalah
She is the ancient one, the Holy Apple Orchard
She is the immanent indwelling presence of the living God
She is the animating life force of the Earth"

The Shekhinah is defined, in traditional Jewish writings, as the "female aspect of God" or the "presence" of the infinite God in the world. She is introduced in the early rabbinical commentaries as the "immanence" or "indwelling" of the living God, whose role as the animating life force of the earth is to balance the transcendent deity.

She may be distinguished from the 'Canaanite' Mother Goddess Asherah who the ancient Hebrews honored until about 622 B.C.E. when King Josiah removed the Asherah from the Jerusalem temple and destroyed the outlying shrines. While she does not appear by name in the five books of Moses, the explicators of the Old Testament refer to her in interpreting the text. For example, when Moses encounters the buming bush, he is told to remove his shoes and prepare himself to receive the Shekhinah. According to the rabbis, the choice of the simple thom bush as the vehicle for the revelation was to emphasize the Shekhinah's presence, since nothing in nature can exist without her. In Proverbs, we are introduced to the Divine Mother as Chochmah (Wisdom), who was present from the time of creation as the loving consort and coarchitect with the YHVH, who also reflects the association of the Shekinah with humanity.

http://www.dhushara.com/book/torah/tor.htm

"And, "Wisdom" in the book of Proverbs is personified as a woman; "she" is not a goddess. Take a look at these two verses in Chapter 2:
10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.
11 Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you.
So, if Wisdom is a goddess, are Knowledge, Discretion and Understanding also goddesses?"

If Wisdom was a Goddess? call her Sophia, in Greece that was Her name.But there are Goddesses from every culture, they had different names, but their aspects were the same.

There are Goddesses that carry all attributes.

John, Folly is a male attribute..you who do not accept the Feminine Divine.

Earlier I saw the question "If the Bible were sufficient then why haven’t we achieved world peace?" Well considering that no qualification was given for sufficiency, I believe, from this same logic, we could also say "If the Bible were sufficient then why isn't cottage cheese red?" I am not an expert, but I have not seen the claim of world peace in the Bible.

John M:

My mistake. I assumed that as a Christian, you believed Christian kerygma.

Christian belief is specifically this: Mary continued a virgin even after she had the child. In any case, after isn't the question. If she had a child, she was a non-virgin for at least nine months beforehand. Hence, the contradiction.

It is specific Christian belief that God is both one person and three persons. I quote from the Athanasian Creed:

"[W]e worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the Glory equal the Majesty coeternal.... [T]he Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties: but one Almighty." Etc., etc., for a long page of fine print.

If you don't believe this, you are not a standard-issue Christian. You're a Unitarian.

It is not Christian belief that Christ had a human body and a divine soul. It is specific Christian belief that Christ was WHOLLY human and WHOLLY divine. If you don't believe this, you're either a Docetist or an Adoptionist.

These contradictions are so well known that I'm surprised a Christian would argue that they don't exist.

I agree with "Anonymous". Shekinah is God's glory, NOT His wife. The prevailing Hebrew (false) goddess was Asherah, and God says many times He despises her (as He despises the idea of any false god).

And, "Wisdom" in the book of Proverbs is personified as a woman; "she" is not a goddess. Take a look at these two verses in Chapter 2:
10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.
11 Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you.
So, if Wisdom is a goddess, are Knowledge, Discretion and Understanding also goddesses?

They are mentioned again in the next chapter:
19 By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations,
by understanding he set the heavens in place;
20 by his knowledge the deeps were divided,
and the clouds let drop the dew.
These are characteristics attributed to God; they are NOT goddesses.

In chapter 8, we meet "Folly", also personified as a woman. Is she an evil goddess? :)

This is a really good example of how NOT to read the Bible, and how we have to investigate claims ourselves (a good message for CCNL).

Terra,

Shekinah is NOT the feminine part of God, in the Jewish belief. I would not expect you to know that, since you are not Jewish, and you obviously got your information from an incorrect source. Shekinah refers to the "shining glory" of God. There are many other ways to describe this, but that is the simplest definition that is the easiest to comprehend. Being brought up in the Jewish faith, I can be 100% confident in this definition. People have tried over the years to give this word's definition a slant, simply because it ends with and "ah", which is typically feminine. However, the word deals with light and glory, and that defines its ending.

John Conolley:

I'm sorry. I did not "completely ignore" your question. I was tired last night. I had never heard of your apparent contradictions before, and I wanted to thoughtfully respond. I worked all day, and I am now ready to answer. I am concerned that you assume you can 'stump' Christians with unanswerable questions. We have answers. You may not like them, but we have answers.

I do not expect you to accept any of my explanations. I think people who don't believe do so because they don't WANT to, not because they can't. I have seen that many, many times, including with myself when I was a non-believer (for 38 years). At any rate, maybe my answers will encourage the Christians on this thread.

You listed the following as opposites:

"You believe Mary had a child, and you believe she was a virgin."
She was not a virgin AFTER the baby was born, since he exited through the birth canal. But, the Bible does teach that Jesus was conceived miraculously. This is not so much about Mary's righteousness as it is about Jesus' divinity. When believers use miracles to prove the existence of God, non-believers reject miracles as impossible. But, miracles cannot be used to disprove God's existence. If God exists, He can do miracles. To say miracles are impossible is unique to those with no faith.

"You believe Jesus was fully human, and you believe he was fully divine. Which is to say, you believe Jesus was God and you believe he was not God."
No, not at all. He can be both at once. I am both mortal and immortal all at once. My body is mortal; it will die and then decay. My soul, however, is eternal. That is true, I believe, for every human on the planet. So, Jesus could be human and God all at the same time. His body was human and His soul is divine. In fact, He had to take on a human body to identify with us and die for us. In this way, He is a link between God and man, since He is both. Maybe you have trouble with this because you assume all humans are imperfect and far from being divine. That is true for everyone but Jesus, since He is God and has always been God.

"You believe God is one, and you believe he's three (many gods)."
Again, no. He is not three. He is one. "Hear, O Isreal, the Lord our God, the Lord, is one." He is Father. He is Son. He is Spirit. There is no 'they', only 'He'. Actually, I have a problem with the common Christian vocabulary that says God is three 'persons'. Nowhere in the Bible can you find the Father, Son and Spirit referred to as different 'persons'. Jesus said, "I AM". In Hebrew, that is "Yahweh", the name God gave Himself when speaking to Moses. So, Jesus clearly was saying that He was/is God. That is why they then tried to stone Him to death.

The Bible says the Father created the universe. It also says the Spirit was over the water. It also says Jesus created everything. So, who created the universe? God.

The Bible says the Holy Spirit lives in believers. It also says Christ lives in them. It also says that if anyone believes, the Father will come and live in him/her. So, who lives in me? God.

The book of Revelation starts with Jesus speaking from heaven, and then God is on the throne, but the book ends with Jesus on the throne. So, who rules in heaven? God.

The Bible calls the Holy Spirit the 'Spirit of Christ'. Jesus said "I and the Father are one." He said, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." So, who died on the Cross? Answer: God in the flesh.

All of this shows that God is one. He is God. There are not three gods, and I don't pray to three different 'persons'. Sometimes I call Him 'Jesus', sometimes 'Father', sometimes just 'God'. God is one.

I don't expect you, or any non-believer, to accept any of my explanation, but I do thank you for the opportunity to explore this more fully for myself and to have a chance to express my faith for others on this thread.

By the way, your answer regarding the uniqueness of Christianity was perfect. No other religion has God becoming a man and dying for my eternal sin penalty. Nice job for a non-believer :)

Rob Adams,

Thank you,
I am Wiccan.

anon,

Shekinah is the feminine part of God, in the Jewish belief.

Indo Euopean does not mean they are from Europe.
And exactly where did the hebrews come from? Jewish lineage? You mean the start of the religion. The same tree that Christianity and the Muslim came from. But the race...where did it start? those who called themselves Hebrew came most likely from Persia.

You think the race started with Abraham? Where did he come from? Ever read the story of Gilgamesh? The original flood story?

Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq; he lived about 2700 B.C. Although historians tend to emphasize Hammurabi and his code of law, the civilizations of the Tigris-Euphrates area, among the first civilizations, focus rather on Gilgamesh and the legends accruing around him to explain, as it were, themselves. Many stories and myths were written about Gilgamesh, some of which were written down about 2000 B.C. in the Sumerian language on clay tablets which still survive; the Sumerian language, as far as we know, bears no relation to any other human language we know about. These Sumerian Gilgamesh stories were integrated into a longer poem, versions of which survive not only in Akkadian (the Semitic language, related to Hebrew, spoken by the Babylonians) but also on tablets written in Hurrian and Hittite (an Indo-European language, a family of languages which includes Greek and English, spoken in Asia Minor). All the above languages were written in the script known as cuneiform, which means "wedge-shaped." The fullest surviving version, from which the summary here is taken, is derived from twelve stone tablets, in the Akkadian language, found in the ruins of the library of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria 669-633 B.C., at Nineveh. The library was destroyed by the Persians in 612 B.C., and all the tablets are damaged. The tablets actually name an author, which is extremely rare in the ancient world, for this particular version of the story: Shin-eqi-unninni. You are being introduced here to the oldest known human author we can name by name!

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM
Do not take all you think you know as what is known.

To reiterate my synopsis of the major contemporary religions:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

And Terra, I don't know what history books you are reading, but the Indo-Europeans were not Jews.

Nice post Terra. Your point is very well put.

Not that it matters but I am curious as to what religion you practice.

Terra Gazelle,

What do you think Shekinah is?

Andrea,

I know you will probably be confused by my use of the word "Jews" when I speak of people before the start of Judaism. To be more specific, I should have said Jewish lineage perhaps.

anon,
Shekinah is still a part of the Jews...and in the Catholic bible Wisdom (Goddess Sophia)states She sat on the right hand of God when all was created.

There are places found that did not have a word for war or hate...they had no weapons, yet the indo europeans (jews) wanted their land, and killed and ravaged them...then they say it was because they were Pagans. They killed the parents and took the unmarried virgins for wives.cuncubines and slaves. They cut off their hair and pared their nails.

In the bible it states that the "chosen" people tore down the incense altars and built up the altars of sacrifice where blood was the sacrifice.
The victors always make the losers out to be evil and their gods, demons.

I read history and what is being found in real life by archeologists.

Andrea,

The most widely accepted belief (certainly of Orthodox Judaism and most religious Jews) is that Judaism started with Abraham and his covenant with God. There were of course relationships between God and Jews before then, but Abraham was the first to really declare the existance of just one God. He was the one God chose to begin this religion with.

What is the meaning of Grace...there are many definitions of Grace..there are the
1-Three Graces;Aglaia, Euphrosyne, and Thalia, who dispense charm and beauty.
2-Being generous and treating all with good will.
3-Being sanctified by god
4- a power granted by god.
5-a title (your Grace)
In my life I would say all but #5. I am titled Lady in my tradition.

I believe I am sanctified by my Gods...I also know I have power to make a difference in this world because they work through me, IE- I am a co creator of my world. I hope that I deal with discrimination and other seperating things with patience and strength, because of my faith's teachings. I give of myself to aid others...

I do not belong to a religion such as yours. But that does not mean we do not have the same goals...we just take a different route.

We had Gods that sacrificed themselves willingly for a purpose...we had Gods born of a virgin in a cave...your's was not the first.We had martyrs, who were killed in the name of their religion... We also have a sence of Grace.

I think the biggest mistake that Christians make is an assumption that you know what Wicca or any Pagan religion is. That you assume that we do not even have an aquaintance with any of the finer points that Christians have taken ownership of. Love, Charity, personal sacrifice, balance, harmony, connection with God...

We are expected to learn about you...though 99.9% of us were raised as Christians. You, on the other hand are expected to stay ignorant of us....just in case we are catchy.

Thank you for the questions...
terra

Anon,

Where did Judaism get it's start?

(Note, I'm not asking to be snarky...I'm not a snarky gal. Just curious.)

Terra Gazelle,

If you read ALL of the OT, you will see just why they included all of the places where the Jews "left" their faith and started worshipping idols and other gods. You will always find that in these instances hard times, tragedy, and despair followed these times of paganism, and they always ended up returning to their faith. You see, you have to read the entire context to get the whole story. Judaism didn't "come from" paganism; Jews were just tempted by it from time to time.

Hello Terra, thanks for the response. Here are answers to your three questions along with my thoughts...

1) I’ve had many long conversations with pagans about belief systems, not so much origins of words. I enjoy visiting a board like this in order to learn more about what pagans, atheists, agnostics, muslims… believe.

2-3) Where did CS Lewis say that?

A couple quick questions:
What is the pagan definition of word grace? How did they apply it to their lives?

What is your own definition of the word grace? How does it apply to your life?

I stand by my previous statement. If I didn’t, I would be pandering to you, and nobody likes a dishonest ghost.

The difference IS grace.

anon,
You know nothing it seems of Pagan religions...but I was born and raised a Christian. You can talk a good talk...but what i found in my Pagan religion is a path that I can walk with honor. I chose my path, it was not something I fell onto because of birth and habit.

Agape means Love of all things...that is what it means. You can add your God into it, but that was not it's definition. You see as a Pagan I believe that all life is filled with God...so love for all things is rather easy.

The word, the idea and the teaching of Charis and Agape is Pagan. In other words Christians borrowed it and forgot where they got it from. Like books that I have loned out and never got back, I now put my name on them...

You know I have ever started hearing Christians say Blessed be ....(it's Pagan too).

Anon,

You say that Christianity got its start with the hebrews...just where do you think the jews got their start?

Try Babylon and Egypt. Thy ancient Hebrews were Goddess worshippers :Jeremiah Chapter 44, 15-19:
Then all the men who knew that their wives offered unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great assembly, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying: 16 'As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. 17 But we will certainly perform every word that is gone forth out of our mouth, to offer unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then had we plenty of food, and were well, and saw no evil. 18 But since we let off to offer to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. 19 And is it we that offer to the queen of heaven, and pour out drink-offerings unto her? did we make her cakes in her image, and pour out drink-offerings unto her, without our husbands?'

And there are many places in the OT where jews paid homage to a Goddess...Asherah, a Mother Goddess.There is also Shekinah, the beloved of God. Pagan don't you think?

As for the laws of the jews...check out the Hammurrabi Code. As the jews lived in Egypt for a while, they also lived in Babylon...and Hammurabi's code is older then the laws of Moses. And it is believed that the King of Babylon got his laws from an older source.

Face it the three monotheistic religions are based on polytheistic religions, mainly those of Goddess religions.

Lyn,
yes I agree with your follow-up to my post. Those are essential components of faith necessary for salvation. I would also agree with your assessment of "works". It is a matter of obedience. It is also for our benefit. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works. But faith without works is dead. As one songwriter put it, "Faith without works is like a screendoor on a submarine." My brief post did not capture some of these details. Thanks.

Phaedrus,
You said: I don't see how this particularly christian belief is superior to the others. Perhaps you could expound a bit?
I did not say that I thought my Christian belief was superior to other religions. What I was trying to illustrate is that I don't think it is fair to compare Christianity with other religions. They are headed down very different roads. Most religions are based on you achieving something (enlightenment, well-being, morality, peaceful living, etc...) through various means. While there is nothing inherently wrong with these, it is not the goal of faith in Christ - which is salvation of your eternal soul. This cannot be achieved by man. Even the best person in the world will fall short on their own. Only through faith in Christ can this happen.

Terra Gazelle,

You seem to be confused. The IDEAS of Grace, Kindness and Love were not new of course. What was new was what people were being taught about these things. That it is by God's grace that he forgives us, not by our works. That we are to show kindness to all peoples. And that we are to have an agape love (which actually means intimate familial love) for God. They used Greek words because that was the dominant language read at the time.

Ghostbuster,
The Christian attitude "Grace" comes from the Greek Pagan word and attitude Charis..the word Charity comes from it.Charis is used many times by the writers of the NT.

What exactly do you know about Pagan religions? You are saying that Pagans had no religious goal of knowing the Gods favor? That they had no knowledge of Kindness?

Charis means to give to another kindness and love that may not have earned. Agape, another word from ancient Greece,the unconditional love of all things.

Words have no meaning without actions...and those words came out of Pagan religions.

Like I asked....what in Christianity is original?
It's not Grace.

Viejita del oeste:

Interesting question about cultural religious practices. I asked that very question of a knowledgeble christian from India a couple weeks ago on the Colson thread.

You can read his response here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/charles_w_chuck_colson/2007/03/the_answer_is_yes_and.html

Lyn,
"Our goal now should be to live in peace; to take what we have been given, which is this remarkable, inhabitable planet among the billions of uninhabitable places in the universe, enjoy it without destroying it, and marvel at the diversity that surrounds us."

You said it, sister!

Viejita Del Oeste wrote:

"Did Jesus come to impose cultural imperialism?"

No, Jesus came to bring the love of God to the world. He came so that every nation would be told.

Can we live with our differences, if some don't want to believe this story? Of course we can, as long as we can somehow deal with the extremists on either end who hate people simply because of their beliefs or non-beliefs.

The fact of the matter, however harsh it sounds, is that there IS an ultimate right and wrong. There either is a God or Gods or no God. The problem is that none of us will know for sure until we die, so it is absolutely ludicrous to argue about it now. Our goal now should be to live in peace; to take what we have been given, which is this remarkable, inhabitable planet among the billions of uninhabitable places in the universe, enjoy it without destroying it, and marvel at the diversity that surrounds us.

Liberated... thanks for the link I will check it out.

Follow-up question:
Is grace compatible with exclusion? It's all well and good for those of us who were raised as Christians, but do you seem to reject those from other cultures if they are not comfortable joining up with our foreign (to them) practices. Did Jesus come to impose cultural imperialism?
Just asking.

CCNL,

God made his point with more than one person, didn't he?

Professor Marcus Borg, an On-Faith panelist, has published a book comparing many of the sayings of Jesus to those of Buddha. Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (2002),

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Buddha-Parallel-Marcus-Borg/dp/1569753180/ref=sr_1_1/104-9896956-2574367?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176392091&sr=1-1 .

An excerpt from the Introduction of the book:

"Most striking of all the parallels between Jesus and Buddha are those dealing with love..."

REALITYCHECK:

Your knowledge and wisdom overwhelms me. Just one question: where did you READ all that about God, end of the world and so on? To clarify my question: what's your source of knowledge? It will allow me to evaluate your wisdom, will no doubt tell me how wise you truly be.

Mr Cal Thomas uses the Bible, a proved hoax as his source of knowledge so anything he says is less that ignorant, on the other side of, to the left of the y axis. He's doing the big con? The central part of the con is the hoax. Faith is the con's key ingredient. Faith in what? Not God for sure. Con men create faith in themselves and often use absolute truths to attain their lofty, righteous goals.

Is the Bible the word of God, Devil or con men? Got faith?

Just a little "reality check" can go a long way to clearing up reality.

Reality is at http://www.hoax-buster.org That becomes even clearer when the messenger is attacked instead of the message. Time for a reality check.

JMAC.

You said:
“Boy, does the whole idea of Christianity, of One God, One Truth, One way to Heaven, strike a nerve with some of you people! I believe that this is because deep down you all see the truth and just refuse to acknowledge it!”

You may be right in some cases. However I think what you may be seeing is more a frustration at what others perceive as being close minded. Sometimes the approach that my religion is the right one or the only can be seen as arrogance. I am not saying that Christians necessarily are just that it can be the perception when the discussion is presented that way. I know many Christians who are indeed just the opposite.

As far as can one use some practices from other religions and stay true. I think you can. I like what Tonio said “Spirituality isn't about choosing sides or good versus evil. It's about finding or creating one's own purpose for life, about answering the question "why am I here." – Well said Tonio

John M

I don’t think the question is necessarily do you need to adopt some of the beliefs, but are some of the practices beneficial. Meditation is probably the best example I can think of. This is an excellence practice that can be just physiological.

Ghostbuster.

On religious education I supported the teaching of religious education in terms of understanding the basics of all religions. Now this won’t be simple to implement but that is a deeper discussion another day.

I know there could be arguments on that it may challenge people to look outside their religion. I think that is a good thing. It can help people grow and decide for themselves what works. If someone’s religion is that ‘good’ or faith that strong then exploration shouldn’t matter.

I believe anything that teaches us understanding of others is beneficial. I have said it before how can there be peace without understanding?

While there are differences in religions and some of them down right opposite but I think if we look beyond the ‘details of the stories’ and look at the messages we would find there are more similarities than one might think among religions.

Todd wrote:

"For Christians, salvation rests solely in personal faith in Christ. The "works" come in striving to live a holy life out of gratitude for a loving Savior giving you something you could never achieve on you own."

Actually, salvation rests on your acknowledging that you have sinned, asking for forgiveness, accepting God's forgiveness, and repentance.

The "works" come in striving to live a holy life because we are to try to be like Christ, not out of gratitude, but because it is the right, perfect way to be, and by living that life, we shine the light of God's love for others to see.

"For Christians, salvation rests solely in personal faith in Christ. The "works" come in striving to live a holy life out of gratitude for a loving Savior giving you something you could never achieve on you own. If you have something better than that, I would love to hear it."

Todd: I don't see how this particularly christian belief is superior to the others. Perhaps you could expound a bit?

First of all, yoga is hard. It is a great workout. As someone commented, there are a lot of overweight Christians (especially in the south) who could use some gym time. (Glutony is just as much a sin as homosexuality. Most Christians don't want to hear that, but it is truth.) I agree with Cal to a degree that there is a major difference in Christianity and the other religions of the world. In every other religion the person is working to acheive their salvation. For Christians, salvation rests solely in personal faith in Christ. The "works" come in striving to live a holy life out of gratitude for a loving Savior giving you something you could never achieve on you own. If you have something better than that, I would love to hear it.
Respectfully, Todd

Terra Gazelle wrote:

"It took from Pagans and then did it's best to destroy the people they enriched their own religion from."

I don't agree with you. Christianity began with the teachings of Jesus, which were an expansion of the Jewish laws and beliefs. These teachings were then spread to the non-Jewish. Rituals were not really an original part of Christianity (except for baptism) until later when Pagans and others over the years began to add rituals into Christianity.

Why not? When you attend a yoga class, you are not asked to embrace Buddhist/Hindu religious beliefs, you are only asked to relax. Is that such a bad idea? I think we all could use some relaxation here.

Terra Gazelle:

Well, I guess someone has ought to answer your question. I think you asked it in good faith, so here is the answer...

"CS Lewis once wandered into a very animated multi-faith meeting, in which the participants were agonising over what – if anything – was distinctive and unique that Christian faith has to offer. It was a discussion that had been running for some time, and they asked Lewis what he thought. He replied immediately. “That’s easy! It’s grace!” and off he wandered again. The longer the delegates talked, the more they realised that Lewis was right."

I know this answer might not make sense to you based on what you read or your own personal experiences with christians.

Regards

John M writes:

"If I really believe something (or actually someONE), how can I believe the exact opposite at the same time?"

Do you see any element of this form of thinking in the co-existing assertions of a "perfect" god's omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, in a world where "evil" exists?

Seems that the ability to believe in contradictory assertions is a prerequisite for literalists/inerrantists such as yourself.

People...this is just a discussion. I can understand some people grieveances about the issue and the authors statement but he is just expessing himself based on what 'he knows and has experienced in his walk with His God'. He does not deserve to be called names et al. If you feel the need to express yourself, you should do it decently. I believe your religion taught you that...

EFavorite:

The point was that John M. was upset because someone was asking him to believe what he purports to believe.

And, you'll notice, he utterly ignored my point. I guess he found it unanswerable, but...

a little honesty would have been nice.

Terra Gazelle:

"I would like any Christian on this board to come up with one thing that is uniquely original in Christianity."

Well, I'm no Christian, but I'll give it a shot:

I'm pretty sure Christianity is the only religion that believes their god-man died to save them from the consequences of their sins.

And Christianity was the first religion to hold that sinners are punished forever. Other religions generally held that sinners were punished for a while, then returned to the wheel of life and death.

"The Law was delivered through Moses to demonstrate the righteousness God requires in order to be acceptable to Him -- a righteousness no one can attain and so God intervened by sending the only One who could, His Son, Jesus the Christ."

This is so ridiculously idiotic and incoherent that I still have a hard time believing that people really believe this.

It is really sad that the most common thread among most of the posts here is not an intelligent well reasoned rebuttal to Mr. Thomas but a full blown temper tantrum by many that he was allowed to actually exercise his 1st ammendment right here.

You'd think that he was name calling. Please, let's save the energy for a workout at the gym, Pilates, pool, whatever and be more positive.

Candide - please, go to Georgetown, one of those small head shops, get a US bong an do a few bowls before you post next time. It will make your posts much easier to read and tolerate.

John Connolly - you ask, "What's your problem, anyway? Never actually thinking about what you believe?"

For some, yes, for others, they thought about it and decided that it's a mystery.

BGONE

This is the point..you miss the mark along with the bible thumpers that are in it for gain. The bible warns of them also. You are both just at different ends of the pendulum. There is a middle ground. There are absolutes. There is truth. Human life, love, procreation, family, values, standards, morals...they all have a beginning. But not from amoeba.

Your 'hoax book' in fact tells the truth. Rev 12:9. Satan has decieved the whole world. In what? In how God is viewed and worshiped. There is a true God who will intervene in world affairs when man is at the end of his rope. (Read the news...the world aint gettin any better)

"Do I detect a bit of defensiveness, and maybe some fear that we're right and your wrong? It feels good to be on the right side."

Speaking personally, I have the same defensiveness when confronted by Muslims or by hardcore evangelistic atheists. It has nothing to do with their religion or my own. Instead, the defensiveness comes from someone insisting that I have no right to my own personal religious beliefs.

There is no such thing as a "right side" in religious matters, or even any "sides" at all. Spirituality isn't about choosing sides or good versus evil. It's about finding or creating one's own purpose for life, about answering the question "why am I here."

Sorry, made a typo in my url.

"JMac:Boy, does the whole idea of Christianity, of One God, One Truth, One way to Heaven, strike a nerve with some of you people!"

Boy, how arrogant some of you people are to assume that those not ascribing to your specific religious beliefs and behaviors have ever heard about "One God, One Truth, One way to . . blah blah blah" or whatever.

My question is: why aren't you embarrassed?

It's like Cal (now un-mustached) who "knows" he's got the best, but has had zero exposure to anything else. Just like you do, I expect.

I would like any Christian on this board to come up with one thing that is uniquely original in Christianity.

I am not saying that Christianity is not a blessing for many people and the World...as well as a curse to many people and the World.

But it is built on what came before it...It took from Pagans and then did it's best to destroy the people they enriched their own religion from. Then someone like Cal Thomas makes it seem like HIS religion came full blown out of a rock. With no experiences and no lives that touched it before it was invented.

Men created religions...it was their bias and their expereinces that flavor it. Those men and women of early Christianity lived in a nation that was filled with Pagans...their gods and their traditions. You think that those daily every day things had no affect? There is good and bad in all ways to enlightenment. No one owns Godhood.

Sorry, but you can think that your religion came out pure...but the path you trod was first stepped on by all the ancient religions and philosophies that came before it...some of them good and some bad.

You look down on other religions and ways as inferior... there is an old saying..Pride goeth before a fall.

Wow!

Now I understand why Buddha taught that the sources of all suffering are passion, aggression, and -- ignorance!

Thanks for the demonstration of the latter, Cal! Have a nice day!

Judging from the photos I have seen, a little more strength and flexibility would do Cal some good. Yoga might be just the ticket. On the other hand, maybe he can just buy some of that Jesus energy drink that Pat Robertson claims gives him the strength to leg press 2000 lbs.

JMAC:
BINGO! You nailed it.

Tonio: You do yourself proud

Candide: I can feel your pain shooting through this computer screen. Perhaps since some of us are discussing Eastern Religion, you would care to "enlighten" us as to what has offended you so deeply?

Rob Adams: Did you comment on the "religious education" question a couple weeks ago? If so, what were your thoughts? I can't remember.

Regards to all.

Boy, does the whole idea of Christianity, of One God, One Truth, One way to Heaven, strike a nerve with some of you people! I believe that this is because deep down you all see the truth and just refuse to acknowledge it! Do I detect a bit of defensiveness, and maybe some fear that we're right and your wrong? It feels good to be on the right side. You all can keep your yoga, I'll stick with my faith and my God

DW those hieroglyphics SHOULD make more sense to you, they're what you faith.

I haven't noticed all that anger among non believers. Most are laughing at the pathetic garbage believers faith. No believer actually believes in God but rather a hoax book that itself says it's the word of their Devil, the supernatural being Moses made the deal with that lives in a ball of fire. Non believers know that ball of fire is the sun.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul has a better interpretation of the Bible than Jerry Falwell or any other Bible thumper with his flock of suckers. It doesn't get dumber than paying to get into hell.

John M:

"If I really believe something..., how can I believe the exact opposite at the same time?"

Shouldn't be a problem for a Christian, should it?

You believe Mary had a child, and you believe she was a virgin.

You believe God is one, and you believe he's three (many gods).

You believe Jesus was fully human, and you believe he was fully divine. Which is to say, you believe Jesus was God and you believe he was not God.

What's your problem, anyway? Never actually thinking about what you believe?

Ethics, and its metaphysical brother morality, largely come from the categorical imperative which is stolen and dumbed down by christianity - probably from Greek philosophers. The ‘golden rule’ (Christian lexicon) can be circumvented by several means; being a member of the chosen (or chosen people) and being a victim are seemingly the favorites. In each case the rules are consequently different for you if you are god’s chosen or have been denied your ‘god given’ superiority by being victimized. Although certainly not alone in their reliance upon these copouts, the ‘big three’ (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) consistently depend upon both strategies. Add an unhealthy dose of dogma (the bible, racism, fascism, chauvinism) and you begin to understand why the histories of these movements repeatedly (that’s an understatement) demonstrate endless intolerance and violence.

After two thousand years of bloodshed, millions of deaths from crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings and millions of other despicable acts we should have the courage to say that this drivel is finally and certainly discredited. If we are to survive we have to outgrow dogma dependence and move forward.

While there is absolutely no proof of the existence of a god, no explanation for the universe seems very reasonable. If we are ever to truly answer the question (could that be ‘the test’?) it won’t be through the bible (or the Koran, etc.) employing the intellectual and ethical cowardice of dogma.

This week's question asks about whether it is appropriate for monotheists to incorporate Eastern religious practices into their spiritual life.

I do not see how non-believers could expect Christians, who believe in one God whose name is Jesus, to accept Hinduism, which teaches many gods, Buddhism, which essentially teaches no god, or Islam, which teaches that Jesus is not God.

If I really believe something (or actually someONE), how can I believe the exact opposite at the same time?

Is it possible that the non-believers on this thread are putting emotions in the place of logic?

Christianity is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on human kind. What does that say about Cal Thomas?

I look for the day when the last evangelical Christian is strangled in the entrails of the last Muslim.

Anonymous and Adam put it all in the correct perspective. There seems to be more spite and hate in unbelievers on this forum than those who do believe in God. Perhaps their non-involved amoeba from which they believe they came from has made them confused just as they think Christians are confused?

And BGONE...well, sorry, but Egyptian hieroglyphics make more sense than your website.

Hello all,
Its interesting to me how quickly you all condemned Cal, made fun, and basically disrespected him. I dont recall him saying anything to warrant those mean comments. Christianity is not about "winning", opression, rules, keeping people down, superiority, or anything like that. Its supposed to be about humility, love (for others and God), and selflessness. I definitely believe it is the true "religion" but that is not a condemnation of others. Only God can judge a man, and any representation of Christianity that spreads hate is wrong.

Bgone,

If you ever had anything intelligent to contribute, people might respond nicely to you. Instead you insist on continually quoting from a website which consists of the ravings of a lunatic and his childish drawings. Please, it is proof of nothing. The man who wrote it is "touched"; he's "not right"; he's obviously not taking his meds. If you read it, you'll "catch his stupid". Please stop, I beg you.

Mr Cal Thomas is to be excused for his ignorance. He was taught lies, learned them somewhat and says he believes them. That makes him more ignorant than those who learned nothing at all.

The Bible is a proved hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 has the original material used by those who concocted it. Like Mr Thomas they were too ignorant to read the words but they at least got the picture, ignorant people can be herded like sheep.

Tonio,

I agree with you. It always bothers me when I see posts like that from people "of faith". Frankly, his answer leads me to believe that he didn't really think about it much before he answered. You can learn about and/or incorporate parts of other religions into your own beliefs without changing your core beliefs; you can meditate or practice mindfulness without worshipping Buddha or some other deity. You can practice yoga positions without chanting. There are a lot of good things in other religions that we can benefit from knowing.

Ah yes, Eisler. The one who also wrote about astrology and werewolves, and whose theories most scholars have rejected. He's a good source.

Candide, if you are going to criticize Thomas for his self-righteousness, please do so in a manner that's less embarrassing for the rest of us. Really, who cares about Thomas' vices?

CANDIDE,

Excerpts please since these authors are not on any of my Christian exegete listings. And your educational background?

And your proof of Mr. Thomas' activities?

Lyn,

I don't have an issue with Thomas' specific religious beliefs. Instead, I have an issue with his insistence that Christianity has a monopoly on truth and morality. Over the years, he has equated disagreement with Christian doctrine with immorality and anti-Americanism. I would find such ideas to be repugnant in any religion, whether they came from a member of the clergy or a political commentator.

For the origins of Islam read books by Patricia Crone, Hans-Joachim Schoeps, and if you can get a copy or a photo copy of Robert Eisler's book "Jesus the Messiah and John the Baptist" you will have your eyes opened about Christianity as it really was.

CANDIDE,

You noted: "on the fact that Islam is an outgrowth of genuine Jewish-christianity in the early years. It is more authentic an outgrowth of the original disciples of Jesus than the gentile Christians who were heavily paganized.

How so and please back up with references to include your own educational background??

You noted: "Cal Thomas smokes in secret, drinks in the countryside, and screws only in the choir loft. Why? Because he is a Christian."

Again, please cite some references to support your significantly stupid comments.

As the Buddha said, "Sit down, shut up, and be aware".

I really think people should consider the source before they get so uptight about specific religious beliefs again. Cal Thomas is, after all, a political columnist. I am sure that there are many Christians, myself included, who would not consider him to be a representative of our beliefs. This man's job is to comment on and argue about politics, not to study and discuss religions of the world.

Personally, I believe learning about different religions and philosophies is crucial to having a whole-earth understanding of our world. My study of Zen Buddhism, especially with regard to meditation and mindfulness, was not only eye-opening, but enriched the peace in my life forever.

This must be an Emily Litella week. Yoga and yogurt, though Cal probably doesn't like yogurt either because it is certainly not part of an all-American diet like fried chicken, grits, fried okra, American fries, fried catfish, etc.

It's too bad Cal doesn't take his own advice and make the bible sufficient for everything, including science, modern medicine (the bible is very instructive on how to cure things), literature, music, etc. Of course, if he only used the bible to cure all his ills (even modern medicine cannot cure his biblical delusion), he probably would not be around to create added whimsy in our life.

Russell D – I agree with you whole heartedly. One might observe that melding may be the way to go.

Though the path is different for everyone and if you choose one religion and it works for you go for it. I think you touched on a main difference in Eastern and Western religions in that Eastern religions talk more of everything being on and the Western religions are more on being separate.

Personally I believe in oneness and that God resides within each of us. Others find that looking at us and God as separate serves them better. It is a matter of finding what resonates with you. Best is certainly a relative term.

I think the following question could be applied to any religion though I will use the Bible in this scenario.

If the Bible were sufficient then why haven’t we achieved world peace?

One could argue that it is original sin, man is imperfect, a misguided concept of need and a plethora of other reasons. Regardless of the reason even the Bible has yet to prove it is not sufficient for us to overcome our issues.

One may argue that the point is not to get it right down here but to do ‘enough’ to get into Heaven. Let’s assume that is the case. Wouldn’t getting it ‘right’ down here just make the whole getting to Heaven deal easier?

Let me reiterate that none of the religions have proven sufficient for us to learn enough to live as the great ones in history have suggested.

I would suggest the reason is we haven’t learned enough yet from all of our religious teachings or personal experiences. I think we have beat the historical aspects of our religions into the ground for the past few thousand years.

We should be looking forward, not back.

How do we expand our understanding of spirituality? How do we update our religions to better serve what we know now as a race that we did not know 2000 years ago?

If we want humans to be a spiritually evolved race perhaps it is time to graduate to the next level. Where are we now in the spiritual school of learning? Pre-school? Middle school? College? Post graduate? My observation is that we are not as far along as we think. Middle school at best.

If we keep reading the same material or keep doing the same things over and over, how do we advance?

The place I order my pizza from has the following on it's box:

Whassamatta you? Gotta no respect? Issa not so bad, issa a nicea place....
A shaddapa yo face!!

The place I order my pizza has the following on it's box:

Why settle for less when we already have been given the best?

Sorry, the anonymous post at 1:34 p.m. was mine.

I have to say, I think the only reason Cal is on this panel is for comic relief. Every town needs a drunk.

Thanks for the reply Norrie. Makes a smile form when I can converse with someone else intelligently and bounce ideas off of them. Seems others have forgotten that part when it comes to these post.

And I do agree, what the heck is wrong with yogurt? Leave it alone! It's healthy and comes in many flavors. Well, at least he didn't say it was bad to eat pizza, cause I might lose it then.

Brambleton my friend, do you even read the posts before you put your foot in your mouth? Hopefully that post by God was meant as sarcasm, cause otherwise, it was just plain not needed.

I apologize for the tirade, it has been a long day, and this is as good a place as any to let off some steam. Seems that there are only a limited number of people here who have anything worthwhile to say, and I can count them on my right hand. It's ridiculous.
I realize Cal is not the best person to take advice from, but he is only saying what he believes. Although, he could stand to use a good smacking every now and then. Gotta learn that the Bible and God are not the only way to go. There is always more than one way to get somewhere. Hey cal, read my earlier post and try the people watch part. It might work wonders. I'd also suggest some of you do it too. It might help. But what do I know, I am a faceless person airing out my feelings to other faceless people. Heck, I could be God for all you know based on that alone.

Mr. Mark,

Speaking for myself, I saw no need to comment on Tutu's post because I think his excellent words speak for themselves. On the other hand, Thomas' contempt for other religions is unbearably intense. I feel the same way about him as I do about the zealots who want public schools to push Christianity on my children.

I can't imagine posting in a Paris Hilton or Britney Spears thread, unless it was to rant about our society's obsession with celebrity.

JWS wrote:
"Bishop Tutu's words were so eloquent and complete that there is no need to say anything but "AMEN". I look at it as a compliment that he has so few responses."

Or, perhaps it's simply human nature that we feel driven to respond more openly when we have a contrary view to express.

That said, can I get an "Amen" over at the Bishop's column? :) Positive reinforcement, you know...

Bishop Tutu's words were so eloquent and complete that there is no need to say anything but "AMEN". I look at it as a compliment that he has so few responses.

Correction to my last post: I noticed that Bishop Tutu's column was actually posted yesterday morning, almost a full day before Cal T's.

It's worse than I thought.

Interesting to note that this column by Cal T has drawn 25 responses while a sister column on the same topic by Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu has - in the same amount of time - inspired a measly 4 responses.

I wonder what Cal's counts would be were Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears writing for On Faith? My guess is that he'd find himself trailing in the responses-generated sweeps along with the fine Bishop.

For all our self-admitted erudition, we On Faith bloggers (myself included) seem to have the same fascination with chaff as does the general public. :(

Nationalism unchecked leads to evil/corrupt empires that dominate the weak (e.g. Nazi, Roman, etc. )

Religious nationalism unchecked also leads to things that are shameful (e.g. Islamic terrorists now, or Christian "terrorists" during the inquisition)

Mr. Thomas' sentiments are only short step away from religious nationalism, and certainly do not reflect the teaching of Jesus -- who taught that Jews in fact do not have a monopoly on the kingdom of God (e.g. recall the Good Samaritan parable)

Why does "On Faith" give free publicity to charmers such as Cal Thomas who are right wing Christians?!! Can you not find some sensible people who would definitely write a more logical post than a raving illogical lunatic ?!

I think that the article at hand is a little short sighted and closed minded. There are many things outside of Christianity, both religious and secular, that can help to improve one's life.

All experiences can be benefitted from. Broadening one's horizons should not have to interfere with one's faith.

Brambleton,

English, being a proper noun, should be capitalized. Furthermore, speaking English as one's native tongue certainly does not exculde one from the ability to make "absurd remarks".

I have read your posts in many threads.

Thank you for the Illustration.

I'm torn. I was going to bust on Cal but after reading all these hateful comments, maybe Cal is right.

You fine people certainly don't seem to offer anything better.

Cal Thomas smokes in secret, drinks in the countryside, and screws only in the choir loft. Why? Because he is a Christian.

Yogurt is a blasphemous desert snack for any good Christian, and Cal Thomas is absolutely right. You should all be ashamed.

I don't particularly care for Islam, but "concerned the christian now liberated" might reflect on the fact that Islam is an outgrowth of genuine Jewish-christianity in the early years. It is more authentic an outgrowth of the original disciples of Jesus than the gentile Christians who were heavily paganized. I don't like Islam precisely because it is true to the original semitic faith which I abhorr. But you christian fools don't recognize what Islam really is.

Russell D.,

I enjoy corresponding with you too.

Actually, when I use the word "Buddhism", I'm thinking of "my Buddhism", a stripped-down, Westernized, New-Englandized, idiosyncratic "Buddhism" that would probably appall most Buddhists.

It's a kind of "Buddhism-without-Beliefs", agnostic as to Buddhist cosmology, stripped as far as possible of Buddhism's oriental and historical baggage, its rituals and practices, gods and demons, and so on.

And because it's mine, I think it's the best. I do think my agnosticism with respect to "my Buddhism" is probably my saving grace in that regard. I'll change my mind about it in a moment if I have a new insight. I'm not dogmatic about my religious creation or maintaining it as is, or suggesting that anyone else have anything to do with it - despite what I sometimes write. It's my personal guide to the universe, subject, I hope, to revision and improvement.

I think you're right about personal energetics and their effects on others. I'll spend more time observing this in the future. It's serious people-watching. Thanks.

I find that a regular practice of meditation (and I use a mantra incorporating the Name of Jesus Christ,) most helpful in living the life in Christ, loving others as ourselves, that we are enjoined to do in the New Testament.

Just look at that smug smirk on his face. Bush probably modeled his own smirk on Thomas' smirk. It is Satan's smirk.

Yoga and meditation would be good for Muslims. It would give them time to contemplate their sham of a religion i.e. the militant and anti-female agenda of the Koran.

Cal Thomas is the finest example of a Pharisee that I know of. He is a bible-thumping, know-nothing Christian redneck who thinks only people like himself will get to heaven. It's good to know he will end up in hell where his sort belong.

Charming as ever Candide. I cannot imagine why you can't get a date.

Sorry Brambleton,

Must be tough going through life being more intelligent than everyone else. I feel your pain.

When Cal Thomas gets to hell he will find that the eastern believers have all gone to heaven. At least I hope he goes to hell.

C'mon Cal,

I happen to love yogurt and I have been a faithful Christian all of my life! I find nothing wrong at all with practicing my love of that wonderful treat. Usually right after lunch no less. Sometimes I will even have one for a snack. Sure beats a psalm or proverb when hungry.

I'm sensing that there is some sort of conspiracy to set a record for most absurd remarks given in response to an "On Faith" posting. Is english a second language for most of you?

The comments thusfar have been excellent and enlightening. But the Carl's post to which we are responding is sorely lacking of any substance and seems to me VERY shortsighted. And like mentioned early...many of these "Christians" do need to exercise more

Thomas seems to assume that it's a competition between the Eastern religions and Christianity. One can certainly evaluate the merits of both religions' teachings for achieving happiness or living an ethical life. But Thomas compares the Eastern teachings not with the Christian teachings but with the Christian claims about the supernatural, which I see as an attempt to stack the deck. Any claims about a supreme being handing down "rules" or about the existence of eternal life are simply claims, ones that cannot be scientifically tested. If the Eastern religions make their own supernatural claims, why wouldn't Thomas compare those claims with Christianity's?

Norrie:

Did you not read the rest of my post?

I know you are claiming Buddhism is the best. But careful you don't want to sound like the fundamentalists claiming theirs is the best.

I like corresponding with you Norrie. It's fun. all I am saying is, nothing out there has solved it all. Maybe we haven't found it yet, but of course, maybe it is already right in front of us and we just can't see it.

Did I ever ask you if you have ever noticed how some people seem to have a very strong presence, or energy to them? I try to notice that all the time. I have been told I have it, and others. I like to think it is the inner strength of that person. Everyone has his or her own energy, but in some people, it is just more eveident, and people can sense it. This is maybe what we need to look at. Ourselves and other people. Try it next time you are in a crowd. Just watch people, try to "feel" their energy, and let me know what you think.

The future will not look kindly on people like Cal Thomas.