Time for Serious Debate on God in Public

God in a public school is a "superbad" Idea! People who either have no religon might be saddened by this and might post a big blog. If parents want their kid in a school with "GOD" in it send to a crazy christain school where kids get the holy "" beat out of them for no reason. I am Roman Catholic but I do not go to church cuz I pray to god by playing grade A video games! Sounds crazy but it works! I think? You I am crazy when I talk about this but if god's love is infinite he'she will love me no matter what!! Good day.

God should be allowed in all public places. God wnated us to be fishers of men (or to tell others of the good news of God.) Without them knowing about God, they will go to hell.

GK Chesterton,

There is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived and indeed the writings of Josephus and Tacitus plus all of the crucifixion stories in the scriptures attest to this.

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

Were these scriptural stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is the same throughout.

Please copy and paste your other supporting documents in the actual text i.e. the Talmud, Pliny and Lucian. Apparently the NT exegetes missed these important historical records.

Getting back to the historical David and the biblical David. Apparently the only "proof" that David even existed other than the highly fictionalized OT, is one piece of broken pottery with some inscriptions with a variety of translations of said inscriptions.

The "powerfull" biblical King David should have left much archeological evidence/proof but none has been found. e.g. jewels, weapons, homes, grave, religious artifacts, non-Jewish attestations.

And what is really odd is for the scripture writers (Matthew and Luke) to show that Jesus came from the family of David. This however would require that Joseph was the father of Jesus. So which is it? Joseph was the father or the Holy Ghost did the deed? If it were the HG, then Jesus was not a descendent of David.

“Why this association was important in first century Palestine was addressed by "Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55”

See also: http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/368_Genealogy_of_Jesus

Concerned,

1. Tacitus, Annals 15.44
2. Pliny the Younger, Epistles x.96
3. Josephus, Antiquities xx, 200
4. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a
5. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13

Five, not two. But I'd even take two!

What's your response to the question regarding your use of the word, "proof?"

GaryD and GK Chesterton,

Please support your comments with references.

For your reading:

1. The Books of Josephus, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

2. A Critique of Josephus' Books,

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

3. The 23 books of Professor JD Crossan.

There is currently more evidence for David than there is for most any of his contemporaries the fact that it is in a book you prefer to disbelieve changes nothing. How do you Know the Stellae we attribute to Hammurabi aren't the work of some ancient fantasist?

Concerned,

1. Tacitus
2. Pliny the Younger
3. Josephus
4. The Babylonian Talmud
5. Lucian

And yes, I'm very much aware of the Jesus Seminar deconstructionists.

I was serious about the "proof" question and what constitutes as proof for you regarding the historicity of the biblical canon and how you apply this same standard of "proof" as it relates to other works of ancient literature and the outside references to the events in those works.

G K Chesterton,

I believe there are only two non-scriptural references to Jesus not five. And the scriptural event references typically do not meet the standards of proven history due to their lack of attestations and stratums with respect to publication.

One of your favorite contemporary NT exegetes puts it this way as regards to the last days of Jesus:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus???

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be. The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened. While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

"Up to the point of your referenced "discovery", not one iota of archeology about this "king""

What's your definition of "proof?" as it relates to the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures? Is your use of the word, "proof," the same for other works of antiquity? Why or why not? What about the New Testament as it relates to your definition of "proof?" What about Jesus and the five non-biblical/ancient literature references that refer to him?

John Stephens says "No shortage of gibberish in these postings."

Judging from the rest of his post he's an authority on gibberish.

No shortage of gibberish in these postings.

Either one believes the Bible or one does not. It's really that simple. "For the Word of God is powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of the joint from the marrow, the soul from the Spirit." Faith is the razor-thin factor that divides the believer from the scoffer.

The closest thing to the scientific method in the Christian faith is that anyone who obeys the scripture will learn the truth about God. That promise is found throughout the Bible, beginning in the opening passage of Genesis.

"If you seek me with your whole heart, you will find me." That is a promise that is kept and has been kept to countless thousands. If you're not looking for God, odds are you won't find him. God is looking for persons who are looking for God.

Once one attains the baptism of the Holy Spirit, things become abundantly clear. The Bible is written in three spiritual languages: symbolic, prophetic, and parabolic. They interconnect like a decryption device, like wheels within wheels with eyes before and behind, and act as the keys to the kingdom. [Read the opening passage to Proverbs] Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible is virtually unintelligible, which gives rise to so many doctrines, dogmas, and false notions, when in fact there is only "...one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

For instance, Jesus said, "If the blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall into the ditch?"
What is the ditch? You miss the point of the parable entirely if you cannot identify the ditch.

What are the seven spirits of God?

What does 666 signifiy?

If you enjoy mysteries, you'll love the Bible.

Paul once admonished believers to stop eating pablum and start eating meat. Most persons on these postings are arguing about pablum, baby food.

"Ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

When Adam (from the Hebrew word for earth, Adama) and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, angels with a flaming sword were set to guard the way back in. Yes, it's an allegory, but the trick is finding that mystical passage back into the covenant with the living God. The challenge is to get past the angels.

Same place you get your majority...

GK Chesterton,

No attestations in other ancient literature about your hero David?? Up to the point of your referenced "discovery", not one iota of archeology about this "king", his castle, his weapons, his house, his crown jewels,or his grave. You would have thought that the Jews would have also preserved the mighty rock that killed Goliath. The DNA from that rock would really be of interest.

All your reference does is give added credence to the Conservative Jews' conclusions that the OT is nothing more than myth and embellishment.

"You call that proof of the historical David being equivalent to the David of the bible???"

Ah, now you pull our your favorite word, "proof." Archeologists are hoping to find his PIN number to lay this baby to rest.

Good Lord!

The Basalt Stelae from Dan and the Mesha Stele proves historical David and Biblical David are the same person.

It is impossible to fake such things.

On a serious note: Jesus came form the house of David, her womb. Was the person mentioned on the impossible to fake Stele male or female. Shucks, Jesus was the "son of man." Nothings ever simple.

GK Chesterton,

You call that proof of the historical David being equivalent to the David of the bible???

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

"Only portions of the inscription remain, but it has generated much excitement among those interested in Biblical archaeology. Attention is concentrated on the letters 'ביתדוד', which is identical to the Hebrew for "house of David", although another reading would be as a place name such as Bethdod (the BYT syllable meaning 'house' as in Bethlehem and the last syllable DWD meaning possible 'beloved', 'kettle', or 'uncle' being found in Ashdod [1]. If the reading is correct, it is the first time that the name "David" has been recognized at any archaeological site. Like the Mesha stele, the Tel Dan Stele seems typical of a memorial intended as a sort of military propaganda, which boasts of Hazael's or his son's victories. (Some epigraphers think that the phrase "house of David" also appears in a partly broken line in the Mesha Stele.)"

(right click on link, then save as - it's J. Campbell's "Hero with a thousand faces")

Good reading on the subject, that I found recently:
http://www.truly-free.org/e/n/Campbell,%20Joseph%20-%20The%20Hero%20with%20a%20Thousand%20Faces.zip

Bishop Wright reminds me of someone leaving an Indiana Jones movie halfway through and believing ever after that the bad guys won. Or someone calling for a debate on whether the United States should be a commonwealth of the United Kingdom.

No, Bishop. We Americans do not need a debate on God in public life. We decided that 232 years ago. Our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that stipulated separation of church and state. Americans with a contrary viewpoint generate a lot of heat but little light. More to the point, they are already on the way out. The real holy rollers are being regulated to the margins of this society. Many of their own fellow evangelicals have turned their back on the extremists. Real Christians got fed up with hearing pseudo-Christians turn Jesus' message into nothing more than opposition to abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and the teaching of evolution. The real Christians are aggressively restoring Jesus' real message of love, compassion, concern for the downtrodden, and respect for God's handiwork in nature.

Even more telling, the Republican Party is fed up with its capture by holy roller extremists. Real Republicans are recoiling from the Christian extremists' hijacking of their party. This shaking off is one reason that the Republican Party is in near total disarray and can't reach a consensus on whom it wants to be its Presidential candidate.

What about Huckabee, you say? Well, what about him? Huckabee is already being seen for what he is: the last gasp of a dying breed. An affable figure fighting a rear guard action on behalf of a dying cause. Stay tuned after today, January 29, the day of the Florida primary. Watch Huckabee spiral into political oblivion from lack of money and lack of support.

Bishop, are you familiar with the best-seller list of the New York Times? Right up there at the top in recent months have been books by out-and-out atheists, like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. No, we are not experiencing a sudden rise in atheism in America, but only a few years ago, no one would have bothered to offer such books for mass publication, much less would they have been read. Their authors, with Christopher in the forefront, have become popular figures on the talk shows, Internet blogs, and in popular magazines. That trend toward open-mindedness, skepticism, and questioning of basic beliefs--the anti-Christian extremists attitude, if you will--is more reflective of American attitudes than you apparently realize.

We Americans are already ahead of your curve, Bishop. We're returning to our roots as a secular nation.

GK Chesterton,

"Please provide references supporting your position that David of history was the David of the bible.

If he existed at all, he was a minor functionary."

The Basalt Stelae from Dan and the Mesha Stele

GK Chesterton,

Please provide references supporting your position that David of history was the David of the bible.

If he existed at all, he was a minor functionary.

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

GaryD,

And where did you come up with the 20% figure??

Mr, Wright,
We did indeed did have such a debate. And there were some on the platform being grown-up while others were either pandering to their supporters or just plain whining.
But one such debate did occur right here in New York City on the existence of God. It was hosted by Martin Bashir and broadcast on the ABC News website.
Representatives for Christianity presented their case clearly and concisely while the representatives for Atheism (they admitted to being really Agnostics afterwards), they just complained about what the Christians said, instead of presenting any form of a case for God not existing or how they could show there was no God. Indeed it seemed all the Atheists were doing was proving their arguments are indeed baseless.

But, Mr. Wright, Mike Huckabee makes a great point about our Constitution needing an amendment to defend life. The American Constitution actually does say we should defend life but there are those who like to twist words into their own definitions so a clear statement is needed that ALL human life must indeed be defended.
There is no doubt life begins at conception elswise why would ANYONE claim they are having a baby the moment that know they are pregnant? The point being that if that is not a child in you Madam then you are not pregnant.
Some have tried to twist the words of our founding documents and so we need clarity.
Not for anything but why do we need anyone from the nation that caused our founders to have to establish this great nation in the first place to question our way of life? If I were you I would start learning Arabic by the looks of the Moslems in your country. I'd think you'd want to get THAT under control quickly, no?
But there can be no doubt THIS nation is founded on the Bible and that the Founders KNEW this by the very statements they made, the very laws they enacted and the encouragements they gave continually. Just look directly above the bench of the Supreme Court next time and tell me who is in the center and what he is holding?
The only real debate on whether there is a God is in a person's own conscience. A man only desires to deny God to have free reign to fulfill his own lusts. Nature is replete with the evidence of God, we need only open our eyes.
And "Yes", Mr Wright, adultery is, and has been for a LONG time, punishable "by law". You see, sir, our law is based on The Law, the Ten Commandments, and Adultery is one of those Laws. And adultery, just like murder, lying (like while under oath or to an officer), and stealing, are all punishable "by law." If you looked you would also see those same laws are on your books as well. And no that is not some universal moral code either. The Ten Commandments ARE "law" BECAUSE God gave them to us and said they are Laws. Without the authority of god behind Law they are nothing but "good ideas" and subject to opinion. You see that breakdown of Law whenever you see rebellion against authority.

So, the only "urgent debate" we actually need is on the twisting of our existing Law by Federal Judges and whether Supreme Court justices should be allowed life-long terms.

"You can prove it yourself. In the book of Genesis, you'll find scriptures such as those in Chapter 5: And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son...and named him Seth...Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh...etc.

If you trace the years through accurately, you'll come up with 1948 years from Adam to Abraham."

John, considering that many have tried this and come up with wildly varying figures, I think it's hardly as accurate as all that. Not to mention that since I consider the whole thing merely a collection of the myths of a primitive tribe of people who lived in an ignorant time, I'd hardly look to that as a valid source.

CTCNL has it right in his post above. Like it or not, we all come ultimately from Africa, and 4,000 years ago my ancestors (and probably yours, given your name) were already living in Europe and the British Isles - nowhere near Israel.

Hardly Most maybe 20%. If you poll someone besides Jesus seminarians and a limited number of Catholic theologians.

John, John, John,

But Jesus did not raise Lazurus from the dead. This story only appears in John (11:1-45). Most NT exegetes view it as not historical but as an embellishment by John to give Jesus the credentials of a god. Think about it, Jesus performs his greatest miracle/sign and it only appears in one of the gospels and the last one at that. It does not compute rationally or with NT scholars.

"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred."

What??? Since we have external acheological evidence for the existence of David, (external biblical discoveries made within the last 15 years) why make such a statement about another time period of Israel's history?

John, John, John,

Let us start at the beginning with Adam and Eve. We now know that they did not live 6000 years ago as the Bible time line shows but approximately 60,000 years ago. Read about it at National Geographic's Genographic website.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

excerpts:

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Based on these types of scientific studies, 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have put most of the OT on the myth pile. See
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 for $99.99, you can submit a copy of your DNA to the National Genographic Foundation to find out what tribe your ancestors descended from.

No, I am not a Pastor. If I were I'd have had to take early retirement. The arthritis means that I simply could not perform the Job of Pastor as it ought to be done. Being a Pastor is far more than 3 sermons a week and is for the uninformed a far more taxing and stressful job than you could possibly imagine.

To blaspheme is to deny or curse. That's another problem with hoax busters loopy logic.

Thank you Dr. Wright, for a timely post on "God in Public." I will be giving a talk at a local university on God and Politics this week and appreciate your thoughts. I'm not sure that this particular thread of posts is any indication of what people think Christianity is or isn't, but I must say, it is intriguing.

I think the lesson here, is to not assume too much.

Thank you Dr. Wright, for a timely post on "God in Public." I will be giving a talk at a local university on God and Politics this week and appreciate your thoughts. I'm not sure that this particular thread of posts is any indication of what people think Christianity is or isn't, but I must say, it is intriguing.

I think the lesson here, is to not assume too much.

John Stephens:

Far be it from me to say there is no God. However, Lucifer is the angel that would be God. Morning sun? Maybe - if you believe hoax buster. The Christian church didn't used to say he was and that's where I get my information,, and other places, here even.

In your confused mind, not understanding God and all, you have Lucifer and Satan all mixed up. Satan is the accuser and has nothing to do with taking over the kingdom of God. That was Lucifer--a beautiful angel that realized he could get dumb angels to follow him, (because of his good looks?).

Satan is the "accuser." Today accusers are called prosecuting attorneys. It meant the same thing way back when Satan got his title. In an effort to disguise Lucifer, the supernatural being, (angels are supernatural beings) that inspired the Bible the Christian church has lumped Satan in with him to confuse people. The Christian church has assigned St Peter the job of "accuser" the one who accuses the dead of being sinners but not until recently.

That's just so much smoke screen because St Peter is in paradise, hell. The "accuser" works for God--sorts out sinners, blasphemers in particular and throws them into hell. The Bible says St Peter is in hell. Jesus turned to the "good thief" and said, "this day you will be with me in paradise." Further on in the Bible it says that Jesus descended into hell upon His death. And we know all who follow Jesus will go where He went.

Did Jesus really come back to life? What do you have for witnesses? Nothing but those who followed Him and they too are all in hell, paradise where thieves and blasphemers go. It's blasphemy to say the being in the burning bush was God ya know.

Nice try but the Bible is clearly the word of Lucifer and used by those who, like him would be God. The office of president is the most powerful office on earth so small wonder they want it. Probably think they can use it as a stepping stone to get to everyone into the house of the father of Jesus, paradise, hell according to the Bible.

Lucifer hasn't given up on the idea of throwing God out for sure. The way things look right now, folks thinking it's the being in the burning bush when they recite the pledge and say "one nation under God" blaspheming, there's going to be a lot of trouble. Sooner or later God has to take exception to all that blaspheming.

Armageddon is probably coming right up. The smart ones will be on God's side when Jesus tries to install His father in paradise, (hell) Lucifer as king of earth, make him God no less. I think we can safely say there is but one God. Lucifer is hoping hoax buster is correct when he says there is but one God at a time and his, Lucifer's time to be God has come.

Has Lucifer's time to be God come or shall those who do his bidding be revealed for what they are, blasphemers? I don't want Lucifer running my country because he's just another one of those puny, sissified would-be-Gods like Allah that can't wipe His own nose without help from blasphemers.

Martyrs are people just dying to go to hell.

There is no logic that can convince anyone that God exists, because faith is not an intellectual exercise. Science explains the natural world. Religion explains the supernatural world.

Jesus said, "If they will not believe Moses and the prophets, they will not believe though one should rise from the dead."

Jesus rose from the dead, but his resurrection convinced no unbelievers.

As a matter of fact, the Pharisees and Sadducees had witnessed the miracles of Jesus -- healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, giving limbs to the maimed, cleansing the lepers, etc. and were distressed because thousands of pilgrims were coming from nations round about.

The day Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead was the day they decided to kill him. Strange logic, thinking to kill a man who had power over death.

There is no God for those who believe there is no God. There is a God for those who believe in God. Such is the power of faith, which is itself a gift from God.

BTW Lucifer, the morning sun, was not the devil as so many religionists wrongly suppose, following the false doctrine that Satan was an angel in heaven who made war against God. Satan is the personification of evil, not a real entity.

PAM:

You can prove it yourself. In the book of Genesis, you'll find scriptures such as those in Chapter 5: And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son...and named him Seth...Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh...etc.

If you trace the years through accurately, you'll come up with 1948 years from Adam to Abraham.

GaryD wrote to me, Bgone The Christian God is already part and parcel of our constitution in my view.

Specifically, where in the constitution? If religion and God are the same thing then why are there two different words?

Way back when, (still there?) hoax buster wrote something like, "religion's patent on God is denied and their patent on Devil approved. Keep Him, (the Devil) we don't need Him and without Him religion has nothing to talk about."

Pam, can you prove there is no Devil? Can you prove there was no supernatural being in the burning bush? Now which one can't you prove was not in the burning bush the most, God or Devil?

Saying there is no God is easy for you but if the Bishop said that he'd have to work for a living and GaryD would have no place to throw his money away--buying himself a ticket to hell. GaryD, you aren't one of "them" selling tickets to hell are you?

Logical? Oh yeah, logical. Logic and stupid are synonyms like evangelical and blasphemer--only for the better class of people of course. Keep the faith for there's still plenty much room in hell where the fire that burns but does not consume also burns forever and ever.

Pam, the good news for you is that saying there is no God is not a deadly sin like blasphemy, saying Lucifer is God.

John, John, John,

Bred, Born, and Brainwashed in what Jesus religion??

Bible thumper no doubt!!!

“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.”

Would you let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”
x=GaryD
x=John Stephens

more “logic”?
“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

"Give me one logical reason to not believe it was Lucifer in the burning bush."

Bgone, there is no *logical* reason, nor one shred of evidence, to indicate that Lucifer exists. Nor God.

"From Adam, the Son of God, until Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, was 1948 years."

John Stephens, prove it.

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings..."

Twaddle, stuff and nonsense.

"For I am the Lord God and there is no other. There is none like me, knowing the end from the beginning."

"The testimony of Jesus Christ is the Spirit of prophecy."

From Genesis to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there are dozens and dozens of prophecies foretelling the future of world events. The re-emergence of the nation state of Israel on the world stage is the most significant fulfillment of prophecy regarding end-time events.

From Adam, the Son of God, until Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, was 1948 years. From Jesus, the Son of God (sometimes called the second Adam), until the founding of the modern nation-state of Israel, was 1948 years. It's no coincidence.

Catholic theologians know nothing about Christianity worth knowing.

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings..."

Twaddle, stuff and nonsense. "For I am the Lord God and there is no other. There is none like me, knowing the end from the beginning." "The testimony of Jesus Christ is the Spirit of prophecy." From Genesis to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there are dozens of specific prophecies regarding future events, culminating in the final scenario, the Day of the Lord God Almighty.

Leave it to a Catholic theologian to espouse heresy.

History is like a huge chess game to God. No matter what move you make, it still ultimately comes out the way God intended, despite infinite possibilities and variations.

"Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage. Sound familiar??"

It does sound familiar. You may have observed that many insurance policies now list "Acts of Nature" as a disclaimer, rather than "Acts of God."

Some guy was walking along a sidewalk beneath which the soil had been washed out during a storm. Injured in a subsequent fall, he sued the landowner, whose lawyer argued successfully that it was an "Act of God." So, the guy brought another lawsuit against all local churches, arguing that since they were agents of God, they were responsible for his acts. The case was dismissed as frivolous, but insurance companies revised their disclaimers.

GaryD, thanks for your post.

Although I'd still have to say that I'm waiting to see anyone with expertise within the field refer to the theories of dark matter and dark energy as "supernatural." ..Not understood, ...continues to be a "mystery," ...competing hypothesis, okay. Supernatural, nope.

"Supernatural" assumes a consciousness that smells too much like intelligent design, a hypothesis that is totally baseless at best, and harmful to our collective intelligence at worst. You will not see future advances of humanity, the betterment of human existance via the workings or "theories" of intelligent design.
I would argue that there is no reason whatsoever to attribute anything observable to supernatural causes.

"...absent any proof of it's actual existence..."

Dark matter and Dark energy are not matters of faith. They describe measurable behaviors (patterns of movement of the outer-edge stars of observable galaxies, the increasingly rapid expansion of our universe, non-reflectivity properties, particle physicist arguments about WIMPS vs MACHOS...) Not having an exact-working account for something that is measurable (one can "measure" the effects of these hypotheses, to the point of determining how much of them make up components and suggest the behavior of our observable universe) would not be to suggest that it is "supernatural."

Fact is, we barely know anything of our measurable universe and existance, but I don't think you'll hear the folks who have devoted their lives to the studies refer to them as "supernatural," unless you are talking about issues of "faith" in the religious sense. When referred to in exploration of the natural world, historically where knowledge progresses, the "supernatural" account on the ledger has regressed.

I love the quote from Bill Bryson in his book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything," where he says

"..The upshot of all this is that we live in a universe whose age we can't quite compute, surrounded by stars whose distances from us and each other we don't altogether know, filled with matter we can't identify, operating in comformance with physical laws whose properties we don't truly understand."

Please, I'm willing to learn. Give me references for your suggestions and I'll be happy to move forward with my thinking about this. But not anecdotal references--I need stuff from the people who make it their life-work. Refer me to one article from one respected journal in the field that is peer-reviewed, respected world-wide, and has been tested and verified and I'll forever hold my peace on dark matter and dark energy being acknowledged as "supernatural."

Jeff you missed the point. Let me explain further.

That which is believed to exist absent any proof of it's actual existence versus something else (ie dark matter or dark energy vs some version of God or the other or the other popular choice among Astrophysicists variable gravity) is essentially supernatural in everything but name.

In short if you choose to believe one thing of which there is no positive proof over something else of which there is no positive proof then you have made a choice not based on rationality and logic but upon faith.

Concerned literally dozens of resources over nearly 30 years.

Bgone The Christian God is already part and parcel of our constitution in my view.

Logic? Did somebody say logic?

Did you read, Allan's post?

>>I absolutely believe that the God and father of Jesus Christ should be part of the American constitution. That God should be part of every constitution, and I wouldn't be able to be a Christian and not believe that. In the first century in which Jesus lived, there was no seperation of religion and politics, calling Jesus the Messiah and the Lord was as good as stating the Caesar was not lord.

Is the Bishop or Huckabee or anyone of "faith" any different in their hearts--and political minds?

If you believe God is behind democracy then why do you insist a king, Jesus to be exact will rule the world, when He returns, any minute now.

Is religion the great enemy of democracy? No? How can we have a king and elect a government. Maybe the English can explain how that works? Who is in charge in jolly old England anyhow? Explain please.

I'm so illogical. Just a reminder. I have never expressed an opinion about hoax buster, always ask you to rebut. What am I to believe oh logical ones? Your silence is deafening.

Give me one logical reason to not believe it was Lucifer in the burning bush. Huckabee wants to be president is not a logical reason to call a being on fire God.

Look http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul over and tell me whats wrong. Where is the error? Are those pictures really 'official'? Are the quotes from the Bible not correct? What's wrong? Is it the obvious conclusion? Is it incorrect or just bad for the better class of people? The big money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell and some money goes to everyone who only helps. It's all paid by the multitudes headed to hell.

Is it so illogical to say that the being in the burning bush was Lucifer? Explain please.

Is blasphemy logical? To show ministers they blaspheme and see them not stop tells me a great deal about the ministry. How about all you logical ones? I know. You're not like other people. You can't stand to be wrong and are willing to go to hell rather than admit it.

I got it. You bought "The Bible is a hoax" and don't even believe there is a hell. Just as I thought, a pack of con artists. I'm wrong? That's illogical? Explain please.

GaryD,

And your definition of god was found in what reference?? Or was it a revelation on some mountain top with only you and god in attendance?

Allan: Although I no longer have faith in the Christian God, and I wouldn't support having God and Jesus as a part of every constitution, I do applaud the VALUES that Jesus taught, that you mention so clearly, and that we would all do well to live by.

There are many wonderful things that Jesus taught, some original, some not, but altogether most things he taught are well worth considering, although I think as I've moved along I can see these same wonderful admonishments through humanism, or through older philosophies.

GaryD: I would suggest that no astrophysicist considers dark matter and dark energy "supernatural." If I'm mistaken, please reference me to the correct peer-reviewed journal where I might learn that I'm mistaken. I think there's danger in inaccurate labeling that has it's origins in misunderstanding, especially enough to merit a "well said" from a fellow reader. The only things physicists can observe are, observable, natural phenomenon.

Additionally your characterization of Pam being a "leftist" and therefore deluded is ironic as far as it's opposite, which I might call "neocon right wing." I'm reading an interesting book called "Broken Government" written by a Republican (John Dean) in the government business for his entire career, who defines (quotes Alan Wolf) conservative as this: "Liberals, while enjoying the perquisites of office, also want to be in a position to use government to solve problems. But conservatives have different motives for wanting power. One is to prevent liberals from doing so; if government cannot be made to disappear, at least it can be prevented from doing any good. The other is to build a political machine in which business and the Republican Party can exchange mutual favors; business will lavish cash on politicians (called campaign contributions) while politicians will throw the money back at business (called public policy). Conservatism will always attract its share of young idealists. And young idealists will always be disillusioned by the sheer amount of corruption that people like Gingrich and DeLay generate. If yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork."

Sorry to have to add the collary to "leftist." I'll be a leftist heretofore, and to the extent it can prevent what's happened to us this last 7 years, it's worth fighting for.

Uh, Pam, if you'd just wise up and start writing and picking your nose with your RIGHT hand like all patriotic Merkins, maybe we might put some credence in your comments on spirituality.

Ya Ya!

Schillibeechx is wrong as any being who wishes to be perfect must of necessity be omniscient omnipresent and omnipotent The first two at least imply that he must also exist not only everywhere but every when. By the way being wrong is a fairly common habit of Roman Catholic theologians for some centuries now.

And Pam you are a leftist that almost categorically states that you are illogical and believe things that aren't real and in fact cannot be real.

Professor Ed Schillebeeckx's take on the omniscience of God. (Professor Schillebeeckx is a famous, contemporary, Catholic theologian):

From his book, In Church: The Human Story of God:

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Bottom line: One of God's greatest gifts to us is that of the Future.

Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage. Sound familiar??

"Bgone your logic, such as it is, is faulty."

Had to laugh at this. Imagine GaryD lecturing Bgone about logic.

Hold next service in front and outside the church building, perhaps?

God being spirit, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent can assume any form he wishes. Please note that what drew Moses to the Bush was the fact that it appeared to be on fire and yet the fire did not consume the bush.

Bgone your logic, such as it is, is faulty.

1st assumption that is in error God has an immutable physical form.

2nd that God doesn't know what the devil is doing.

Allan:

God the father of Jesus was the being in the burning bush. It was on fire. So you are willing to say that was God, God is on fire?

When you be with your God you too will be set on fire to burn forever and ever or is just God on fire?

Chris: have a little trouble posting?

Lucifer forgives all sins especially blasphemy -saying the Bible is God's word. The Bible is the word of Devil, not God.

It is very simple. God is ONE and obey him only! If you doubt yourself and others it means that you have already failed. You don't know God and he doesn't know you. Search no more, just repent if you can understand the word repent!

It is very simple. God is ONE and obey him only! If you doubt yourself and others it means that you have already failed. You don't know God and he doesn't know you. Search no more, just repent if you can understand the word repent!

It is very simple. God is ONE and obey him only! If you doubt yourself and others it means that you have already failed. You don't know God and he doesn't know you. Search no more, just repent if you can understand the word repent!

It is very simple. God is ONE and obey him only! If you doubt yourself and others it means that you have already failed. You don't know God and he doesn't know you. Search no more, just repent if you can understand the word repent!

It is very simple. God is ONE and obey him only! If you doubt yourself and others it means that you have already failed. You don't know God and he doesn't know you. Search no more, just repent if you can understand the word repent!

It is very simple. God is ONE and obey him only! If you doubt yourself and others it means that you have already failed. You don't know God and he doesn't know you. Search no more, just repent if you can understand the word repent!

It is very simple. God is ONE and obey him only! If you doubt yourself and others it means that you have already failed. You don't know God and he doesn't know you. Search no more, just repent if you can understand the word repent!

It is very simple. God is ONE and obey him only! If you doubt yourself and others it means that you have already failed. You don't know God and he doesn't know you. Search no more, just repent if you can understand the word repent!

Amen, friend.

As for Christians, the admonishment of Jesus holds true on the issue: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

It is specious and disengenuous to argue that the United States is a Christian nation. Aboriginal extinction, slavery, religious persecution, and hegemonic imperialism all disprove that hypothesis.

God doesn't need man's help through the legislative process. Believe it or not, he does just fine without us.

An individuals personal relationship with their Creator is a private matter...not to be forced on another individual.

We MUST maintain separation of church and state for the God given right of the freedom to choose.

History has proven that when church and state unite, religious intolerance is the inevitable result.

Well said.

For all practical purposes dark matter and dark energy are supernatural. We have no instruments as of yet that can actually detect them we cannot see them and yet something must be holding this universe together and the models such as they are indicate that there is not a sufficiency of detectable things to keep it from falling apart.

Bishop, to find an answer to this supposed conundrum of how to "do God in public", we have only to look to what we'd both concur ought to be the authoritative source. Check this one out in your Red-Letter Bible:

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your God who is in secret, and your God who sees what is done in secret will reward you." -- Matt. 6:5

That, it appears, is how we ought to "do" God in public (or more aptly "not-do", for any Castanedans still out there).

Q.E.D.

I absolutely believe that the God and father of Jesus Christ should be part of the American constitution. That God should be part of every constitution, and I wouldn't be able to be a Christian and not believe that. In the first century in which Jesus lived, there was no seperation of religion and politics, calling Jesus the Messiah and the Lord was as good as stating the Caesar was not lord.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly believe that to place Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God at the head of all political endeavours would be the most wise thing one could do! It is a good idea to ask political figures if they seek to strive for peace, justice and righteousness in their policies. It is a good idea to ask your national leaders if they are striving for equality, for mercy, for compassion, for love. It is a very good idea to ask our nations leaders what they plan to do about these beliefs. Do they plan to bastardize these beliefs into "no abortions" and "no gay-marriages"? Do they plan to live under the vision of Jesus and seek to center their vision on equality, on love, on pacifism?

Allan.

Joshua Udell:

You said, "The Spirit of God says..." Are you talking about the being in the burning bush or some other being? Spirits are invisible? The being in the bush was visible or was only the fire that engulfed IT visible?

The official picture of God at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul authenticated by the Roman Catholic Church, the official church shows a bearded old man in the fire. When I go to paradise and be with God's son Jesus will I be engulfed in flame too? Is heaven on fire or just God? How do you know?

You wrote:

Huckabee's raising of the question, and the way in which these things are now debated in the U.S. (and, in a much lesser degree, in the UK) is an indication that the Enlightenment 'settlement' whereby secular governments run the country and religion is a private affair, is rapidly being seen as threadbare."

The settlement is not "threadbare"; it is endangered, along with freedom of speech and many other Constitutional rights.

This is somewhat like asserting that 9/11 made freedom of speech, and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" threadbare. Some people do think we can't afford these rights any more. I say we need them more than ever.

The separation of church and state annoys many powerful people such as Bush and Huckabee, but that's why we need it -- more than ever.

The problem is that many Americans, including Huckabee, do not understand our government and do not respect our traditions. From time to time, pollsters in the U.S. have circulated a copy of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments), and they ask people what they think of the document. Many members of the public do not recognize that it is part of the Constitution, and they call it "communist" or "un-American" or what have you.

FYI, the Bill of Rights is here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Friday, January 25, 2008

I will keep you in times of need

The Spirit of God says I have given you guidance through My Son and I have given you counsel through My Spirit. I tell you brothers, that what else can I give when I gave you My son. I came to earth to show you My ways, and I left this earth so you could teach My ways. For you are in Me and I am in you. I will help you in your times of need, and bless you beyond your beliefs! Be like My son in all ways. Know to guard yourself, but at the same time be as innocent as doves. Just as Noah sent out the dove to find dry land I promise you if you will be by My side you will always be on the rock that never crumbles. Listen to My ways and you will have wisdom from above, and I will guide you on the path of light. Always remember to love one another, and bless those who speak wrongly against you and you will have your reward. For My son came to seek and save the lost and is waiting for his radiant bride to appear before Him. Remember they will know that you are Mine when you love one another, says the Lord.

http://jcudell.blogspot.com/

Time for Serious Debate on God in Public Bishop? I'll go for that.

Let's begin with the first commandment =no strange God(s). Last week I was informed by theologians hereabouts that violations of the first commandment is blasphemy -what Jesus was convicted of, blasphemy, claiming to be the son of God.

Before we noticed via http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul that the supernatural being in the burning bush was a rather strange God. In fact, IT was the leader of the fallen angels, Lucifer, the angel that tried to take over heaven.

We do hold that Jesus was fathered by that being and that hoax buster bunch does a fairly good job of tying that right in with other quotes form sacred scriptures -good thief. Jesus describing hell to be His father's house and paradise.

I'm very sure you are thinking about the being in the burning bush when you say God. As you well know that's blasphemy, so I hear. Any serious discussion of God, public, private or otherwise must begin by identifying that being -the one Moses made the deal with.

So again I call for evidence of any kind, I'm getting desperate for evidence that hoax buster fellow is full of it and doesn't have the story straight. Where is he in error? Realizing as you surely must the devastating blow to faith it will be if his finding, that was Lucifer and not God in the burning bush goes unchallenged -something with a little more body than that web site is jibberish. I have no difficulty following what he says and don't believe you or anyone else does either.

We can try and seek and save that which is lost but unless the Lord softens their hardened hearts and their unbelief; they'll never get it! Matthew 24:8-10: All these are the beginning of birth pains. "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other; Corinthians: 1:19-21: 19For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[a] Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 2:12-15 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. We know this....It's futile...

JWS:

I have a major quibble with your statement that "Many/most naturalists/atheists think there is a 'God', just not a theistic one". I am an atheist, and I believe in absolutely nothing supernatural. I believe in no god of any kind, theistic or other wise. I also believe that most atheists agree with me - I could be wrong. A few atheists might believe in some kind of god, but most clearly do not. Maybe we should call oursleves asupernaturalists.

JWS,

By all means, let's have serious public debates about "God". They would be interesting, informative and fun.

And a lot better than the debates we have now, which are largely about imposing religious beliefs on others through force of law, and about finding ways to funnel public money to religious organizations without seeming to violate the Constitution (or, more accurately, without violating the views of The Roman Five on the Supreme Court).

Regards.

The problem with a serious debate is that too many are not serious,as witness Mr. Mark's comment. One of the things the Bible teaches is 'that to the natural man the things of God appear foolish'.

Er... ah..., case in point. ;o)

We can have a serious debate about god, but first, we need to have the serious debate about astrology and alchemy which are on the same level of seriousness as is belief in gods.

Norrie, of course, the counter argument to "there is no God" is that "yes there is!". I am of course stating the obvious.

This on the face of it, seems to support SKEPTONOMIST's contention that we can't have a rational discussion since both sides are entrenched in their views. And yet when I read writings from well-known atheists, such as Dawkins, I find that the "there is no God" is really about definition. Many/most naturalists/atheists think there is a 'God', just not a theistic one. Other religions besides the western ones also think of God in very different terms than the 'grandfather in the sky' caricature. So a public discourse about God should recognize that the term 'God' shouldn't be relegated to the fundamentalist and/or mainline traditionalist christian view. Thus N.T. Wright's reference to "serious, grown-up, informed debate" is well said. In my experience, the normal American has little knowledge about the broad range of definitions for 'God'. The narrow perspective of most is what makes this debate difficult to have. We, as a society, are not what I would call "informed" in this regard.

Bishop Wright,

My earliest Hoyt ancestors landed at Salem, Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1628, presumably at least in part to escape your fellow Anglican clergy. Unhappily, a Hoyt relative was hanged there in 1692 as a witch, undoubtedly with the blessings of the equally obnoxious (or more so) Puritan clergy.

After a time things got sorted out here and governmental acknowledgement of religion or religions pretty well got eliminated, except for fairly harmless bows to "civic religion" ("In God We Trust" on our coins, and so on.)

Really, all Mr. Huckabee is talking about is amending our Constitution to prohibit abortion and governmentally sanctioned same-sex unions under whatever name. A non-religious right-winger could just as well have proposed these regressive laws - they have no necessary connection with any religion.

Any serious constitutional proposal to really recognize religion in law in this country is virtually certain to be defeated. Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 affirmative vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the States. Not easy to obtain!

Most Americans get very uneasy at the thought of amending the Constitution for any purpose, let alone a religious one. Even conservative fundamentalist denominations, such as the Baptists, have a built-in reflex to oppose such moves.

So I don't think our historic religious "settlement" is "threadbare" or likely to be replaced any time soon.

As for "Doing God in Public", in the legal sense,
there's much more opposition to that here than probably appears to those living in Britain, given all the noisy bible thumpers carousing in this country.

For myself, I'd ask how you can "do God in public" when there is no "God".

And I'm by no means alone in that sort of thinking, particularly up here in the rebellious and quite secular hills of Vermont. [If the bulk of the U.S was England, Vermont would be Scotland, with all its strange and deviant insular ways].

All best wishes to you.

"Rational debate is something that is impossible between religions."

...While I understand your frustration, I don't agree. I do see a lot of irrational debate on the onfaith site, however I see plenty of rational debate too. I think we have to be careful not to succumb to the loud minority and realize that there is a quieter majority who can and often do think rationally.

Furthermore, in my experience, the thing that is often missing in mainline churches (and I have been to a few) is the ability of the religious leaders to expand the discussion beyond the doctrine of their particular denomination. If you can see past the details, there is a surprising commonality among not only denominations within Christianity, but also among the world's religions. Rather than just focusing on our differences, we should also examine our similarities. Rational discussion/debate is easier once we realize that we have something in common.

You are an Anglican priest. It was to escape the intolerance of your state church that many of the early migrants came to this country. Several of the provisions in our Constitution, such as the prohibition of religious tests, are obviously designed to avoid the intolerant policies of the British state at that time.

Now you are telling us that this was all wrong - we must accept your view of the conjunction of state and religion.

"We need serious, grown-up, informed debate..."

If it "won't do" to point out that religious extremism can lead to theocracy, or that the more serious people are about religion the more intolerant they are, or that empirical evidence indicates that religious intolerance is a bad thing, or that material progress in the world has been made in spite of opposition by religious authorities, where is the debate?

You presuppose that we must 'do God in public'. The remaining debate is then about whose religion must be done - should we have a round of religious wars about this? Rational debate is something that is impossible between religions.