The Son who Saves

Overnight shipping free pills prescription pharmacy, http://myrxpill.com

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

hsybcjqk rqxjgpl svchuax fzngc wefkvi liqk mxrgslajf http://www.ciruehlt.hzvbsjeq.com

uovafj eqdtiprv pvdsbzj lqvfty gmju zjrx lbjpunywf

Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green

Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green

So I am curious if anyone, particularly Bob but anyone can take a shot, could prove God doesn't exist?

People often have this pompous attitude that Christians have thrown everything into something they can't really prove...

So how about the other half...let's hear it...prove to the world God doesn't exist!

As an individual who came to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ in my forties, I too have struggled with the thoughts stated in just about every previous post. By God's grace, He placed me in a church where His Word (the Bible) was taught by men such as Doctor Mohler who loved God deeply and were committed to faithful exposition of His Word.

God used His Word to convict me of my sin and He gave me the faith to believe that Jesus Christ is God-who willingly came to earth as a man and lived a perfect, sinless life, and bore my sin on His body on the cross at Calvary so that I could be forgiven. There is no greater gift that could ever be given or received! Hence the joy in the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

The Book of Ephesians Chapter 2:8-9 states that:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Paul states in the book of Romans the blessings of faith and the consequences of unbelief.
I am eternally grateful that I now come under the former and not the latter...To Jesus Christ be the glory now and forever, AMEN!

Romans 1:16-32

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Unbelief and Its Consequences

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Ashley,

I could care less about creation at this point. Here's my point: All science is inductive (scientists admit this) and therefore all science is false. Induction cannot produce certainty, it cannot even produce probability.

Science, if consistently follows out, leads to skepticism and skepticism is impossible - it is self contradictory.

Forget creation, forget crystals...blah, blah, blah...who cares...my argument is that your worldview cannot account for the preconditions needed for Pam and I to even have a conversation.

Not only that, but atheists realizing this then twist logic and make it mean whatever the heck they want to make it mean...now induction is ok.

whatever...this is the reason Scripture calls you folks morons.

Jason,

Neither you or Pam know the answer to the big question, "how did we come to exist?". The difference between you is that she knows that she doesn't have the answer, but you don't. Pam stated correctly that we have some reasonable hypotheses concerning the origin of our universe, but we have no evidence to decide among them. You foolishly insist because their is no evidence, then your gods are the answer.

That's plain old "god of the gaps" rationalizing. You're trying to stuff your god in a gap in current scientific knowledge. Watch where you put him! Scientific gaps get narrower every day, and he might get pinched.

Debbie,

I utterly reject the "Left Behind" nonsense. Jesus could not have been any clearer as to when His coming would occur:

Matthew 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Revelation 22:6-7 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place." 7 "And behold, I am coming soon.

Your question, of course, assumes that the whole "Left Behind" theology is correct; however, it has not and can not be exegetically demonstrated from anywhere in the Bible.

Dr Mohler,

I pray that you are recovering from your illness.

Maybe a college course in literary analysis would do you some good. Your handling of the Bible is just as bad, if not worse, then the “Left Behind” nuts who have people disappearing into thin air, Jesus floating down on a cloud, and “locusts” as apache helicopters. That is really pathetic Pam. Again, I doubt you’ve spent much time reading the Bible so please don’t pretend you know what’s going on in it.

Jason, What will you do when you are left behind?
It's coming and it could be in your lifetime.

Pam: “Jason, I suspect that we're the only ones left on this thread, so this will be my last rejoinder. I can see that there's no getting through to you.”

When you violate logic, or for that matter, cannot account for logic; then no, you’re not going to get through to me.

Pam: “All I said was that the Bible says the world is flat. Do you dispute this?

The Bible says that the “land” has four corners. However, if you were a theologian and understood Biblical typology, symbolism, etc., you would understand that saying the land has four corners was not meant to be a scientific commentary on the shape of planet earth but is one of the many creative ways in which Scripture wants to convey that creation is patterned after the temple in heaven.

This is why, for example, in Matthew 24 Jesus refers to the destruction of the Temple as a “passing away of heaven and earth”. It’s Biblical typology/symbolism. And it is typology/symbolism that becomes apparent when one searches the Scriptures in depth.

For you and the “Left Behind” wackos to walk in and claim that the Bible teaches the earth is physically flat and has four corners and that Jesus taught that the physical earth is going to burn up at some point in the future, simply reveals your elementary understanding of Scripture.

Again, leave the theology to the theologians.

Pam: “Who ever said that I was basing anything on the "last ten" things I looked at. Ten is your number, not mine. If that were all there were, I would not be convinced. But, in fact, EVERYTHING that has ever been explained has a natural explanation - and that covers items too numerous to count. I have never seen ANY scientific evidence of anything supernatural. If you have proof - trot it out!”

Of course you are never going to see scientific evidence for anything supernatural. I have never made the claim that you could. In fact, I have made it very clear that I do not accept any attempts made by ‘christians’ (like the intelligent design nonsense) who try to empirically verify the existence of an immaterial God.

But here’s the thing Pam – I don’t LIMIT myself to empirical data…YOU HOWEVER DO! So much for being a “free-thinker”.

One very simple reason (and just this one would suffice) why I do not limit myself to empirical data is because empirical data cannot account for something as essential as logic.

How do you, Pam, account for the laws of logic without simply asserting, “It just is”?
Pam: “Scripture isn't proof, nor is "creation."”

Again Pam, I don’t try to “prove” that God exists. That’s not my job. God reveals Himself to whoever He pleases. What I am trying to do is to get you to be more logically consistent with your own presuppositions, yet you refuse to accept the implications for whatever reasons… ignorance, cowardice.

Pam: “I have an *idea* how matter came to be, but I have no proof, therefore I don't *know*. I can't prove that your idea is wrong ”

Uhhhh…so stop saying then that there MUST be a natural explanation. By your own admission you CAN NOT KNOW THAT. Again, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Pam: “if I had to categorize myself, it would be as a naturalist - the belief that all phenomena are covered by the [natural] laws of science”

Then, “The definiton of free thought is "thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, esp. in matters of religion."”

Then later, “Let's get one thing straight right off the bat - atheists don't have a dogma, or a creed, or even a set of beliefs. They only way in which they are alike is in a lack of belief in a supernatural power. Don't try to lump us together. There is no "Book of Atheism" to whose tenets we all must swear to ascribe.”

Pam, what appears to be happening is that you have embrace irrationalism. You believe that you are “unrestrained by deference to…established belief” yet you just got done saying that you believe “that all phenomena are covered by the [natural] laws of science.”

As I hinted to above, by your own admission you ARE RESTRAINED and therefore not a “free-thinker”. You are restrained to empirical evidence and the so called “laws of science.”

I, however, do not restrain myself to such, because again, there is no empirical evidence to account for something as fundamental as the laws of logic.

Not only are you NOT a free-thinker, but you have restrained yourself to a bankrupt worldview that cannot even provide the preconditions for any intelligible discourse.

Pam: “Both occur naturally”

Hmmm…so you’re telling me that it is NATURAL for a man to stick his penis in another man’s butt?

My atheist father-in-law would beg to differ. But see, that is exactly the problem. One atheist says it’s not natural (well, actually a great number of them do) and yet some don’t – who’s right here Pam? You have no basis for moral absolutes. It’s just whatever you feel like it should be; however, not everyone feels the same way you do.

Pam: “atheists don't have a dogma, or a creed”

Do you know what “creed” means? “Creed” comes from the latin “credo” – it means I “believe”.

And here’s your ‘creed’ – a direct quote from you:

“ if I had to categorize myself, it would be as a naturalist - the belief that all phenomena are covered by the [natural] laws of science.”

The what? The BELIEF.

You’re not a ‘free-thinker’ Pam.

And lastly…when I asked if the law of contradiction is open to dispute and doubt, you answered:

“Sure, *anything* is open to dispute and doubt”

Wow. And how exactly would one dispute (contradict) the law of contradiction? Pam, you are the one that has gone “crazy” to think that the law of contradiction is open to dispute and doubt.

I’ll leave you with these wise words from one of the greatest Christian minds in the past century, Gordon Clark – words for which you have no answer:

Every statement, even if particular, depends on the law of contradiction. Truth and error are incompatible. If all marhoucals are rhinosaps, there cannot be a single marhoucal that is not a rhinosap. We do not have to inspect the infinite number of the latter in order to assure ourselves that none can be found. Given the premise, we do not need to examine even one. That O ab cannot be deduced from A ab is a necessity of logic. And if our minds are not so constructed, we can never distinguish truth from error. But empiricism furnishes no necessity, no universality, no all, no none.

Indeed, it furnishes no some either. Whether the logical form be universal or particular, the proposition must have a subject term. All dogs are vertebrates; some dogs are black. Suppose now that the subject term, dogs, had five meanings. This is not unusual for English words. Consult Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Look up the words fast, curb, domestic, race, land-not to mention love, emotion, grace, religion, and virtue. Each one will have possibly four, five and sometimes six different meanings. This frequently introduces considerable ambiguity, with the result that an argument, apparently logical, is actually fallacious. The fallacy can be avoided, sometimes with a bit of trouble, by specifying meaning one, meaning two, and meaning three. But there is a deeper problem. Suppose a given word has an infinite number of meanings. The word fast would then mean every word in the dictionary from the article “a” to “zyzzogetan,” plus an unimaginable greater number. “Fast fast fast fast” would mean, “Today is last Tuesday” and “Washington discovered America in 1066.” That is to say, a word that means everything means nothing. But this which is so obvious could not be deduced from any finite number of observations. It is a principle which must be accepted even before the term “observation” could be given any meaning at all. Therefore the use of any single word in an intelligible sentence depends on an a priori principle. No blank mind could ever discover this principle. One could phrase the principle as “a word, to mean something, must also not mean something”; or, “if a word means everything, it means nothing.” Like the law of contradiction, it is a way of maintaining the distinction between truth and falsehood. And this distinction is the basic element in the image of God.

Jason, I suspect that we're the only ones left on this thread, so this will be my last rejoinder. I can see that there's no getting through to you.

You wrote:
"1. Again, leave the theology to the theologians. No theologian in their right mind would attempt to use the Bible to solve all scientific riddles. That is not the purpose of Scripture. The Bible never made the claim to serve that purpose."

I didn't say that anyone was using the Bible to solve riddles of any kind - but you either believe it's the true revealed word of God, or you don't.

Jason: "Maybe a college course in literary analysis would do you some good. Your handling of the Bible is just as bad, if not worse, then the “Left Behind” nuts who have people disappearing into thin air, Jesus floating down on a cloud, and “locusts” as apache helicopters. That is really pathetic Pam."

What have they got to do with me?? You won't find me disagreeing that they're serious whack jobs. My "handling" of the Bible?? What the hell are you talking about? All I said was that the Bible says the world is flat. Do you dispute this?

Jason: "Again, I doubt you’ve spent much time reading the Bible so please don’t pretend you know what’s going on in it."

You know nothing whatsoever about me. I *have* read it - all of it - and refer to it fairly frequently. I just don't believe that it's the word of God, or that there even is a God. I've also read Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology.

Jason: "2. I don’t see anything on that webpage that explains how crystals grow. All I see is classifications."

Try clicking on the links, Jason. It's a big Web site.

Jason: "3. You said, “A sample of 10 birds would never lead me to make any sort of prediction as to the eleventh.” Ok, then stop making your dogmatic statement that everything must have a natural answer because the last ten things you looked into had one. (that still remains to be proven)"

Who ever said that I was basing anything on the "last ten" things I looked at. Ten is your number, not mine. If that were all there were, I would not be convinced. But, in fact, EVERYTHING that has ever been explained has a natural explanation - and that covers items too numerous to count. I have never seen ANY scientific evidence of anything supernatural. If you have proof - trot it out!

4. You said, “If someone asked me to prove that 2+3 is NOT 8, I could only do so by proving that 2+3 IS 5.” Well, you’re still proving what 2+3 is NOT….now you’re just playing word games. In fact, your own wording admits it…” If someone asked me to prove… I could only do so…”

The semantics are yours, as I see it; but have it your way. Math problems aren't what we were originally talking about. I can't prove that anything (including your God) *doesn't* exist. No one can. The burden of proof lies with those who say he *does* exist. Scripture isn't proof, nor is "creation." If you have real proof, again, trot it out.

Jason: "5. Once again, you have “ideas” – no proof. So again, you don’t know. And if you don’t know then you can’t tell me my “idea” is wrong."

That's what I said. I have an *idea* how matter came to be, but I have no proof, therefore I don't *know*. I can't prove that your idea is wrong. But you religious people claim to *know*, although you offer no proof. At least I'm honest. You said that I said I had "no idea." That is not correct.

Jason: "6. No, you’re not a free-thinker. You prove so here: “My beliefs are entirely evidence based.” You are an empiricist. Furthermore, empiricism, as a first principle, contradicts itself."

Sigh. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? If so, it's not discernible. I dislike the pigeonholes of philosophy, but if I had to categorize myself, it would be as a naturalist - the belief that all phenomena are covered by the [natural] laws of science, making teleological explanations valueless. I am most definitely NOT an empiricist (one who believes that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience) any more than I am a rationalist (one who believes that all knowledge is derived from reason alone, independent of experience). Both are intellectually bankrupt. The definiton of free thought is "thought unrestrained by deference to authority, tradition, or established belief, esp. in matters of religion." This descibes me perfectly.

Jason: "7. Logic? I’m talking about Aristotelian logic. Take the universal, immaterial, “law of contradiction”, for example - how do you account for the existence of this law from a naturalistic worldview? Furthermore, is this a law you believe is open for dispute or doubt, being the ‘free thinker’ that you claim to be?"

Sure, *anything* is open to dispute and doubt, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an ultimate truth. This one seems to me to be so *naturally* self-evident that I can't imagine why anyone *would* dispute it, but, hey, the world is full of crazies.

Jason: "8. You said, “The natural explanation for why it's wrong for someone to break into my house, steal things, and murder me is that social animals have to have rules to live by”. Who says social animals have to have rules?

It comes with the territory. Without rules, there is no society - it breaks down. Don't take my word for it - study animal societies. It might be good for you to expose yourself to the natural world for a change. Did you know that in a wolf pack only the alpha male is "allowed" to sire a litter? It's a RULE. He who attempts to break it is either killed, or driven from the pack. In ant colonies the rules are so intense and ingrained that they actually function more like organisms than societies.

Jason: "Furthermore, define a ‘smoothly’ operating society and what makes your definition better than anyone else’s? I’ve met atheists who have a major problem with homosexuals…some ‘free-thinkers’ don’t…who’s right? Pam, should homosexuality be tolerated?"

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat - atheists don't have a dogma, or a creed, or even a set of beliefs. They only way in which they are alike is in a lack of belief in a supernatural power. Don't try to lump us together. There is no "Book of Atheism" to whose tenets we all must swear to ascribe.

My definition of a smoothly functioning society is one in which there is as much order and as little conflict and chaos as possible - one that works better for its members than would life outside the society. This is the *natural* definition. I haven't heard any others, so can't speak to how mine might be better or worse.

Personally, I think that homosexuality should be as accepted as heterosexuality. Both occur naturally, and are not "lifestyles" or choices. They are caused by the hormonal environment at a critical juncture in the prenatal development of the brain. Politically, I think it's as wrong to deprive homosexuals of their constitutional rights and the privileges that accrue to other Americans as it is to deny them to paraplegics, or people of Asian descent, or any other group you care to characterize. Don't jump to any conclusions here - I'm neither homosexual, Asian, nor paraplegic. Not sure what all this has to do with the existence of God, either.

Pam,

1. Again, leave the theology to the theologians. No theologian in their right mind would attempt to use the Bible to solve all scientific riddles. That is not the purpose of Scripture. The Bible never made the claim to serve that purpose.

Maybe a college course in literary analysis would do you some good. Your handling of the Bible is just as bad, if not worse, then the “Left Behind” nuts who have people disappearing into thin air, Jesus floating down on a cloud, and “locusts” as apache helicopters. That is really pathetic Pam. Again, I doubt you’ve spent much time reading the Bible so please don’t pretend you know what’s going on in it.

2. I don’t see anything on that webpage that explains how crystals grow. All I see is classifications.

3. You said, “A sample of 10 birds would never lead me to make any sort of prediction as to the eleventh.” Ok, then stop making your dogmatic statement that everything must have a natural answer because the last ten things you looked into had one. (that still remains to be proven)

4. You said, “If someone asked me to prove that 2+3 is NOT 8, I could only do so by proving that 2+3 IS 5.” Well, you’re still proving what 2+3 is NOT….now you’re just playing word games. In fact, your own wording admits it…” If someone asked me to prove… I could only do so…”

5. Once again, you have “ideas” – no proof. So again, you don’t know. And if you don’t know then you can’t tell me my “idea” is wrong. If you don’t know what 2+3 is, then you can not criticize me for saying 3, or 4, or 5. You either know or you don’t. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

6. No, you’re not a free-thinker. You prove so here: “My beliefs are entirely evidence based.” You are an empiricist. Furthermore, empiricism, as a first principle, contradicts itself.

7. Logic? I’m talking about Aristotelian logic. Take the universal, immaterial, “law of contradiction”, for example - how do you account for the existence of this law from a naturalistic worldview? Furthermore, is this a law you believe is open for dispute or doubt, being the ‘free thinker’ that you claim to be?

8. You said, “The natural explanation for why it's wrong for someone to break into my house, steal things, and murder me is that social animals have to have rules to live by”. Who says social animals have to have rules? Furthermore, define a ‘smoothly’ operating society and what makes your definition better than anyone else’s? I’ve met atheists who have a major problem with homosexuals…some ‘free-thinkers’ don’t…who’s right? Pam, should homosexuality be tolerated?

Jason, you are really getting tiresome.
Of course the Bible means the world is flat when it says that. It also says a few things about the Sun. You can't use the Bible as a source of truth and then explain away all its factual errors by saying it's metaphorical.

So I can't discover how crystals form? I did, and you can too:
http://webmineral.com/crystall.shtml

A sample of 10 birds would never lead me to make any sort of prediction as to the eleventh.

If someone asked me to prove that 2+3 is NOT 8, I could only do so by proving that 2+3 IS 5. I can only prove the positive. Your Poodle/bird example is a case in point. Thank you.

By my own admission I have no idea how we came to exist?? Where did you get that from? I actually have a pretty good idea how we came to exist. There are some very good working hypotheses out there, just no proof at this juncture. I said that I don't *know* where the first matter in the universe came from. I have ideas, though. :)

You offer this definiton of dogma:
“Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.”

This does not apply to my thinking. Nothing I have said comes from religion, ideology, or any organization. None is "established doctrine." None is authoritative or not be disputed or doubted. That's anathema to science, which *thrives* on doubt and dispute. I'm a free thinker, and that's light years away from dogma. My beliefs are entirely evidence based. Show me better evidence, I'll change my thinking.

By the "laws of logic", do you mean propositional logic and boolean algebra? These are ways of thinking about and understanding things, and as such, are products of the human brain. Nothing is much more natural than that.

The natural explanation for why it's wrong for someone to break into my house, steal things, and murder me is that social animals have to have rules to live by, else the society ceases to function. All animal societies have rules. The definition of "wrong" is that which causes societal breakdown or chaos. The definiton of "right", in the same context, is that which makes the society function smoothly. No more, no less.

5. Lastly, you said, "I see not one whit of evidence for anything supernatural, and a boatload for natural explanations"

Really? Pam, please give me some "natural explanations" for how you account for the laws of logic. Also, please give me some "natural explanations" why it would be wrong for someone to break into your house tonight, steal your most valuable possessions, and murder you. What "natural" reason do you have for insisting that murder is wrong? Furthermore, what "natural explanations" do you have to insist that there is even such a thing as "wrong" and "right"?

Pam,

A couple of things…your error is so obvious.

1. The Bible doesn’t say the world is flat in the sense that you understand it. The Bible is not a science book. It is interested in particular themes/motifs and often employs figures of speech, metaphor, symbolism, literary devices, structures, and the like, to convey specific points for specific issues. You should leave theology to the theologians.
2. You said, “Of course I can. I don't know exactly how crystals form, but there IS a natural answer, and I can discover it if I want to.” Uh, no you can’t.

Pam, simple illustration here: You’re sitting in the park and a blue bird flies by. The next bird that flies by is blue…then the next…then the next…this happens 10 times. Ten blue birds in row. Now, what color will the eleventh bird be? Blue? Well, maybe, maybe not...may be red, or brown, or black. You might not even have a bird fly by again before you leave the park.

This is a simple illustration of the problem of trying to arrive at absolutes inductively. And this is exactly the problem with all scientific laws.

Pam, it is simply bad logic to argue that there MUST be a natural explanation for our existence because there has been for other things. (assuming that these other so-called “natural” explanations are even valid, for much of that can be challenged)

What you are doing, in effect, is arguing that the 11th bird WILL and MUST be blue. This of course, would raise some eyebrows from a few people sitting there with you in the park. “Is she omniscient? Did she rig this? Something must be up for her to be so sure of herself that that the next bird MUST and WILL be blue.”

Pam, I have had very lengthy conversations with at least two agnostics - one who has taken logic and one who teaches logic at USF - who understand this simple problem and that is why they refuse to claim absolutes on anything, including a denial or an acceptance of ‘a god’. If only you would be as consistent.

3. You said, “I don't claim to know what something is NOT. I don't ever try to prove negatives.”

Nice dodge Pam. You mean to tell me that if someone walked up to you and asked you to prove that 2 + 3 is NOT 8, you couldn’t answer them? Wow.

Again Pam, simple stuff here. If someone points at a poodle and asks me, “is that a bird?” and I said, “No”, then that implies that I know what a poodle is and I know what a bird is. I know what something is not because I know what something is. If I did not know what the word “bird” means, I would not be able to answer whether that poodle could be considered a “bird” or not.
And again, to tweak the illustration to demonstrate your type of reasoning, you are in effect saying, “Well, I have no idea what ‘bird’ means, but I know that poodle ain’t one of them.”

Pam, by your own admission, you have no idea how we came to exist; therefore, you should zip the lip. You are in position to say then that “it must be this” or “it must be that.” Again, YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT and YOU ADMIT THIS, so why are you even yacking about it?

4. Concerning “dogma”, most of the dictionaries I have ran across define it as Wiki has:

“Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.”

Dogma, therefore, it not limited to “religion” and we see it at work with you. For example, you seem to acknowledge limitations with your knowledge, yet you fill in your gaps with the same automatic answer every time - “there must be a natural explanation”. Naturalism has become your “god of the gaps”. Again, the more logically consistent scientists, like the professor at USF, would say, “crystals may or may not have a natural explanation.” But not you; you absolutely insist that everything MUST have a natural explanation, even things you know nothing about.

Uhhh, Pam, I believe that’s called “dogma”. ( ;

I was an unbeliever in High School and dated a girl who was a Baptist. They were a loving and intelligent family. They always thought I would "find my way" and always treated me with respect.

While I never went the way they would have wanted and I don't know where they are now, it contributed to my thought that ridicule during conversation is not helpful to anyone. We are going to miss out on a great opportunity to learn and teach.

I wish we could talk to each other as if we were face to face with someone who we respect.

Kenneth:
You wrote:
"You are still at one of two points: 1) Something came from nothing; or 2) Eternal existence is possible."

Maybe. Or maybe there's a third possibility that our current knowledge doesn't allow us to see. Seems to me there's a saying about darkness and dawn that might cover this. :)

"The first point is totally irrational - and your post says you will only accept the rational."

The first point seems less likely to me, but maybe it's not. Maybe we'll find that our definition of matter is lacking a facet. I've always heard that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, which sounds pretty much like eternal existence. But physics is not my area of expertise.

"So that leaves us with number 2. The problem you have here is that you don't mind matter and energy in external existence, you just don't want God to be able to occupy that space instead."

Right. I don't. Maybe if you could could explain to me exactly what you mean by "God", I'd have less of a problem with it, but when you start talking about something that has a "son", and that sits in judgement of our "sins", then you lose me - that's way too anthropomorphic. Is he an old man with long white beard, dressed in a gown? No? You've outgrown that one? What then? A "spirit"? What would that be, exactly? Define your always-existing God, and then we'll talk.

"Too bad. Your desire to rule out God while ruling in matter and energy is a very irrational choice. It makes infinitely more sense to allow an intelligent Creator than it does to allow inanimate particles. The Creator option is rational, while believing in the eternal existence of the inanimate is totally irrational."

Sorry, but I don't see it that way at all - quite the opposite, in fact. I see not one whit of evidence for anything supernatural, and a boatload for natural explanations. If I were on a jury, I'd have to go with natural.

Jason:
You wrote:
"You can NOT say in the same breathe that you 'don't know' how things came into existence and then turn right around and say 'but there IS a natural answer'."

Of course I can. I don't know exactly how crystals form, but there IS a natural answer, and I can discover it if I want to. Do you disagree with this? It's not different from the question about the beginning of the universe. There was a time when NO human knew how crystals formed, but at that time there still WAS a natural answer - it just wasn't yet discovered.

"My gosh people, do you not see how ridiculous this is? I don't care if you're an atheist, christian, buddhists or whatever - your statement, Pam, is nonsense...any way you want to look at it."

Nothing ridiculous or nonsensical about it.

"Either you know or you don't."

You're right, either I know, or I don't.
I don't.
But that doesn't mean that I still won't know tomorrow, or next year, or thirty years from now.
Until discoveries are made, no one knows.

"In order to know what something is NOT, you have to know a little something about what it IS."

I don't claim to know what something is NOT. I don't ever try to prove negatives.

"Your dogma that there MUST be a natural explanation of creation right after telling me that you don't know how creation got here is pure NONSENSE."

Not so. And I don't have a dogma - that is the stuff of religion. I also have trouble with the word "creation." Here's the thing, Jason - everything that I've ever seen, experienced, or known of is entirely natural. I know of nothing that isn't. Yes, there are gaps in my knowledge, and in human knowledge in general, but there's a great danger for those who fill those gaps with God, because knowledge has a way of coming along to bump him out. It's been happening throughout human history, and the established religion (whether church or witch doctor) has been fighting it tooth and nail every step of the way.
There are still people who believe that the world is flat because the Bible says it is, for Pete's sake! What will happen when there are no more gaps for God to hide in?

I simply see no need of God or anything else supernatural to explain the universe or my existence. I fully realize that there are some questions that human knowledge can't answer - YET. It may not be answered in my lifetime, and it's possible that we won't ever have the answer, but that doesn't mean that there ISN'T an answer.

Things that we don't know are, by definiton, mysterious. To a Neanderthal, a crystal would have been very mysterious - would have strongly appeared to have been designed. Could only have been by God, right? Wrong. The reason and the mechanism are now known. If you can't solve a math problem, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a solution.

Assuming that God does indeed exist, then Jesus (Yeshua) is a Son of God just like all other men, and Mary is a daughter of God just like all other women.

Christians want there to be only one son of God just as they want there to be only one way to God, both of which they conveniently “know“. The likelihood that God feels the same way is inconceivable as that would make Him both simplistic and sectarian. That doesn’t sound much like a God worthy of praise and allegiance, nor should it. The Christian God is too small a God for the universe we are only a small part of.

The Greek Gods came down to create human beings with virgins and hence the story of Jesus‘ conception. The God of our age did them one better, He created all of humanity, all the sons and daughters included.

Jason:

"Prove to me that knowledge is derived through the senses."

I can't -- I can only indicate that it is possible to create an internally consistent model of the universe in which observations form the primary mechanism of verification and validation.

It is certainly possible to develop an alterative model -- but it becomes a challenge to retain its internal consistency.

Rumors that Lucifer lost the big fight in the sky with Michael the arc angel are unfounded. Lucifer is God. He won and it's God that lives in the fire that burns but does not consume.

Interpretation 1501, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul if you're still in the market. Got your soul listed or did you alredy find a buyer? Hurry, the price is falling.

When two or more of you are gathered in my name you will put words in my mouth I never spoke. But I would have spoken them had I known. So go on an do it. You will use those words to make your points. No two of you will put the same words in my mout. You will all have the absolute truths that I have spoken and prove your points, absolutely. You will kill each other because your correct conclusions are at odds with each other.

I am Lucifer the prince of war. Now have a go at each other. You are both correct for I speak all the words you want me to speak. Welcome to my kingdom. My kingdom is your kingdom. Your kingdome is heaven. Your reward awaits you.

I love you and will welcome you with open arms, should your enemy get in a lucky punch. You are my chosen people. I will be with you all the days of your lives. I will reward you with the treasure you take from your enemies. Your enemies are my enemies. They did not earn what they have so take it.

I forgive sins so lie, cheat, rob and kill each other. Your sins are forgiven. So shout it out. I believe! Louder! I believe!! Come now you can do better than that.

I beleive Christians don't believe in God.

I believe Christians lie when they say they believe in God.

You cannot prove I don't believe what I say I believe.

You cannot stop me from believing what I believe.

My faith is what I believe.

My faith says all other faits are lying and don't faith at all but just lie and say they are faith.

My faith is the correct faith because I believe what I believe and I believe all other believers are just lying and don't believe what they say they believe.

Believe me.

The Qur'an is a lie and Muhammad is a false prophet.

Candice,

Calling people names proves nothing.

Candice,

Would you like to prove your assertions or are do you think calling Christians "Bible thumpers" is sufficient?

anony said,

"Let's step back to the scientific method" and then later, "Based on my observations"

no, no...you're jumping the gun my friend. Let's take even one more step back.

Prove to me that knowledge is derived through the senses.

Pam,

You say, "The real question is why there's something rather than nothing. I don't know. No one does. But that doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation, and that it isn't knowable or discoverable - just means we aren't there yet. Maybe the human race isn't smart enough to ever figure it out, maybe we won't last long enough to get there, but there IS a natural answer."

Pam, you fall into the same trap as the person posting the hoax website.

You can NOT say in the same breathe that you "don't know" how things came into existence and then turn right around and say "but there IS a natural answer".

My gosh people, do you not see how ridiculous this is? I don't care if you're an atheist, christian, buddhists or whatever - your statement, Pam, is nonsense...any way you want to look at it.

Either you know or you don't.

That's like a scientist asking me if i know what a gobotronalotron is and i say, "No, but i know it's not a ______"

In order to know what something is NOT, you have to know a little something about what it IS.

Your dogma that there MUST be a natural explanation of creation right after telling me that you don't know how creation got here is pure NONSENSE.

Chinese believe the ruler-leader is the son of Heaven--the past,the present and the future--including Chairman Mao and the encumbent.
I praise Mao and their commy group for preserving Chinese culture and dignity, that includes religion.
Their religion policy is perfectly correct in reigning in the wildfire and venomous poison of the neocons of the overzealous religious leaders of the west. Akin to their economic policy vis-a-vis the advanced economy with Chinese characteristic.
People already had the religious freedom on Christianity and others(Islam,Taoist...).What they could not have are the denigradation and deniel of their ancestorial heritage and cultures by blindly and bluntly accepting a foreign idol as their spirital leader. They'd seperated religion from the Western Politics vis-a-vis not to allow Politiking of the neocons spoil the faith in Heaven or God.
They'd distanted from the Roman Catholic Empire bvy appointing their own peoples' bishops, just as Henry 8 discarded Pope for their own appointed Christian leader.
Me ain't pinky. The current China leader'd done a tremendous job in separating the Churches and the Politics--the slogan U.S.endeared but never practiced.

Sudden in a shaft of unlight
Even while the dust moves
There rises the hidden laughter
Of children in the foliage
Quick now, here, now, always--
Ridiculous the waste sad time
Stretching before and after.

TS Eliot, "Burnt Norton", V.

(Sorry--lopped off the last line).

Dear all--strident, secular scientists and logical believers alike,

I've enjoyed the above discussion. It is good to see the Christians fighting back--challenging scientific atheism on its very attribute of being 'scientific'.

There is no logic that science should be so virulently antireligious, but since about 1988, the science personified by Hawking, Weinberg, Dennett and Wolpert certainly is. Writes Bryan Appleyard in the Sunday Times: "The image created of science was that of an impregnable and rather cantakerous fortress of certainty...Such crude certainties are, of course, absurd, since good science is predicated on uncertainty, but it was essential to the marketing of these books. Uncertainty...doesn't sell."

But the discussion on the universe is telling for the universe is not rational. The universe is not even very knowable. And what we do know will probably be revised in, say, ten years hence.

The universe can only exist in time and as early as 500 AD St Augustine of Hippo wrote that time and the universe were brought forth together, that God--who is timeless--created time itself along with the universe. (Before the Creation thus there was no time.) Did He then enter time--the timeless entering time--through the person of Jesus? These mysterious words are understandable to us, although maybe not completely knowable, what the Buddhists call a koan.

Religion is simpler and its form more beautiful than mathematics, if only because the very advanced math necessary to understand even basic cosmological pricipals is not amenable to most, while the beauty of music and art and poetry--and is not religion celebrated with music and art and poetry?--is available to all.

We can talk ourselves into circles on the matter of, well, matter, time and the universe.

Do the poets have more understanding?

Let's see. Here is a gift to all for Christmas: some Eliot on time.

Words move, music moves
Only in time; but that which is only living
Can only die. Words, after speech, reach
Into the silence. Only by the form, the pattern,
Can words or music reach
The stillness, as a Chinese jar still
Moves perpetually in its stillness.
Not the stillness of the violin, while the note lasts,
Not that only, but the co-existence,
Or say that the end precedes the beginning,
And the end and the beginning were always there
Before the beginning and after the end.
And all is always now. Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension.....
Decay with imprecision will not stay in place,
Will not stay still. Shrieking voices
Scolding,mocking, or merely charrering,
Always assail them. The Word in the desert
Is most attacked by voices of temptation...
...............................................
Love is itself unmoving,
Only the cause and end of movement,
Timeless, and undesiry
Except in the aspect of time
.................................
Sudden in a shaft of unlight
Even while the dust moves
There rises the hidden laughter
Of children in the foliage
Quick now, here, now, always--
Ridiculous the waste sad

Why are Baptists so dumb? Is it genetic? Or just that they are in an environment which destroys brain cells? I think the latter. Living here in the Deep South I can see the destructive effect of evangelical Christianity every day. With five churches on virtually every corner, most of them Baptist, a rational mind would have to fight like hell to survive.

"The Creator option is rational, while believing in the eternal existence of the inanimate is totally irrational"

Kenneth:
Both allow for the creation of a consistent universal model. No observable evidence exists against either process. Thus, building a model based on either formulation is by definition rational.

"So that leaves us with number 2. The problem you have here is that you don't mind matter and energy in external existence, you just don't want God to be able to occupy that space instead.

I can understand why people feel the way you do; they don't want to accept that there is a Higher Power which will hold them to a judgment at some point in the future based upon a standard of conduct which the person did not create."

Kenneth,

It is certainly reasonable to believe 'God' or 'Gods' occupy that space instead.

BUT -- this does not imply your follow-up statement regarding that power holding people in judgement.

As an agnostic, I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that other forms of existence may be valid -- and that these forms may include powers which we would reasonably define as 'god-like'. I simply don't know -- and a consistent universal model can be constructed with or without their existence.

The problem is jumping from the possibility of divine existence to any dogmatic belief in the nature of that existence. The Christian mythos is no more consistent or plausible than the Greek or Norse mythos systems. To the extent that you are willing to say the Greeks and Romans were irrational in their belief of Jupiter [Zeus], I feel the same toward your apparent belief in Christianity.

I can say that I don't know if gods existed and still assert that the Greek mythos is inconsistent and thus wrong, just like I can say I don't know if a single God exists and still assert that the Christian mythos is inconsistent and wrong.

Personally I like the use of the word 'inconsistent' since I believe it more accurately conveys my disagreement -- but I will readily admit that at times unfortunately I sloppily interchange the two.

Kenneth:

Multiple anonymous posters -- some of us just don't like associating a name with our postings -- the insulting ones were not mine -- was actually trying to respond politely.

"How do you know if my theory is wrong if you don't know anything?!?"

Let's step back to the scientific method.

Come up with a model based on existing observations.

Develop a theory.

Test whether that theory is consistent with your model.

If consistent, the model has been expanded.

If inconsistent, either the model or the theory needs to be refined.

I don't know if one or more gods exist.

I do know that my current model for the observation of the universe does not explain water turning into wine or people being turned into pillars of salt.

Based on my observations, I choose to discard the possibility of those events -- in layman's terms [granted loose language] I believe any model that incorporates those theories is inconsistent or wrong.

Dear Pam: Essentially the same thing to your post that I told Anny, sans the part about his particular insanity.

You are still at one of two points: 1) Something came from nothing; or 2) Eternal existence is possible.

The first point is totally irrational - and your post says you will only accept the rational.

So that leaves us with number 2. The problem you have here is that you don't mind matter and energy in external existence, you just don't want God to be able to occupy that space instead.

I can understand why people feel the way you do; they don't want to accept that there is a Higher Power which will hold them to a judgment at some point in the future based upon a standard of conduct which the person did not create. People much prefer to be gods unto themselves, than submit to a god outside themselves.

Too bad. Your desire to rule out God while ruling in matter and energy is a very irrational choice. It makes infinitely more sense to allow an intelligent Creator than it does to allow inanimate particles. The Creator option is rational, while believing in the eternal existence of the inanimate is totally irrational.

Dear Anny: Thank you for your condescending comments and sociopathic insults in reply to my "how did the universe get here?" question.

Your first paragraph is a lie - I can explain using theology how the universe came to exist. Since it is impossible for it to exist using natural laws, it could only come to exist through a supernatural event.

That is the reality you don't want to face: Your existence is of supernatural origin. There is no natural explanation for it. You can't start with no energy, no mass, and in the natural world, suddenly come up with a universe. Spontaneous Generation has long been tossed into the trash heap of irrationality. But it is in that irrationality you dwell to explain the naturally inexplicable creation of the universe. From your irrational starting point comes your irrational conclusions - GIGO.

But actually, your desire to believe the unbelievable - that somehow nothing spontaneously turned itself into something - is an even wilder irrationality -- by a host of magnitudes - than is believing in God. You believe that spontaneous generation occurred. But you also believe it only occurred once. That, dear Anny, is truly insane.

And your wandering ramblings about your own existence is pure sophistry. Too bad you have to throw in the insults with the insanity you write - but since you don't even know if you even exist, I guess it's a very short step to not knowing anything at all - which you amply prove in nearly every paragraph you write.

Anny, if you really think that your existence is a figment of the imagination, why not stand out in the middle of the nearest interstate in the middle of the night wearing dark clothing in an unlit section of highway? In fact, make sure it is a stormy night with significantly reduced visibility just to make sure you turn into just another piece of roadkill, rotting in the gutters.

Let's find out just how strongly you actually believe the tripe you write. Go ahead - you won't die - because you don't know if you even exist. Right? And if you did die, it wouldn't matter because in death you won't have any communication with the imaginary world where you imagined you lived before you died. So get ahead, put your mortal body where your typing fingers say that your are - life is all just a figment of the imagination - True, Anny?

But of course you won't do that - because despite your lunatic prose, you know that you do exist - and that to die is to cease existing in this world - the world you know is real. In short, your cowardice to live your lies proves you really know you do exist -- and that cowardice further keeps you from turning your lunacy into deadly reality.

Perhaps now that we can see your disconnect from the real world, and your sociopathic reasoning, we can understand the rest of your posts' disconnect.

Please -- you have a rest. You will need it to face the reality that you have no explanation for the universe, while Believers have a perfectly reasonable explanation for Creation. It was a supernatural event - and that supernatural power is what we call God. Your supernatural existence proves His supernatural existstence.-30-

Kenneth Lamb wrote:
"Could the anti-godder Denialists on this board please expain the universe's creation? I'm interested in learning how an existence with neither mass nor energy came into being - through natural laws. Since e=mc2 only works if you possess both mass and energy -- if either is zero, the enire equation goes to zero -- I want explained how mass and energy came into existence - in a natural, and not a supernatural, explanation."

No can do, sorry. I suspect what you really want to know is where matter comes from. Space is just nothing - no mystery there. The real question is why there's something rather than nothing. I don't know. No one does. But that doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation, and that it isn't knowable or discoverable - just means we aren't there yet. Maybe the human race isn't smart enough to ever figure it out, maybe we won't last long enough to get there, but there IS a natural answer.

Fifty years ago, we didn't know about DNA and there were no personal computers. Twenty years before that, we had no antibiotics. A hundred years before that, we thought disease came from a "miasma" that rose from swamps - we were still a long way from electric lights, internal combustion engines and airplanes. You're in too big a hurry.

The point is - God is NOT an explanation, because then you have to ask where God came from. Saying that he "always was" is just a cop out. If I can't say that matter just always was, then you don't get to do it with God, either. At least not without explaining the exact nature of God. When you throw around words like "spirit", you'd better be prepared to define them in rational terms - I'm not buying mystical. Not today, not ever.

anony,

I don't care what you are. It's very simple - you can't say in the same breathe that it is impossible to know how creation began and then turn right around say my "theory" of creation is wrong.

How do you know if my theory is wrong if you don't know anything?!?

It's like a person emphatically claiming, "there is no such thing as truth".

uhhh...is that a true statement? See the problem here?

It's complete nonsense.

Atheist? Skeptic? Nothing to do with it.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells me where you and where all your logic, proofs and above all else faith comes from. I recognize a Lucifer follower when I see one. Your God is the Devil and doesn't have the horseposer to move a mole's bowels. Tricks called miracles don't fool me but makes fools out of people like you. Flattery will get you flattery in return.

anony,

you said:

"It's no more possible to explain the universe using the known science than it is theology. There is no way to prove how the universe got here. One argument is as ignorant as the other....Accept your condition. You are stuck here in the middle. You don't know where you came from and you don't know where you are going."

uhhhh...if that is true, then I guess you are in no position to tell a person if his "theory" is wrong or right, are you? How do you know the Christian view of the beginning is wrong if you admit that you can't know anything about the beginning of creation?

knock, knock, any logical atheists out there...at least be a consistent skeptic...sheeshhh.

Let's hear that part about the Quran being the absolute word of God again. I seemed to have missed the part where all other options, fiction, the fruits of someone's imagination or even a rewrite of what someone was reading, (having read to him another option) other sacred scriptures. Seems to me like someone was reading something they couldn't read all that well or that got a lot of help otherwise. Does seem to have a lot in common with a Gospel, (good news). Good news travels fast while bad news is ignored until it's too late?

I see. It's impossible to create sacred scriptures. But where do they come from? God? Then why are they allways written by men? Must require faith in the men who wrote them. Nah! All Faith is faith in God. Only atheists don't have faith.

Keep the faith. Hell ain't even close to full.
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

16. Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
18. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to ((Allah)) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."
19. He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
20. She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
21. He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
22. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"
24. But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
25. "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.
26. "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"
27. At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
32. "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
36. Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.

Quran: chapter Mary

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

Quran :112

Keneth E.L. It's no more possible to explain the universe using the known science than it is theology. There is no way to prove how the universe got here. One argument is as ignorant as the other.

Accept your condition. You are stuck here in the middle. You don't know where you came from and you don't know where you are going. That's the factual case. It's not up to scientists to prove anything to you. It's up to you to show where it came from and where it's going or forget the whole ignorant argument. Faith is void in proof by definition.

The Bible is a proved hoax. You can prove anything with a hoax but it won't stand up anywhere except ignorant believers. Millions of people now know the proof the Bible is bogus is here. All you can do with the Bible from here forward is make a fool out of yourself. Looks to me like you've had practice at that.

What else can't you prove? You can't prove this universe exists. It could be an illusion just like the figures on the tele screen. They look real but they're just pictures.

What else can't you prove? You can't prove that anyone else believes in God or anything at all. They could all be lying and you have no way of knowing that. You could be the only stupid jerk with everyone from the pope to your local preacher laughing at you behind your back.

The only absolute truth is your own existence, if you actually exist. I have no way to prove you exist. You could be like all else could be to me, just an illusion. You can't prove I exist.

Con men take advantage of ignorant people and tell them all sorts of things to get money out of them. Are you a victim of that? Sounds to me like you are. You're not a con man telling ignorant people they have to believe or they're going to hell and then passing the plate asking them for money are you? If you're involved with a religion you must be one or the other, a victim or a con man. But you can't prove the minister is lying because none of us know what any of us actually believe.

Relax. Have a merry Christmas and don't worry so much about things you can't do anything about.

Could the anti-godder Denialists on this board please expain the universe's creation? I'm interested in learning how an existence with neither mass nor energy came into being - through natural laws. Since e=mc2 only works if you possess both mass and energy -- if either is zero, the enire equation goes to zero -- I want explained how mass and energy came into existence - in a natural, and not a supernatural, explanation.

Was Jesus God's Son?

I have to say that All people are children of God.
Thee real question is was God divisible into multiple personalities, or was it a way to Jesus had to be an incarnation of a separate persona of God.

Was Jesus sent to the Jews in Palestine to prove that God could put up with the extreme prejudice that was shown to him and that his death would be seen as an act of sacrifice to himself?

IF Jesus was a man with a spirit that did not allow himself to use violence in his own defense, then I could believe that any man or woman could live as he did.

I suspect that Constantine's theologians pushed his (Rome's) church to accept the notion that Jesus died as a sacrifice so that they would not be influenced to follow in his mission.

Today we praise Hitler for being pro patria and ridiculed Jesus for being a whimp.

Jesus was arrested for being anarchistic and anti "Mosaic".

Peace!

Wanna know how Mary got pregnant? Read the story of Sadam and Gomorrah. Mary was the daughter of the man who dude it. Jesus is a product of incest. The hoax buster declined to make that statement although he did point to the probably cause of the pregnance of king David.

King David's real name is Tiye and the real name of Jesus is Amenophis IV. Read Revelation. It tell you all about it, "the Amen the faithful and true witness.." But they crucified her anyhow.

It's Christmas time. The birth is also in Revelation, a carelessly edited version of the birth of Amenophis IV. St John left a few fingerprints on some damaging ancient documents. The hoax buster didn't catch that one. You heard it first here.

That is the most absurd stuff I have ever read... Jesus is Amenophis IV? What proof do you have to offer that Amenophis even existed?

Boy, oh my, someone got the story straight. Jesus certainly came from the house of David. David was her mother. All we gotta do is say a woumb is a house. Wombs are housing of a sorts.

http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 has the real story of the birth of Jesus. The fictional character, Jesus was based upon a real person, the Amen, Amenophis of Egypt, a male imitator. King David, another fictional person is based upon another real one, the mother of the Amen. I think her name was Tiye.

The cat is out of the box. Try putting it back in.

How does the summary of Aristotle answer my question? Again, let me rephrase my question/concern.

Christians, agnostics, and atheists alike depend on logic to make their arguments for their respected views. We not only depend on the laws of logic, but logic is impossible to deny. You can not, for example, deny the law of contradiction ... for your very denial of it proves it. The law of contradiction (or noncontradiction) is a universal law, true at all times and in all places. Not only that, logic is immaterial in nature. It's not some substance floating around in space somewhere.

So, how is a scientist, one who argues that knowledge is obtained through the senses, able to account for the immaterial laws of logic?

Who ever spotted the law of contradiction in a microscope?

Empiricism can NOT provide the preconditions for any rational discourse. And the truly consistent empiricists have realized this and have thus turned to the only "reasonable" conclusion of empiricism - pure skepticism.

Again, folks, we can throw the use of "logic" around all day long, but i want to know how you account for it within your worldviews.

Atheists cannot account for it. Agnostics cannot account for it.

Remember the Pennsylvanian Amish. If I ever made up my own "Nice" list, then the Amish community of Nickle Mines, Pennsylvania, would definitely be on it. As Christ Jesus, the Son and Chosen Messiah of the Heavenly Father, forgave ALL of us, so did they extend their forgiveness of the family of depraved murderer Charles Carl Roberts IV after the evil he wrought upon that humble town, separated from the rest of the world, itself threatened by apocalyptic ayatollahs and Bolivarian villains. Forget the Branch Davidians. Forget the Crusaders. I say that the AMISH constitute perfectly the definition of Christian fundamentalists.

Although I am relieved to know that Bill O'Reilly is bravely leading the charge against the postmodernist crowd such as the Shadow Party and the ACLU, I find David Jeremiah's contribution, "Why the Nativity?", doubly refreshing since he really is the first prominent Christian leader I know who's actually telling the real story behind Christmas. Why would the Almighty choose to send His Son to preach His commandments with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit? Through Christ Jesus, He offers us the ultimate freedom: freedom from sin. Let the temporal authorities -- namely the Bush administration -- be Almighty God's instrument in simply delivering justice against evildoers like the participants of President Armageddon's recent Holocaust denial conference; let the spiritual authorities debate vigorously and thoughtfully the nature of Judeo-Christianity vs. the nature of Islam. We shall know the Lord Jesus Christ as well as "The Truth About Muhammad," and those two Truths will set us free, respectively, from sin and from Islamic tyranny and political correctness.

"I see an element of circularity in my logic, but that is inevitable when you deal with the questions of ultimate reality."

Ummm, no.

We don't get to use one logic for reality and another logic for 'ultimate reality'.

Circular logic is circular logic.

And how do you know ancient Hebrew scriptures don't point to Mark? My guess is that if you pick out an ancient prophecy, any prophecy, we can come up with an interpretation in which it points to Mark *if that is our intent*.

IF "Jesus existed" AND "his views on social justice are as reported in the NT" THEN "some would view him as a fairly wise liberal". NOTE: If both of the prepositions are not true, then the statement is still valid. That is, the validity of the statement does not require one to agree with the truth of either of the prepositions.

Mark said in response to me:

I myself am the chosen ruler of our universe, having recently arrived from a special star in the Andromeda galaxy. To say otherwise is to go against me as I *myself* claim to be. If you want to pass me off as a mere internet crackpot, then YOU need to prove your claim, not I.

See the ridiculousness of your circular logic? *Sigh* I thought not.

I say:

I see an element of circularity in my logic, but that is inevitable when you deal with the questions of ultimate reality. Jesus did other things that affirm his claim - healing the sick, never sinning, raising the dead, rising from the dead himself, and explained how the ancient Hebrew Scriptures pointed to him. Mark has nothing to point to or affirm his claims. Mark is right to have us conclude that he is either an internet CRACKPOT or telling the truth if he seriously asserted what he said above (I understand him making an example, not seriously claiming those things). Mark proves my point, which makes him contradict what he later said. If you're a crackpot, then you're not what Mark called Jesus, namely a "fairly wise, kind and probably charismatic human being. He was what we now would call a liberal, espousing help for the poor, making peace over war, and choosing compassion over self-righteous judgment." My point is that Jesus either is a crackpot or he is the Son of God as he claimed to be. Mark thinks he is a crackpot if he honors what was said in the New Testament, or he thinks the New Testament got it wrong. Jesus died for our sins, including Mark's sin of thinking of Jesus as a crackpot or simply not believing him to be who he claimed to be.

All of us, like Mark, have not honored Jesus as we ought to have and that's why we who trust in him can celebrate his birth, death, and resurrection, because it means forgiveness for us from our sins and God's wrath.

Mark said: If the Jesus of the surviving "New Testament" scriptures indeed existed as they variously described him, he was a fairly wise, kind and probably charismatic human being. He was what we now would call a liberal, espousing help for the poor, making peace over war, and choosing compassion over self-righteous judgment. Indeed, it's a shame that conservative self-described Christians in this country hate the man and everything that he stood for.

I wonder if Mark read the New Testament. The Jesus Mark describes in his comment is a Jesus of only a some portions of the gospel accounts in the Bible.

Read the Bible. Trust God's Word. Believe in Jesus as he revealed himself to be, repent from your sins, trust his death and resurrection, and you'll be saved from God's wrath we all deserve because of our sins before God.

Thanks for the exchange. I appreciate the example Mark gave and am thankful for the discussion.

Merry Christmas!

"These men then turned against God for the most part and sinned repeatedly, and the only way to save them was for God to come down and live among them as a man, to experience the harshest conditions that the world can throw at a man, and ultimately to give His life for them."

Now why should this be so? Your God is omnipotent, right? So why was this the only way to save them? Why couldn't he just say "Shazam, you're saved"? Indeed, why ever condemn them in the first place? Didn't he make them what they were? Curious, lustful, weak?

"The old Jewish prophecies predicted that the Messiah would be of the house of David, thus all the jumping through hoops to have the Nazarene Joseph be of this line. BUT...(wait for it)... Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, was he? Mary was a virgin. Uh oh, now what?"

Maybe it's all just a really big mix-up. Mary's been cutting Joseph off for some time and fooling around on the side, then finds out she's pregnant -- when Mary gets caught and Joseph is yelling at her to ask who the father is, she just keeps repeating "Oh God" and he assumes...

You have to admit, it's a lot more plausible than the current story...

"People wonder about why a loving God would allow bad things to happen to them, but what they forget is that God gives each of us a choice. We aren't forced to serve Him, or love him. Some choose not to serve Him, and they do things that hurt themselves, and they do things that hurt others"

So everything bad in the world happens to/is done by those who choose "not to serve him"? Wow, you could have fooled me! Can you back this up?

One more thing about the "Christmas Story" - The old Jewish prophecies predicted that the Messiah would be of the house of David, thus all the jumping through hoops to have the Nazarene Joseph be of this line. BUT...(wait for it)... Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, was he? Mary was a virgin. Uh oh, now what?

"What?? The Bible isn't the inspired word of the God of Gods and absolute literal truth??? What is one to believe, then? Bring me my fainting couch!"

Relax, someone is bound to point out that it is indeed the literal truth -- the problem is just that we mortals with our limited understanding of the divine don't understand how to properly interpret it...

"Mercy and forgiveness and freedom are available for anyone who wishes to have it."

Actually, can we hold back a little on the freedom thing -- certainly not for anyone incarcerated for violent crimes? Maybe you could send some to those currently enslaved in despotic regimes - say North Korea?

And maybe not so much on the forgiveness thing either -- I'm thinking about all of those folks at the recent Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran -- can we maybe withhold some of the forgiveness that they might want?

Now mercy is pretty nice -- it seems like there are a lot of people in the world this holiday season that could use some -- but it doesn't seem to be nearly as abundant as you make it out to be...

Veritas wrote:
" Many also cherry-pick "contradictions" when trying to "prove" flaws with religion, Judeo-Christianity, Jesus, God, etc. Of course, these are simply oral teachings written down finally many years after they first came into being and are not meant to be "accurate" historical accounts of anything."

What?? The Bible isn't the inspired word of the God of Gods and absolute literal truth??? What is one to believe, then? Bring me my fainting couch!

"The greatest gift we've ever been given was the gift of God's Son, Jesus."

Actually, at this time of year I remember an even greater gift that I have been given...

It was a 10-speed.

Blue.

Initially, I was only allowed to ride it around the local neighborhood -- but eventually I was able to ride it all the way to the local corner market where I could buy baseball cards.

Pure joy.

"Many accomplished scientists have demonstrated the existence of God can be proved by the Theory of Relativity among other things."

Name one.

"Prophecy continues to show that earthly knowledge will always fall short of the wisdom of God. Every prophecy in the Bible to date has been fulfilled 100%. No person or technology has ever been able to fortell future events with 100% accuracy, not even remotely close!"

Oh, sure! Give your examples - and they'd better be specific, not the vague suggestions that one hears from astrologers and such that can be twisted to mean anything.

"How then has Scriptures in the Bible been able to do this? It surpasses human understanding. Jesus walking the Earth has been documented by Christian and secular writers alike."

Not so.

"His birth in Bethlehem was prophecied centuries before it happened. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and only went to Bethlehem because Caesar declared a new tax and ordered a census; for people to return to their place of birth to be accounted for. This is documented in secular history and collaborates with the Biblical facts of his birth."

It is flat NOT documented in secular history. Most enlightened Bible scholars believe that the one gospel (the other gospels don't agree) that has M&J travelling to Bethlehem was written specifically to make the Jesus story fit with the previous Jewish predictions for the birth of the Messiah. He wanted the Jews to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Supposedly, Joseph had to go to Bethlehem not because it was the city of his birth, but because it was the city of David, and he was of David's line. Never mind that David lived some 2,000 years before Joseph (if, indeed, he lived at all). Do you go to the city of your ancestors of 2,000 years ago for census purposes? Do you even know who they were? This is absurd. The Romans held censuses (and never ones as wide as the one in this story) for tax purposes - why would they care where one's distant ancestors were born?? Note also that the gospels that list the intervening generations between David and Joseph don't agree on names or numbers. At all.

The problem was that the writer had to get M&J there somehow, since they lived in Nazareth. This was the best he could come up with.

"Heck, I’ll take it a step further…what empirical evidence do you have for the non-material laws of logic of which you are assuming and using to argue for a moral obligation?"

Let's start with some Aristotle shall we?

(1) Every rational activity aims at some end or good. One end, like one activity, may be subordinate to another.

(2) The science that studies the supreme good for man is politics.

(3) Politics is not an exact science.

(4) The end is no doubt happiness, but views of happiness differ.

(5) Neither pleasure nor public honor appear to be an adequate end; one should lead the contemplative life.

(6) There cannot be a universal good.

(7) If we consider the function of man, we find that happiness is a virtuous activity of the soul. In order to understand moral goodness we must study the soul of man.

At least a reasonable place to begin...

Bravo Jason, bravo!

“Until you provide evidence of some kind that your "Jesus" existed, there is an ethical and moral obligation for you to stop spreading your crackpot notions to gullible, ignorant human beings who, because you are a minister, may believe your lunatic ravings and try to base their lives on it.
- Burton H. Wolfe

Uh….Mr Wolfe, why is there a “moral” and “ethical” obligation? If you are as one post says, a “scientist”, what scientific evidence do you have for any rules of “ethics” or “morality”?

Heck, I’ll take it a step further…what empirical evidence do you have for the non-material laws of logic of which you are assuming and using to argue for a moral obligation?

Until you can demonstrate empirically how you are able to account for logic and morality, your posts are nothing but fluff.

Someone posted that the Bible has a lot of terrible things written in it, or that by its text it supports a lot of evil things. You have to remember that the Bible is as much a history of man's rebellion against God as it is God's Word to man about how to live. Just because murder and war and slavery are depicted in the Bible, it doesn't necessarily imply that God approved of such. There are portions where God's judgement is delivered by men, as in war and killing, but in many instances the Bible simply recounts the evil things men did in rebellion against God (i.e, when they sinned against God).

When you step back and look at the bigger picture of the Bible, it portrays an incredible story about a Creator who created a perfect world, and then created creatures (men) to inhabit and rule that world, who would be companions to God, and love and serve Him. These men then turned against God for the most part and sinned repeatedly, and the only way to save them was for God to come down and live among them as a man, to experience the harshest conditions that the world can throw at a man, and ultimately to give His life for them.

God loves people so much, and yet because of our sin, we are separated from a Holy God who on the one hand cannot tolerate sin, and yet on the other hand, because of His Son's death on the cross, is willing to forgive us for what we do wrong and forego judgement that would rightfully destroy us. People wonder about why a loving God would allow bad things to happen to them, but what they forget is that God gives each of us a choice. We aren't forced to serve Him, or love him. Some choose not to serve Him, and they do things that hurt themselves, and they do things that hurt others, either intentionally or unintentionally. If this life was all that we have, this would be awful, but what we have to remember is that this life is but a short prelude to the Life that is to Come. One hundred million years from this day, when eternity will have only just begun, we will look back on the short period of time that we spent here on Earth, and we'll wonder what all the heartache and worry was all about. From an eternal perspective, it will all have been irrelevant. However, all we know in the here and now is suffering, and trouble, and heartache, and we tend to lose sight of the important things.

II Cor 4:8, 9; 16, 17, 18

We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed... Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

The greatest gift we've ever been given was the gift of God's Son, Jesus. Mercy and forgiveness and freedom are available for anyone who wishes to have it.

Merry Christmas

Copied from another thread:

Saul2006 commits a classic blunder that unfortuneately many commit without realizing it. Saul uses certain portions of the Christian Bible to "disprove" other portions. Many also cherry-pick "contradictions" when trying to "prove" flaws with religion, Judeo-Christianity, Jesus, God, etc. Of course, these are simply oral teachings written down finally many years after they first came into being and are not meant to be "accurate" historical accounts of anything.

Furthermore, people like Saul2006 are still left with proving the negative (Jesus was not divine, God doesn't exist, etc.) which of course can never be done. So this brings us back to the point of the "On Faith" dialogue that the fundamental issue is "belief" or faith. This means taking an incomplete or even contradictory picture and doing one's best to find an answer that suits them - all the time knowing that one can never really know for sure. That's the irony of and the beauty of faith.

Saul2006
If you will back up to the previous 10-15 verses prior to Romans 11:26-27 you will notice that the entire context of those passages is dealing with God's "grafting in" of the wild olive tree (gentiles) into the cultivated olive tree (Christ Himself) and the "breaking off" of the "branch" of the Israelites as a nation, although Paul mentions just prior to that that even in this God has preserved a remnant, by grace. Here's the crux of those passages

11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.

It's all about the context which in this case is the surety of the inclusion of the believing gentiles (and the true Israel, the remnant of the Jews) through God's grace.

As for introducing Jesus to God I'm assuming you mean Luke 2:22 where they "present" Jesus. Again, it's a long stretch to see this as an introduction. It was Jewish law that all first born sons be "presented" at the temple and set apart, so to speak, because it was through the father of a household, and in his absence, the first born son, that God's message was brought into the family. There's an understanding of Jewish culture and law there that we know very little about in the western world.

At any rate, in order to accomplish his mission, you might say, Jesus had to perfectly fulfill the entirety of the law, which He did, and live a sinless life, which He did. The sacrifice had to be perfect.

As for the scene at the temple when Jesus was 12, well, it makes perfect sense that Mary and Joseph seemed to be baffled. Though they knew He was Jesus, the son of God (see the scriptures concerning Jesus' birth), they didn't exactly have a calendar that said "Today Jesus will be found teaching in the temple". They were just concerned that He had been lost as any parents would be.

Bottom line is you can twist stuff anyway you like if you're a mind to. The issue is, has an honest attempt been made to seek the truth of scripture? Or has there been an honest attempt to skew things from the git-go because of bias.

Consider these words of Jesus:
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

If He is sought with a whole heart He can be found.

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Friend, you may be telling the truth. Religion could be a necessity. How about Americanism for the American religion. Let the constitution be our only Bible.

Saul2006:

How's things been for the Israelites, (as you see them Jews)? It's times like the Inquisitions that one can be thankful not to be one or God's chosen people. Then there's the holocost. Is it so that Christians and Muslims are "finding common ground" to patch up their differences? Lookout Isreal for here God comes again. Maybe that fellow is on to something, the devil and not god is behind all that truth.

You don't suppose the anti Christ is walking the earth this very minute?

For all Christians that believe that God will save them from their sins, please read carefully from your own Bible

Romans 11:

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. (Israel-Not World
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[ The sins of Israel- not one word about Original Sin which is something Christian clergy dreamed up)

The two themes that run through the O.T. Messiah message is that the Messiah would restore Israel to it's former glory and that Israel would become Eden like ( Heaven on Earth) nothing about getting one into Heaven

If you read Luke 2, it says that Mary & Joe introduced Jesus to God.
First of all, this is actually the Hebrew redemption of the first born as shown by sacrifice given. Why is this weird? Because under Hebrew Law, the tribe of Levi is exempted from such redemption because they are to serve God, yet Jesus , His own son is redeemed.
Secondly, how do you humans get off introducing the son of God to God.

You also have the incident where after losing Jesus at the Temple , Mary & Joe find him and he tells them he was doing his father's work and Mary & Joe didn't know what he meant and that is after the supposed Annunciation

For what your rabbi, minister and priest will not tell you, see religionquestioned.com

Every culture developed religion because it helps bind communities together, it helps us understand our own psychology, our growth, our death, and the wonder of existence.

It is both good and bad because man is both good and bad.

Religion is neither right or wrong, it is.

Religion has no product nor does it provide a service. Just money. By the supreme court's definition of pornagrophy that's what it is, "without redeming social importance."

But you can't help but read can you? I see the Devil can claim to be one he is not as in the above post in my name.

Merry Devilmas Lucifer. You are the fooler that fools those who plan to make their living leading people to hell. And some, the ones that follow your instructions will drive Rolls Ryyce and fly in private jet, lead prayer breakfast at white house and be respected, say they are moral. And they will calim they are servants of God.

Hell awaits those who do the Devil's detail. The Bible is his holy word. And there's plenty of room in hell.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul before it's too late. Is God sending you a message? Are you listening or does Lucifer have you by your greed. Believe on, have FAITH in Lucifer for he will help you get all the goodies you want so badly. Down on your knees. Lucifer loves to be worshipped.

Don't believe a word i say...i am a fool!

The Bible is the word of the Devil. Believe on, have faith for it is the Devil that delivers the goods of earth to those who do not themselves earn them with the sweat of their faces.

Jesus, son of the being that lives in fire needs for people to believe in him. God does not.

There is always this debate back and forth between unbelievers and believers. Unbelievers say prove it. Believers simply can't understand why the unbelievers don't get it. The following passage from 2 Corinthians 2:12-14 sheds some light on this subject.
12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

The thing that believers need to remember is that the only difference between a believer and an unbeliever is that God, by His Spirit, has opened the believers eyes to see and know Him. Why is this important? Instead of becoming angry with them for just not getting it, we will be able to view them in pity and love because they just CAN'T get it in their natural state. They need to hear the gospel over and over whether they get it or not. God moves in His own timing we are just the instruments that He has chosen to do His work.

So to the unbelievers of the world, hear the Good News, the Christ was born in Bethlehem and He lived a perfect life and died yet was raised on the third day so that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren.

i'm not really sure why i should believe those commenters who reject the Divinty of Christ rather than Dr. Mohler. Okay, so Dr. Mohler relies on the Bible. Well, what do the anti-Christs (couldn't thing of a better term) rely upon? Newspaper accounts? History books? Other religious texts? Why should i believe the anti-Christs anymore than Dr. Mohler? And how can the anti-Christs say Jesus was not A, but he was B? Why should they be believed? Why are there sources more reliable than the Bible? i suspect that the anti-Christs have more than intellectual objections to the Divinity of Jesus. Could it be that the anti-Christs realize that if Dr. Mohler's view of Jesus is correct, then they are in big trouble? There are many intelligent and well-informed arguments that can be levied against Dr. Mohler, but sadly, none of them have been made here by the anti-Christs.

I am a Christian, and I do believe that Jesus is the son of God. However, I will openly admit that sometimes that is hard to believe or to know for sure. I don't deny I have doubts, I don't deny that some of it doesn't make sense, and I don't have any false expectations about my ability to “prove” my faith. But I'm OK resting in that mystery.

I think there is a fundamental problem in trying to disprove God's existence through science or to prove it from scripture. I think if everyone is honest, we are forced to admit that there are plenty of loop holes on each side and that no belief system is above critique.

The thing is, approaching this topic from the angle of proof and evidence totally ignores the philosophy of Jesus. Jesus never spelled out a point by point doctrine to adhere to but instead said things like "Come, follow me" or "Come and See."

Doctrines and scientific evidence can be helpful in these conversations as a way to talk about mysterious things, but faith and belief in Jesus as the son of God are experiential. You can't truly have faith unless you experience it by walking in the footsteps of Christ.

Unfortunately, we Christians (notice I say 'we' so I include myself) are not very good at this because we tend to try to win a debate through prophecies in scriptures or by twisting science to support pre-drawn conclusions. I think that needs to change.

I do believe that Jesus is the son of God and that God sent his son because he has great love for the world and is actively involved in human lives. But that’s where my talking needs to stop. All I can do now is to invite others to walk with me as I try to figure out what this means and how I should live my life in light of this mystery.

Peace
Joel

PJ Tibayan said:

"Jesus is the Son of God. To say otherwise is to go against him as he himself claimed. If people want to pass Jesus off as some myth or good man, they need to prove that claim as they expect us Christians to."

And I say:

I myself am the chosen ruler of our universe, having recently arrived from a special star in the Andromeda galaxy. To say otherwise is to go against me as I *myself* claim to be. If you want to pass me off as a mere internet crackpot, then YOU need to prove your claim, not I.

See the ridiculousness of your circular logic? *Sigh* I thought not.

If the Jesus of the surviving "New Testament" scriptures indeed existed as they variously described him, he was a fairly wise, kind and probably charismatic human being. He was what we now would call a liberal, espousing help for the poor, making peace over war, and choosing compassion over self-righteous judgment. Indeed, it's a shame that conservative self-described Christians in this country hate the man and everything that he stood for.

JG, in order to keep this blog clean, please see the comments to:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/jon_meacham/2006/12/my_wife_and_i_are.html
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2006/12/what_my_son_taught_me_about_go.html

Your religion is no better than ours, in fact, as least science backs Christianity up. Please do not post any evolution debate material here, as it has a tendency to take a blog off subject quickly.

FWIW, Christians LOVE science, after all, Television and the Internet are two of the greatest Evangelical mediums in history, second only to the Bible.

If you read through the above comments you notice the pattern that all believers in Jesus use words such as "trust" and "believe" while non-believers use words like "prove" and "knowledge". If the believers are so against science I challenge them to stop using its products - medicine, technological advancements such as electricity, automobiles, airplanes, etc...They want it both ways. Either live fully in your world based on mythology and hocus-pocus blind faith in 1 book, or come fully into the age of science and reason. You can't have it both ways. Was the world created in 7 days or not? Science proves it wasn't. Book-believers (bible-believers, that is) hem and haw about how long a "day" is in God's world, etc. No, either the bible is literal or it isn't.
You believers are arrogant, as far as I can tell -for this one reason: You dare to presume you understand the nature of God. If you truly respected God you would not think you could understand God with your piddley human mind. No, you think you know God's whole life story.
You are slowing down the march of progress.

It is always interesting to me to see unbelievers get so passionate and angry about something they say is a myth and never existed. Seems like the ultimate waste of time and energy being that they are so "wise" and "intellectual". Interesting that imaginary things upset them so much... very revealing actually.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. I believe that He is God. I believe that only God could have performed the wonderful works and provided the amazing salvation that came through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Why do men with their finite understand believe that they can fully comprehend an infinite, merciful and loving God? Your mere existence is a testamony that He is; the harmony of nature is a testamony that He is; the unfailing rising and setting of the sun is a testamony that He is. He has given us three score and ten to discover this truth or suffer the conquences of your own finite, impaired and rebellious thinking. If you don't like God's world and are not willing to accept His plan of salvation maybe you should create you own perfect world, good luck. Better hurry your day of reckoning is near.
Merry Christmas to all who know the only true and living God (I will see you in heaven). And, to those who do not know our God, His offer still stands "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Deal or No Deal? Go figure!

The Divinity of Christ

I've always loved this excerpt from "Mere Christianity". It strips away today's relativistic prose--much of which we see here in these Forum! For without the acknowledgement of Christ's divinity nothing much hangs together:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

CS Lewis, "Mere Christianity"

Best to all, & blessings to those who will take them.

Mary C.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. I believe that He is God. I believe that only God could have performed the wonderful works and provided the amazing salvation that came through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Why do men with their finite understand believe that they can fully comprehend an infinite, merciful and loving God? Your mere existence is a testamony that He is; the harmony of nature is a testamony that He is; the unfailing rising and setting of the sun is a testamony that He is. He has given us three score and ten to discover this truth or suffer the conquences of your own finite, impaired and rebellious thinking. If you don't like God's world and are not willing to accept His plan of salvation maybe you should create you own perfect world, good luck. Better hurry your day of reckoning is near.
Merry Christmas to all who know the only true and living God (I will see you in heaven). And, to those who do not know our God, His offer still stands "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Deal or No Deal? Go figure!

I thank God that Dr. Mohler is a true general in the faith in these last days. Jesus said that "No servant is above his Master", if they persecuted Him, they'll persecute us also. I think it's safe to say that Christians are in no short supply of persecution even as we speak. In our schools, courts, on television and even in supermarkets people are attempting to eliminate even speaking the name of Jesus, nontheless proclaiming His soveriegnty. Things like this were unthinkable twenty years ago. But, everyone has a choice, that is our God-given right as humans. We are the only creatures on earth that are blessed enough to actually choose our own destiny. It's actually that simple, and He's giving us a lifetime to make up our minds. Like He said in the book of Deuteronomy, "I've set before you life and death, choose Life." How do you choose life? By choosing Christ because He said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, No one comes unto the Father but through Me"(John 14:6). He's the only person in the history of mankind that can make such a bold statement with absolute validity because He laid down His life (no one took it from Him) and was resurrected on the 3rd day. And yes, He WAS resurrected on the 3rd day. I don't need to tell anyone that the Gospel's are the only records that we have to certify that the resurrection took place because even secular historians have documented this event. The most recognized historian was Josephus who was actually a Jew but WASN'T a follower of Christ. Nobody that has ever taken the Bible head-on to try to disprove it as a "hoax" has ever succeeded and in a lot of cases that ivestigations have taken place, people have even come out believers (Praise Jesus!). Yes!! The Word of God, The Sword, the Inerrant and Infallible Truth. Name ONE historical, spiritual, geographical, inspirational, genealogical and Prophetical text in the entire known world; true to the translation of the original language it was written in; Penned by over 40 different authors over a period of thousands of years w/ONE over-all consistent message and is still in massive production and distribution; and is only gaining more popular of a demand! It just can't be done. With a sincere heart I can honestly say that it is my hope that all people will come to a SAVING knowledge of the Lord Jeus Christ. But that is a CHOICE that you will have to make on your own; Life, or death.

Merry Christmas, and Praise the Lord Christ Jesus!

I feel like I am the son of god also.

I admire Jesus for standing up to the authorities and ridicule of his time to show us the true path that humanity must take to survive.

I hope that all will open thier minds as we continue the pursuit of how and why we are here. This path will make us dive into the brain and the very fundemental nature of the universe. Study all the religions, different opinions
in your own religion, philosophy, science, the philosphy of science, and all the great literature of not just your culture, but all
cultures.

Peace and contentment are my wishes for you.

Merry Christmas.

Love.

For a correct understanding answering the question, “Who is Jesus?,” please see the expository paper entitled “Jesus Christ, One God Preacher.” You will go to a URL link which allows you to download the research in a format suitable for reproduction and distribution. You will find it at http://www.kennethelamb.com/rt/jog/jog0212.htm

Pau Khan Khai, you are getting more ignorant every time you go to class, being negatively educated. The more lies you learn and believe the more ignorant you become. The Bible is a proved hoax. Studying and believing it's God's word makes one more ignorant than before. That's bad but a thousand times worse, it insults God.

Maybe this will help, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul You really don't want to do that do you?

"To wonder if Jesus is the Son of God is foolish, when it is so easy to know that He was, is, and always will be."

That may be, but Apollo is both the son of god [Zeus to be precise] AND the god of sun!

Mohler, like all bible thumpers, actually believes the Gospels, which are Hellenistic novels and not biographies of Jesus. Those closest to Jesus, James his brother and their Jerusalem Christians, did not believe Jesus divine. They believed him The Prophet who would return. He did not return but at least James & Co. had the most authentic knowledge of Jesus. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans and all the rest are believing a myth invented by Paul.

The very heavens shout forth His handiwork! Prove that He exists? There is no way to prove that He does not!
Merry Christmas to all.
May I be one small grain of sand in the Rock of Offense to those who refuse Him!

PJ Tibayan,

You are entirely correct on Mr. Wolfe, I have conversed via e-mail with him and he is incapable of backing up any of the things he believes. He willfully admits his faith is based in scientists and has done no commendable research himself.

Those that would like to disprove Jesus simply need to do away with the four perfect testimonies of His Ministry, Death, and Ressurection, the painful deaths of His Apostles and Disciples, and the 330 Fullfilled Prophecies written 1600-400 years before His life, death, and resurrection.

To wonder if Jesus is the Son of God is foolish, when it is so easy to know that He was, is, and always will be.

Yes,

God does exist and Jesus was His son given to mankind to show us what love is.

Many accomplished scientists have demonstrated the existence of God can be proved by the Theory of Relativity among other things.

Prophecy continues to show that earthly knowledge will always fall short of the wisdom of God. Every prophecy in the Bible to date has been fulfilled 100%. No person or technology has ever been able to fortell future events with 100% accuracy, not even remotely close!

How then has Scriptures in the Bible been able to do this? It surpasses human understanding. Jesus walking the Earth has been documented by Christian and secular writers alike. His birth in Bethlehem was prophecied centuries before it happened. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and only went to Bethlehem because Caesar declared a new tax and ordered a census; for people to return to their place of birth to be accounted for. This is documented in secular history and collaborates with the Biblical facts of his birth.

An objective approach to learn the truth and some homework would make this apparent to you as well Burton.

Merry Christmas to all. Peace and joy on Earth in the name of Jesus.

Jesus is the Son of God. To say otherwise is to go against him as he himself claimed. If people want to pass Jesus off as some myth or good man, they need to prove that claim as they expect us Christians to. Jesus died for sinners and all of you (including me) need to hear his message of forgiveness in his death and resurrection and trust in his finished work, not ourselves.

Burton Wolfe doesn't know history. I doubt he's done any serious research himself.

No, Jesus was not a son of any God. Just as there were no other sons of any other gods in history. If one takes time to study the history of religion, they will see there were other man/gods that came to earth before Jesus and they had very much the same story as Jesus. One of those such gods born to a virgin was called Mithra. Every religion has a god, they all believe their god is the one god. They all interrupt their scriptures differently and each of them quote their scriptures as being fact with some stating they are historical records. Not a single religion has been able to prove any god, not been able to show any sign of any god, not being able to show that their gods heal, yet they always claim it to be so. On top of all that, religious types claim the bible is the moral guide for humans yet the bible is full of murder, sacrifice, support for slavery and much more horrible acts. The bible has allowed humans to do some of the most evil things to other humans and claim it is in the name of god and therefore good. When will we humans finally give up on this myth just like others gave up on Zues or the moon goddess?

Since, I am one of the students in Bible College. I always excited to read our message in my life.
Thanks alot.

From. Pau Khan Khai

The evidence says that Jesus claimed to be the son of the living God. Unfortunately that God died over 3,300 years ago, probably of alcohol posining. Those who say that God, the presumed father of Jesus is alive believe in eternal life, no doubt. If he's alive it's somewhere else. Can't say they're wrong and hope they're right.

I never have liked unnatural food, heavy beer and dead Gods and a few other things too. Ever been to the church of the dead God? Nothing much there.

Merry Christmas and happy new year all. And Seasn's Greetings, Happy Holidays to all who are offended by Merry Christmas, no offence intended. Tis the season to be jolly so deck the halls but not the airports, fire stations or court houses. Is it true that black people say they are Irish on St Patty's day? Wonderful if they do. I was thinking about it myself but as luck would have it I'm Irish so I become an Indian at Thanksgiving instead. Cheers.

"Do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Yes, I do.

Albert:
    Your allegations are based entirely on your perception of what is stated in scriptures. Evidently you have not learned that scripture is nothing more than the propaganda of a particular sect promoting its version of religion. Nothing in it comprises historical fact. Before you can assert that "Jesus" (Joshua) is the "son of God," you must first provide evidence that such a character actually existed. There is no evidence that your "Jesus" ever appeared on this earth. There is no birth record, no family record, no mention of him in any diary or journal or any writing of any kind from the First Century. On the other hand, there is a massive amount of evidence available to demonstrate that your "Jesus" was and remains nothing more than an invention of ancient Hebrew scribes who were the members of one of perhaps as many as two dozen sects claiming to be based on a messiah. Until you provide evidence of some kind that your "Jesus" existed, there is an ethical and moral obligation for you to stop spreading your crackpot notions to gullible, ignorant human beings who, because you are a minister, may believe your lunatic ravings and try to base their lives on it.
- Burton H. Wolfe

"Do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Yes.

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

No. Anyone who does must prove two assertions:

1. That God exists.

2. That God procreates and somehow produces a son.

The concept is meaningless.

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