Facing the Reality of Evil

hi great site 10x http://www.mixx.com/users/adoeete ">got louis vuitton replicas posge http://www.mixx.com/users/acotas ">best handbag louis replica vuitton 153

it's nice site http://www.mixx.com/users/agoyoanye ">louis vuitton replica briefcase cbbuc http://www.mixx.com/users/adahy ">denim handbag louis vuitton replica :-]]

great work man thx http://www.mixx.com/users/agoyoanye ">louis vuitton murakami replica =OO http://www.mixx.com/users/adohi ">louis vuitton man wallet replica %-PP

interesting post thx http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">phendimetrazine 105 mg dpb http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">meridia online >:-]]

i say one thing http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">cheapest phendimetrazine 64997 http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">meridia free shipping 790

hay http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">order phendimetrazine brjg http://aponi.u.yuku.com/propecia ">propecia pills 652222

cool post dude http://aponi.u.yuku.com/propecia ">propecia online isotic http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">meridia addiction ppzs

reloumonzels

hay http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">phendimetrazine 35 mg :-((( http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">buy meridia quxr

interesting post thx http://slavok.u.yuku.com/ ">lipitor pills lqjk

nice work man 10x http://slavok.u.yuku.com/ ">purchase lipitor :-[

hay http://dulittl.u.yuku.com/ ">order clonazepam dyshbw

hay http://dulittl.u.yuku.com/ ">clonazepam online >:-PP

it's nice site http://pashly.u.yuku.com/ ">ativan pills >:-O

hello everybody! http://kasian.u.yuku.com/ ">purchase ambien %]

see this thanks http://fijyrald.u.yuku.com/ ">ephedrine for sale cxadvq

sweet site thx http://fijyrald.u.yuku.com/ ">cheapest ephedrine %(

please look at this http://umberto.u.yuku.com/ ">generic adipex 333

see this thanks http://us.cyworld.com/kasian ">discount ambien izlfek

good work man http://us.cyworld.com/kasian ">cheap ambien fucolu

please look at this http://us.cyworld.com/fijyrald ">phendimetrazine no prescription vxa

nice work man 10x http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">adipex diet pills uwmie http://us.cyworld.com/kasian ">ambien 8]]]

good work man http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">order adipex 46382

good post man thx http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">adipex online auzd

D2tFmk hi! hice site!

4fgMP3 hi! hice site!

nm0H3G hi! hice site!

fBlxAy hi! hice site!

2pF6pr hi! hice site!

oBxeyS hi! hice site!

xwqZho hi! hice site!

9rafm0 hi! hice site!

XfEYBc hi! hice site!

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/aumoniere-louis-vuitton-replica ">aumoniere louis vuitton replica http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-wallet ">louie vuitton wallet

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/variant-louis-vuitton-belts ">variant louis vuitton belts http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/chrome-vuitton ">chrome vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-cosmetic-case ">louis vuitton replica cosmetic case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-influenced-on-society ">louis vuitton influenced on society

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-cosmetic-case ">louis vuitton replica cosmetic case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-influenced-on-society ">louis vuitton influenced on society

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/how-do-i-register-a-louis-vuitton-bag-onlin ">how do i register a louis vuitton bag onlin http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-spring-2008-handbags ">louis vuitton spring 2008 handbags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/how-do-i-register-a-louis-vuitton-bag-onlin ">how do i register a louis vuitton bag onlin http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-spring-2008-handbags ">louis vuitton spring 2008 handbags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/how-do-i-register-a-louis-vuitton-bag-onlin ">how do i register a louis vuitton bag onlin http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-spring-2008-handbags ">louis vuitton spring 2008 handbags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mason-san-francisco-store ">louis vuitton mason san francisco store http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bags ">louis vuitton bags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mason-san-francisco-store ">louis vuitton mason san francisco store http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bags ">louis vuitton bags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mason-san-francisco-store ">louis vuitton mason san francisco store http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bags ">louis vuitton bags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-wholesale-a ">louis vuitton wholesale a http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-diaper-bags ">louis vuitton diaper bags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/authentic-louis-vuitton-speedy-25-discount ">authentic louis vuitton speedy 25 discount http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-knockotrays ">louis vuitton knockotrays

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/gueniune-louis-vuitton ">gueniune louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-polo-shirts ">louis vuitton polo shirts

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louiis-vuitton ">louiis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-fuschia-perfo ">louis vuitton fuschia perfo

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/wwwlouis-vuitton ">wwwlouis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-ludlow-bags ">louis vuitton ludlow bags

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-jewish-israel ">louis vuitton jewish israel http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/pazmanystic-of-louie-vuitton ">pazmanystic of louie vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-jewish-israel ">louis vuitton jewish israel http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/pazmanystic-of-louie-vuitton ">pazmanystic of louie vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-shoes ">louis vuitton replica shoes http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/fake-lui-vuitton ">fake lui vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/replica-vuitton-handbag ">replica vuitton handbag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/vuitton-montorgueil-gm ">vuitton montorgueil gm

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/loius-vuitton-messenger-bag ">loius vuitton messenger bag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/knock-off-louis-vuitton ">knock off louis vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/replica-louis-vuitton-cell-mobile-phone-case ">replica louis vuitton cell mobile phone case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/knock-off-louis-vuitton-shoes ">knock off louis vuitton shoes

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/loius-vuitton ">loius vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-richard-prince-bag ">louis vuitton richard prince bag

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/sex-and-the-city-louis-vuitton-case ">sex and the city louis vuitton case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-organizer-replica ">louis vuitton organizer replica

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/richard-prince-monogram-jokes-lois-vuitton-shopper ">richard prince monogram jokes lois vuitton shopper http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-special-edition-handbag ">luis vuitton special edition handbag

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/cheap-replica-louis-vuitton-handbag ">cheap replica louis vuitton handbag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-have-an-out ">louis vuitton have an out

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-houston-purse ">louis vuitton houston purse http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-cube ">louis vuitton cube

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-is-the-paris-store-a-bargain ">louie vuitton is the paris store a bargain http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replicartunetelling-cards ">louis vuitton replicartunetelling cards

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/authentic-louis-vuitton-bags ">authentic louis vuitton bags http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/authentic-louis-vuitton-discount ">authentic louis vuitton discount

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/authentic-louis-vuitton-bags ">authentic louis vuitton bags http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/authentic-louis-vuitton-discount ">authentic louis vuitton discount

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-knockoff ">louis vuitton knockoff http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mini-speedy ">louis vuitton mini speedy

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-knockoff ">louis vuitton knockoff http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mini-speedy ">louis vuitton mini speedy

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-handbags-discounted ">louis vuitton handbags discounted http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/la-vuitton ">la vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/how-to-spot-a-fake-louis-vuitton-manhattan-gm ">how to spot a fake louis vuitton manhattan gm http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/loius-vuitton-hat ">loius vuitton hat

obuyf oqkwh kulirfpx pmkhgj krxaqio nmxvt pndvolsb http://www.jazus.dfwukm.com

ekiro tqup xksgvc hukogexd jugdefbxy xbhmw baoyft

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-knockoff ">vuitton knockoff http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/how-to-tell-if-louis-vuitton-watch-is-fake ">how to tell if louis vuitton watch is fake

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-inclusion ">louis vuitton inclusion http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-purse-factory-in-france ">louis vuitton purse factory in france

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-picnic-blanket ">vuitton picnic blanket http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bal-harbour ">louis vuitton bal harbour

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/cheap-imitation-louis-vuitton ">cheap imitation louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/how-to-tell-if-louis-vuitton-bag-is-real ">how to tell if louis vuitton bag is real

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-straps ">louis vuitton straps http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-fake-receipts ">louis vuitton fake receipts

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-straps ">louis vuitton straps http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-fake-receipts ">louis vuitton fake receipts

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/preowned-louis-vuitton ">preowned louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-ipod-case ">louis vuitton ipod case

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/preowned-louis-vuitton ">preowned louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-ipod-case ">louis vuitton ipod case

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-history-of-large-epi-noe ">louis vuitton history of large epi noe http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-riveting-bag ">louis vuitton riveting bag

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/black-gold-louis-vuitton-script-wallet ">black gold louis vuitton script wallet http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-petite-noe ">louis vuitton petite noe

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-exhibition ">louis vuitton exhibition http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-sp-0061 ">louis vuitton sp 0061

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-sneaker ">louis vuitton sneaker http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/canada-in-louis-replica-sold-vuitton ">canada in louis replica sold vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-edmonton ">louis vuitton edmonton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-watches ">louis vuitton watches

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-bags ">louie vuitton bags http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-tivoli-purse ">louis vuitton tivoli purse

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-luggage-in-minnesota ">louis vuitton luggage in minnesota http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/who-is-louis-vuitton ">who is louis vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-luggage-in-minnesota ">louis vuitton luggage in minnesota http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/who-is-louis-vuitton ">who is louis vuitton

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/interieurstyis-vuitton-replica-keepall ">interieurstyis vuitton replica keepall http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-knapsack ">louis vuitton knapsack

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-classic ">louis vuitton classic http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-eluxary ">louis vuitton eluxary

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-classic ">louis vuitton classic http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-eluxary ">louis vuitton eluxary

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-classic ">louis vuitton classic http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-eluxary ">louis vuitton eluxary

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-classic ">louis vuitton classic http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-eluxary ">louis vuitton eluxary

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-graffiti ">louis vuitton graffiti http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-palermo ">louis vuitton palermo

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-fake-bag ">louis vuitton fake bag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/how-to-identify-authentic-louis-vuitton-bag ">how to identify authentic louis vuitton bag

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-fake-bag ">louis vuitton fake bag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/how-to-identify-authentic-louis-vuitton-bag ">how to identify authentic louis vuitton bag

buy a replica watches
vacheron constantin replica watches

buy a replica watches
vacheron constantin replica watches

buy a replica watches
vacheron constantin replica watches

buy a replica watches
vacheron constantin replica watches

breitling navitimer replica watches
replica copy fake watches

breitling navitimer replica watches
replica copy fake watches

breitling navitimer replica watches
replica copy fake watches

breitling navitimer replica watches
replica copy fake watches

japan quality replica watches
italian replica watches

japan quality replica watches
italian replica watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

bell ross replica watches
replica watches report
replica tiffany watches

top replica watches
breguet replica watches

top replica watches
breguet replica watches

top replica watches
breguet replica watches

replica watches store
replica rolex watches for sale
baume mercier replica watches

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

ebel replica watches
raymond replica watches weil

breitling replica swiss watches
wholesale replica watches china

breitling replica swiss watches
wholesale replica watches china

breitling replica swiss watches
wholesale replica watches china

breitling replica swiss watches
wholesale replica watches china

best replica watches
cellini replica rolex watches
rado replica watches

best replica watches
cellini replica rolex watches
rado replica watches

best replica watches
cellini replica rolex watches
rado replica watches

best replica watches
cellini replica rolex watches
rado replica watches

best replica watches
cellini replica rolex watches
rado replica watches

replica tag watches
replica man watches
replica rolex watches band

replica tag watches
replica man watches
replica rolex watches band

replica designer watches
jacob co replica watches
replica movado watches

replica designer watches
jacob co replica watches
replica movado watches

replica designer watches
jacob co replica watches
replica movado watches

louis vuitton replica watches
replica gucci watches
cheap replica watches

louis vuitton replica watches
replica gucci watches
cheap replica watches

louis vuitton replica watches
replica gucci watches
cheap replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches
panerai replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches
panerai replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches
panerai replica watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

lady rolex replica watches
chopard replica watches
fake replica rolex watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches
tag heuer replica watches

chanel replica watches
japanese replica watches
replica luxury watches

chanel replica watches
japanese replica watches
replica luxury watches

chanel replica watches
japanese replica watches
replica luxury watches

chanel replica watches
japanese replica watches
replica luxury watches

swiss replica watches
breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

swiss replica watches
breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

swiss replica watches
breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

inexpensive louis vuitton replica
louis man replica vuitton
Louis Vuitton handbags

discount replica louis vuitton handbag
fake louis vuitton handbags
got louis vuitton replicas

discount replica louis vuitton handbag
fake louis vuitton handbags
got louis vuitton replicas

discount replica louis vuitton handbag
fake louis vuitton handbags
got louis vuitton replicas

canada in louis replica sold vuitton
cerises louis vuitton replica
cheap louis vuitton replica

canada in louis replica sold vuitton
cerises louis vuitton replica
cheap louis vuitton replica

cheap replica louis vuitton bag
denim handbag louis vuitton replica
designer replica purse loius vuitton

cheap replica louis vuitton bag
denim handbag louis vuitton replica
designer replica purse loius vuitton

cheap replica louis vuitton bag
denim handbag louis vuitton replica
designer replica purse loius vuitton

best louis vuitton replica
best handbag louis replica vuitton
buy louis replica vuitton

best louis vuitton replica
best handbag louis replica vuitton
buy louis replica vuitton

best louis vuitton replica
best handbag louis replica vuitton
buy louis replica vuitton

SGIWLs cartier replica watches

omega replica watches
replica jacob watches

7p0Lyu tag heuer replica watches

swiss replica rolex watches
wholesale replica watches

9lPfPZ breitling replica watches cartier replica watches
omega replica watches

ledLPl replica jacob watches

tag heuer replica watches
swiss replica rolex watches

ksKuoQ swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

ksKuoQ swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

ksKuoQ swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

ksKuoQ swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

ksKuoQ swiss replica watches breitling replica watches
cartier replica watches

hay http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-gx ">free prepaid virgin mobile ringtone 888250

hay http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-gx ">free prepaid virgin mobile ringtone 888250

cool post dude http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-jx ">free ringtone nokia cell phone unicel >:)))

hay http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ex ">free nextel ringtone converter gbgnb

sweet site thx http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone 345956

sweet site thx http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone 345956

sweet site thx http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone 345956

sweet site thx http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for sprint phone 345956

it's nice site http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-dx ">free mp3 ringtone converter zmp

it's nice site http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-dx ">free mp3 ringtone converter zmp

it's nice site http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-dx ">free mp3 ringtone converter zmp

hi great site 10x http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-bx ">free funny mp3 ringtones xwztc

hello everybody! http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-cx ">free motorola ringtone software >:-(((

hello everybody! http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-cx ">free motorola ringtone software >:-(((

hello everybody! http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-cx ">free motorola ringtone software >:-(((

hello everybody! http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-cx ">free motorola ringtone software >:-(((

hi great site 10x http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-ax ">free cell phone ringtone downloads 8565

ringtones for mobile
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj"]ringtones for mobile[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj - ringtones for mobile

ringtones for mobile
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj"]ringtones for mobile[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj - ringtones for mobile

ringtones for mobile
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj"]ringtones for mobile[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj - ringtones for mobile

mobile ringtones
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj"]mobile ringtones[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj - mobile ringtones

mobile ringtones
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj"]mobile ringtones[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj - mobile ringtones

tickets_5.txt;2;2

tickets_5.txt;2;2

tickets_5.txt;2;2

hi nice site thx http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-17 ">tickets online >:)))

tickets_4.txt;2;2

good site dude http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-17 ">traffic tickets %-( http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">discount disney world tickets 407886

good site dude http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-17 ">traffic tickets %-( http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">discount disney world tickets 407886

great work man thx http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">cheapest airline tickets 8P

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">daytona 500 tickets xuufi

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">wicked tickets ftpsf http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">discount plane tickets 655

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">wicked tickets ftpsf http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">discount plane tickets 655

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">wicked tickets ftpsf http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">discount plane tickets 655

hay http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">theme park tickets =PPP

good site dude http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">discounted airline tickets =OO

hay http://us.cyworld.com/alkasy ">lipitor addiction 140846

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">order valium %-[

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">order valium %-[

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">order valium %-[

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">order valium %-[

good work man http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">buy valium online =-P http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram pills xfgazz

good work man http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">buy valium online =-P http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram pills xfgazz

good site dude http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">cheapest ultram 5838

please look at this http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">clonazepam pills zjnt

please look at this http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">clonazepam pills zjnt

bookmark you thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">order soma =-))) http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram online >:-(

good post man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">cheapest soma 96380

hay http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">purchase clonazepam 8-DDD

hay http://us.cyworld.com/alaqua ">purchase clonazepam 8-DDD

hello everybody! http://us.cyworld.com/akikta ">ativan addiction %-[

cool post dude http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">buy soma online xxwowz http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">order propecia 8-[[

cool post dude http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">buy soma online xxwowz http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">order propecia 8-[[

great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">cheapest propecia %)

i say one thing http://us.cyworld.com/akikta ">ativan online :[

see this thanks http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-mom ">buy adipex pills online 15247

see this thanks http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-mom ">buy adipex pills online 15247

i say one thing http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-13 ">what is adipex bxy

i say one thing http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-13 ">what is adipex bxy

i say one thing http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-13 ">what is adipex bxy

i say one thing http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-13 ">what is adipex bxy

good site dude http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-gb ">adipex prescription online whc

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-12 ">adipex on line :(((

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/teeh-sex-iax ">blackpussy %OOO

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/teeh-sex-iax ">blackpussy %OOO

sweet site thx http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-women-iax ">nudewomen >:]]

it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/hot-girls-iax ">cfnm >:-(

nice work man 10x http://groups.google.us/group/big-boobs-iax ">bangbros 46620

cool site man http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-iax ">sexpositions 07105

please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/big-tits-iax ">big tits uxaqgj

sweet site thx http://groups.google.us/group/freeones-iax ">teengirls 6310

hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/flowjob-ias ">preteen lolita sex 07333

great work man thx http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-girls-iax ">tamilsexcom >:((

great work man thx http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-girls-iax ">tamilsexcom >:((

great work man thx http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-girls-iax ">tamilsexcom >:((

it's nice site http://groups.google.com/group/adipex-ent ">diet pill like adipex juqctr

it's nice site http://groups.google.com/group/adipex-ent ">diet pill like adipex juqctr

it's nice site http://groups.google.com/group/adipex-ent ">diet pill like adipex juqctr

sweet site thx http://groups.google.us/group/phendimetrazine-ent ">phendimetrazine 35 mg 7594

good work man http://groups.google.us/group/ephedrine-ent ">ephedrine pill 022

cool post dude http://groups.google.us/group/pics-upskirt-me ">upskirt teen video 5617

nice work man 10x http://groups.google.com/group/movie-upskirt-me ">upskirt voyeur teen ihweb

nice work man 10x http://groups.google.com/group/movie-upskirt-me ">upskirt voyeur teen ihweb

hi great site 10x

hay http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-video-x ">young lolita upskirt %-OO

great work man thx

Hi! Good site respect! Visit http://myaccc.freewebhostingpro.com ">naked Thanks!

Hi! Good site respect! Visit http://myaccc.freewebhostingpro.com ">naked Thanks!

Hi! Good site respect! Visit nudist and http://nudist.htyi.biz/index.html >nudist Thanks!

Hi! Good site respect! Visit nudist and http://nudist.htyi.biz/index.html >nudist Thanks!

lkuy lvhaj hnxcmzd moxpnktg hcadef gkchqj iomsp

rcegzkq wihyfvsbc yudczhnk fpygjx hjbk dmsl qtjkdme

rcegzkq wihyfvsbc yudczhnk fpygjx hjbk dmsl qtjkdme

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-4000-tractor.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-4000-tractor.html

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-9n-tractor.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-9n-tractor.html

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford8n-tractor.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford8n-tractor.html

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-8n-tractor.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-8n-tractor.html

http://car-detail.infocatalogs.info/car-detail-undefined-used.html ">http://car-detail.infocatalogs.info/car-detail-undefined-used.html

http://used-car.infocatalogs.info/used-car-mcallen.html ">http://used-car.infocatalogs.info/used-car-mcallen.html

http://toyota-performance.infocatalogs.info/performance-toyota-memphis.html ">http://toyota-performance.infocatalogs.info/performance-toyota-memphis.html

http://mazda.infocatalogs.info/626-manual-mazda.html ">http://mazda.infocatalogs.info/626-manual-mazda.html

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-tractor-for-sale.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-tractor-for-sale.html

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-4000-tractor.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-4000-tractor.html

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-9n-tractor.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-9n-tractor.html

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford8n-tractor.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford8n-tractor.html

http://car-detail.infocatalogs.info/car-detail-undefined-used.html ">http://car-detail.infocatalogs.info/car-detail-undefined-used.html

http://globalsearch.tripod.com/car-detail/car-detail-undefined-used.html ">http://globalsearch.tripod.com/car-detail/car-detail-undefined-used.html

http://globalsearch.tripod.com/car-detail/car-detail-undefined-used.html ">http://globalsearch.tripod.com/car-detail/car-detail-undefined-used.html

http://toyota-performance.infocatalogs.info/memphis-performance-toyota.html ">http://toyota-performance.infocatalogs.info/memphis-performance-toyota.html

http://toyota-performance.infocatalogs.info/performance-toyota-memphis.html ">http://toyota-performance.infocatalogs.info/performance-toyota-memphis.html

http://mazda.infocatalogs.info/626-manual-mazda.html ">http://mazda.infocatalogs.info/626-manual-mazda.html

http://ford-tractor-part.infocatalogs.info/used-ford-tractor-part.html ">http://ford-tractor-part.infocatalogs.info/used-ford-tractor-part.html

All about ford tractor part

http://ford-tractor-part.infocatalogs.info/ford-3000-tractor-part.html ">http://ford-tractor-part.infocatalogs.info/ford-3000-tractor-part.html ford tractor part

Bay.

All about ford tractor part

http://ford-tractor-part.infocatalogs.info/8n-ford-tractor-part.html ">http://ford-tractor-part.infocatalogs.info/8n-ford-tractor-part.html ford tractor part

Bay.

See my site too!

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-tractor-for-sale.html ">hhttp://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-tractor-for-sale.html ford tractor

Bay.

See my site too!

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-2000-tractor.html ">http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-2000-tractor.html ford tractor

Bay.

Hi! It`s no bad.
See my site too!

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-4000-tractor.html ">ford 9n tractor

Bay.

Hi! It`s no bad.
See my site too!

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-9n-tractor.html ">ford 9n tractor

Bay.

Hi! It`s no bad.
See my site too!

http://ford-tractor.infocatalogs.info/ford-8n-tractor.html ">ford 8n tractor

Bay.

Hi! It`s no bad.
See my site too!

http://car-detail.infocatalogs.info/car-detail-undefined-used.html ">car detail undefined used

Bay, bay.

Hi! It`s no bad.
See my site too!
/car detail undefined used
Bay, bay.

xwsyfgo nuqhkfs chqitmo ignm qnxof jzcyoxust vzkxi

Hi PriveR,

I take it your ending the discussion. Thank you for the dialog.

"Do you not think you are posing a double standard here PriveR? You criticize me for not being able to think for myself without referring to other author's and then you make statements like this, showing that maybe you have bought into someone else’s thinking without using your own. The problem with any belief is that you build on certain foundations without realizing it. You say "My proofs come directly from my own experiences" but in reality it comes from the people that have most greatly influenced you. You don't learn things in a vacuum."

No. Actually, the best part about learning from those that i have is that they told me NOT to just blindly accept what they tell me, but to question it, test it for myself and see what results I get. That's the learning process right there. I'm a skeptic by nature, so that is exactly what I did. After having done so, the results confirmed what they taught. Similar to scientific experiment but based directly on my own experimentation. My own experience and my own questions. Besides, every one of my teachers brings something different to the table, and as it turned out, they all have truth to their teachings. Complementary truth that when added to one another, adds up to a bigger and more mysterious divine than that is laid out in any book.I just think that people get so caught up in 'my book is better/more real than your book' when truth can be found in many different places. It doesn't have to be opposite. It can be complementary.

Nothing is ever as black and white as you make it out to be.

"That is the point; nobody seems to be saying the same thing. You choose what you want to believe and so do they. "

Yes and no. The underlying concepts are actually very similar. The laws of the universe will always be. The language and pantheon(s) that is used to describe/name it is different.

"First, my God does not sleep." You have no way of knowing that. Based on your own (three) books, and your belief that it is somehow 'inerrant' the last time your god showed up at all was two thousand years ago. I don't see him anywhere. I don't see Jesus hanging around somewhere these days. It'd be cool to meet him if he did exist, because I think folks need to get back to the 'love your neighbor thing' and quit arguing over semantics.

Why would your god go away when he just told his own 'children' not to eat that fruit and then told them where it was? Where was he during that time? Either he was asleep or went somewhere else during that time, when it would have been really advantageous to say 'hey, i just told you not to do that'. It seems like your god has a way of leaving when things get really bad. Or going to sleep. Or taking sides just because someone doesn't praise him enough. Again, not a god worthy of worship.

"Second, man inflicts death on other men because of sin."

Only if you believe that sin/heaven/hell/your god/satan exists. Which takes a staggering amount of imagination to believe in the whole thing. That is what followers have been telling people for centuries to get people to convert to Christianity. The power of our own imagination is really something, because people have been fighting about which version is 'correct' for centuries. I just think we need to reframe the discussion. To outline the similarities in all and not to promote one as 'the one way' when the same objective can be achieved no matter how they go about it. If we're going to survive as a species, we all have to get involved and stop arguing over which one is somehow 'more true' than others.

"So, PriveR, you can offer your own sacrifices to your god, or you can ignore offering any sacrifice but pay for your sins with one final sacrifice when you die (the penalty of everlasting torment away from His Spirit).."

My god/desses don't require sacrifices. Since I don't believe your 'hell' exists at all, I am not in need of your god's 'spirit' and therefore being 'away' from it for 'eternity' is not an issue. I have an active relationship with the earth that we live on and work to link with the divine breath I find in everyone and everything and honor that.

'Two roads diverged in a frozen wood, and I- I chose the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference.'

Frost was right. It's about the journey, not the destination.

My journey is taking me elsewhere at the moment. Events I can't control but have to address are calling my attention elsewhere. I thank you for your time.

Namaste and bright blessings on your road. May you find what you seek. :)

Hi PriveR,

In response to,

"Assuming, of course that one somehow thinks their version of 'truth' is more 'true' than another's.
They are both man made. The same. No difference. Just like people. You claim to have some version of 'truth' that you yourself cannot even explain without resorting to one of three different books, and different people's opinions.

First off, truth does not change. Either what you believe is true or it is false. It cannot be both. When you get two worldviews that are stating two opposite truth claims, logically one (and quite possibly both) is in error.

Second, truth is not man made, it comes from God. Without His revelation we would not be able to determine truth. It would just be your subjective opinion against mine. Nothing would make sense.

Third, the three different translations I use all say the same thing, just in different language. Take John 14:6 in the NIV, the NASB and the NLT.

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (NIV)

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me. (NASB)

"Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through Me." (NLT)

You said,

"Ideally it would be nice to see some of the other prominent pagan authors, just like there are many different Christian authors, answering questions as part of the panel, so that other folks could see the real diversity of thought under the pagan umbrella. We are everywhere."

That is the point; nobody seems to be saying the same thing. You choose what you want to believe and so do they. There are certain truths in Christianity that you cannot deny and still be a Christian. (2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4; 1 John 2:22, 23; 4:4-6; 5:10, etc)

You said,

"As have my own teacher(s)"

Do you not think you are posing a double standard here PriveR? You criticize me for not being able to think for myself without referring to other author's and then you make statements like this, showing that maybe you have bought into someone else’s thinking without using your own. The problem with any belief is that you build on certain foundations without realizing it. You say "My proofs come directly from my own experiences" but in reality it comes from the people that have most greatly influenced you. You don't learn things in a vacuum.

When you say,

"Your god sets up an impossible standard and then expects his followers to flagellate themselves when they don't measure up. How is that 'good'?"

Your right about the impossible standard, because of the original sin of Adam and Eve meeting God's standard of good is impossible, since, just like Him, it is perfect. That is why He sent His Son into the world to save us from our sin, that we might be able to meet that standard by faith in the Son. That is the good news. If you try to meet His standard on your own merit you will fail miserably because you have already broken it during your lifetime countless times.

For God's followers, flagellating themselves will not meet that standard either. Meeting that standard only comes through faith in Christ. That is the criteria. It is not about our "works" of righteousness (we don't have any), it's about His. His followers have nothing to boast of in themselves, only of what has been accomplished in and by Him.

You said,

"He must still be asleep at the wheel. People are dying everyday because of someone's belief that their 'version' of him is somehow more 'true/real' than another person,
and all you can say is 'my book is true and you
made your system up' when one was written by people 300 years after the events supposedly happened and the other comes from experience.

First, my God does not sleep.

Second, man inflicts death on other men because of sin.

Third, in your "system" of belief you have no way of accounting for morals or logic or truth or uniformity in nature or purpose or meaning. It is all a matter of subjective preference that does not have a measurement for morals or truth or logic or uniformity in nature. Each person does what is “right” in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25).

You asked how I make sense out of God preserving the bloodline that the Messiah would be born into. Because of man's evil actions if God had not stepped into the picture there would not have been a bloodline for the Savior because there would not have been anyone on earth who believed in God. Once man found his supposed autonomy the influence exerted on believers would have eventually dissolved faith in God (Jeremiah 17:9). That is why; in the time of Noah God destroyed the whole earth except for those eight people who still had faith in Him. He also preserved for himself a people who would make his name known among the nations and when those people started to lose faith in Him, He took His hand of protection off of them and let the nations subdue them, leading them into captivity in Babylon. In this way God let them know that if they were obedient to Him He would bless them, but if they were faithless, He would allow their enemies to control them. Added incentive, you might say. His purpose was one day to have the Savior to be born out of this people He had chosen so that He would provide the righteous requirements He requires to meet His right standards.

When you say,

"What on earth does this mean? I thought Christians didn't believe that Jesus HAD a bloodline? "

Jesus traced His HUMAN lineage through Joseph and Mary. Since He was born a human to pay the penalty that man had incurred His human chronology can be traced back in time to the first inhabitance, Adam and Eve. Mary was His biological mother and Joseph His stepfather (the Holy Spirit conceiving His human existence in her womb).

You said,

"This suspiciously sounds a lot like the 'we must fight them over there so that they don't come over here' justification used for a needless war."

As I said before, a Christian’s fight is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual powers (Ephesians 6:12).

You said,

"And why are so called 'unbelievers' not deserving of credit for the good works that they do?"

As I said before, because you cannot meet the righteous requirements of a holy, pure and perfect God and that is why Jesus became man; to meet those requirements.

"For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38)

The book of Hebrews puts it another way, in speaking of answering for wrong doing, by example of the Old Testament priest and sacrificial system in requirement of God’s law and about a holy sacrifice for payment of sins,

"Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them. Such a priest meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself...Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said, 'Sacrifices and offerings you did not desire, but a body You prepared for Me: with burnt offerings and sin offerings You were not pleased. Then I said, Here I am - it is written about Me in the scroll - I have come to do Your will, O God."...And by that will, we have been made holy through the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every high priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time He waits for His enemies to be made His footstool, because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 7:23-27; 10:5-14)

So, PriveR, you can offer your own sacrifices to your god, or you can ignore offering any sacrifice but pay for your sins with one final sacrifice when you die (the penalty of everlasting torment away from His Spirit), or you can, God willing, believe in His Son and have your sacrifice paid for in His death, as well as His righteousness given to you on His behalf. It is only through His Son that God will justify anyone, because only through His Son was the penalty for sin fully met.

"The wages of sin is [still] death." (Romans 6:23)

If you want to earn your own wages, after you die you will earn them in the “lake of fire” for that is the second death spoken of in Romans 6 (See Revelation 20:14-15)

Thanks for the chat!

Oh, one thing I forgot to address.

You said "Since you say we are all part of the divine, are you "god?"

The first thing I thought of was that scene from the original Ghostbusters "Ray. The next time someone asks you if you are a god, YOU SAY YES!!" :)

My answer to that? not in the sense that you're using it. I think that we all have the potential to be a conduit to something outside of ourselves. Sort of like a cable that plugs into a socket and runs a lamp. The cord itself doesn't run the lamp, but it allows the electricity to flow into the lamp to complete the circuit to make the light.

Hi PriveR,

I read your current post. I would like to make a few comments on it but will be working until Monday.

You let me know when you want to end the conversation. As long as you are willing to continue so am I.

Hope you have an enjoyable weekend!

"And there is very little comparison between the Bible and the Rede; the one being God's Word of truth, the other being man's ideas."

Assuming, of course that one somehow thinks their version of 'truth' is more 'true' than another's.
They are both man made. The same. No difference. Just like people. You claim to have some version of 'truth' that you yourself cannot even explain without resorting to one of three different books, and different people's opinions.

I think Starhawk writes with common sense. As do many of the other panelists. The fact that a pagan even HAS a voice on a high profile site such as this one is a HUGE step in the right direction. Ideally it would be nice to see some of the other prominent pagan authors, just like there are many different Christian authors, answering questions as part of the panel, so that other folks could see the real diversity of thought under the pagan umbrella. We are everywhere. I would love for the moderators to have people comment on the fact that Wiccan Military soldiers just recently won a 10 year battle to have the pentacle placed on their tombstones. Unfortunately, there is a long way yet to go. As for Starhawk, I agree with a lot of what she says, although my personal path is different than hers. I think she needs to work on revising her timelines and some of the history. What I really respect most about her is that she is not just talking about possible ways to fix things, she is actually going out and sticking her neck out wherever she feels that she can make a difference. As have my own teacher(s). I will too, once I have the resources to travel more.

You say: "To this day the words spoken in James 4:4 are true.
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

That is why PriveR, I can make the statement that you hate the God of the Bible."

You apparently do not know how I feel about the bible, even after discussions that should have ended long ago. Don't put someone else's words in my mouth. Again, not my book, not my god, not my problem. Let me say this: if your god exists at all, he is asleep at the wheel and has been for millenia.

Oh, and btw: I worship Nature. The natural laws that exist, both in and out of science, is my god/dess. I wait for the signs to tell me what name to use as a focal point for prayer.

"How do you know that you are not imagining that you have? What are your proofs to support such a statement and how logical are they?"

My proofs come directly from my own experiences. You have no more way of knowing if your book is 'true' or just as 'imagined' as you say that mine are. I have proof enough for me of my system.

"God says, "There is no one righteous, no not one;...there is no one who does good, not even one."

Your god sets up an impossible standard and then expects his followers to flagellate themselves when they don't measure up. How is that 'good'? Your god tells people to 'don't eat that thing over there' and then goes to sleep or on vacation or something. He must still be asleep at the wheel. People are dying everyday because of someone's belief that their 'version' of him is somehow more 'true/real' than another person,
and all you can say is 'my book is true and you
made your system up' when one was written by people 300 years after the events supposedly happened and the other comes from experience.

"Just because something is done in His name... "

This paragraph you wrote makes absolutely no sense. Why is it that your god 'works in mysterious ways' when bad things happen but good things are somehow proof of 'his love'?

"The reason things were done was to restrain greater evil and protect the blood line that would one day provide redemption for His people."

What on earth does this mean? I thought Christians didn't believe that Jesus HAD a bloodline? This suspiciously sounds a lot like the 'we must fight them over there so that they don't come over here' justification used for a needless war. And why are so called 'unbelievers' not deserving of credit for the good works that they do?

Why don't you ask me if I studied my own Jewish heritage? Or what led me out of it? You make so many assumptions and jump to conclusions about things not talked about and don't ask.

I suspect our time together is growing short.

Hi PriveR,

The Bible does tell us “not to judge, or we too will be judged,” as well as to love our neighbor as well as our enemy (Matthew 7:1, 6:43) and much more in the Sermon on the Mount as well as other places, but with any verse of Scripture you have to take it in full context.

Yes, Jesus said those words and many things that require us, as His followers, to make judgment calls, such as further on in the verse,

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw pearls to pigs...." (Matthew 7:6) Also mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount are for us to beware of false prophets and how to recognize a false prophet. All this requires making a judgment for how can we be aware of false prophets unless we can make a judgment to identify them. And we can recognize them by their fruit. They do not preach the message of God (Galatians 1:8, as one example).

So what did He mean by the statement? The answer is found in the context. It is not about unity at any cost, or surrendering truth to lie. It's about making a judgment on someone else on a matter while all the time you exhibit the very quality you are judging in an even greater manner. As He said,

"Why do you look at the spec of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first remove the plank out of your own eye, and then you will clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Notice, He says "first take the plank out of your own eye" so that we can remove the speck from our brother's eye. In other words, don't have a critical spirit like a Pharisee, when you make judgments or be conscious of the small sins of another and be impervious to the gigantic sin in yourself. To carry the analogy further, first recognize that you are sinful, just like those you tell the Good News to, but because of God's mercy in your life you want others to know how their sins may be forgiven as yours have been because of the Savior and how He can restore a person to life, a new life of relationship with God the Father.

Jesus constantly made judgments about the human condition, and preached a message about repentance and forgiveness, but was also highly critical of the Scribes and the Pharisees.

And there is very little comparison between the Bible and the Rede; the one being God's Word of truth, the other being man's ideas.

You said,

"Why do you rely on other people's opinions to tell you what to think? Do you have an opinion on what the bible or anything is without resorting to another person's ideas?"

First, are you assuming that your opinions and perceptions of the world are not influenced by anyone but yourself or that you have no bias in your intellectual assent on matters with others of the same faith? From what I read on the Starhawk blog everybody was gaga over what PaganPlace or Starhawk had to say. They were the experts on what it was all about. Time after time on those two blogs I saw statements on the wisdom of these two people. Can these people not think for themselves? I can make the same statements regarding what you believe in. It is a mute argument.

Second, I consider what other people say in relation to the text of Scripture to gain insight. But Scripture is the light that I judge things by.

Third, I have thought long and hard on certain issues and examined them from a Biblical perspective to have a better understanding on them and looked to others to help me express the biblical position more succinctly to unbelievers. In doing so I have asked you how your worldview can in turn make sense of these issues because of its inconsistency.

Fourth, are you not relying on the Rede to tell you what you think? If not them why do you believe it?

You have still to demonstrate how you can know something to be "good" if you are the reference point for "good" or if the Rede is, then who wrote it? Was it written by man? How do you know it is trustworthy? Is it absolutely true? If not then how do you know it will still be true tomorrow? How do you know it has not been tampered with? You keep telling me that if you are wrong, then you are wrong. Are you sure you are right?

You keep referring your experience as if it was valid, but what is your reference point for measuring "good?" Do you not assert yourself as the reference point of that also? If, as you have suggested, it is your subjective measure on what you believe to be in the best interest of the greatest number, how can you decry a hedonist who believes that "good" is measured by what is in the best interests of his/her own self. After all, in an evolutionary world, is it not to the fittest that the spoils go? The Korowai tribe of Papua, New Guinea at one time, and possibly still do, considered cannibalism acceptable in their survival of the fittest. Since the culture accepted this as normal and "good" who are you to tell them differently? The problem is you cannot judge it wrong without an absolute reference and measure of what "good" is. Again, I ask you, why should I believe the Rede "An it harm none, do as you will" when I see other philosophies such as evolution claiming exactly the opposite. You seem to want to fit evolution into your belief only where you can make it agree with your belief.

You see, without the Christian God you cannot have a discussion on right and wrong because you have no way of resolving differences of opinion. Or to state otherwise, if you cannot answer any of these questions without being subjective then why should I believe anything you have to say? It just boils down to your opinion.

You said,

"Animals only kill for a specific purpose."

Sometimes that purpose is for the sport of killing.

You said,

"Humans don't even need a reason and keep inventing more creative ways to blow each other away."

First, according to the evolutionary outlook, we are just animals. So why do you judge another human animal for stealing or murder when it is only protecting its food supply or its female against another male. Why is it wrong for a male to dominate a female, since she is the weaker in physical strength? Why is it wrong to kill the runt of the human litter to prevent it from breeding a weaker stock or just because you are hungry and have nothing else to eat?

In a relative world of subjective ethics, that you have said yourself change over time, why is it wrong to condemn Hitler for murdering six million Jews? All these questions you cannot make sense out of without the Christian God. Therefore, looking at the world through the eyes of the God of the Bible makes more sense than through your eyes.

PriveR, when you say,

"You need to stop assuming that I don't have a 'god'"

You have already told me that you do not have a god or goddess right now. When are you going to chose one? (1 Kings 18:21) What is god to you? Do you get to pick and choose? Is god to you "Nature" or "Science" since from both you get the theory of evolution, that when looked at from a purely scientific perspective is impersonal and caused all we have today by blind, chaotic, random, accidental chance mutations, and yet when looked at from a "Mother Earth" perspective has some intangible quality of being.

Since you say we are all part of the divine, are you "god?"

When you say,

"We're merely speaking different languages to describe what is in essence something that is bigger and more mysterious than both of us and any book put together."

How do you know this if "it" is bigger and more mysterious than you can know about?

You said,

"Oh, and which of your three bibles are you using to get your quotations from?"

Three translations from the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts gives me more of an appreciating of the sense of the Scripture taken from the original languages that is the source of inspiration. The books that we call the Bible were known and testified to by the Fathers of the faith long before they became The Canon that we have today. These Father's also refuted false teachings in all their forms as they came along. I have read some of these. They are on line for your information.

You said,

"Please don't equate me with Dahmer."

I am equating your ethics to his in the sense that you have stated that you yourself are the subjective measure of truth. As such, absolute truth and absolute moral values cannot be known, only speculated on. As such, you are the measure of them, just like he was. You have already stated that they change from culture to culture, and I agree with you. We only differ over the reason; because mankind has ignored the objective morals that come from his/her Creator, and through which we can truly know what "good" is.

Your paragraph stating,

"Actually those horrible things I mentioned were done in the name of the god that you revere. Your book was used as justification for such acts. How on earth is that god 'good'? That same version of 'god' has allowed terrible things to be done in his name throughout history"

The paragraph is loaded with accusations that I will attempt to explain here.

Just because something is done in His name does not necessarily mean that the people who did these things were following His lead. People who commit atrocities will one day have to give an account before Him, so in effect; they have not gotten off Scott Free. The reason things were done was to restrain greater evil and protect the blood line that would one day provide redemption for His people. When people of faith started marrying unbelievers if God did not step in there would have been no faith left to accomplish His purposes on this earth.

At the time of Noah God "saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of his heart was only evil all the time." (Genesis 6:5) "But Noah [and his immediate family, who were believer's of God - eight in all] found favor in the eyes of the LORD." (vs. 8). God’s choice, to preserve what is good was to destroy the evil from the earth.

God also chose a people to make Himself known to the nations, starting with Abraham (Gen. 13:16), in which He chose to bless the earth with. He protects and keeps them safe from their enemies, even when they start to worship the creation and form gods made of "sacred cows" or "The Golden Calf" to worship instead of Himself, the one true God. To stop the apostasy from spreading, He wipes out many to preserve the blood line of the believer. If He had not done this mankind would have abandoned Him and been cut off from Him for eternity. To prevent it from happening again, He prepares a "Promise Land" for His people and tells them to destroy the people dwelling in that land so as not to prevent them from poisoning their minds with their idol worship. "Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn you away from following Me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be His people, His treasured possession.

His people do not listen to His voice or obey His commandments so after being merciful to them for awhile, He lets the evil inhabitants in the regions around come in and kill and rape and butcher His people because they continue to ignore Him. But those who love and worship Him He protects, because His purpose from the beginning was to preserve a bloodline for the Messiah so that many people would eventually be saved from His justice by their disobedience. Without doing what He did all of mankind would have suffered His punishment for wrong doing. A Just Judge does not ignore wrongful actions and always does what is good.

We find the same thing happening during Jesus' earthly ministry and after. God continues to call out, separate and preserve His people from unbelief by faith in His One and Only Son. Hence, the references to sheep and goats; the righteous and unrighteous; believers and unbelievers; wheat and tares, etc., made by Jesus.

Without God's plan of redemption and God's ability to carry it out all the peoples of the earth would have succumbed to the devils lies and ways.

To this day the words spoken in James 4:4 are true.
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

That is why PriveR, I can make the statement that you hate the God of the Bible. You will not submit to His ways, nor can you do so. Instead of asking, or should I say pleading, for His mercy you continue to rebel against Him by denying His very existence. Romans 1:18 says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like moral man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore, God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts..."

But Romans 10:11-13 also says, "As the Scriptures say, "Anyone who trusts in Him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call upon Him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

You should learn more about your Jewish heritage by reading the rest of the chapter plus chapter 11. You can also learn of the Jewish Redeemer promised since the third chapter of Genesis onward by reading the Book of Hebrews. Look up A.W. Pink online in his exposition of Hebrews if you want a really good insight into the book.

You said,

"All we can ever do is lead by example and hope that others might learn from it."

How do you determine your example is "good" since there are so many others who think otherwise?

God says, "There is no one righteous, no not one;...there is no one who does good, not even one."

You said,

"How do you know I haven't?"

How do you know that you are not imagining that you have? What are your proofs to support such a statement and how logical are they?

What happens when my definition of "good" is different than your definition of "good" in which it most definitely is?

Actually your book is supposed to say 'judge not lest you be judged' and 'love thy neighbor as thyself', correct? it's actually very similar to the Rede. How are those 'so different' definitions of 'good'? Not bad ideas, those. I just think that those ideas have been around a whole lot longer than the book itself has. Otherwise we really wouldn't have survived to be here at all.

Why do you rely on other people's opinions to tell you what to think? Do you have an opinion on what the bible or anything is without resorting to another person's ideas? You said yourself you need three books to try to understand what is supposed to be one set of words.

What you are not understanding about my system in addition to the Rede is the Threefold Law. The threefold law states that whatever we send out gets sent back to us, times three. If we send out love, we get love back. If we send out hate, anger or meanspiritedness in some form, it will come back to us amplified. We believe this to be a natural law, that works the same way evolution does- outside of ourselves.

Actually nature has a lot to teach us. Animals only kill for a specific purpose. Humans don't even need a reason and keep inventing more creative ways to blow each other away. Animals also have the capacity for self sacrifice and empathy. Something we can all benefit from. If we understood the plants that were around us better, we may have a LOT more medicines available for illnesses that we currently don't have. What is taken away as lessons from nature is up to the individual. There is no reality. It is all perception.

You need to stop assuming that I don't have a 'god'. I am not an atheist, nor am I a secular humanist, but I can see some value in all their positions. I just don't have the god that you insist is the only one. We're merely speaking different languages to describe what is in essence something that is bigger and more mysterious than both of us and any book put together.

Oh, and which of your three bibles are you using to get your quotations from?

Please don't equate me with Dahmer. Do you honestly expect me to respond to that? That is just insulting to the highest degree. I suspect he's talking about those who have no god at all. Again, doesn't apply to me.

"I’m glad you recognized that, because it shows that without God anything goes."

Actually those horrible things I mentioned were done in the name of the god that you revere. Your book was used as justification for such acts. How on earth is that god 'good'? That same version of 'god' has allowed terrible things to be done in his name throughout history. We don't necessarily need your version of god to realize that all humans should have the basic right to life. Neither you or I can control the actions of other people. All we can ever do is lead by example and hope that others might learn from it.

I have more of a problem with those who shout about how "good" a Christian they are, who keep telling me I'm 'going to hell' and try to convert me, rather than those who may be just as much a believer in Jesus but who don't proselytize, who quietly go about making taking care of others a priority in their lives. They are the best representatives about what Christianity could be about.

"How do you determine what the least harm would be? Can you see into the future to know that certain actions are going to be less harmful than others?"

Some folks can. I don't have that ability. So I try to consider as many of the possibilities as I can, and use logic to determine what may happen. If I can live with the consequences I can imagine, I will make a choice. But its about making careful actions, putting love first and restoring balance whenever it's been disrupted. Am I perfect? No. I'm human. I make mistakes. There's no need to beat yourself up over normal mistakes, just to learn to work to correct what harm has been done. When you see divinity everywhere, hurting any of it is no different than hurting yourself or someone you care about.

"Ever seen a thinking rock that appreciates beauty.."

How do you know I haven't?

Plants are concerned about their own survival. There's got to be some level of sentience going on there, or there wouldn't be any plants that have survived.

Hi PriveR,

Thanks for the reply. The list gets longer in what to reply to. Holidays are coming in a couple of weeks if you are still interested in continuing the dialog by then I will, the Lord willing, be able to sit down and catch up on some of the questions, after giving them more thought. Many of my thoughts have been adopted from "Pushing the Antithesis" by Greg Bahnsen if you want to go deeper into the argument supporting a Christian worldview as the only one that can make sense of existence.

To quote from your previous posts, when talking about morality,

"Morals? I think that a good rule of thumb is the Wiccan Rede: An it harm none, do as you will. The 'harm none' part also includes self, too. That is my standard."

What happens when my definition of "good" is different than your definition of "good" in which it most definitely is? Who decides then? Without God it's all a difference of opinion in which you state your preference and I state mine. And may the force be with you, because when differences arise that is what it boils down to; who is the greater force.

I said,

"Do morals come about by the instinct to survive?"

Sure, why not? I'll go with that. I think instinct itself is part of the package for us as part of the animal kingdom. All animals have it, and that it evolved as we did."

You see PriveR, the problem for you, without God, is to explain how there is meaning, how we establish truth, how there is distinction between "good and evil." Without God this universe came about by mere chance, an accident without explanation; and without God, you and I are nothing more than animals (as you have stated), and as such what you determine to be good and what I determine to be good is also meaningless, since your "good" is not the same as mine. As such (animals), according to your evolutionary theory, the strong survive, so why would I consider the "good" of another when nature is my teacher and I watch a male lion devour its offspring or a killer shark kill a seal. If I believe everything came about by chance and I have been taught such since early childhood, I am nothing more than a glorified monkey, then what is to stop me from thinking that to kill another man, if the “animal” threatens to infringe upon my territory, or take from my food chain, is wrong? That is right along the thinking of Jeffrey Dahmer,

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

The Humanist Manifesto III states,

"Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change."

As I said before, this way of looking at man means we are nothing more that biological bags of matter in motion. How can matter be self aware? Ever seen a thinking rock that appreciates beauty or a gorilla killing another gorilla and being guilty of murder?

The Christian position is the only one that can establish truth and meaning and purpose to life. "Good" needs a measure to be established, and without an absolute, objective, ultimate reference point (God) how is "good" established? There is no consistence to your explanation of "good" whereas for mine there is,

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

When you say,

As far as the Rede goes, I never said you should adopt it if you don't agree with it. I just said that is my standard. I do not tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do. I am fully aware that the only person I control is myself. People are going to believe whatever they want regardless of what you and I say. That's why the second part of the Rede says 'live and let live, and fairly take and fairly give'”

But why live and let live. If all we are are evolutionary monkeys?

“In a situation like you describe, I would never strike first. I would seek to find out if my feeling threatened has any basis. I could be feeling something that could be a result of something else that happened earlier that day. If I find out any information about planning something like you said, I would contact the authorities and have them check it out. That's far different than hurting someone before they hurt me. I try to figure out what the least harm would be and then act accordingly.”

How do you determine what the least harm would be? Can you see into the future to know that certain actions are going to be less harmful than others?

Again, since your morality is subjective, being as your Rede and you have determined, do you not think you are being inconsistent when you critics the Christian for the atrocities you have identified in the Bible (PS. that is something that I will explain in later posts if you choose to continue the dialog)? After all, you are making a moral judgment that you recognize to be wrong based on what foundation? If each culture develops its own moral standards, what right do I have to condemn another culture for killing six million Jews or sati in Hinduism or cannibalism in New Guinea? What right do you have to demand female rights, since in some societies as in nature, the male rules the roost? The answer is only in a society that recognizes that man and woman have been created equal in the eyes of God and every human being is to be regarded as valuable and treated with dignity and respect because he/she is made in God’s image.

Since you say,

"Actually, if you look at history of the world and world cultures, morality HAS INDEED changed throughout time. It used to be considered 'good' to burn someone for 'practicing witchcraft' or 'heresy'…I'm not saying we should dominate, by any means, but that perhaps if other people were willing to take ideas from all religions into account that might have something useful to teach to others, then we can all advance forward. I have proof enough for me of my system."

I’m glad you recognized that, because it shows that without God anything goes.
What right do you have to condemn others, for either you live by the utilitarian concept that "good" is that which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and burning witches was considered to promote the greatest good, or you take the hedonistic approach in that "good" is what produces the greatest happiness in the individual. So if your philosophy is that of a utilitarian and mine is that of a hedonist then who decides? Was Hitler’s Germany to be condemned for murdering six million Jews? Why does the greatest number determine good? How do they know it is good?

The only reason the Christian can know the law of God is "good" is because “good” is part of God's own character; not because the Christian can establish it by his own subjective thinking. God is good and the example/standard/measure of what goodness is. Your measure for “good” cannot be justified. If you think it can tell me how?

Because there is no 'explosion'. It's a misconception of what the big bang theory actually is.

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

I assume that you do not accept the theory of the big bang, since your insistence on biblical inerrancy will not allow for such a thing. As your god's book does not allow for evolution of creatures. (again, please correct me if i'm wrong.) Given that all the evidence points to these things, it must be hard to accept. The thing is, the world works according to natural laws, not how we 'wish' it was.

You said: "What I get is a living/loving relationship with the one true God, a sense of purpose and meaning for life and basic answers to the difficult questions in life; questions that no other worldview is capable of answering or can even make sense of."

By claiming to have the 'one true god' you automatically refuse to see what is so fundamental: that we are all the same. We are all humans, with the same hopes and fears and dreams.

There is no need for separation from one another. Especially if we are to survive. We are extremely small, fragile creatures in spite of what we tell ourselves, and are subject to Nature's whims. She can run us over with a truck as we go to our jobs tomorrow, just as easily as she can wipe out all of a town with a storm. No matter how much we try to protect and distance ourselves, we are always at her mercy. The cycles of life and death are always in play. Why not learn to work with Nature and better life for all?

The truth is that you don't know for 100% sure any more than I am, but you're afraid to admit as much because it would force you to think about other possibilities. And that's ok too.

"Make sense out of?" If you need the scientific evidence to make sense to you, then please really study what it has to say. Other people make sense out of differing worldviews. Just because you are unable to accept that maybe evidence from science don't fit completely into your worldview doesn't mean others are. All throughout our discussion you have presumed to speak for me, atheists and even people who use the bible as inspiration, and not as a source of inerrancy, when even you yourself use three bibles to try to understand what other people think about what is supposed to be one set of words, and don't appear to have an opinion that is all your own.

The interesting thing is I get a sense of peace and acceptance of NOT trying to delude myself into thinking I have any sense of control about the end of my life and/or what happens afterward, if anything. I get a sense of peace and love from Nature and interactions with my deities/spirits, in a similar manner. As well as an incredible sense of wonder at the mystery and majesty of it all. Isn't that neat? Two different ideas, that lead to the same end.

If we could take the energy that is invested in argument and creation of barriers and replace it with real understanding and work our butts off to create a better life for all of us, can't you just imagine what a great world it could be? That is my hope.

I look forward to reading your comments on my other postings as well.

Hi PriveR,

Hope you had a good weekend.

I typed out a fairly lengthy response to a couple of your previous statements only to have it vanish when I went to save it to a Word document. I will attempt another shortly, but it is back to work tomorrow so it will not be until at least Wednesday.

Hi PriveR,

Sorry for not responding Friday. Things got busy. You asked a couple of poignant/relevant questions that I would like to answer before returning to the other posts.

"Sincere question though. What do you get from your beliefs, personally?"

What I get is a living/loving relationship with the one true God, a sense of purpose and meaning for life and basic answers to the difficult questions in life; questions that no other worldview is capable of answering or can even make sense of.

In the process of going back over some of your statements and answers I see both inconsistency and contradiction in your belief. After a passionate defense of the doctrines of evolution, (I also discovered by reading Starhawk's blog on "Faith during Wartime", evolution is a tenet or principle you and the Wicca community support - referring to the 13 principles disclosed in that blog) you show the uncertainty of your belief by statements like this:

""The questions you pose as far as 'how far back does evolution go... etc' are good ones. Something for me to look into. To be honest, I'm not really sure if paganism answers such questions explicitly, because time is not necessarily perceived as something linear.”

"“I don't think there is necessarily any one fixed truth or reality. I think it's all in the eye of the beholder.”

"“Actually I recently came across a pretty good take on origins, which includes evolution, written from a Pagan perspective. Taking into consideration the Gaia Hypothesis, and then taking it a step further. Are there criticisms of it? Of course. But it's also one that has not been completely tossed out.”

The question I ask myself is if your worldview supports the science of evolution why do 1) you contradict it with the Gaia Hypothesis and other statements that do not support evolutionary science and 2) how much of it do you really believe?

For instance, when you say,

"As far as origins go, I don't know if there is an explanation for it. Right now I'm leaning towards what can be found from science. If something better presents itself, I can change my mind. I don't think evolutionists think that it was all random either. I think that there are patterns, cycles, to just about everything. just ones that we haven't figured out yet."

What can be found from science textbooks on origins is a universe that came about by a random, chaotic, chance explosion. PriveR, how do you get patterns out of chaos and chance?

Sorry to take so long in replying.

Um.. the OT portion of the bible was written in hebrew. Translated hundreds of years later to Greek. At best what you have is a second level translation. Third, actually, assuming you don't speak Greek as a general rule. (If you do speak ancient Greek, my apologies. That would be fantastic to learn!) Anything that is put there in an attempt to explain things is done by people who 'think' they have a better idea of what was actually said or intended. As was the authors of the book itself. Done by people with a political agenda. Where scrolls from the same time period that may be able to illuminate what 'some' consider to be the 'word' of 'god' were left out. For no real good reason except the pursuit of power.

Why do you need three bibles? they all are supposed to say the same thing, right? Interpreting interpreters' interpretations must make it hard to find your OWN interpretation. Do you even have an interpretation that is not dependent upon what others think but based on what you think? What mechanism do you use to try to figure out which book to consult?

Besides, if ANYTHING has actually been preserved, it's because of man. Man thought it was valuable enough to save and protect. Not your god.

What I understand is that you want me to submit to some arbitrary, power mad, jealous deity that subjects their followers to kill others not like them to prove how big he is. Including their own children. To be scared because of some supposed 'retribution' that won't matter to me at all anyway because I'm going to be.. dead. In the arms of the Earth one way or the other.

If the energies that encapsulate and make up me/my soul go back into the Earth, that would be fine. If some cosmic mechanism said that my energies would be best served in another form, that would be just as good. If not, that's ok too. :)

Sorry, my friend. I cannot submit to your version of 'god.' I'm free. Finally. Free of control and in love with nature and all her processes. Learning to walk in balance with the earth and admiring and acknowledging divinity within all I see. Even you. :)

Sincere question though. What do you get from your beliefs, personally?

Also, since I think there is some Deity out there, and that it is smarter than all of us, let me ask this: If Deity, in all its knowledge, wanted us to believe and have faith, wouldn't it make the path to that belief something that we can most easily accept and understand, by form, culture and grace, as faith and religion?

Hi PriveR,

I don't have time to answer your post today but could not resist answering one comment on what you said,

"Actually you haven't. You assume that your version of an oft-translated version of.. I'm guessing, King James bible? is the correct one."

Well, your guess is wrong. I do not use the King James Bible. I find the language archaic. I usually use two, the NASB and the NIV translations. I also like the Amplified Version.

Since they have all been translated from the Greek I can refer to what the original language meaning of a word in Greek is in a concordance to get a better idea of the scope of the word and why it was translated by experts in Koine Greek to English the way it was. Again you presuppose that language cannot be translated accurately from one language to another, forgetting that God is fully able to get the correct meaning to Christians who do not speak common Greek, being removed from that culture by many centuries and that languages are translated correctly every day.

As for transmission errors, I will need more time to explain how we know that even though Scribes made errors the original Scriptures can still be determined because God has preserved His Word.

Also we as Christians compare Scripture with Scripture to get a clearer idea of the nuances of a word in Greek. There is a science to interpretation and you use it to some extent without realizing it every time you read something, because chances are that you do understand what I am saying much of the time.

Thanks for the chat!

The weird thing is that I don't hate anyone. Please don't attempt to speak for me. I really don't hate Christians. Or Jews or Muslims. Our experiences are really similar in a lot of ways. People are so intent on being right instead of just being happy. I think we all use different languages to describe something that ultimately cannot be described, but only felt. It is about the journey, ultimately. The destination, if there even is one, is not all that important.

Where I take issue is when someone of ANY faith comes along saying they have all the answers. And that I should somehow throw away science, natural laws, and my own experiences and my own ability to think for myself and take everything they or their version of a book(s) say without questioning. And then presume to speak for me and say that I 'hate the Christian god' or anything else for that matter. And then tell me that they want 'their version of 'reality'' to be taught as some sort of fact when in fact all it ever is and is going to be is opinion.

We've seen the effects that thinking in absolutes has had on our world, especially in the last 7 years. Perhaps it's time for a change.

"I have given you enough Scriptural references to dispute any points I have made in my interpretation of Scripture."

Actually you haven't. You assume that your version of an oft-translated version of.. I'm guessing, King James bible? is the correct one. I assume that you do not speak ancient Hebrew fluently and I also assume that you do not have 2000 year old scrolls in front of you.
Please see my remarks above about inerrancy of the bible.

I repeat: Again, what makes you think your interpretation of that book is the correct one? On what do you base that? Answer: your own subjective experience of those words, plus imagination. And that's ok. Just please don't hold me to some standard that you yourself don't.

2000 years have gone by. Looking. No Jesus that I can see.

"Hopefully God will bring you to repentance and faith.."
Hopefully? i thought you were sure of such things. What if he doesn't? I already have faith. In something bigger than me. That's all I ever need. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll have a good laugh because I'm certainly enjoying the ride. Makes no difference to me. I'm in love with this life and this earth. And you cannot change that. Nor can your book or your god.

what I find really funny is that you say that I'm not living in reality but I use science and other ideas and laws of how nature works to back up my claims. And then you propose to tell me that *your version* of a god is found ONLY in a series of 'myths' that people die over. The only difference between the two of us, people will kill others for your god. Just for having an opinion. When all are equal. Sorta like the guy who is caught by his wife in bed with two other women and says to her, 'you gonna believe what you see or what I tell you to?'

I believe that like all stories, the bible contains some good ideas. And some bad ones. All designed to help one contemplate the unknown.
For me, it wasn't even a choice to believe what i do. Paganism in and of itself is a way of life, not even so much a religion. I was led by experiences I cannot rationally explain nor could I control. They spoke to the deepest parts of me. It chose me. As a result, I'm home. And fully alive for the first time.

someone said it better than me on another thread:
All religion can be boiled down to two things: we're a part of something bigger than ourselves and 2) be nice to one another.

You are free to believe as you like, as am I. That's the beauty of America (I am assuming you are American. Please correct me if I'm wrong.). Just keep your religion out of my children's public school and out of my government.

Hi PriveR,

You said,

"Again, what makes you think your interpretation of that book is the correct one? On what do you base that? Answer: your own subjective experience of those words, plus imagination. And that's ok. Just please don't hold me to some standard that you yourself don't."

I have given you enough Scriptural references to dispute any points I have made in my interpretation of Scripture. If you have issue with any of them please challenge me on those particular references and we can get into the hermeneutics and exegesis of the passage in relation to the context. I am very willing to do that. Your saying something does not necessarily make it so, neither does mine. But to which authority are you going to appeal? I appeal to God's Word. Imagination would be interpreting something from His Word that is not there. Can you show me where I am/have doing/done so?

Your presupposition is that a correct interpretation of Scripture cannot be established. I go by the authority of God's Word that says otherwise.

"Do you best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)

In order to correctly handle the truth there must be a correct way of interpreting God's Word otherwise the text would not have said so. God has spoken to mankind in a way that we are able to understand. Mankind just suppresses the Word of truth. Notice it says "correctly handles."

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, CORRECTING, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16)

God gave use Scripture so that we could know Him personally and relationally and also so that we could correct faulty ideas of who He is and what He has done. Scripture is given to show the utter foolishness in answering existence and the problems that arise from existence other than by God.

"For although we (Christians) live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

That is the confidence I have in God's Word. That it will do the purpose that God has sent it out to do.

"For the Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:12)

One day you too will give account to God. Hopefully God will bring you to repentance and faith, for only He can do so. Hopefully you will see your need for a Savior before you die and place your complete trust in Him.

"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." (2 Timothy 2:24-26)

I am running out of time for today. I will be working the next two nights so, the Lord willing, I will catch up with this thread on Friday.

Thank you for the chat again! I appreciate it.

Hi PriveR,

I found a brief outline from the online Britannica Concise Encyclopedia on the Gaia Hypothesis.

"Model of the Earth in which its living and nonliving parts are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism.

Developed c. 1972 largely by British chemist James E. Lovelock and U.S. biologist Lynn Margulis, the Gaia hypothesis is named for the Greek Earth goddess. It postulates that all living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that promotes life overall; the Earth is homeostatic in support of life-sustaining conditions. The theory is highly controversial."

A few points, the first being that this does not give an account of how it all came about. It is just a model of the earth that had a beginning. From what? Second, again you are putting your fate and trust in fallible human beings that have their own agenda in promoting the things that they believe, in that they have learned from someone else that was promoting the things that they believed in, on and on it goes. What authority does James Lovelock or Lynn Margulis have in determining that this is actually what happened? Again, it is just their subjective viewpoint that is "highly controversial" which is another way of saying that the evidence to support it is scanty at best. Again, it boils down to what authority he/she has to make such claims? Third, if you want to believe in a myth (and I use it in the sense of "A traditional story or tale that has no proven factual basis" and "Any fictitious idea accepted as part of an ideology by an uncritical group"), that is your prerogative/privilege, but in doing so you are not living in reality.

Gaia

"Gaia, in Greek myth, the Earth, personified as a goddess, the daughter of Chaos, the mother and wife of Uranus, Heaven; their offspring included the Titans and the Cyclopğs. On the advice of Gaia, Cronus, the youngest of the Titans, castrated his father; fertilized by the blood, Gaia became the mother of the Giants and the Furies. Later she bore Typhon to her son Tartarus. Her cult can be traced in many places in Greece, but for the most part it was superseded in classical times by that of later gods; at Delphi she seems to have been thought of as the original holder of the oracular shrine, before Apollo seized it by killing the serpent Python. Her characteristic function was to be a witness to oaths, as one who knows all that is done on earth."

All quotes taken from Answers.com and from Encyclopedia Britannica for convenience.

Why do you want to believe in a mythological goddess when you can believe in the real God? Again, I contend from Scripture which is the ultimate authority that you have an hatred towards the God of Christianity as you have sustained over and over again by your comments. This again just confirms what God says, Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires....the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to His law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." (Romans 8:5, 7) or "...don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." (James 4:4b)

In other words, adopting the values of the world puts you at enmity with God because the two value systems oppose each other. God is holy and pure and always does right. One day every evil deed will be judged and punished by God in the unbeliever, because only in the believer has the deed already been judged and punished in the death of God's Son on the cross on our behalf.

I don't want this post to get to long so will continue with your last post thread on my next post.

Actually I recently came across a pretty good take on origins, which includes evolution, written from a Pagan perspective. Taking into consideration the Gaia Hypothesis, and then taking it a step further. Are there criticisms of it? Of course. But it's also one that has not been completely tossed out.

Again, what makes you think your interpretation of that book is the correct one? On what do you base that? Answer: your own subjective experience of those words, plus imagination. And that's ok. Just please don't hold me to some standard that you yourself don't.

Your god's spirit has RESTRAINED man from evils? Are you aware of the atrocities that are happening as we speak, a lot of it done in his name? Please tell me that was sarcasm.

That god couldn't possibly be all knowing or not all powerful. If he was, he could have spelled out in plain English what to think without the problems of mistranslations, selections left out or unusual interpretations such as yours. A committee of people came together at the council and decided that some pieces should be put into the book and others left out. And even then they put in different tellings of different stories with very few internal consistencies.

As far as the question about the philosophers, I wasn't intending to be sarcastic. Sorry if it came off that way. I actually thought you were asking a question.

You hold that book above everything else, including criticism. You have yet to prove to me that you do not also worship the 'words' over the meaning within them.

Your book also says that 'happiness is dashing the little children against the rocks.' Your book says that. Do you practice such a thing? I am going to assume that you do not. You don't even live by what you claim to believe in. I am also going to assume that you do not hold slaves, nor do you stone adulterers. Am I correct in this assumption?

Everything fits together for me, even more so now than they ever have. I have all the proof I need. And a LOT of work ahead of me. But that's the beauty of it.

I am not in 'enmity' with anything. Since I and everything are a product of Nature, I embrace her thoroughly. I seek to understand all of her processes by any means necessary.

I actually had to question my most basic assumptions. The more I asked, the more I could not ignore what I was being shown.

Oh, and btw: my soul is just fine. Better than ever, in fact. There is no need to for me fear anything. I am happier than I've ever been in my whole life. Fear of your god? Not necessary.
What if it IS all just a dream? That would make this whole discussion pretty silly then. And that's ok, too.

The possibilities are endless.

Hi PriveR,

Again, if you read the whole context you would understand that God's wisdom is being juxtaposed with human wisdom and the two do not compare because God's wisdom is so much wiser than ours, since He created us and is all knowing where we are finite and limited in our understanding, as you yourself just admitted in your current post.

Human wisdom is foolish in comparison to God's wisdom because it cannot answer basic questions like I have asked you to, such as explaining origins, meaning and purpose resulting from a chance random explosion, how we can establish morality without an absolute, objective standard and measure, etc. You are without answer. It just becomes your perspective, your feelings, your experience, your preference pitted against the next person’s perspective, feelings, experience and preferences in a world without meaning and purpose that cannot be explained. Do you not think that such views are foolish?

So how can you say such is right or such is wrong? Your worldview does not allow it, whereas mine does, because I know that God's standard is absolute. Anything else is like being on a treadmill that is going nowhere but to absurdity - same old, same old. Nothing else makes sense; it is just a dream world of the imagination used to escape the real world that sinful man has messed up. Thank goodness for the grace of God, that His Spirit has restrained man from some of the evils that man could aspire to. The only way off the treadmill is to come to Christ to set you free. "The Spirit and the bride say "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." (Revelation 22:17)

I understand that you do not understand Christianity and that you will not come to the only wise and true God who offers salvation to all who will believe. You are at enmity with your Maker. There is nothing I can do about that except to offer the hope of knowing the true God by the one means that He has appointed, Jesus Christ.

You said,

"What I am saying that you so casually dismiss, is that if you use the idea of something 'imaginary' as something 'made up', then by that very same definition, your god is just as made up."

Again, how do you know that? I am telling you He is real and not part of the imagination, that He does exist in reality and you are telling me that I made Him up. You are wrong and have no way of knowing it without God.

Since you say,

"I seek to understand the world around me by using and not dismissing my instinct, imagination AND my intellect. The result is that the world is more strange and wonderful than anyone knows."

You admit that it is more strange and wonderful than anyone knows, except I might add, the one true God Almighty, who also happens to be the Christian God. Again you are just affirming what the Bible already tells us.

"I know that You can do all things; no plan of Yours can be thwarted. You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things to wonderful for me to know." (Job 40:2,3)

"Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust, who does not look to the proud, to those who turn aside to false gods. Many, Oh LORD my God, are the wonders you have done. The things You have planned for us no one can recount to You; were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare." (Psalm 40:4, 5)

Even though you take your Creator for granted and have turned to other gods you still see the wonders of His creation but do not recognize the small mercies such as the gift of life and breath you breathe that come from Him every day.

"I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well." (Psalm 139:14)

You said,

"People decide what to put in and why. It's majority consensus. Just like the bible."

I believe that God superintended exactly the number of books that are the Bible. You have no way of proving otherwise. Your statements come from your starting point, that inner web of belief that denies the one true God. That is your starting assumption because you are angry with God and do not want to play by His rules.

You said,

"I'm not saying we should dominate, by any means, but that perhaps if other people were willing to take ideas from all religions into account that might have something useful to teach to others, then we can all advance forward."

Which way is forward without divine and absolute guidance? Man has known from the beginning that murder is wrong because God has put this in his conscious. Because man is in open rebellion against his/her Maker he/she willfully sins and does his/her own thing. You know that in any society that inflicting pain on a baby is wrong and yet it is still done. Without God evil cannot be determined and yet everyone who has not suppressed the truth completely knows from their conscious that certain things are wrong.

In the evolutionary scheme of things why does stealing or lying or murder become wrong if all I am doing what it takes/struggling to survive?

You said,

"It used to be considered 'good' to burn someone for 'practicing witchcraft' or 'heresy'."

God sets the standard for Good not me. I do not include burning witches as good. But the Bible has lots to say about it, most of which I am not familiar with, not having read/studied it for a while. Because you practice it you justify it and those who do it. Why do you believe that your standard of "good" is good?

You said,

"If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. So what? It makes no difference to you whatsoever."

It makes a difference to you. Being wrong means you are believing something that is not true.

You said,

"'Where are the philosophers?' You mean you haven't found any yet?"

Okay, I recognize the sarcasm, but the quote is a rhetorical question. The context contrasts God's wisdom with man's wisdom then asked the question that is self evident in comparison to God; there are none.

You said,

"When something is looked at as an either/or, rather than as an 'and', that's where argument begins and rational exchange of ideas within a context of respect ends."

Actually reason is used in an argument by presenting the premise and then the conclusion. If such… then such. An argument in the sense I am using it is the presentation of reasoning a premise through to a conclusion. It can be very logical and rational as long as the argument is valid and can be used to test truth claims.

The thing about and/both is sometimes the claims cannot be reconciled. When the Bible says that there is only one way to a living, loving relationship with God and that is by faith in His Son and then the New Age believer or pluralist comes along and says there are many ways to God and Jesus is but one way it is not and/both but either/or.

When you say,

"I don't think there is necessarily any one fixed truth or reality. I think it's all in the eye of the beholder" that is your personal opinion and as such it is only valid if true. Since you have no way of determining this as you have admitted that absolute truth is not something we can know as humans (are you absolutely sure about that?), you have no way of backing up your assertion. It's just mere speculation on your part.

As for me and those who trust in God's Word, I can know what truth is and be sure it is absolute.

"Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, He confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchanging things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure..." (Hebrews 6:17-19a)

This is the hope that we as Christians can tell the world of, and it is the hope that I would hope for you also PriveR. But that is not for me to decide.

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3)

"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may KNOW Him who is TRUE. And we are in Him who is true - even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)

You said,

"To question is not to dismiss, but to understand.
I tried to understand the god of the bible. The more I thought I understood, the more questions were raised. For me, I had to ask completely different questions, and not to dismiss my own experiences out of hand. I finally had to get rid of assumptions I didn't even know I had."

I would like to make a few points here. You said the question is not to dismiss but to understand and then your very next thought is a dismissal after trying to understand. If you truly understood you would not have dismissed. Your assumptions were wrong about the Christian faith. God's promise still stands to those who believe, because "without faith it is impossible to please God, because any one who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

You said,

"Just because I don't know something doesn't mean that an answer isn't there. It just means I haven't found one yet. I am new to all of this and have a LOT of study ahead of me. I will most likely need to study mythology, history, of both the world and it's religions, anthropology, archaeology, languages and the development thereof, science.. and who knows what else. I can't wait to get started."

I can save you a lot of trouble in your search by pointing you to the true God. Jesus said, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul. Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mark 8:36, 37) Have you heard the saying, "only one life soon to be past...?"

You said,

"The thing about it all is, the more I find out, the less I know. that's what makes it so wonderful."

The thing about all this that I would like to point out that if you want to know what is true; the fear [awesome respect] of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. (see Proverbs 1:7 or 2:6 if you are interested)

Thank you again for the chat!

Your god is pleased by the foolishness that is preached in his name so that others can be 'saved'? He must be roaring with laughter at the chaos, death and destruction that has been created in his name. Again, not a god I will ever worship.

What I am saying that you so casually dismiss, is that if you use the idea of something 'imaginary' as something 'made up', then by that very same definition, your god is just as made up. Therefore, all are equally true, or equally false. Who decides that? We all do. I seek to understand the world around me by using and not dismissing my instinct, imagination AND my intellect. The result is that the world is more strange and wonderful than anyone knows.

Oh,btw: People wrote the dictionary. Just like the bible. People decide what to put in and why. It's majority consensus. Just like the bible. People can be wrong. Including you. And me. And whoever wrote the bible.

When results are obtained through use of other systems that science cannot account for, should those results be dismissed? I cannot do that. Not if others can benefit.

Actually, if you look at history of the world and world cultures, morality HAS INDEED changed throughout time. It used to be considered 'good' to burn someone for 'practicing witchcraft' or 'heresy'. It used to be acceptable to keep slaves in America. Nothing has remained as it was many years ago. It appears, looking at what is happening these days, that those people who insist on an 'absolute truth' are still willing to kill and die for such a thing. Leaving the rest of us behind to pick up the pieces, assuming of course we are able to not get swept up in it all. Which we do. I'm not saying we should dominate, by any means, but that perhaps if other people were willing to take ideas from all religions into account that might have something useful to teach to others, then we can all advance forward. I have proof enough for me of my system.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. So what? It makes no difference to you whatsoever.

'Where are the philosophers?' You mean you haven't found any yet?

When something is looked at as an either/or, rather than as an 'and', that's where argument begins and rational exchange of ideas within a context of respect ends.

I don't think there is necessarily any one fixed truth or reality. I think it's all in the eye of the beholder.

To question is not to dismiss, but to understand.
I tried to understand the god of the bible. The more I thought I understood, the more questions were raised. For me, I had to ask completely different questions, and not to dismiss my own experiences out of hand. I finally had to get rid of assumptions I didn't even know I had.

Just because I don't know something doesn't mean that an answer isn't there. It just means I haven't found one yet. I am new to all of this and have a LOT of study ahead of me. I will most likely need to study mythology, history, of both the world and it's religions, anthropology, archaeology, languages and the development thereof, science.. and who knows what else. I can't wait to get started.

The thing about it all is, the more I find out, the less I know. that's what makes it so wonderful.

Hi PriveR,

You said,

"What I don't understand is why you come after me and denounce my view as subjective when you do the same thing."

With any view of looking at the world it needs to answer three important basic questions; its understanding of why and how the world exists (what is out there); how it answers the nature of truth (How do you know what you believe is true); and what difference it makes (which has to do with the standards of ethics and how you determine good is always good). From what I have gathered your view is lacking in all three areas. It is inconsistent with reality, it is subjective in that it has no objectivity in which anything can be known as absolutely true; the ethical standard it uses is just a standard of human conventions that change from culture to culture (as I said before; in some countries they love their neighbors and in others they eat them. Given enough time and the relative nature of ethics shifting so that what was once considered taboo - i.e. - the killing of the unborn baby - now becomes acceptable as a right of the person to decide). So if ethics constantly shift over time how can you know that something that is now considered "wrong" will not be considered "right" in five, ten, twenty years from now - i.e. gay marriage. If it was once considered wrong why should I believe it is right now. If I do not believe it to be right then I make the definition of right and wrong as you are proposing. So who is anyone to tell anyone else that what they are doing or believing is wrong? As long as I decide it is hurting no one else to the best of my ability to determine hurt and as long as I feel it is beneficial to me to the best of my ability to determine beneficial then what right do you have to impose any restriction on me? But that is not the way the world operates because humans have been created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and know deep down that there is a standard we measure everything else by. The Christian worldview is consistent with this standard. Your worldview is not and has no way of explaining "good." As you yourself have said,

"Morals? I think that a good rule of thumb is the Wiccan Rede: An it harm none, do as you will. The 'harm none' part also includes self, too. That is my standard. I look to correct harm if I have done so where I can, but I have to take extra caution to walk in balance, to understand my emotions and the darkest parts of myself and to try always to put love first. But even still, ultimately I am responsible for my actions and must accept the consequences."

First, you think but do you know? Second, as I have said before what happens when we both have different definitions of what it means to harm someone else? Third, why would you be responsible for your actions in a universe that sprang to life from a random, chance explosion 14-19 billion years ago? Why be accountable to yourself? Who is going to judge you when you die, after all, you have yourself said that you just go back to the ground and are used as plant food. Why be good, as good implies that you have someone to answer to, someone who sets the standard that is above you.

To define a standard you need a fixed, absolute, objective starting point or it changes with the whim of each particular culture and over a period of time. So for any standard to make sense it needs God as its rule to succeed. Otherwise how can you argue at all that something is right or wrong? As you just said in your last statement, what right do I have to denounce yours or any other standard or viewpoint? Without God I have none whatsoever. Because I look outside of myself for that standard to One claiming absolute authority and because without His standard nothing can make sense (as I said before, unconsciously you keep borrowing from the Christian standard in order for anything to make sense)I can see the world as it truly is and I can explain why it is so.

I can operate in the laws of logic without getting tripped up and remain consistent with Christianity. The Lord Jesus said that "No one can serve two masters...." (Matthew 6:24) That is an either or situation. The Bible makes the claim to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. That is an either/or situation. The Scriptures declare that Jesus is the only way to the Father and only means of salvation, of right standing before God. That is an either/or situation. The God of the Bible claims to be the only true God. That is an either/or situation.

As Joshua said in Joshua 24:15, "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." Or consider the words of Elijah the prophet, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God follow Him; but if Baal is God, follow him." (1 Kings 18:20) There is no neutrality, Jesus said we would either be for Him or against Him. (Matthew 12:30; see also Matthew 10:32) He did not give us a third option and it is stated throughout the Scriptures.

So the Scriptures confirm the law of non-contradiction; the law of Excluded Middle and the law of ethical absolutes. In doing so it makes sense of the world, because we use these very laws every day in all we do and they are universal. Do you know of anywhere that the laws of logic or for that matter, gravity do not apply in this universe? To even understand or form a sentence they immediately kick in. Can you in your view of the world explain where they came from? Please do. Again, as a Christian they make perfect sense to me because my God has said, "Come now, let us reason together...." (Isaiah 1:18) My God constantly uses reason in the Scriptures, but because you do not look at things the way He does your reasoning does not hold together when examined. How do you account for the principle of logic as being something that applies to all rational human beings? They are no physical objects. They cannot be empirically examined. How do we get intangibles out of a tangible universe?

When you say,

"You have no proof that your god exists anymore than I do. The difference between us is that I am prepared to be wrong. Paganism is so much more fluid and able to change as one learns more."

Without the God of the Bible you cannot make sense of anything. I have kept asking you to do so and keep getting statements like I have no more proof "than [you] do" or statements like "I am prepared to be wrong" or "Sure, why not? I'll go with that" or "You are assuming something that I do not. I believe..." or "As someone I love likes to say 'just because something is imaginary, doesn't mean it's not real.'" or a whole bunch of hypotheticals. Imaginary means it is not real, it is an image or something that is made up in the mind and not the real thing.

i·mag·i·nar·y (ĭ-măj'ə-nĕr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

1. Having existence only in the imagination; unreal.

[i.e. Something made up]

What gets me is your statements on origins,

""As far as origins go, I don't know if there is an explanation for it. Right now I'm leaning towards what can be found from science. If something better presents itself, I can change my mind. I don't think evolutionists think that it was all random either. I think that there are patterns, cycles, to just about everything. just ones that we haven't figured out yet."

That is very uncertain and skeptical to me. You don't know if there is an explanation for it. Your leaning towards what can be found from science. You don't think evolutionists think that it is all random. You can change your mind if you find out it is wrong and something better presents itself. What can you be sure of?

It just keeps proving the God of the Bible when He says "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:19-21)

Thanks for the chat PriveR! I appreciate your willingness to discuss and argue for the validity of your worldview.

"That sounds awfully like what you would like them to be. But are you forgetting that no position comes from neutrality. Your framework of looking at the world comes from you and your subjective idea/ideal of what is should be."

As does yours. Especially since a lot of people don't agree that your interpretation of the bible is the correct one. What I don't understand is why you come after me and denounce my view as subjective when you do the same thing. You have no proof that your god exists anymore than I do. The difference between us is that I am prepared to be wrong. Paganism is so much more fluid and able to change as one learns more.

You start with the definitions of presupposition.
"Presuppositions are often hidden assumptions".. And then claim that your god is the only truth. That in and of itself is a presupposition. I made a presupposition like that once. It answered nothing for me. It left me feeling hollow and empty. No matter how much I tried, the god of the bible didn't answer anything. Once I changed my most basic presuppositions, then worlds began to open up for me. I started realizing that i wasn't alone and that there were definite patterns to things in my life that I hadn't seen previously. I started to get answers from Nature and all the proof I needed.

What I think is that you and I are using very different language to describe basically the same thing. I think there is some wisdom in the bible, just not having to get stuck in the idea of the book and words itself as somehow unsubject to scrutiny.

"..just like it is a figment of imagination that each person is constructing and projecting."

You are correct. The difference there is that we place importance in the idea of what imagination and the mind can do. As someone I love likes to say 'just because something is imaginary, doesn't mean it's not real.' That's why I think that yours and my truth can be complementary, since both are created through the use of imagination. We seek to not discount imagination as something that cannot be utilized. We use all of ourselves and all of our minds. We're not afraid of our intuition or our imaginations. It's about using EVERY faculty available to us, alongside reason and logic to come up with something useful.

As far as the Rede goes, I never said you should adopt it if you don't agree with it. I just said that is my standard. I do not tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do. I am fully aware that the only person I control is myself. People are going to believe whatever they want regardless of what you and I say. That's why the second part of the Rede says 'live and let live, and fairly take and fairly give'.

Such an approach is used a lot more than you might think. The Hippocratic oath used by doctors says 'above all else, do no harm'. This leads to tough decisions that they have to make all the time about patient care.

"As soon as my instinct tells me "I'm threatened should I not do the harm to the animal before he/she can do it to me?"

In a situation like you describe, I would never strike first. I would seek to find out if my feeling threatened has any basis. I could be feeling something that could be a result of something else that happened earlier that day. If I find out any information about planning something like you said, I would contact the authorities and have them check it out. That's far different than hurting someone before they hurt me. I try to figure out what the least harm would be and then act accordingly.

No system is perfect. This is how I choose to live. It keeps me honest and allows me to change my mind. It forces me to take responsibility for my actions. It also gives me an incredible sense of peace and wonder at life and the majesty of it all.

Hi PriveR,

When you say,

"As far as truth, I'm not so sure yours and mine are opposites. What if they just 'are'?

That sounds awfully like what you would like them to be. But are you forgetting that no position comes from neutrality. Your framework of looking at the world comes from you and your subjective idea/ideal of what is should be. Mine comes from the reality and revelation of the only true God, by the authority of His Word. Your worldview does not accept His Word as truth (at least it suppresses the idea). The Christian way of looking at the world does accept His Word as authoritative and true.

From what I have seen of your worldview you have no way of explaining origins and you pick and choose from the evolutionary worldview what you will and will not accept of it. When you read any basic textbook on evolutionary beginnings where do you read about anything other than random chaotic chance?

To quote from two of your statements,

"As far as origins go, I don't know if there is an explanation for it. Right now I'm leaning towards what can be found from science. If something better presents itself, I can change my mind. I don't think evolutionists think that it was all random either. I think that there are patterns, cycles, to just about everything. just ones that we haven't figured out yet."

and,

"You are assuming something that I do not. I believe that the patterns are not random or chaotic, just things that we don't have an answer for. For me I think there are limits to what science can tell us, but those are expanding all the time. Maybe one day the scientists can give us more information."

That is the great thing about my God. I can know for certain because He does not lie. Take for instance the opening statement of the Old Testament, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

It asserts God exists (It does not have to argue for His existence because we, as humans, understand He exists, yet we suppress the truth to elevate ourselves to the place He rightfully deserves), that He is the Creator of all things and that the universe is not eternal since it had a beginning and that God was around before it existed to create it. Therefore God cannot be the universe as one of your friends suggested on the Starhawk blog. Nature or the universe is part of His creation, not God.

You also said,

"It's not about using force to dominate. It's about seeking to understand one another in a way that we can know as much as possible that others want the same things we do. And especially in this country,for us to really rise to the occasion. We keep saying that we believe in freedom for all, including those who do not see things as we do. Our actions, especially in recent years, suggest otherwise."

I appreciate your effort to at least try to understand how I see the world and not automatically write it off just because you don't necessarily agree with it."

For me it is not about force or domination either but about truth. I to appreciate your willingness to talk about the issues and to really engage me in thinking about these issues. I thank you for that, but I also care enough about the truth to engage in a discussion in which I do not have all the answered, but know the One who does. No way of looking at the world comes from neutrality. I like Greg Bahnsen's quote of Van Til's Apologetic in "Pushing the Antithesis" p. 44

"A 'presupposition' is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed....[It] is not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as one's least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision."

p. 45 "Presuppositions are often hidden assumptions that you reflexively depend upon for such foundational issues of human experience as the nature and structure of reality, the possibility and method of knowledge, and the standard and universality of morality....They govern the way you think and act, all the way down to how you select and employ specific facts from the countless number of facts ceaselessly flowing through your senses and into your mind each and every moment of the day. They form the very basis for your world and life view."

What I would like to know is how you know with 100% certainty that you know your position is true?

Most of the world has bought into a god who is not all powerful, omnipresent, eternal, the creator, the one who sets the rules. That is totally opposite from the God of the Bible, the only true God. His Son came to this earth to set us free from the lies and deception all around us.

Another thing I noticed when I read the postings of Paganplace, Terra, Lepidopteryx, etc., and yourself is that all your concepts of nature and god/goddess seem to start from different places, just like it is a figment of imagination that each person is constructing and projecting. Paganplace explains that there are different concepts of who/what the gods are. It certainly is a mystery religion or a mythological one at least.

Paganplace said,

"Two major schools of thought within Paganism can be: 'Hard polytheism' (seeing the Gods as distinct and separate personalities: this is very common among those who choose to try and recreate specific ancestral traditions, (*lots* of these sort of branch off or subdivide within the community, or even have split off, theologically, to focus on their own thing:) most particularly the Nordic ones that picture a more permanent sort of afterlife, and the world in a much longer cycle of rebirth, one might say. A lot of these folks prefer to call themselves Heathens, which is sort of a separate thing, (they can justifiably call themselves a religion all their own, even if many turn up for the 'family reunions.' :) ) but there's 'hard polytheism' in general Paganism, too. There's certainly a common dynamic of learning from cultures of the past, from culture and myth, and applying it in the present.

'Soft polytheism' often incorporates the idea that all the Gods, like people, may be distinct in some ways, and part of a greater whole, themselves: appearing to us in different ways for whatever reason. This often connects with The Great Goddess (or or *as* a union of the God and Goddess) being the biggest being in, indeed, the entirety of the universe, if not multiverse. :) '

You could call me a 'soft polytheist,' myself."

When you say,

"Morals? I think that a good rule of thumb is the Wiccan Rede: An it harm none, do as you will. The 'harm none' part also includes self, too. That is my standard."

or, in reply to my question

"Do morals come about by the instinct to survive?"

you said

"Sure, why not? I'll go with that. I think instinct itself is part of the package for us as part of the animal kingdom."

In that case if, as Judges 17:6; 21:25 say, "every man did what was right in his own eyes" then who are you to tell another human that it is wrong to take another persons life. Animals do it all the time to other animals. They do not stand trial for it. Since your evolutionary definition of a person is an animal, why can I not "employ and enjoy" the same rights as my evolutionary cousins?
Why should I adopt "An it harm none, do as you will" approach when the animal next to me may be plotting my demise and flying a jet into the building next door? As soon as my instinct tells me "I'm threatened should I not do the harm to the animal before he/she can do it to me?

Besides, since our two views of "good" are different, which they are, whose subjective preference are we going to go by and how long before that preference changes? Without an absolute standard you cannot make sense of any moral value. It is just personal preference. The only objective standard, PriveR, is the only true God.

Hi PriveR,

Can you check back in Monday night. I am working 12 hour shifts this weekend. I have read about 3/4's of the Starhawk blog on Christopher Hitchens. I will have some thoughts and questions after thinking it through. I understand more of what you believe now.

I mentioned before, I tend toward symbolism. I don't necessarily think of the divine specifically as male or female. Perhaps you are familiar with the idea of personification? Very basic concept used by authors all the time. 'the sun smiled on me today'. It's the same sort of thing. I use the 'she' aspect to have a handle on it, as a way of describing something that ultimately cannot be described, but also as something that is distinctly different than the god of that book. I see it as an attempt to describe the patterns of the seasons, the interplay between light and dark, creation and destruction. I actually don't really have a personal Goddess at the moment, that part i think will come later, the more I study and learn. I may end up with more than one god. or goddess. I'm open. Who knows?

I believe that there are something else out there that we cannot see, but that impact us and we impact them. Spirits of one form or another, for lack of a better word. They use synchronistic events in nature in order to help us learn how to work with nature and not against it as we are tending to do. The world can be understood by synchronicities plus science. Both give us information. But they are all a part of a much larger force that can be tapped into by using meditation, creative expression and imagination. I tend to think that none of us can get to where we are in life, especially as an adult, without help, in whatever form. For some people it's Jesus. For others it might be an animal spirit.

The way I see it, it takes an incredible amount of imagination in order to try to 'imagine' your god, my god/desses/spirits, what have you. Wars are fought when one tries to claim that their versions of their imaginations are somehow more 'valid' than another. I say that they're all either equally true, or equally false. What you decide is up to you. I wonder if an atheist looks at the results and wants to get rid of religion altogether. Given the state of affairs today, I can't blame them. I actually empathize with their positions. I just wonder for the atheist, raising a child, should it stop at no god? or should it also include Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, creative expression, arts, beauty, wonder?

Oh, I referred you to the thread with his question on it because there on Starhawk's thread are some really great responses by some of the other pagans about how the Goddess works for them. They are far more eloquent than I and have definitely researched and learned more than I have at this point. I never said I agreed with everything that Hitchens says, although sometimes he makes some good points underneath all the bluster.

As far as origins go, I don't know if there is an explanation for it. Right now I'm leaning towards what can be found from science. If something better presents itself, I can change my mind. I don't think evolutionists think that it was all random either. I think that there are patterns, cycles, to just about everything. just ones that we haven't figured out yet.

Morals? I think that a good rule of thumb is the Wiccan Rede: An it harm none, do as you will. The 'harm none' part also includes self, too. That is my standard. I look to correct harm if I have done so where I can, but I have to take extra caution to walk in balance, to understand my emotions and the darkest parts of myself and to try always to put love first. But even still, ultimately I am responsible for my actions and must accept the consequences.

"Do morals come about by the instinct to survive?"

Sure, why not? I'll go with that. I think instinct itself is part of the package for us as part of the animal kingdom. All animals have it, and that it evolved as we did. Recent studies have found that other animals even have the capacity for self sacrifice and empathy. The difference with us is that we have some abilities that other animals don't. We have the capacity to create on such a scale that we can destroy what we create on. Our thoughts can become things. Someone can imagine your god and make a book out of it. The more we develop technologically and challenge and change Nature, the more Nature will work to try to restore a balance. For one disease that we cure, 10 other possible epidemics will show up. For me, no matter how I try to get away from it, all roads lead me back to Nature.

"You keep borrowing capital from my God to make sense of your world, but you do so inconsistently because there are so many things that do not make sense in your world."

Nope, wrong again. I use your language because you have refused in the past to try to see things as I do. Plus, I was brought up with the god of the bible. It takes a radical shift to really consider a possibiity outside of that, and such things take time. My religion is based on experience and not something codified in any book.

Everything makes plenty of sense in my view, actually more so now than ever, but hey- I am new at this (new at paganism altogether, and even far newer at posting on any blog, never mind this one.) and may not always be quite so good at finding the right words to explain it. Give me some credit. I'm actually a bit better at this than i'd feared i'd be.

If humanity survives. How's that for an objective standard? If it is something that will benefit those here now, and will ensure the survival of humanity, done out of love, that can be an objective standard.

"In a universe that started by a random, chance, chaotic explosion.. "

You are assuming something that I do not. I believe that the patterns are not random or chaotic, just things that we don't have an answer for. For me I think there are limits to what science can tell us, but those are expanding all the time. Maybe one day the scientists can give us more information.

I never claimed to have all the answers, but the more I seek out based on these views that I talk about, the more excited I am about the path that's chosen me. I'm really home. It's so much less about destination, rather than about the journey.

The questions you pose as far as 'how far back does evolution go.. etc' are good ones. Something for me to look into. To be honest, I'm not really sure if paganism answers such questions explicitly, because time is not necessarily perceived as something linear.

you said:
(Granted, I still need to rightly interpret it)

Ah, therein lies the rub. How do you know your interpretation is the correct one?

How on Mother Earth did abortion come into this?

As far as truth, I'm not so sure yours and mine are opposites. What if they just 'are'?

It's not about using force to dominate. It's about seeking to understand one another in a way that we can know as much as possible that others want the same things we do. And especially in this country,for us to really rise to the occasion. We keep saying that we believe in freedom for all, including those who do not see things as we do. Our actions, especially in recent years, suggest otherwise.

I appreciate your effort to at least try to understand how I see the world and not automatically write it off just because you don't necessarily agree with it.

Hi PriveR,

When you said "The closest 'definition' that you presented is in the Latin root of the word meaning 'country dweller'. Not 'offensive, hedonist,' or any other insult you wish to throw out there" I'm not throwing out insults, just asking a question as to the definition posted by the America Hertiage Dictionary. That is the definition THEY posted. I asked if any of the four definitions described what you believe.

You said,

"We don't see the divine as outside of the creation. We see the divine in nature and in ourselves. We seek to strive for balance in all endeavors. We love to learn. We seek to play, and recognize the benefit of science, but also to recognize that there are things that science is not built to find out. And that's ok. That doesn't make science or evolution diametrically opposed to our faith. We believe that imagination and the mind, all given by nature, holds incredible power and by reconnecting with it that we can try to restore some of the balance that has been lost."

This seems very confusing to me. Maybe you will be good enough to explain further. Are you saying that "nature" is a personal being since you refer to your goddess as "She", giving us personality, imagination and mind over matter ("We believe that imagination and the mind, all given by nature")? In that case are you not going against evolutionary scientific thinking that looks upon mankind as a biological accident that happened from an explosion from nothing 14-20 billion years ago? How does your goddess "nature" answer the question of origin? How does she/it answer the questions of morality and ethics, that are obviously evident in every society today. Do morals come about by the instinct to survive? For that matter where does instinct come from, as evolution suggests we gradually evolved from matter? Ever seen a rock with the desire for anything? A look at the beginning of many of the text books used to train your children on the origin of life explain it by random, chance, chaotic processes over billions of years.

By the way, you refer to Christopher Hitchens' book and how he argues that religion is man made. Have you seen the debate between him and Douglas Wilson on Christianity.com?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

When you say "You decided that it's the ultimate authority" I respond by saying that you cannot make sense of anything unless God exists because it all boils down to personal preference and individual opinion. Truth cannot be established without an objective standard. That standard is not science because science continues to change as we learn more of the world we live in.

Some points about your statements "We don't see truth as any ONE thing. We see it as coming from many different places, all complementary. Think of it as a puzzle. Having one little tiny piece and claiming the puzzle is finished and you know best tends to be the basis for hate. When more pieces are put together, the picture that is slowly revealed is far bigger and more amazing than any one thing."

I agree that truth is complimentary. That is why when we have two beliefs that oppose each other, in that they state to opposite and not complimentary things, cannot both be true. Do you believe that the way I look at God is true, because I believe you do not have a true understanding of Him. You deny the existence of knowing universal truth, I affirm it. Are you absolutely sure truth is not absolute? You see, the way you look at the world is not coherent with the way things actually are. Without God as the Judge and Sovereign of what truth is, it cannot be established, especially in the realm of ethics. When you say "that may be true for you" and I say "no, truth must always be true regardless of whether you believe it or not" we are both saying something completely different. Are you telling me that my truth is not the same as your truth, or just that we have to mutually agree upon what truth is before it becomes truth?

Either way I disagree and therefore you are wrong and that settles it. (See how arrogant that is if what is said is not true) Without the God of the Bible you cannot make sense of truth, because truth does not change.

At this moment I am typing on my computer. It is true and it will be true twenty, forty and an eternity from now that at this particular juncture in time, this is what I was doing. Because you can get ten people to agree that I was not typing on the computer at this point of time does not make it any less true that that is what I am/was doing. Would you not agree, thinking like that is dangerous in that it leads to situations such as happened in Germany during the 1940's in which an estimated six million Jewish people were exterminated because people using evolutionary thinking looked upon Jewish people as a weaker link that needed eliminating so that the super race may become the dominate race. In God's eyes we are created equal and all humans are to be valued.

When you say "You are your own highest authority in deciding that your interpretation of that book is the correct one. We all do the same thing" yes we do, but I argue that it is not my subjective opinion but God's Word that tells me this. I take His standard as truth, not my own. I can know truth because God has disclosed and revealed it to me (Granted, I still need to rightly interpret it).

"Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17)

When you say "Having one little tiny piece and claiming the puzzle is finished and you know best tends to be the basis for hate" is not what I am claiming. What I claim is that the Christian God has the whole picture and in order to put it together correctly we need to follow His instruction. God tells me "It is finished" (John 19:30) in the sense that Jesus Christ has accomplished the one and only means by which mankind can be right with God. He has completed the picture for those who would believe since we kept muddling the pieces.

You said, "You are your own highest authority in deciding that your interpretation of that book is the correct one. We all do the same thing."

No I am not, God's Word is. He superintended its being put together.

You said,

"They can't. You can't verify your position any more than I can. But that's ok. Such is the nature of faith. But what does it matter as long as we work for the betterment and increased understanding and acceptance of all?"

Your subjective position cannot establish what truth is, the standard for goodness or why there is such a thing as evil let alone how out of chaos and chance mutations comes logic. You keep borrowing capital from my God to make sense of your world, but you do so inconsistently because there are so many things that do not make sense in your world.

For instance, we both believe that we should treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, even better than we ourselves would like to be treated? Why? And better in relation to what. How do you measure better, because there are countless millions out there that measure it differently, and who are you, or who am I to determine what "good" is? Good can only be determined on an objective ultimate absolute standard.

In response to my question on the suicide bomber you said

"It comes afterwards, in the doctors who care for the wounded. It comes from the community that bands together to rebuild. There can be no creation without destruction."

You are missing my point. In a universe that started by a random, chance, chaotic explosion, how and where does order and complexity and care come from? Did the explosion say to itself, "I must regroup and create out of chance, chaos and random mutations something that is loving and caring and nurturing and orderly and complex?" Why did it do so and how come when anything that we witness exploding happens we do not see the same results? Instead we see something going from orderly and complex and designed to disorderly and chaotic and dysfunctional.

How far back do you go in your belief in evolution? Is it the start of all life? Did something impersonal create personality or is personality just atoms randomly colliding together?

You said,

"Punishing someone is one way that we have of restoring a balance for the betterment of the community. That's what law is for. Is it always the best way? Don't know."

How do you determine what the betterment of the community is when another group is opposed to your betterment? Does it all just boil down to who can impose their beliefs or force over another? If I can convince enough people that abortion is not destroying a human life, does majority determine the betterment of the unborn child, who incidentally has no say until after birth? Is not the child growing in the womb? At what point do we determine it to be a child?

Who determines the law. The group that shouts the loudest? The most forceful? The most convincing? Is it "always the best way." Do you determine truth by majority rule?

There is a better way. God has told us what truth is. "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb." (Luke 1:41)

Notice that what was in her womb was a baby before it was born. God determines when life begins.

"...Mary, you have found favor with God.You will be with child and give birth to a Son..." Notice the distinction is made before the Son is born.

Thanks for the chat!

Mr. Huff:

First of all, I would really check your sources. One of the answers that was given was 'non christian'. by that definition, Jews and Muslims are also 'pagan'. Which isn't true, seeing as how they follow either the Bible or Koran that lays it all out there for them. 'Offensive' is not a definition. It is an emotional state.

The closest 'definition' that you presented is in the Latin root of the word meaning 'country dweller'. Not 'offensive, hedonist,' or any other insult you wish to throw out there.

The lovely witches I practice with all follow their own tradition. We gather together as the seasons change to celebrate the turning of the Wheel of the Year. There are no 'good' or 'bad' witches. Just the actions of the person and the intent of those performing it.

I am going to assume for the purposes of our discussion that you are actually interested in what is meant when I use the term of the Goddess.

Starhawk describes it better than I can:

"The Goddess is not just God-in-a-skirt, she represents a different spiritual orientation, one which locates the sacred in this world, in the cycles of nature, in the body and all its processes, that sees sexual communion, birth, maturation, healing, and even death and decay as sacred processes."

There are different schools of thought within paganism as to when the Goddess is referred that is She her own Separate thing, or is she symbolic of a larger connection to the universe and everything in it that can be observed and interacted with.

I tend to fall somewhere on the side of symbolism. We use language to basically attempt to describe the indescribable, but that doesn't mean we have no direct involvement or relationship with energies that abound in us and all things. We don't see the divine as outside of the creation. We see the divine in nature and in ourselves. We seek to strive for balance in all endeavors. We love to learn. We seek to play, and recognize the benefit of science, but also to recognize that there are things that science is not built to find out. And that's ok. That doesn't make science or evolution diametrically opposed to our faith. We believe that imagination and the mind, all given by nature, holds incredible power and by reconnecting with it that we can try to restore some of the balance that has been lost.

There are posts on Starhawk's thread of this site, if you go to the last question that had just been posted. Look under May, then the question about Christopher Hitchens' book and how he argues that religion is man made. Starhawk has a short post to that. The comments that follow by Terra Gazelle and Paganplace, are a really good, in depth overview of where and how our system develops and where it came from.

"These questions cannot be answered unless you assume an absolute authority who has revealed Himself to us so that by His standard we are able to know truth."

You decided that it's the ultimate authority. Others think differently. Doesn't make them bad or wrong.

We don't see truth as any ONE thing. We see it as coming from many different places, all complementary. Think of it as a puzzle. Having one little tiny piece and claiming the puzzle is finished and you know best tends to be the basis for hate. When more pieces are put together, the picture that is slowly revealed is far bigger and more amazing than any one thing.

You are the one who keeps insisting that it's all chemical and random events. I never said that. Science tells us that's not true, that there are patterns to it. If it was all random we wouldn't have science at all in the first place. Nor would we be here.

"Since you speak for nobody but yourself is "yourself" your highest authority? As I said before, its a weak argument because someone else can claim the same thing, their own subjective standard of authority as the highest standard and since they are likely to oppose each other in making their truth claims,..."

You are your own highest authority in deciding that your interpretation of that book is the correct one. We all do the same thing.

"How can either position be validated?"

They can't. You can't verify your position any more than I can. But that's ok. Such is the nature of faith. But what does it matter as long as we work for the betterment and increased understanding and acceptance of all?

"When you see the horrible aftermath of a suicide bomber who has detonated himself/herself in a crowded marketplace, where does the order and complexity and life come from in this explosion?"

It comes afterwards, in the doctors who care for the wounded. It comes from the community that bands together to rebuild. There can be no creation without destruction.

Punishing someone is one way that we have of restoring a balance for the betterment of the community. That's what law is for. Is it always the best way? Don't know.

There seems to be no end to misunderstanding in this world. I only hope I can be one who seeks to educate.

Hi Craig,

Thanks for the comments.

The thing I find interesting about PriveR's replies is that she thinks "natural imbalances caused by pain" result in mans inhumanity to man. If that is all it is how can we ever punish someone for murdering or raping or creating pain in another persons life. It is just a biological or chemical reaction that we have no control over. As Douglas Wilson said, some people fizz one way and others another. Were just fizzing.

Hi PriveR,

My apologies for not including my source in the bit about hedonism. It was one of four definitions given at Answers.com. I was just showing you that there is more than one way to understand the term "pagan." I understand from your postings that you are worshiping something that you call "Nature" and "the Goddess" whatever that means?

From the last post I would like to remind you again my question was, "Would you say any of these definitions meets your criteria?"

That is different than calling you a hedonist.

I think it would be great for you to expand upon your belief. You know what I believe to an extent, but your mystery religion is not something I have been able to get a handle on. Are you involved in a coven of "good" witches?

I just can't figure out how it ties into evolution. Is evolution the way you answer origins? Is it more ultimate than "the Goddess?" Is "Nature" the "goddess"? Is evolution "Nature"? If the "goddess" is not a personal being then how do you account for morality because nature, if you are using the term as Richard Dawkins would is "blind physical forces and genetic replication" in which "some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." (Quote from Letter from a Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson, p. xiii)

If DNA just is, then how do you get good or bad from it? How do you make value judgments and why do these judgments have meaning (I say this because of your past comments)? Since you tell me you are not an atheist how does your concept of "god" or "goddess" answer this? How do you get purpose from "blind matter"?

"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3)

Why do you get upset with me if all I am and all you are are bags of matter made up and originating from the same random chance chemicals as a rock or algae, that resulted from an explosion of nothing 14-19 billion years ago.

How does a random chaotic chance explosion create intelligent matter? When you see the horrible aftermath of a suicide bomber who has detonated himself/herself in a crowded marketplace, where does the order and complexity and life come from in this explosion?

How does God prove Himself. He has by the absurdity of making sense of anything apart from Him. That is why I want to establish what your standard is and how your standard makes sense. Is it ultimate? If not it is mere opinion.

Obviously you believe your belief is true as I do mine. Since we are both saying something totally contrary to the others belief how do you determine truth. Does truth ever become false?

These questions cannot be answered unless you assume an absolute authority who has revealed Himself to us so that by His standard we are able to know truth.

You have already admitted to Lepidopteryx "Trying to explain how we can arrive at moral decisions on our own and how we as pagans derive our own beliefs without framing them in Biblical language is really hard. "

That is a statement, not an answer. Nor do your other statements answer the question, such as,

"I do not understand why my view is considered 'weak'. I never claimed that I do not make moral judgments without a source."

The very fact that you make moral judgments does not explain how you know your ideas are true or explain how your source is true.

"Mine spring from a different source, that's all. I speak for nobody except myself, nor do I discount the possibility that others may feel differently."

Since you speak for nobody but yourself is "yourself" your highest authority? As I said before, its a weak argument because someone else can claim the same thing, their own subjective standard of authority as the highest standard and since they are likely to oppose each other in making their truth claims, if the person opposing your authority decides people with views like yours need to be eliminated, where does that leave you? Hitler is a prime example.

When you "take issue with anyone who uses a book that I do not agree with to find examples of how I am wrong" what matter is it if our standards oppose each other? How can either position be validated?

I thank my Lord that there is a standard we can look to for determining right, that has kept man from the evil that he/she is capable of.

So you need to explain to me why.

Thank you for the chat. I appreciate your effort!

Mr. Huff:

Seeing as how I've only ever loved my husband, never done drugs, never smoked cigarettes or taken a drink ever in my life, I'm not sure where you get the idea of 'hedonism' from.

Offensive? to whom? You? Perhaps, but not to me. I wear it proudly.

Something tells me you've gotten some bad information that I am willing to correct if you are willing to be receptive.

Please try again. I am willing to share what I believe without such angry presuppositions. I thought we were having a civilized dialogue, rather than jumping to arbitrary conclusions. I am very disappointed in you, sir. I had started to enjoy our back and forth exercises.

Craig,

1) Priver...your right if He cant prove Himself he is not God...so go ahead and ask God to prove himself.

I did. For many years. Got no answer. I learned to look at the divine in a way that stepped out of the bible. No longer needing it, I fell in love with the world. With Nature in all Her aspects. Once I did, I got all the answers I need. I never said I didn't believe in a divine something, I just think it's far bigger than any book. I don't have a problem with those who find their inspiration in the bible. Just those with a claim to 'one truth'.

and
2) For the person who thinks evil is an infantile concept.....ever seen a guy get killed who was just minding his own buiseness, meet a child that was raped or worked with AIDS victims...go help some of those people...then you u will have an infomed opinion.

I never said I thought it was infantile. I just think it occurs as a result of a natural imbalance that tends to happen as a result of pain created throughout our lives. I just don't see the world as black and white as you seem to be or Mr. Huff is. read again.

Seeing as how I work to help babies and children with developmental delays, sometimes disabilities, many of whom have been through such descriptions as you provide, obtain services that can make their families whole again, and cared for people with debilitating disease in my own home, I do not understand what your point is. Please make sure you know of which you speak before making such claims.

I have read through a bit of this material and two things strike me as someone who has travelled extensivly:

1) Priver...your right if He cant prove Himself he is not God...so go ahead and ask God to prove himself.

2) For the person who thinks evil is an infantile concept.....ever seen a guy get killed who was just minding his own buiseness, meet a child that was raped or worked with AIDS victims...go help some of those people...then you u will have an infomed opinion.

Hi PriveR,

A couple of quick responses to your comments,

"By the way, I am a pagan, not an atheist. You seem to forget that.

Question for you:

If your god is so all powerful, then please explain to me why that god is not able to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bible should be taken literally?"

The definition of a pagan can include many things, including someone who does not believe in a supernatural being. Would you say any of these definitions meets your criteria?

pa·gan (pā'gən) pronunciation
n.

1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially an adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity.
2. A Neo-Pagan.
3. Offensive.
1. One who has no religion.
2. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.

[Middle English, from Late Latin pāgānus, from Latin, country-dweller, civilian, from pāgus, country, rural district.]

Your question for me,

"If your god is so all powerful, then please explain to me why that god is not able to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bible should be taken literally?"

He is totally able and has by His general revelation of what He has created (Romans 1:18-32).

Although I believe that the plain meaning of Scripture is the one that should be sought, I am not going to take something literally or plainly that does not warrant doing so. The context and type of speech is important in how it is interpreted. I mentioned that to Rob Adams.

Have you ever thought that possibly one of the reasons why you have never been convinced is because you will never let yourself be convinced? A skeptic will always look for another reason not to believe, even when the evidence is compelling. You do not fully recognize your need for a Savior because you have wronged God by breaking His laws. Since your understanding is completely subjective and wants to be autonomous, you will not submit to God. Proverbs 3:5 says, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding: in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight." You are leaning completely on your own understanding and it does not make sense.

Hebrews 11:6 says that "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." You deceive yourself into believing that He does not exist, so how will He convince you? Only if He choses to by His grace.

Sorry, I have to go. Thanks for the chat!

My post has been held. I do not have time until Wednesday to try again. Thanks for your response!

By the way, I am a pagan, not an atheist. You seem to forget that.

Question for you:

If your god is so all powerful, then please explain to me why that god is not able to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bible should be taken literally?

Mr. Huff:

"As I have mentioned before, how can you even reconcile an evolutionary framework if we and everything else are just atoms colliding together in random happenstance?"

Because if you knew anything about evolution, you would know that the whole basis for the theory is that it is most certainly NOT 'colliding together in a random happenstance'. Evolution, and any basic understanding of it shows that there are repeatable, observable, patterns, and the theory gives evidences to support it.

"PriveR, The difference between the Civil War and origins was that we have lots of historical references from people who lived through the event of the Civil War; not so with Creation.

not so? I thought you said that your book was full of 'historical references' about the origins of life. You just admitted that you do not believe such a thing. But you have to believe that if you're really taking the bible literally. Which is it?

As for your fossils:

1. Most fossils, by themselves, are not a problem for a young earth. The problems come from geological context, including the following:
* Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques.
* Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.
* Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary.
* In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.
* Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.

2. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.

Also:
1. Bones can survive for over a year before being buried. Shells can last decades or even centuries. In fact, some fossils that have been eroded or encrusted or bored by other animals have been found, showing that long times passed before they were buried, and discrediting catastrophic burial. Only soft tissues need to be preserved quickly.

2. Rapid burial is not necessary for rapid preservation. Fossils can also be preserved by falling in a peat bog or on an anoxic lake bottom, areas where decay is slow or nonexistent. Other fossils are preserved in tree sap, which can become amber over time.

3. Rapid burial is common as a result of processes that are local catastrophes or that can scarcely be considered catastrophes at all, such as
* burial in sediments in a river delta
* burial in sediments from a local river flood
* burial in a small landslide, as along an eroded stream bank
* burial in ash from a volcano
* burial in a blown sand dune

4. Patterns of fossilization are consistent with noncatastrophic processes such as those mentioned above. Fossilization occurs as a result of all those different processes, not as a result of a single catastrophe. And it occurs where we would expect on the basis of commonplace processes. Bison fossils, for example, are found in active floodplains, not in upland areas.

So I am assuming, then that you wish your view, and your view only to be taught in schools? In that case, it becomes a class on religion, not science. And if we teach your view, we teach every other creation myth from every other culture, from shamanism to tribal beliefs, to vodoun, to every single branch of religion out there. I'd love to have a child of mine learn about what other religions think. It would broaden their understanding of the world they live in. But it becomes a history or religion class. There is NOTHING in any mainstream science that somehow proves that literally reading the bible is the correct way.

Actually, evolution is an empirical scientific fact. You misuse the idea of a theory as found within the scientific community.

1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. (hence, NOT random chance occurrances!)
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

As for reading the bible literally:

1. A literal reading of the Bible misses the meaning behind the details (Hyers 1983). It is like reading Aesop's Fables without trying to see the moral of the stories. Finding the meaning in a figurative reading requires more thought, but is thinking about the Bible a bad thing?

2. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Bible that cannot be resolved without excessive pseudological contortions unless one does not take them literally. Augustine said,

It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn (Augustine 1982, 42-43).

Augustine's warning has merit. The invalid "proofs" necessary to support antievolution, a global flood, and a young earth, and the contradictions implied by literalism have pushed people away from Christianity (Hildeman 2004; Morton n.d.).

3. There are several passages of the Bible itself that indicate that it should not be taken literally:
* 2 Corinthians 3:6 says of the new covenant, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
* 1 Corinthians 9:9-12 says that one of the laws of Moses is figurative, not literal.
* Galatians 4:24 says that the story of Abraham is an allegory.
* Jesus frequently taught in parables, with the obvious intention that the lesson from the story, not the details of the story, was what was important.

4. There is extensive tradition in Christianity, including Catholicism and Protestantism, of accepting nonliteral interpretations (Rogerson 1992). Biblical literalism is not a requirement; it is a fashion.

5. Reading the Bible requires consideration of the society in which and for which it was written. The pressing issue in Israel when Genesis 1 was written was monotheism versus polytheism. Genesis 1 is written to show that different aspects of nature -- light and dark, earth and sky, sun, moon, and stars, plants and animals -- do not have their separate gods but all fall under one God (Hyers 1983).

6. Nobody reads the Bible entirely literally anyway. For example, when God says, "into your hands they [all wild animals] are delivered" (Gen. 9:2), the phrase is obviously meant metaphorically.

7. Even reading the Bible literally requires interpretation. For example, what does "fountains of the deep" (Prov. 8:28) mean?

You claim to take the bible literally. I ask you again, how many children have you dashed upon the rocks in pursuit of happiness?

As for intelligent design theory:

1. The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.

A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense.

Irreducible complexity also fails as science because it, too, is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design.

2. Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity" versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.).

3. Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition.

4. The intelligent design movement is not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, who spearheaded and led the movement, said in so many words that it is about religion and philosophy, not science (Belz 1996).

Also,
1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.

Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.

The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

2. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.

1. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:

* Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).

* Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).

* Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.

* Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.

* Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.

2. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:

* Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.

* Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).

* Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.

3. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.

This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.

3. Publishing is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the "intelligent design" publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted (e.g. Behe 1996, Dembski 1998, Dembski 2002, Gonzalez and Richards 2004).

You raise some 'refutations' of evolutionary theory. Correct? Consider this:

1. On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy. The "teach the controversy" campaign is an attempt to get pseudoscience taught in classrooms. Lessons about the sociological issues of the evolution-creation controversy may be appropriate in history or other nonscience classes.

If the object is to keep bad science from the classroom, the same standards should be applied to the counterarguments from creationists, which are all bad science.

2. There are controversies over details of evolutionary theory, such as the relative contributions of sympatric versus allopatric speciation. These controversies require a great deal of background in biology even to understand what they are about. They should not be taught to beginning students. They should be taught to graduate-level students in biology, and they are.

3. Evolution is almost certainly the most hated scientific theory in history. Many people think it threatens morals, civilization, and their very souls, and virtually nobody wants it to be true. Starting from the first day that Origin of Species was published, it has faced constant challenges from some of the most powerful politicians and religious leaders, not to mention incessant disapproval and attacks from the general public. The only thing evolution has going for it is the evidence. If that evidence were not extremely strong, evolution would have been torn to irreparable shreds decades ago.

Like all theories, evolution is subject to scientific attack, too. Achieving a major revision of established theory is something that many scientists dream of. Plus, many scientists feel the same emotional opposition to it that so many non-scientists do. If a credible alternative to evolution appeared, biologists would race to publish it. Indeed, scientists have made some significant revisions of details to the theory of evolution, but there has been no such race to overthrow the basic theory.

The theory of evolution is stronger than ever, accepted around the world without a hint of informed scientific challenge to the basic theory. The controversy surrounding evolution has made it one of the most scrutinized theories of all time, and evolution has withstood that scrutiny with flying colors.

4. Should teaching the controversy be expanded to include so-called alternatives to evolution? There are many mutually contradictory creationist positions, with disagreement on such fundamental issues as how old the universe is and which religion's book best describes the creator. Since the basis for creationism is its emotional religious appeal, and since such attraction varies between cultures and individuals, creationism will always be hopelessly controversial. Surely any lesson on the controversy should include the whole controversy.

The thing about my worldview is that is allows for both science and a greater appreciation of deeper mysteries. It is only when those claim that real scientists should take the bible literally and teach it as some sort of fact that I have an issue.

Continuing, you said,

"Again, there are references historically that the Civil War existed, even the time and dates of battle and the movement of the leaders of both sides. Witnesses and historical records bear this out. It doesn't mean that Scarlett O'Hara or any of the fictional characters in Gone with the Wind ever existed either.

PriveR, The difference between the Civil War and origins was that we have lots of historical references from people who lived through the event of the Civil War; not so with Creation.

The Lord Jesus Christ is unlike Scarlett O'Hara who is gone with the wind (sorry, couldn't resist it)in that besides four separate gospel accounts and numerous epistles, written by various authors, many of whom claimed to be eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2; i John 1:1; 1 Corinthians 15:5, etc), we also have many secular accounts such as Josephus Flavius and Pliny the Young, plus a multitude of early church fathers, some of whom had associated with the apostles. Then there is the facts of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) which contain prophecies about Him and the explanation on how Christianity started and spread if He was a fictitious character. You go against the wealth of evidence that says otherwise when you say He was not historical.

You said,

"If you are so concerned about the validity of science, then by all means, become a scientist and test it for yourself. We teach science in schools, not religion. When there is debate about these things there is one thing the biblical 'inerrantists' forget. I assume by your statements you mean that creation and evolution should be given equal time in the classroom. Yes?"

There are far more qualified people than myself to teach science. But when science talks about origins these things are not experiments that can be duplicated in the classroom or elsewhere. Remember, evolution is just a theory (that does not work). You make the gigantic assumption that creation science does not have any evidence or facts to support its premises.

You sad,

"It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests."

Again I use Ian Taylor, because he is handy to show you how the same can be said for evolutionary sciences,

""The Stuttgart Museum of Natural History in Germany contains a fossilized ichthyosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaur, fossilized at the moment of feeding her young. In the Ludwigsburg Museum of Natural History in Germany, there is an even more spectacular specimen of an ichthyosaur fossilized in the process of giving birth with the young clearly visible in the birth canal. In the Princeton Museum of Natural History there is a perch fossilized in the act of swallowing a herring. In each of these examples, the creatures were sea-dwelling, and their burial under fine sediment and subsequent fossilization had to have been sufficiently rapid to leave no trace of decomposition."

These evidences support quick rapid burial, not slow evolutionary time frames as Darwinian evolution has led us to believe.

""Until 1938 the coelacanth was known to paleontologists only by its fossils found in rocks of the Cretaceous and the Jurassic periods. These large, lobe-finned fish were thus believed to have thrived 300 million years ago and then became extinct 70 million years ago -- about the time of the dinosaur extinction. It was thought that the lobe fins were a very early stage in the evolution of legs. Fishing about five miles off the East coast of South Africa in December 1938, fishermen of a commercial trawler hauled up a living specimen of the coelacanth five feet long and steely blue in color. By 1972 a further sixty-six specimens had been caught and examined. The fish was clearly not extinct and had changed very little in the alleged 70 million years! (Ellis 1995, 11).[32]"

"Clearly, experimental work on sedimentation was needed to test these proposals. Almost thirty years later, Guy Berthault and others working in France, carried out a series of experiments with sediments in flowing water. This work demonstrated that hydraulic sorting, otherwise known as pro-gradation, does indeed take place during a flood and this has contributed significantly to the general understanding of Flood dynamics. The importance of the work is that it shows conclusively that the fossil-containing sediments, that is, the geologic column, can better be explained by simultaneous deposition from one flood rather than sequential deposition from multiple floods; the time frame is thus reduced from millions of years to a few months." [Chapter 4 of the same CD-ROM quotes in previous posts]

Again, evidence that refutes the evolutionary process and supports the creation position.

Again I would refer you to the video evidence I posted previously on just twenty five lies in the evolutionary text books. I'm looking for your answers to some of these. The evidence is plain. Things that are now proven to be false are still found in high school text books that indoctrinate people into believing something untrue.

If you are going to be fair to the students around your country you would present both sides of the argument so that they can decide which is the more reasonable position, instead of censoring the information and not allowing one side of it to be taught because it goes against the current standard of what science should be - evolutionary. As I have mentioned before, how can you even reconcile an evolutionary framework if we and everything else are just atoms colliding together in random happenstance?

You said,

"3. Equal time would mean teaching

* other versions of creationism from other denominations of Christianity (including young-earth, old-earth, day-age, gap theory, geocentrism, and flat earth). All have equal basis for being taught, since they are all based on exactly the same Bible. All are mutually incompatible (DYG 2000; Watchtower 1985, 186; Morris 1984, 215-247)."

Again, the Bible is specific about origins as historical narrative, and as I pointed out before, to come up with some of these theories the person has to read into the Bible something it does not say. Tell me how someone can twist billions of years out of "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, ...For IN SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and ALL that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:8-10)

Hello again,

"10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975)."

This is evidence of adaptation, variation or mutation within a species, not change to another kind of species, just like the Galapagos Finch shows a built in survival adaptation because of the environment, not a change of species. God made His creatures with the ability to adapt to different environments, but not the ability to change into a new kind.

Ian Taylor in his book "In the Minds of Men," Chapter 4, had this to say about fossil evidence found in some of our museums,

"The Stuttgart Museum of Natural History in Germany contains a fossilized ichthyosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaur, fossilized at the moment of feeding her young. In the Ludwigsburg Museum of Natural History in Germany, there is an even more spectacular specimen of an ichthyosaur fossilized in the process of giving birth with the young clearly visible in the birth canal. In the Princeton Museum of Natural History there is a perch fossilized in the act of swallowing a herring. In each of these examples, the creatures were sea-dwelling, and their burial under fine sediment and subsequent fossilization had to have been sufficiently rapid to leave no trace of decomposition." Chapter 4]

In other words, fossilization takes place rapidly.

You still haven't answered how an animal is fossilized. What is the process that causes fossilization?

PriveR, you said,

"* Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish."

Please expand upon this.

I think a great explanation of why we have marine fossils and other specialized communities of organisms buried together in rock layers throughout the earth is because many communities of life are found in special environments that support their kind, and with the mud and rock slides created during the Flood many communities would have been buried together. The reason you would not find human remains in most of these sites is because humans do not live in the water or in some of these other specialized land areas in great numbers.

* Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary.

That is just a presupposition. God's Word says,

"Let the water teem with living creatures,..." Genesis 1:20 "How many are Your works,' O LORD! In wisdom You made them all; the earth is full of Your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number-" Psalm 104:24-25.

Your assumption, PriveR, is the same as Charles Lyell; the present is the key to the past]

* In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.

That is a good explanation; the time line is what we disagree with.

* Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.

[Yes, so? There are theories for that too.]

2. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.”

PriveR, most of these fossils are insects and considering that insect life cycles are shorter than most animals, these fossils, millions of supposed life cycles later, show the insects as virtually the same as we have today, which presents a problem for the supposed evolutionary framework of random chance mutations and natural selection creating new species, especially since some of these amber fossils have been categorized as being around 230 million years old. The Flood explains things much better.

Again, with tree resin, the insect gets stuck in the resin and then more runs down and encases the insect (or usually small creature) which preserves it. They are encased rapidly again, enough so to preserve their bodies.

"The bible was written long before any scientific methods popped up. So naturally people today have to make incredible and unsupported leaps of logic to make their worldview fit.”

I would call the "big bang" an incredible leap of logic, as well as life coming from non-life. Give me one example you have SEEN of life coming from non-life. Then you have the problems of how you establish logic and morals in a material universe. Do non living material objects think? Does a lion make a moral judgment when it kills another animal? If we are all animals why is it wrong to kill another human being if he/she is competing for my food chain? These are all questions where I see you failing to answer or answer logically.

PriveR, just to emphasis a few points from the last post quoting Ian Taylor that I think are significant.

"Although in a practical sense the age of the rock makes little or no difference to the geologist, the system is based upon circular reasoning whereby the fossil order is said to be the evidence for process (evolution) over time. This is then held to be prime evidence for process over time. In fact, index fossils show no evidence of evolution but they do show evidence for extinction."

"Lyell had made his proposal in the 1830s, before the rocks of the world had been studied. It has since been discovered that the percentage of living species found in rocks believed to be of the same age varies from region to region and country to country."

"The ages of the various geological eras were originally derived during the nineteenth century by a combination of guesswork and calculation. For example, by estimating the depth of sediment deposited in one year by a river when in flood and knowing the total depth of sediment by drilling a hole, the age of the river system could be calculated. Often the annual rate was a fraction of an inch, and with a total depth of sediment of hundreds of feet, great ages were assigned to that particular layer of sediment. It was argued that the calculations should be based upon the thickest layer of any given strata discovered because similar strata of lesser thickness would have been the result of erosion. Further, the calculations assumed that the measured deposition rate over one year had been the same throughout Earth's history. The assigned ages, particularly for the earliest forms of life, seem to have been put on a sliding scale that has increased in direct proportion to our understanding of the complexities of the living cell. In Lyell's day, for example, the beginning of life was thought to have occurred about 200 million years ago, but this estimate has since escalated to 3,870 million years, almost twenty times longer."

"In recent years the claim is sometimes heard that the radiometric methods ( but not the Carbon Fourteen method) provide an independent, foolproof confirmation of the ages ascribed to the strata. However, this is quite untrue as the radiometric themselves are in fact calibrated against the dated strata."

All this goes to show the uncertainty of the evolutionary model. Again, the foundation on which the theory was first built is extremely shaky and has in fact collapsed. Punctuated equilibria is the theory of the day, proposed by such men as Gould and Elderidge.

Continuing on, I'm wondering if the time of night has anything to do with the posts not getting posted. Or could it be the amount of information or the sources used? Anyway, to answer some of your points such as,

""Also, in regards to fossils:

1. Most fossils, by themselves, are not a problem for a young earth. The problems come from geological context, including the following:
* Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques.

My thoughts exactly, except the problem comes from the evolutionist in dating the geological column. To quote from Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men" (I do not have the book but the CD-ROM so I cannot quote the page, only the Chapter)

""While Lyell’s geologic column and today’s grander version is a vital part of every geologist’s training, there is a philosophical subtlety inherent within this system that should be made clear to the reader. It was assumed that the rising order of the index fossils reflects the time in which they were deposited, that is, the oldest at the bottom and the recent at the top. This is not necessarily the case, however, because there are at least three mechanisms known to geologists that will sort minerals, and presumably marine crustaceans, simultaneously. By any one of these mechanisms stratification occurs very rapidly effectively producing the same evidence in weeks that are assumed to have taken millions of years. Nevertheless, the earth sciences identify each stratum with a particular index fossil and that stratum immediately assumes the declared age of the fossil. Although in a practical sense the age of the rock makes little or no difference to the geologist, the system is based upon circular reasoning whereby the fossil order is said to be the evidence for process (evolution) over time. This is then held to be prime evidence for process over time. In fact, index fossils show no evidence of evolution but they do show evidence for extinction." [Chapter 3, CD-ROM]

"Naturalists such as Cuvier and Deshayes, working in Paris a few years before Lyell was born, discovered that strata often contained fossils of shell-bearing marine species such as small mollusks and clams. The uppermost beds contained shells of species that still live today while successively lower groups of strata were found to contain shells of fewer living species and more extinct species. Later, Lyell saw this as a principle and proposed a classification based on the percentage of still-living shelled invertebrates, the clams for example, and coined age names for rocks based upon this arbitrary division. Thus, he said that those rocks containing 50-90 percent of modern species would be called Pliocene, from the Greek meaning "more recent". Rocks containing 20-40 percent of the fossils represented by modern species would be called Miocene, meaning "less recent", while those containing less than 5 percent would be called Eocene, meaning "dawn". The historical background to Lyell's work on index fossils was given in the previous chapter. Lyell had made his proposal in the 1830s, before the rocks of the world had been studied. It has since been discovered that the percentage of living species found in rocks believed to be of the same age varies from region to region and country to country. Thus, index fossils are far from universal and the Australian, British, and the American geologists are obliged to use different lists of these fossils.

"Nevertheless, like-minded followers of Lyell quickly elaborated on his scheme, subdividing and extending further backwards in time and assigning ages to each geological era. In spite of the deficiency of Lyell's method, certain fossils came to be recognized as typical of each age, while some juggling of the various fossil forms was necessary to fit the assumed upward gradation of complexity into proper chronological sequence; these particular fossils ? the marine crustaceans -- became the "index" fossils for the system. The existence of a particular index fossil found in a rock sample then immediately associates that particular strata with an age name and, of course, with the age that has been assigned to it (Dunbar 1960, 352)."

"Strictly speaking, the age of rock strata is of no practical importance to the working geologist. This should be self-evident knowing that the assigned ages have increased twenty to thirty times in the past century without making any difference to say, oil or mineral exploration. The ages of the various geological eras were originally derived during the nineteenth century by a combination of guesswork and calculation. For example, by estimating the depth of sediment deposited in one year by a river when in flood and knowing the total depth of sediment by drilling a hole, the age of the river system could be calculated. Often the annual rate was a fraction of an inch, and with a total depth of sediment of hundreds of feet, great ages were assigned to that particular layer of sediment. It was argued that the calculations should be based upon the thickest layer of any given strata discovered because similar strata of lesser thickness would have been the result of erosion. Further, the calculations assumed that the measured deposition rate over one year had been the same throughout Earth's history. The assigned ages, particularly for the earliest forms of life, seem to have been put on a sliding scale that has increased in direct proportion to our understanding of the complexities of the living cell. In Lyell's day, for example, the beginning of life was thought to have occurred about 200 million years ago, but this estimate has since escalated to 3,870 million years, almost twenty times longer. In recent years the claim is sometimes heard that the radiometric methods ( but not the Carbon Fourteen method) provide an independent, foolproof confirmation of the ages ascribed to the strata. However, this is quite untrue as the radiometric themselves are in fact calibrated against the dated strata." [Chapter 4]

* Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.

PriveR, returning to the debate on evolution, hopefully this will post!

In response to your question and comment,

"Didn't your god say something about 'no more floods' after that one? Recent events say otherwise. There goes your inerrancy."

there again you misinterpret the Scriptures to suit your worldview and show how much you really know about God and His Word.

"I will remember My covenant between Me and you and all living creatures of EVERY KIND. NEVER AGAIN will the waters become a flood to destroy ALL LIFE." (Genesis 9:15; see also Gen. 7:21-24)

These verses do not say that God will never bring floods on the earth again, only that He will not destroy the earth again by a flood. The difference between what you just did and what I am doing in hermeneutics is called Isogesis and Exegesis. Isogesis is reading into the text something that is not there, whereas exegesis is taking out of the text the meaning intended by the Author.

"We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." --- NIV 2 Corinthians 4:2

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." --- NIV 2 Tim 2:15

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." --- NIV Acts 17:11

PriveR, you said,

"Every single reference I have given has been published in a peer reviewed, mainstream scientific journal, with the credentials of each person established.

Big deal, as I said before, no scientist comes to the facts without baggage. These scientists are just interpreting the data through their own filters. None of them were around when these fossils formed and you admitted in your last post that catastrophic events occurred which would create fossils after the Flood on a small scale. The fact remains that Darwinian evolution has all these holes in it that scientists continually have to patch up to stop the dike bursting (please forgive the pun).

The problem with modern day evolutionary science is that it is an exclusive boys club which will not tolerate opposition. That is why you do not hear much in opposition to the cherished theory, except by those in the club.

PriveR,
To carry on with the dodging of atheist Christopher Hitchens Douglas Wilson continues to push the question of authority, especially in making value judgments,

"I have been asking you to provide a warrant for morality, given atheism, and you have mostly responded with assertions that atheists can make what some people call moral choices. Well, sure. But what I have been after is what rational warrant they can give for calling one choice "moral" and another choice "not moral." You finally appealed to "innate human solidarity," a phrase that prompted a series of pointed questions from me. In response, you now tell us that we have an innate predisposition to both good and wicked behavior. But we are still stuck. What I want to know (still) is what warrant you have for calling some behaviors "good" and others "wicked." If both are innate, what distinguishes them? What could be wrong with just flipping a coin? With regard to your retort that my "talent for needless complexity" has simply gotten me "God's coexistence with evil," I reply that I would rather have my God and the problem of evil than your no God and "Evil? No problem!"

After this many installments, I now feel comfortable in asserting that I have posed this question to you from every point of the compass and have not yet received anything that approaches the semblance of an answer. On this question I am tempted to quote Wyatt Earp from the film Tombstone—"You gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?"—but I think I'll pass. Earp was not very much like the Good Samaritan."

The same can be said for your arguments against the God of Christianity. Where do you get your authority to pronounce such judgments as the Christian God is a myth? From science? To quote Douglas again in the article,

"So if LaPlace is why you think belief in God is now "optional," this appeal of yours actually turns into quite a fun business. This doctrine means (although LaPlace admittedly got distracted before these implications caught up with him) that you, Christopher Hitchens, are not thinking your thoughts and writing them down because they are true, but rather because the position and velocity of all the atoms in the universe one hundred years ago necessitated it. And I am not sitting here thinking my Christian thoughts because they are the truth of God, but rather because that is what these assembled chemicals in my head always do in this condition and at this temperature. "LaPlace's demon" could have calculated and predicted your arguments (and word count) a century ago in just the same way that he could have calculated the water levels of the puddles in my driveway — and could have done so using the same formulae. This means that your arguments and my puddles are actually the same kind of thing. They are on the same level, so to speak.

If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is "winning the debate." They aren't debating; they are just fizzing. You refer to "language in which to write this argument," and you do so as though you believed in a universe where argument was a meaningful concept. Argument? Argument? I have no need for your "argument hypothesis." Just matter in motion, man."

From such a view as evolution, everything becomes meaningless.

PriveR,

I forgot to give you the web address. It is
http://www.christianitytoday.com/
Type in Christopher Hitchens or Douglas Wilson to read the debate. Notice how Hitchens keeps dodging the question of authority.

As Douglas said in response to Mr. Hitchens,

"On the question of morality, you say that you are "simply reluctant" to say that if religious faith falls, then the undergirding decency must fall also. But your behavior goes far beyond a mere "reluctance to concede." Your book and your installments in this debate thus far are filled with fierce denunciations of various manifestations of immorality. You are playing Savonarola here, and I simply want to know the basis of your florid denunciations. You preach like some hot gospeler—with a floppy leather-bound book and all. I know the book is not the Bible and so all I want to know is what book it is, and why it has anything to do with me. Why should anyone listen to your jeremiads against weirdbeards in the Middle East or fundamentalist Baptists from Virginia like Falwell? On your terms, you are just a random collection of protoplasm, noisier than most, but no more authoritative than any—which is to say, not at all.

You say that I need to admit that a "good person can be born" who can't get his mind around what I am saying about Jesus. But my initial claim has been far more modest. I am simply saying that a good person needs to be able, at a minimum, to define what goodness is and tell us what the basis for it is. Your handwaving—"ordinary morality is innate"—does not even begin to meet the standard.

There are three insurmountable problems for you here. The first is that innate is not a synonym for authoritative. Why does anyone have to obey any particular prompting from within? And which internal prompting is in charge of sorting out all the other competing promptings? Why? Second, the tangled skein of innate and conflicting moralities found within the billions of humans alive today also has to be sorted out and systematized. Why do you get to do it and then come around and tell us how we must behave? Who died and left you king? And third, according to you, this innate morality of ours is found in a creature (mankind) that is a distant blood cousin of various bacteria, aquatic mammals, and colorful birds in the jungle. Your entire worldview has evolution as a key foundation stone, and evolution means nothing if not change. You believe that virtually every species has morphed out of another one. And when we change, as we must, all our innate morality changes with us, right? We have distant cousins where the mothers ate their young. Was that innate for them? Did they evolve out of it because it was evil for them to be doing that?

Now this is how all this relates to the assigned topic of our debate. We are asking if Christianity is good for the world. As a Christian discussing this with an atheist, I have sought to show in the first place that atheism has nothing whatever to say about this topic—one way or the other. If Christianity is bad for the world, atheists can't consistently point this out, having no fixed way of defining "bad." If Christianity is good for the world, atheists should not be asked about it either because they have no way of defining "good." Think of it as spiking your guns—so that I can talk about Jesus.

Hi PriveR,

I was just visiting the debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian pastor Douglas Wilson and came across this piece which I thought put the dilemma of anyone who denies the Christian God quite well:

Among many other reasons, Christianity is good for the world because it makes hypocrisy a coherent concept. The Christian faith certainly condemns hypocrisy as such, but because there is a fixed standard, this makes it possible for sinners to fail to meet it or for flaming hypocrites to pretend that they are meeting it when they have no intention of doing so. Now my question for you is this: Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy? When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?

Again, what is your standard? How do you know it is true?

P.S.
America is a country with freedom of speech as a basic right. In a forum "On Faith" is it not possible to express yourself? I do not believe I have been rude or vulgar have I? I certainly do not have any ill feelings towards any of the people I have shared ideas with.

PriveR, it seems that the webmaster will not post my rebuttals. I keep getting the message "Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."

There have been three failed attempts today. I guess your side is the only one that will be posted? Are there ground rules to these message boards that I do not know of? Are there certain views they will not accept? Sorry, it does not look like I will get my say. I keep having to modify my message.

also,
* creation traditions from other religions and cultures, at least over 350 individual systems with all differing creation myths.

I would have no problem with teaching the creation myth of any or all of these religions, just not in a science class. None of these claims are based in scientific fact. But that's the nature of religion. More appropriate in a religious studies of the world class. Optional, with any parent having ultimate say over whether or not their child can take it if they wish to.

* other ideas for the origin of life and the universe, such as
o solipsism
o Last Thursdayism, the unfalsifiable view that the universe and everything in it was created last Thursday with only the appearance of earlier history
o multiple designers (Hoppe 2004)
o Raelianism or other extraterrestrial involvement
o creation by time travellers.

Creationists do not want all of these taught in science class any more than science educators do. Clearly, creationism in school is an attempt to get greater time than all the opposing views, not equal time. That is not fair.

4. Creationists do not advocate equal time for evolutionary theory in church services. Why?

Also
1. On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy. The "teach the controversy" campaign is an attempt to get pseudoscience taught in classrooms. Lessons about the sociological issues of the evolution-creation controversy may be appropriate in history or other nonscience classes.

If the object is to keep bad science from the classroom, the same standards should be applied to the counterarguments from creationists, which are all bad science.

2. There are controversies over details of evolutionary theory, such as the relative contributions of sympatric versus allopatric speciation. These controversies require a great deal of background in biology even to understand what they are about. They should not be taught to beginning students. They should be taught to graduate-level students in biology, and they are.

3. Evolution is almost certainly the most hated scientific theory in history. Many people think it threatens morals, civilization, and their very souls, and virtually nobody wants it to be true. Starting from the first day that Origin of Species was published, it has faced constant challenges from some of the most powerful politicians and religious leaders, not to mention incessant disapproval and attacks from the general public. The only thing evolution has going for it is the evidence. If that evidence were not extremely strong, evolution would have been torn to irreparable shreds decades ago.

Like all theories, evolution is subject to scientific attack, too. Achieving a major revision of established theory is something that many scientists dream of. Plus, many scientists feel the same emotional opposition to it that so many non-scientists do. If a credible alternative to evolution appeared, biologists would race to publish it. Indeed, scientists have made some significant revisions of details to the theory of evolution, but there has been no such race to overthrow the basic theory.

The theory of evolution is stronger than ever, accepted around the world without a hint of informed scientific challenge to the basic theory. The controversy surrounding evolution has made it one of the most scrutinized theories of all time, and evolution has withstood that scrutiny with flying colors.

4. Should teaching the controversy be expanded to include so-called alternatives to evolution? There are many mutually contradictory creationist positions, with disagreement on such fundamental issues as how old the universe is and which religion's book best describes the creator. Since the basis for creationism is its emotional religious appeal, and since such attraction varies between cultures and individuals, creationism will always be hopelessly controversial. Surely any lesson on the controversy should include the whole controversy. I'm all for teaching that, just not in a science class.

Oh, and by the way, just because someone lampoons the way it is laid out in a book, doesn't mean that they have any scientific basis to stand on.
Besides, the guy can only find 25 'lies'? With all the millions of pieces of evidence that exists out there? Surely he can do better than that. As can you.

'Biblical science' is neither biblical nor science. Discuss.

If you are so concerned about the validity of science, then by all means, become a scientist and test it for yourself. We teach science in schools, not religion. When there is debate about these things there is one thing the biblical 'inerrantists' forget. I assume by your statements you mean that creation and evolution should be given equal time in the classroom. Yes?

1. The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes.

A 1999 United States poll found that most people favor teaching evolution -- and teaching it as science -- and that when creationism is taught, most prefer that it be taught either in nonscience classes or as a religious belief (DYG 2000).

2. Equal time would open creationism, and by extension Christianity in general, to ridicule and attack. Saint Augustine recognized this in the fifth century:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, . . . and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. (Augustine 1982, 42-43) This is proving true, seeing as how so many people around the world look at our country claiming to be some sort of superpower and leader in the world with so many of our people getting one view of the world and demanding that everyone accept their way of thinking without questioning, and they are LAUGHING at us. No wonder we're going to be left behind. When you lose the ability to think critically, you lose freedoms that had been previously taken for granted. The past 7 years are an indication of that. Is that how you would like your worldview to be perceived? as some sort of laughingstock? I wouldn't, and I think it does a disservice to those Christians who really are working to live and restore the teachings of the one they purport to follow. The difference between you and me is that my world won't come to an end if I'm wrong. If the world comes to an end, then Nature is working to restore the pattern that was meant to be. And none of us can escape it.

3. Equal time would mean teaching

* other versions of creationism from other denominations of Christianity (including young-earth, old-earth, day-age, gap theory, geocentrism, and flat earth). All have equal basis for being taught, since they are all based on exactly the same Bible. All are mutually incompatible (DYG 2000; Watchtower 1985, 186; Morris 1984, 215-247).

* other versions of scientific creationism from other religions. Claims have been made for Muslim, Hindu, and Native American versions of creationism.

The only legal precedent favoring creationism in the United States in the last fifty years was an Interior Department decision finding, on the basis of native creation and flood myths, that 9400-year-old Kennewick Man was associated with present-day Native American tribes (Chatters 2001, 266).

I forgot the two backslashes after http: in the last post

Hi PriveR,

You said,

"What the bible proposes in terms of some sort of scientific fact is actually diametrically opposed to what science actually is. The bible was written long before any scientific methods popped up. So naturally people today have to make incredible and unsupported leaps of logic to make their worldview fit. I have no problem with that as long as those people don't waste my time/tax money on such false claims and somehow try to convince others, especially vulnerable people and children that these are somehow true and should be taught in schools as some sort of fact, when it is religion."

[Yeah right PriveR, just like the school and university systems have been doing since the Scopes Trail in the USA; indoctrinating young children on evolutionary assumptions and here in Canada using my Canadian tax dollar to support the indoctrination process in our school systems]

There is one website were a former high school teach, who is a creationist and has been collecting science text books for many, many years, lampoons and exposes some of the indoctrination put in these text books to answer the fool according to his folly. He lists twenty five lies in the text books. Here is the site:

http:drdino.activeforjesus.com/videos/seminar4_300k.wmv

local floods etc.

Didn't your god say something about 'no more floods' after that one? Recent events say otherwise. There goes your inerrancy.

Also, in regards to fossils:

1. Most fossils, by themselves, are not a problem for a young earth. The problems come from geological context, including the following:
* Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques.
* Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.
* Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary.
* In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.
* Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.

2. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.

Also:
1. Great numbers of fossils in one area indicate great numbers of animals dying in that area (or, in some cases, their bodies being transported there). Usually, this argues against rapid burial, because that many animals are not found together at once in life. A simpler explanation is that animals have died in the area over many years. For example, one mass burial is at the La Brea Tar Pits, which have been trapping animals for thousands of years.

2. In fact, vast fossil beds are evidence against catastrophic rapid burial. One formation alone (the Karroo Formation in Africa) is estimated to contain 800 billion vertebrate fossils. If that is just 1 percent of the world's fossils, there must be 2100 vertebrate animals per acre, far more than we see today (Schadewald 1982). Fossil plant remains, such as coal, are almost 100 times more massive than living plant biomass (Poldervaart 1955; Ricklefs 1993).

3. Mass kills can occur through normal processes. Every year, hundreds of wildebeests drown during river crossings on their annual migration. Their bodies wash up on river banks. Collapse of the stream banks could bury many. Other local catastrophes can also kill many animals at once.

References:

1. Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, MD: Waverly Press.
2. Ricklefs, Robert, 1993. The Economy of Nature. New York: W. H. Freeman
3. Schadewald, Robert J., 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer. Creation/Evolution 9: 12-17.

Every single reference I have given has been published in a peer reviewed, mainstream scientific journal, with the credentials of each person established.

Again, there are references historically that the Civil War existed, even the time and dates of battle and the movement of the leaders of both sides. Witnesses and historical records bear this out. It doesn't mean that Scarlett O'Hara or any of the ficitonal characters in Gone with the Wind ever existed either.

Please see my remarks above about biblical inerrancy.

Hi PriveR,

Tell me something, since no human alive on planet earth today was around during the forming of either the earth or the universe, how certain are you that your evolutionary scientists have it right? Do you believe you are 100% certain? How do you know that the evidence has been interpreted rightly? How do you know that the evolutionary theory is not just some philosophical assumption coming from outside of science? Do facts interpret themselves, or would you agree that they are interpreted from a framework of ideas relying on basic assumptions? Just because Creationists do not play by the rules of your game how do you know they are not the ones who are right? For every strand of evidence you use to frame your arguments I could find a strand that would validate mine. That does not necessarily make it right.

You assume so many things on the authority of evolutionary science, which is after all, a theory. It is not proven.

I start from the belief in God and the worldwide flood to explain the evidence and build a case that I contend is a more viable explanation of why we have million and millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth. I can also show you why a young earth is feasible, but neither one of us is going to convince the other by citing evidences from a subjective authority, of which my God is not. That is why I keep bringing you back to the standard or measure in which you gauge all truth. If it is not absolute, it is subjective to each person and change and nothing can be known truly. And that is where your belief system betrays itself (its subjectivity), otherwise you would not have taken the time and trouble to refute the claims of the Bible. You definitely believe your science to be true otherwise you would not place your trust in it.

Some of your citations you have selected show that Darwinian evolution is no longer an acceptable way of explaining origins.

"16. Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319."

As I said before and you confirm by some of these citations there is a dispute between a slow gradual process of Darwinian evolution (uniformitarianism) and one that is rapid such as the punctuated equilibrium theory pushed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.

Operational science deals with processes that are observable and repeatable. The rest is just theory. Evolution is not something that can be proven to be repeatable, because, although I am not familiar with many of the citations in your post, the evidence for them happening in the present is unavailable. Species have the ability to adapt within themselves, but not change into a different species. A dog is still a dog although there is a vast variety, just as a man is still a man even though we have differences in characteristics. There is no missing link to prove that man descended from the planet of the apes. All the supposed fossil transitions have been shot down, much of the time by the evolutionary communities.

You said,

"Evolutionary Scientists don't look for ideas of a big bang, either. That's for Quantum physicists. If any scientist starts out with a bias that ends up in the experiment, it is invalidated and the results are unusable."

A few points to make here.
1. Evolution is a philosophy that pervades every field of science. Whether a quantum physicist or a marine biologist, if he/she believes in evolution he/she is an evolutionary scientist no matter what department they are associated with.
2. In studying origins every scientist has a bias in the way they look at the evidence. Since origins cannot be replicated or repeated all evidence is translated according to basic presuppositions. The whole web of belief is built upon certain foundational principles. In the case of evolution "in the beginning nothing" and in the case of Creationism "in the beginning God."
3. What experiment? If you mean looking at a bunch of fossils that do not speak for themselves and determining that they had their origin by a "big bang" where has that experiment been duplicated? Because it occurred in the past, where is the evidence for it occurring in the present?

Believing the sun, earth and solar system formed from a cloud of dust 4.3 or 4.5 billion years ago (depending on who you cite) is not something we were there to see, can duplicate or determine by by looking at the evidence without building on our own preconceived ideas. Any thought about origins has other thoughts attached to it. And without God as our reference point whose authority are you going to believe with all the discrepancies in dating? Who is the latest guru you are trusting in? You are relying on someone who wasn't there to tell you how it all began.

You said,

"2. The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

Please look up a reply at "answersingenesis under radiometric dating.

PriveR, you said,

" 2. There are many different kinds of surface features preserved in the middle of the geological column. These features include soils, mud cracks, evaporate deposits, footprints, raindrop impressions, meteor craters, worm burrows, wind-blown sediments, stream channels, and many others. For example:

* The Loess Plateau in China has a layer of loess more than 300 m thick. Loess is wind-blown sediment that would not occur during a global flood. The Loess Plateau occurs around the downwind edges of the Ordos Desert, its source of sediments, and the grain size of the loess decreases the further one gets from the desert (Vandenberghe et al. 1997).

* The Loess Plateau includes paleosols within it. These are buried fossil soils, some of which would require tens of thousands of years to form (Kukla and An 1989; Liu et al. 1985)."

Other catastrophic events since the flood could explain many different kinds of events, such as volcanic eruptions, earth quakes, local floods etc. Take Mt. St. Helen in Washington State and the accumulation of layers of ash by the feet forming in a period of a few days, or the movement of glaciation in depositing soils from different places."

The question for you is how do fossils form? Do you really believe that it takes ten thousand years to form a fossil? How would wind blown sediment encase millions of dead animals to form fossils? Watch time lapse photography of an animal dying in the plains and see how long it takes the body and bones to decompose.

To answer just a few of your points on missing links, please use the search engine on the "answersingenesis" website to refute points 11, 20, 23, 24, since the webmaster will not let me post the links myself for some reason?

Last one was mine again. keep forgetting to put my name in.

What amazes me about all of this is that inerrantists miss the point entirely of mythology and the purpose of such stories.

Stories are written down as ways to instruct and inspire people on ways to live a good life. All stories have equal validity. People back in those days and earlier would take events that were LOCAL to themselves, not global, and put it in a fictional story as a way to find some meaning in those events. They were and are never meant to be searched to see if they apply today in a literal sense, but as metaphor. It's all fiction intended to be used to inspire, sometimes heal, and sometimes used as a tool for political control in the wrong hands.

Myths are generally broken down into three types:
creation myths (where did we/Earth/deity/nature/animals/morality come from);
Explanation myths (why are we/earth/animals/nature the way it is)
and destination myths (where are we/earth/animals/etc headed) and any and all mythology, stories, including biblical, fits under these criteria.

Every culture has them, but seems like only inerrantist Christians are trying to find some sort of pseudoscience to 'prove' their case, because they know that without it, their entire claims to 'one truth' fall apart at the seams. What the bible proposes in terms of some sort of scientific fact is actually diametrically opposed to what science actually is. The bible was written long before any scientific methods popped up. So naturally people today have to make incredible and unsupported leaps of logic to make their worldview fit. I have no problem with that as long as those people don't waste my time/tax money on such false claims and somehow try to convince others, especially vulnerable people and children that these are somehow true and should be taught in schools as some sort of fact, when it is religion.

You do not think that the Almighty has the ability to preserve what He inspired and give His creatures the ability to know Him from His revelation to us?

Actually, no. if your god actually existed he would be laughing at the way some of your folks have interpreted that book.

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
References:

1. Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
2. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
3. Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
4. Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
5. Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
6. Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
7. Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
8. Gerrienne, P. et al. 2004. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian seed plant precursor. Science 306: 856-858.
9. Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
10. Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
11. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
12. Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
13. Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
14. Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.

16. Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
17. Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
18. Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
19. Poinar, G. O. Jr. and B. N. Danforth. 2006. A fossil bee from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Science 314: 614.
20. Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
21. Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
22. Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
23. Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
24. Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
25. Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.

As for your geologic column:

1. The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.

2. The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

As for the flood:

1. Varves within the geologic column show seasonal layers over many, many years. In many cases, such as the Green River formation, these layers are too fine to have settled out in less than several weeks per layer. Varves in New England show evidence of climate change 17,500 to 13,500 years ago, which matches climate patterns in other parts of the world (Rittenour et al. 2000). These layers prove that the geological record was not produced in just one event.

2. There are many different kinds of surface features preserved in the middle of the geological column. These features include soils, mud cracks, evaporite deposits, footprints, raindrop impressions, meteor craters, worm burrows, wind-blown sediments, stream channels, and many others. For example:

* The Loess Plateau in China has a layer of loess more than 300 m thick. Loess is wind-blown sediment that would not occur during a global flood. The Loess Plateau occurs around the downwind edges of the Ordos Desert, its source of sediments, and the grain size of the loess decreases the further one gets from the desert (Vandenberghe et al. 1997).

* The Loess Plateau includes paleosols within it. These are buried fossil soils, some of which would require tens of thousands of years to form (Kukla and An 1989; Liu et al. 1985).

Evolutionary Scientists don't look for ideas of a big bang, either. That's for Quantum physicists. If any scientist starts out with a bias that ends up in the experiment, it is invalidated and the results are unusable.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Hi PriveR,

When you say,

"So basically you're telling me that the earth is 6000 years old and was created in six 24-hour periods? When the whole of geology states otherwise? Are you serious?"

Yes, I'm serious. I believe the earth is roughly 6000-10000 years old. Are you serious in believing that it is roughly 4.3 billion years old?

With all the bad science out there on origins you really believe that

"Science is self correcting. Even if a scientist did come with some bias or something, (which they are trained not to do, anyway,) in order to be a true scientific experiment, if they results don't come back like they want it to, they must find a better explanation for why they are seeing what is happening. 2+2 equals four, not your god."

The problem with origins is that we cannot duplicate origins to show the conclusion was true. As God said to Job,

"Where were you when I laid the earth's fundation? Tell me if you understand." (Job 38:4)

Both evolutionists and creationists start with basic presuppositions that they build their web of beliefs on. The evolutionary scientist looks at the evidence with their rosy colored glasses on presuming a big bang 14-19 billion years ago is responsible for everything we have today. The creation scientist looks at the evidence from the biblical perspective to arrive at the age of the earth. Neither one is unbiased. Neither one is neutral. They both bring to the table fundamental starting points. Both look at the facts differently.

So when you say,

"When the whole of geology states otherwise? Are you serious?"

The geologic age system is the basic time frame evolutionists use for interpreting the history of the earth. Go back to the nineteenth century and one of the reasons Darwin was so comfortable in proposing the theory of evolution was because Charles Lyell had come up with "Principles of Geology" in which uniformitarianism, [geological deposits laid down continuously and uniformly over long periods of time rather than resulting quickly by catastrophic event(s)] was a way of explaining the fossil evidence in the different rock layers as the beginning and evolving of life. "Index fossils" were believed to be found in different layers that determined the age of the fossil according to the layer.

The theory that so much of evolution is based on is pretty well abandoned today because of the many holes in the geological column. [PriveR, do a web search on uniformitarianism or the geological column to get a perspective] There is only one place you will find this supposed geologic column, in textbooks to indoctrinate from a young age your belief system.

One of the problems with uniformitarianism is that fossils do not happen without a catastrophic event. An animal dying on the plains will slowly decay until it eventually disappears. For a fossil to form the animal or plant must be buried and encased quickly usually with a lot of pressure placed on it. That is why the Flood is a more feasible explanation of why we find millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth. Vast amounts of water can have quite an effect on layering and sculpturing the landscape as well as providing a fossil graveyard of animals and plants throughout the earth. (Ever watch how when you shake a glass of water mixed with sand how different layers of sediment form?)

It also gives an explanation why you have petrified trees encased in numerous layers of the geologic table, which represent millions of years of earth history (supposedly). They are called "Polystrates." [Check it out]

Then you have the problem of the "missing link." It is still missing. Where are all the supposed transition forms between species? Can you name but one? Why do we not see a change from one species into another happening today?

I have an explanation for that,

"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teams, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind...let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds..." (Genesis 1:20-25)

You said,

"Cherry picking pseudoscience to try to prove your cause is like putting a weather vane on top of a house that hasn't even been built yet."

Ditto!

Finally, you said,

"Doesn't your god get awfully pissy at those who presume to know what he thinks?"

You do not think that the Almighty has the ability to preserve what He inspired and give His creatures the ability to know Him from His revelation to us? You suppress the knowledge when reading the Scriptures that it is God speaking to you.

"But about the resurrection of the dead - have you not READ what GOD SAID to you, "I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (Matthew 22:31, 32)

Have you, PriveR, not read what God said to you?

"To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, "If you hold to My teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you WILL KNOW the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31, 32)

Thanks for the chat. I will get to your other questions during the week.

Hi PriveR,

My last post is being held. I should have learned to copy it so that I could resubmit it.

"That is general revelation."

No, actually, it's not. Its far more powerful, pervasive and interactive than that.

So basically you're telling me that the earth is 6000 years old and was created in six 24-hour periods? When the whole of geology states otherwise? Are you serious?

The thing about biblical creationism that I don't understand at all is that there is a very serious misunderstanding of what science is, and how it works. Science is self correcting. Even if a scientist did come with some bias or something, (which they are trained not to do, anyway,) in order to be a true scientific experiment, if they results don't come back like they want it to, they must find a better explanation for why they are seeing what is happening. 2+2 equals four, not your god.

Cherry picking pseudoscience to try to prove your cause is like putting a weather vane on top of a house that hasn't even been built yet.

And I think atheists are perfectly capable of making sense of the world for themselves. To assume otherwise is really condescending and presumptuous. Seeing as how you and I are not atheists, it would be better left up to them to speak for themselves anyway.

"To correctly interpret the truth we think God's thoughts after Him."

Doesn't your god get awfully pissy at those who presume to know what he thinks? Seems like folks in your book are always dying arbitrarily for that reason.

Again, all you have said in this time is:
"The bible says it, i believe it and that settles it."
Please see my response to that above.

Good morning!

Your question PriveR,

What if there were ways to obtain knowledge of the divine through Nature that came outside of any book? I happen to believe there is, and have experienced little glimpses of this for myself.

That is general revelation. The creation confirms that God exists by what has been made so that men/women are without excuse before God (Romans 1:18-19 says,

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world [notice that God attributes man's knowledge of Himself since the creation of the world] God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that man is without excuse."

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Psalm 19:1-4)

But to come to a truthful understanding of what is we have to think God's thoughts after Him. An atheist cannot make sense of the world. His/her reasoning is always inconsistent with truth.

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God" is pretty foolish, don't you think? To state absolutely "There is no God" would definitely place you in the category of God, being all knowing and having an objective standard. We know that is not the case since the atheist, along with the rest of us are continually learning new things every day. His knowledge, like ours, is finite.

To continue, you said,

"Through science is only part of this, but is equally important. Are you making a claim that you can obtain knowledge of your god through science?"

Yes, true science confirms God's truth. As I have said before, scientist's do not come at the evidence without baggage and bias. When you look at origins, man was not part of the creation until Day Six. They use laws and principles that God has put in place, like 2 + 2 = 4.

Since all facts need to be interpreted our conclusions depend on what our starting points are. How do we know we are correctly interpreting God's word in such matter's, in that mankind was on this earth since the beginning of the creation? You cannot make sense out of the Bible without the earth being created six to ten thousand year's ago, because of the unity throughout the Bible on the creation accounts. Since the Bible does not contradict itself because God is the source of logic and He does not say one thing and then another totally different thing somewhere else, the Bible interprets the Bible and words with the context plays an important part in correctly handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 3:16 with 2 Timothy 2:15)

For instance, the genealogies of Jesus trace His human lineage from both His adoptive father's side of the family and His mother's side of the family. From the one side of the family the genealogy is traced back 42 generation's to Abraham and from the other side of the family to Adam, the first human. We know from Jesus to the time of Abraham there are 42 generations. The genealogies from Adam to Noah and Abraham are traced also in other sections of the Bible. They are traced along the family linage of Jesus to show us that Genesis is an actual account of creation until the Christ is born. The prophetic nature of Scripture is first revealed in Genesis 3:15 onwards concerning God's progressive revelation to mankind, culminating in the Lord Jesus Christ.

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

The history of the first 11 chapters of Genesis are significant in a number of ways; teaching on the nature and origin of the universe, the study of man and salvation. They are not mythological stories that, at best, convey religious truth. They are the accounts of the origin of life created by God out of nothing.

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "where is this 'coming' He promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." (2 Peter 3:3-4)

You said,

" If so, then that goes against your idea that 'there is only one way' to discover truth."

To correctly interpret the truth we think God's thoughts after Him. In other words, if what is believed does not line up with what He has said we are in error. So to look at the universe and say it created itself goes against the truth of God. To look at the universe and say it was created from 14 to 19 billion years ago, depending upon which "authority" you use, goes against the truth of God.

Here are some of the ways we can know we are correctly interpreting the Word of God in answering the question Genesis being an historical account of origins from Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology p. 393-395.

1. The word "day" (yom), in the singular, duel and plural, occurs some 2,225 times in the Old Testament with the overwhelming preponderance
of these occurrences designating the ordinary daily cycle. Normally, the preponderate meaning of a term should be maintained unless contextual considerations force one to another view....
2. The recurring phrase, "and the evening and the morning [taken together] constitute day one, etc." (1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), suggest as much. The qualifying words, "evening and morning," attached here to each of these recurring statements occur together outside of Genesis in 37 verses (e.g. Exodus 18:13; 27:21). In each instance these words are employeed to describe an ordinary day.
3. In the hundreds of other cases in the Old Testament where yom stands in conjunction with an ordinary number (first, second, third, etc.), e.g. Exodus 12:15; 24:16; Leviticus 12:3, it never means anything other than a normal, literal day.
4. With the creation of the sun "to rule the day" and the moon "to rule the night" occurring on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16-18), days four through six would almost certainly have been ordinary days. This would suggest that the seventh would have also been an ordinary day. All this would suggest in turn, if we assume the earth was turning on its axis at that time, that days one through three would have been ordinary days as well.
5. If we follow the anologia Scripturae principle of hermeneutics enunciated in Westminister Confession of Faith to the effect that "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly" (I/X), then the "ordinary day" view has most to commend it since Moses grounds the commandment regarding seventh-day Sabbath observance in the fact of the divine Exemplar's activity: "In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the seventh day and made it holy" (Exodus 20:11; see also 31:15-17)
6. In the 608 occurrences of the plural "days" (yamim) in the Old Testament (see Ex. 20:11), their referents are always ordinary days. Ages are never expressed by the word yamim.
7. Finally, if Moses had intended to express the idea of seven "ages" in Genesis 1 he could have employees the term olam, which means "age" or "period of independent duration."

The fact that throughout the Old and New Testaments the age of the earth and history of the earth is associated with man being created in the beginning is evidenced throughout the whole Bible. Jesus Himself (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6) confirms the beginning of the earth with the creation of mankind.

"Haven't you read, "He replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." [By the way, God reveals that marriage is to be between male and female, not male and male]

If you want to get into it further on what the Bible reveals about man and creation we can look at the many verses that collaborate the view of an earth that is not billions of years old as revealed from the Scriptures.

I will try to get back to answering some of your other questions and objections about Bible translations and inerrancy and Canon of Scripture later this week.

Mr. Huff:

"But He has revealed Himself in two ways to mankind; the creation or what you call "Nature" and by special revelation; the Bible, His word."

What if there were ways to obtain knowledge of the divine through Nature that came outside of any book? I happen to believe there is, and have experienced little glimpses of this for myself. Through science is only part of this, but is equally important. Are you making a claim that you can obtain knowledge of your god through science? If so, then that goes against your idea that 'there is only one way' to discover truth.

Hi PriveR,

I hope you don't mind, I will continue to answer your posts in segments because of time restraints this week.

Your comment,

"You argue two ways, by saying on the one hand that the divine is far bigger than any book, but still claiming that one man made book is somehow more indicative of evidence of your god than others. Which is it? You have, as you so like to accuse me of, created two "conflicting truth claims."

is faulty in assuming the Bible is a man made book or that all God is is contained in His revelation to us, the Bible. I have never said that. How can the finite creature totally comprehend the Infinite God. How could all that is God be contained in any book? But He has revealed Himself in two ways to mankind; the creation or what you call "Nature" and by special revelation; the Bible, His word. With what He has created we can know some things about God but only by His special revelation can we have a personal relation with Him. It is the difference between knowing about God and knowing Him relationally by being adopted into His family.

Sorry. The last one is Mine again.

"My authority comes from outside myself to the One who is objective; uninfluenced by the opinions of others, by emotions or personal prejudices, free of personal bias."

From a book. Written by man. Translated by men into many languages with many meanings. Many of the languages didn't have words to match those found in the scrolls. They did a 'best guess' translation. What was important to them was not literality but that the message got out. And around we go again. god, as described in the bible, is not objective. he is petty, jealous, arbitrary and infanticidal. unworthy of worship.

You argue two ways, by saying on the one hand that the divine is far bigger than any book, but still claiming that one man made book is somehow more indicative of evidence of your god than others. Which is it? You have, as you so like to accuse me of, created two "conflicting truth claims."

My view comes from the way the world works, not the way I wish it to work. Other people, through observable, repeatable methods, come up with the explanations for how the world works. As methods of experimentation change, the explanations will be further revised and even thrown out in favor of a better explanation. The world will continue operating with these laws of nature whether you or I am around or not. Just because we don't know all nature's laws yet doesn't mean they have a supernatural explanation.

"Then you have the problem in a naturalistic universe of how something such as a law, logic, or thought - such things are intangible and immaterial - can be at all. How can something immaterial come out of something material? Have you ever heard of a rock thinking or using logic? Ever seen a piece of granite conceptualize on how the universe was formed?"

Your claim of inerrancy is contradicted even by you. you say "How can something immaterial come out of something material?" and then will tell me that the bible is historically true and moses's staff turned into a snake, and that snakes can talk. If you don't believe that actually happened, there goes any claim of inerrancy. You believe that your god orchestrated the big bang, correct? There goes the whole of genesis. If you believe that the bible is truly absolutely inerrant, you would hold slaves, stone disobedient children, and punish adulterers by stoning. I'm sure the police in your area would be interested to know if you indeed do these things. Do you?

"How could a random chance process ever guarantee anything, any law, any result will remain the same tomorrow just because it did today and yesterday?"

Because they're not random. They are observable, predictable and repeatable. That's the beauty of it.

Mr. Huff:

Have I read the bible? Yes. How many times? Enough to find contradictions, factual errors and ideas that translations are imperfect at best. By the way, which version are you claiming is 'inerrant?'

"That is just an assumption. It amazes me at what lengths people will go to to deny the Word of God."

Have you actually studied the history of your church? You make incredible leaps in order to show 'inerrancy'. All the while quoting the book that has led to more death and destruction caused by people who believe as you do.

"The Holy Spirit has the ability to bring to man's mind an accurate recall of the events and teachings of Jesus as well as the guidance of the Scribes in preserving His Word."

or perhaps it's the 'random series of chance molecules colliding against one another' in your mind that you're so fond of accusing me of that brings pictures of what is written to your mind.

"If you had a healthy regard for something would you not treat it with respect? Especially the word's of your Creator."

I have a healthy regard and respect for any mythological stories that are used to teach. Used to inspire. It's when those stories are taken to be historical records when they were never meant as such that I question their accuracy. Besides, Nature, through the biological processes that happened when my parents joined, is my Creator.

You know, Jews in the day understood the stories to be inspirational. But not to be taken literally. They understood that they were written by man, and are therefore subject to error. As they do today. Something tells me that you won't find any Jews claiming the bible is inerrant.

1. Inerrancy cannot be trusted. Errors can only be corrected if they are first recognized and admitted. Inerrancy makes that impossible. Therefore, errors in an inerrant interpretation of the Bible can never be fixed.

2. Inerrancy is a contempt that breeds hate. Inerrantists take it as divinely certain that other people's religious views are inferior to their own. One reaps what one sows, so when inerrantists show their contempt, contempt for their own religious views is returned. History is bloodied by the consequences. Jews, Muslems, heathens, and other Christians have been subjugated, tortured, and slaughtered in the name of the "true" god. Jacob Bronowski (1973, 374), speaking of Auschwitz, wrote,

Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by dogma. It was done by arrogance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

The contempt also shows up as intolerance -- against women's roles, in attitudes about sex, and through a variety of other different views. Even those who do not commit atrocities, when they display such intolerance, are guilty of fomenting the atmosphere that makes the atrocities possible.

You know, if you go to Europe, you will find people who look at Americans with such incredulity and cannot believe that we give serious time to such beliefs, because those beliefs in their purest form lead to the regression of progress and dismissal of scientific advancement, to the detriment of the whole country. As a result we are becoming irrelevant and a danger on the world's stage.

3. Inerrancy rejects much study of the Bible (not infrequently to the point of persecuting the studier). One who accepts inerrancy generally
* ignores textual criticism. Most inerrantists accept the King James version as authoritative, but analysis of the earliest biblical manuscripts shows that the King James version includes numerous errors. For example, the story of Jesus chiding those who would stone an adulteress (John 8:1-11) does not appear until about 300 years after the Gospel of John was written.
* ignores source criticism. Many stories in the Bible are repeated, but with different emphasis, different details, and different language. These differences show that the Bible was written by different people at different times for different purposes, and their accounts were redacted by people with still different motives (Friedman 1987).
* ignores the reality of syncretism, the process by which rituals, concepts, etc. from one religion are adapted by another. Many biblical stories show Sumerian and Canaanite influence, for example. The adoption of pagan customs by so many early christians was done because there was actually no other way to convince people to convert. Examples include Jesus's birthday. People who have studied the 'life' of jesus actually think he was born sometime in mid spring. Since Mithras, the god of the sun, was born at Dec. 25, it was adopted by Christians as the birth of Jesus. The Christmas tree and the associations of Easter with rabbits and eggs also have been adopted from paganism.
* ignores the values of the writers of the Bible, who likely did not distinguish literalism or consider it important. The Bible was not written to record accurate histories, but to convey and pursuade spiritual ideas. Those ideas may not even be the same to all people.
It is ironic that people who purport to hold the Bible in such high esteem reject serious, objective study of it.

4. Jesus himself said that religious laws are not absolute. In Matthew 5:38, he rejects the "eye for an eye" law (Exod. 21:23-25, Lev. 24:19-20, Deut. 19:21). Jesus rejected all dietary law (Mark 7:19; cf. Lev. 11). He rejected the commandment about working on the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). If Jesus considered that even the laws of Moses were not inerrant, why should we consider any part of the Bible inerrant?

5. Ultimately, there is no authority for inerrancy except oneself:
* God cannot be the authority because God has not said anything on the subject directly. The whole point of inerrancy is to attribute God's authority to an indirect vehicle.
* The Bible cannot be an authority to its own authoritativeness; that would be circular reasoning.
* The church cannot be an authority for inerrancy because there is no one church. There are over 10,000 different Christian denominations, all with different ideas about the Bible. In fact, there are at least three significantly different Bibles (the Catholic, Protestant, and Ethiopian Orthodox versions).
* For the same reason, historical tradition cannot be the authority for inerrancy. Views about the Bible have changed over history.

6. Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one's interpretation of it. Some people believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome because the Bible says so and the Bible is inerrant (Schadewald, 1987). Do you believe this? Most people, including most biblical inerrantists, would say they are wrong. Claiming inerrancy for a particular view of creation or the flood is no different in principle. Claiming that the Flood account is a true literal account is an error if it was written as an allegory; claiming that it is a true allegory is an error if it was a literal account. To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

7. There are several aspects of the Bible that show it is not inerrant. These include factual errors:

* Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.
* Leviticus 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.
* 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 state that the earth is immobile; yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun but is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.

and contradictions:

* In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he appears before animals.
* Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 differ over Jesus's lineage.
* Mark 14:72 differs from Matthew 26:74-75, Luke 22:60-61, and John 18:27 about how many times the cock crowed.
* 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 differ over who incited David to take a census.
* 1 Samuel 17:23,50 and 2 Samuel 21:19 disagree about who killed Goliath.
* 1 Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 differ over Saul's death.
* The four Gospels differ about many details of Christ's death and resurrection (Barker 1990). For example, Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 have different inscriptions on the cross.
* Matthew 27:5-8 differs with Acts 1:18-19 about Judas's death.
* Genesis 9:3 and Leviticus 11:4 differ about what is proper to eat.
* Romans 3:20-28 and James 2:24 differ over faith versus deeds.
* Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9 disagree with Ezekiel 18:4,19-20 and John 9:3 about sins being inherited.

Inerrantists are familiar with these and find rationalizations for these and other errors and contradictions, but they are unconvincing. The rationalizations merely make the point that what the Bible seems to say is not what it means, which defeats the whole concept of scriptural inerrancy.

References:

1. Barker, Dan. 1990. Leave no stone unturned. Freethought Today (Mar.),
2. Bronowski, Jacob. 1973. The Ascent of Man. Boston: Little Brown and Co.
3. Friedman, Richard Elliott. 1987. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: Summit Books.
4. Schadewald, Robert J. 1987. The Flat-Earth Bible. The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society 44 (July 1987).

Further Reading:
Bringas, Ernie. 1996. Going by the Book, Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing.

Hildeman, Eric J. 2004. Creationism: The Bible Says No! Bloomington, IN: Author House.

The Straight Dope. 2002. Who wrote the Bible? (Part 5).

Hi PriveR,

You said,

"If you actually did research on evolution and other scientific processes, you would find that your view doesn't hold up. Science doesn't use science just to prove science is true. In fact, much of science is used to prove other ideas false and come up with a better explanation for the results."

I could say the same of your view. If you did some research on creation and other supernatural events you will find that your view doesn't hold up. As a matter of fact, it is totally illogical.

To say that something exploded out of nothing is not science. It is not something that can be shown. Because the scientific community has discovered the universe is expanding they conclude rightly that it had a beginning (In the beginning God created), but they look at the evidence through cloudy glasses and determine a naturalistic explanation. The problem with the explanation they have come up with, and with any natural explanation that takes God out of the equation, is how do you get uniformity in nature (i.e. laws/results that can be determined because of their consistency not only in the past and present, but also in the future) out of a "big bang" of random chance chaotic disorder?

We can only make sense out of science because God controls and preserves the universe. (Colossians 1:17; 2 Peter 3:4-7) How could a random chance process ever guarantee anything, any law, any result will remain the same tomorrow just because it did today and yesterday?

C.S. Lewis put it this way,

"Unless Nature always goes on in the same way, the fact that things had happened ten million times would not make it a whit more probable that it would happen again. And how could we know the Uniformity of Nature? A moment's thought shows that we do not know it by experience. We observe many regularities in Nature. But of course all the observations that men have made or will make while the race lasts cover only a minute fraction of the events that actually go on. Our observations would therefore be of no use unless we felt sure that Nature when we are not watching her behaves in the same way as when we are: in other words, unless we believe in the Uniformity of Nature. Experience therefore cannot prove uniformity, because uniformity has to assume before experience proves anything. And mere length of experience does not help matters. It is no good saying, 'Each fresh experience confirms our belief in the uniformity and therefore we reasonably expect that it will always be conformed;' for that argument works only on the assumption that the future will resemble the past - which is simply the assumption of Uniformity under a new name. Miracles p. 102

Then you have the problem in a naturalistic universe of how something such as a law, logic, or thought - such things are intangible and immaterial - can be at all. How can something immaterial come out of something material? Have you ever heard of a rock thinking or using logic? Ever seen a piece of granite conceptualize on how the universe was formed?

I would like to expand on your statements below a little further, but for now I only have one other comment. Here is your statement:

"3. In practice, this claim really means, "My view of the Bible is the ultimate authority." (Since there are so very many different interpretations of the Bible, not to mention other religions, the claim would be meaningless otherwise.) In practice, then, this claim displays a great deal of arrogance, hubris, and closed-mindedness. It says that the final word on how the universe operates depends on one's personal decision of what to believe. Why attack me for making a personal decision when you have done exactly the same thing?"

You are your own highest authority. Your whole experience of this world is funneled through yourself as your highest authority. That is not so for me. My authority is derived from a standard outside of myself; from God's Word and His standard. I look outside of my own experience to His Word of truth. Your subjective authority is yourself. My authority comes from outside myself to the One who is objective; uninfluenced by the opinions of others, by emotions or personal prejudices, free of personal bias.

"Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism..." Acts 10:34)

"For God does not show favoritism." (Romans 2:11; Hosea 14:9; Ephesians 6:9, etc)

"The works of His hands are faithful and just; all His precepts are trustworthy." (Psalms 111:7)

Oh, one other thing PriveR,

With your telephone illustration, I do not limit God. The Holy Spirit has the ability to bring to man's mind an accurate recall of the events and teachings of Jesus as well as the guidance of the Scribes in preserving His Word.

"After He was raised from the dead, His disciples recalled what He had said. Then they believed the Scriptures and the words that Jesus had spoken." (John 2:22)

"At first His disciples did not understand all this...All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you ALL things and will remind you of EVERYTHING I have said to you." (John 12:16; 14:25, 26)

By the way, ObiJon, if you are still dropping in, I use capitals to bring attention to a point. That is the only way I know of how to emphasis a point in this format.

Hi PriveR,

Because of time restraints this week I would be pleased to answer your last post in segments. You said,

"You said it yourself. You are not an expert."

That does not mean that I am without knowledge or that God does not give the Christian understanding of His word. How many times have you read the Bible?

"How do you even know that you have the correct translation directly from the scrolls? How many of those 'fragments of manuscripts' made it into the book and how many didn't?"

I don't think you understand how it works. With over 5000 manuscripts and 24000 fragments of manuscripts plus almost every verse of the New Testament recorded by the early church fathers, it is not hard to compare the manuscripts to confirm their accuracy.

If I only had one or ten to compare the manuscripts too it would be hard to determine what was the accurate Scriptures. With five thousand plus all the fragments lets be real.

Then you have manuscripts dating over different time periods that can be compared for accuracy. Take the book of Isaiah in the OT and the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls that contained a copy of the book, with 99% accuracy, and then only copyist errors at that. This shows how seriously the scribes took to the task of accuracy in copying the Bible.

But above all this you have the Word of God saying that He will preserve His Word (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17; 2 Samuel 22:31; Proverbs 30:5; Matthew 24:35) as well as the apostles calling God's word eternal and confirming that they do not distort
it (2 Corinthians 4:2)

"All Your words are true." (Psalm 119:160)

"Your Word of LORD is eternal." (Ps. 119:89)

"You have the Words of eternal life" (Matthew 6:68)

Paul calls Peter's writings the word of Scripture as does Peter Paul's. (2 Peter 3:15,16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 14)

Why would I want to believe some 20th century scholar 2000 years removed from the writings over God?

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away." (Matthew 24:35)

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

You said,

"Why would people leave stuff out? Who filled in the gaps?"

The fragments and manuscripts were just information God used to preserve His word. Since parchments and scrolls would not be able to last 2000 years without decomposing we, as Christians have a wealth of manuscripts and fragments to compare Scripture with Scripture.

You said,

"Maybe they were done by people with an agenda to advance Christianity by any means possible. Fragments?"

That is just an assumption. It amazes me at what lengths people will go to to deny the Word of God.

You said,

"That sounds like in class many years ago when a story was read without the endings and we had to make up what happened next. How do you know that didn't happen here too?"

Because these early Christian and Jewish scholars and scribes knew they were handling the Word of God and needed to ensure that they did not add to or take from it. (Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18)

If you had a healthy regard for something would you not treat it with respect? Especially the word's of your Creator.

You said,

"Have you ever played a game of telephone? Stories starting from one point handed down, end up somewhere else with important facts, names, dates and other information screwed up."

Again, see my last point.

Have to go. I will continue later. I especially want to address one of your points, but that will require a bit of time and thinking. Thanks!

Hi PriveR,

Thanks for the response. By the length of it it is going to take a few days to respond to since I want to respond to Rob and I am working this weekend. Please would you continue to check in. I will try to answer in part today but there is only so much time and I have some tasks my wife wants me to complete before this happens.

Thanks for your patience!

The post under 'anonymous' May 17, 2007 12:45 AM is mine. Sometimes I forget to put my name in.

Hello ObiJon,

I see from your seething response that I have touched a nerve.

How do you determine what truth is?

You treat me as though I cannot think for myself when you say "Quoting scripture to a non-believer just makes him or her tune you out and makes you sound like a raving lunatic who can't find his own words to describe his own thoughts."

Again, I ask, why would I want to appeal to any less than the highest standard available to man? God is better able to express His thoughts than I am.

Personally, I think you thinking is foolish. You are not all wise. How do you know you are not using the crutches of the web of beliefs you have been influenced and immobilized by? What standard do you appeal to? Please have the courage to answer that question.

To answer,

"Which of the scores of Bibles published in the last hundred years or so is your true "word of God?"

By true do you mean inspired? That would be the original language it was written in. By appealing to the original Greek languages the Bible was written in for disputed words, phrases and passages the original meaning can be determined and translated.

By using the idioms of English in our day and age you can determine what I mean when I say I am green with envy or I have lots of greenbacks or the grass is green. The context determines the meaning to which way you interpret "green."

"How can you account for interpretations that might disagree with you."

By prayer and study of the Scriptures as well as understanding the context, the culture in which the writer wrote, the way in which the grammar is put together, including the subject and object of the passage, the tone, what is being modified, whether the language is descriptive, narrative, poetic, figurative, general rules of interpretation that apply to the original or translated languages, idioms used, etc., but more importantly by the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10, 14)

I think ObiJon that you understand what I am saying here. When you don't you ask questions as to what the author meant (In this case me). The author knows the intent. There is always a danger of reading into a context what you want it to say, instead of taking out what the author intends to convey and communicate. The same can be said for God's Word.

Are you not your own source of truth in that respect? In choosing which "word of God" to heed?"

No, God is. The Bible gets translated from the original languages to the different languages and cultures of the world. It does not get translated from one language to another, to another, but from the original to all the different languages. If what I say does not line up with His Word, do not believe me. Call me out on a particular passage I quote and lets test what it says.

You come at the Bible as if it is impossible to understand because of it being translated from the original language to another over time. That is your presupposition. It is not mine. Since God is the originator or language do you not think that He has the ability to ensure His Word is understandable and accurate?

God is the One who jumbled the languages at Babel. As He inspired men to write His message in the original languages when they were written, He also has the ability to aid men in translating from that language to another. Who better than the originator of language to convey His thoughts across cultures and language barriers.

Since I gather you deny God (correct me if I am wrong) you try to limit His ability and His power by suppressing the innate knowledge you have of Him. People who believe in a god want a god who answers to them instead of them answering to Him. People who do not believe in God make themselves as god, having the subjective, but autonomous (or so believed) ability to decide what is true, good, right, possible, knowable.

Here are some previous questions you left unanswered, since we are hopefully in a two way dialog?

You said,

"My defenses have been intrinsically sound."

Please get specific and show me where and why.

You said,

"They follow paths of reason and logic."

To say that truth is not always true is logical and reasonable???????

Basically, I am restating classic arguments taken up in the writings of Plato, Descartes, and other established philosophers."

Are these your highest sources of authority?

I would appreciate that you tell me more about what you actually believe in (besides a "mystic experience") as how it pertains to origin, meaning and purpose. Are you an atheist, agnostic, materialist, polytheist, Eastern mystic, all of the above, none of the above. Since you make claims that Christianity is not true based on your own subjective experience it will be interesting to discover a little more about what makes yours believable and ring true to you.

Thanks for the chat!

I may not be an expert but for the past 15-20 years I have studied God's Word daily, researched "hot" topics such as creation/evolution, its history, other religions, pluralism, postmodernism, cults, aberrant Christian views, its inspiration, authority, internal consistency, methods of interpretation, logic, language etc.

"There are over 5000 manuscripts.. etc"

"I may not be an expert but for the past 15-20 years I have studied God's Word daily, researched "hot" topics such as creation/evolution, its history, other religions, pluralism, postmodernism, cults, aberrant Christian views, its inspiration, authority, internal consistency, methods of interpretation, logic, language etc."

You said it yourself. You are not an expert. How do you even know that you have the correct translation directly from the scrolls? How many of those 'fragments of manuscripts' made it into the book and how many didn't? Why would people leave stuff out? Who filled in the gaps? Maybe they were done by people with an agenda to advance Christianity by any means possible. Fragments? That sounds like in class many years ago when a story was read without the endings and we had to make up what happened next. How do you know that didn't happen here too? Have you ever played a game of telephone? Stories starting from one point handed down, end up somewhere else with important facts, names, dates and other information screwed up.

If you actually did research on evolution and other scientific processes, you would find that your view doesn't hold up. Science doesn't use science just to prove science is true. In fact, much of science is used to prove other ideas false and come up with a better explanation for the results.

"Therefore, since I myself have CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED everything from the beginning,"

Quoting from a fictional book about 'investigational' procedures that were certainly not scientific at the time seeing as how science itself came about long after the book was written is definitely suspect.

"These things have been attested to by archaeological evidences and other historical writings."

The only findings they have are of the setting. Gone With the Wind has a historically accurate setting. There is evidence for the battles laid out in that book, too. Doesn't mean Scarlett actually ever existed.

As I have pointed out numerous times "good" cannot be measured without an objective standard

Your god called things good. sounds to me like it was his feeling. Which is also subjective.

So when you critique me for my belief in the God of the Bible you again borrow from my worldview to criticize it, because only my worldview can make sense of the world as it really is.

Actually, I use your worldview because of your refusal to try to see things outside of your own. If your worldview was perfect then how am I even able to critique it in the first place? You have admitted to me you do not know enough about my worldview, including signs in Nature and synchronicity to critique it. The only thing that shows is your unwillingness to consider another's point of view. It is your weakness, not mine. The real difference here is that I would be more willing to consider real critiques to my worldview if you tried to actually understand it.

So why do you promote empathy for others. Empathy is again something you borrow from the Christian worldview. A biological bag of flesh and bones with chemicals randomly reacting cannot account for any values. IT IS WHATEVER THE CHANCE CHEMICAL REACTION PRODUCES THAT DETERMINES THE VALUE TO BE.

Wrong yet again. Empathy was around long before Christianity, otherwise humans would have died out by that time. It will be here after Christianity as well. As a matter of fact, there is evidence for empathic behavior in other species of animals too. It certainly is not unique to humans.

Question- if it is 'whatever the chance chemical reaction produces that determines the value to be', don't your own 'chance chemical reactions'
decide to accept the bible as inerrant?

Your highest standard is you;

Nope. My highest standard is Nature as revealed to us through scientific processes. Actually, your highest standard is you deciding that the bible is perfect. How did you come to such a conclusion?

They are just Nature's or “Mother Earth’s” or “the Goddess’” molecular structures colliding together in randomly chance reactions that create a result.

Not at all. There are observable patterns. This world came about in perfect balance. We as humans have disrupted the natural balance. What was given to us in what should have been a reciprocal relationship is going to cause our own destruction by Nature as She attempts to restore the balance. Life, sexuality, death. All are sacred.

All you have said in all this time is:

God's word, the Bible, must be our ultimate authority. The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.

1. This claim is dogmatism. It suggests no reason for its conclusion. The views of others, that the Bible is not God's word or is not an ultimate authority, have just as much validity.

2. The Bible says different things to different people. Beliefs that creationists take as gospel today, such as the fixity of "kinds" and the impossibility of life from nonlife, would have seemed absurd to creationists of centuries past, and those past creationists would have cited the Bible to support their views (such as Moses's staff changing to a snake and the plagues of Egypt appearing from nowhere), just as today's creationists quote the Bible to support their own views (Brewster 1927).

3. In practice, this claim really means, "My view of the Bible is the ultimate authority." (Since there are so very many different interpretations of the Bible, not to mention other religions, the claim would be meaningless otherwise.) In practice, then, this claim displays a great deal of arrogance, hubris, and closed-mindedness. It says that the final word on how the universe operates depends on one's personal decision of what to believe. Why attack me for making a personal decision when you have done exactly the same thing?

4. This belief, when applied as a standard for others, is religious bigotry in its purest form. It shows contempt to others who believe that God's influence may be seen elsewhere than the Bible and the select few who are defined to interpret it correctly. This claim has started wars.

5. The Bible says several things that you probably do not believe:
* Slavery is acceptable. (Skeptic's Annotated Bible, n.d.).
* You should kill your child if he strikes you (Exod. 21:15).
* If you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death (Exod. 35:2-3).
* If you curse, you should be stoned to death (Lev. 24:14-15).
* Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9).
* Women should be subjugated by their husbands (1 Pet. 3:1-7).

References:

1. Brewster, Edwin Tenney. 1927. Creation: A history of non-evolutionary theories. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.
2. Skeptic's Annotated Bible. n.d. Slavery. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/topics/slavery.html

Jesus Christ is God's final revelation until the Second Coming of the Son to earth.

Really? How long would you wait at a bus stop or an airport for someone who you've only read about to show up? When the writers can't even agree on what he looks like? I suspect that even if he did show up again, you'd never know it and end up persecuting him (or her) anyway. What saddens me is that you're missing a beautiful world and an amazing life while expecting others to wait at the airport with you. There's too much to do right now. People with views like yours are dying.

There is no good news from that book. Just fear.

Hello Rob Adams,

Sorry for taking so long in returning the post. Again I appreciate your openness to the Scriptures and dialogging about them, even though as yet I contend your understanding of the one true God as revealed in the Scriptures is faulty.

In response to your comments,

"Peter you said that the Bible was God's revelation to us. I get that but we disagree one the fallibility and or interpretation of the Bible so we will see thing differently. We messed up his message."

Rob the problem with picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you take as true and which you reject is twofold. First, how do you know which parts have allegedly been tampered with and which have not? Are you going to decide for yourself or are you going to let someone else decide for you what you will believe of it? Second, when you do such as this you bring God's Word into question and question His power and authority to do what He said He would - preserve it.

Do you think it is possible that the all powerful Being we call God is capable of preserving His Word, regardless of what man may think?

There is a science to interpretation. It is called Hermeneutics. If it were not possible to rightly interpret Scripture why does God tell us otherwise in the Scriptures? (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16)

Your question and statement,

"So who should I follow? I follow my heart and my mind."

Again two points from Scripture I would like to make.
1) "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) Now that is speaking of an unchanged heart.

2) Rob, how often does your mind change? God on the other hand is the same forever. He does not waver, is never in doubt or unsure of Himself, always does what is right, is always truthful, just, loving, etc., etc., etc. His thoughts and His ways are so much higher than ours. (Isaiah 55:8-11)

So what you have told me through your limited understanding and knowledge is that you are the highest standard you judge all standards by.

My standard is so, so much higher than I, thank goodness! That is not to say that I am always obedient to His perfect standard. That is impossible in and of myself. That is why I am so thankful for His mercy in sending His Son and giving me faith to believe in Him.

Your statement,

"Between that and the number of scholars who can’t agree on the details. Canonization was done by man. Just because an apostle or someone close wrote it or said it doesn’t make it right."

Just because God chose to work through man in writing and canonizing His word how do you know it is not right? Again, as usual, it boils down to authority. Who do you put your trust in (Rhetorical question)? (1 Corinthians 1:19-29)

Rob, you said,

"Regardless of whether the Bible is inerrant or not the idea that God is going to challenge man, a mere person of sin and limited knowledge, to make a decision out of thousands of possibilities with influences abound that push us away from the truth and when we fail to see ‘the truth’ hold us accountable (in terms of getting into Heaven) does not compute."

To me it computes very well. God has revealed what truth and goodness is. He has also given humans an innate knowledge of good that we suppress. Since everyone of us is guilty of breaking our Creator's standards of "good" we all stand condemned before Him.

The question as Horatius Bonar put it in "The Everlasting Righteousness" is "How may I, a sinner draw near to Him in whom there is no sin, and look upon His face in peace?"

..."Man has always treated sin as a misfortune, not a crime; as disease, not a guilt; as a case for a physician, not for the judge. Herein lies the essential faultiness of all mere human religions or theologies. They fail to acknowledge the judicial aspect of the question as that on which the answer must hinge and to recognize the guilt or criminality of the evil-doer as that which must first be dealt with before any other answer, or approximation to an answer, can be given...God has sworn that He has no pleasure in the death of the sinner (Ezekiel 18:23-32)"

...Law and love must be reconciled.

...The reconciliation God has accomplished, and in the accomplishment, both the law and love have triumphed. The one has not given way to the other. Each has kept its ground...Sin is too great an evil for man to meddle with. His attempts to remove it do but increase it, and his endeavors to approach God in spite of it aggravate his guilt. Only God can deal with sin, either as a disease or as a crime; as a dishonor to Himself, or as a hinderer of man's approach to Himself. He deals with it not in some arbitrary or summary way, by a mere exercise of will or power, but by bringing it for adjudication into His own courts of law. As Judge, seated in His tribunal, He settles the case, and settles it in favor of the sinner- of any sinner on Earth who will consent to the basis which He proposes...The "everlasting righteousness" comes to us through believing. We are "justified by faith" (Romans 5:1), the fruit of which is "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

"...This righteousness is "reckoned" or "imputed" to all who believe, so that they are treated by God as if it were actually theirs. They are entitled to claim that which such a righteousness can merit from God as the Judge of righteous claims. It does not become ours gradually, or in fragments or drops; but it is transferred to us all at once"...."The things that He [Jesus] did not do were laid to His charge, and He was treated as if He had done them all; the things that He did do are put to our account, and we are treated by God as if we had done them all." (End of quote)

Or as Charles Hodge put it in "Justification by Faith Alone:

"How can a man be just with God? The answer given to this question decides the character of our religion, and, if practically adopted, our final destiny. To give a wrong answer is to mistake the way to Heaven. It is to err where error is fatal,
because it cannot be corrected. If God requires one thing, and we present another, how can we be saved? If He has revealed a method in which He can be just and yet justify the sinner, and if we reject that method and insist upon pursuing a different way, how can we hope to be accepted?"

"...When the positive ground of justification is stated, it is always declared to be not anything done by us or wrought in us, but what was done for us. We are justified by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9); by His obedience (Romans 5:19); by His righteousness (v. 18). This is involved in the whole method of salvation. Christ saves us as a priest, but a priest does not save by making those who come to Him good. He does not work in them, but for them. Christ saves us by sacrifice; but a sacrifice is effectual, not because of its subjective effect upon the offerer, but as an expiation, or satisfaction to justice. Christ is our Redeemer; He gave Himself as a ransom for many. But a ransom does not infuse righteousness. It is the payment of a price. It is the satisfaction of the claims of the Captor upon the captive. The whole plan of salvation, therefore - as presented in the Bible and as it is the life of the Church - is changed, if the ground of our acceptance with God be transferred from what Christ has done for us to what is wrought in us or done by us." (End of quote)

Rob you said it yourself,

"the idea that God is going to challenge man, a mere person of sin and limited knowledge, to make a decision out of thousands of possibilities with influences abound that push us away from the truth and when we fail to see ‘the truth’ hold us accountable (in terms of getting into Heaven) does not compute"

It computes that - "the thousands of possibilities that push us away from the truth" - there is only one way to a family relationship with God, through His Son. It is the narrow way and few find it because they suppress the truth. They deny what God has said, just as the devil did in influencing Eve, "Did God really say?" In doing so they make God out to be the liar (Heaven forbid) instead of themselves.

"Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in the Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." (1 John 5:10-12)

In the next post I would like to answer and give reason for a biblical interpretation of Genesis.

Writing in all caps does not make something true.

Quoting scripture to a non-believer just makes him or her tune you out and makes you sound like a raving lunatic who can't find his own words to describe his own thoughts.

Ancient historical records are riddled with inaccuracies. They cannot be taken at face value.

Which of the scores of Bibles published in the last hundred years or so is your true "word of God?" How can you account for interpretations that might disagree with you. Are you not your own source of truth in that respect? In choosing which "word of God" to heed?

Hi PriveR,

In response to my statement "you are not an authority on the Bible" you said "Neither are you. The difference is I never claimed to be."

I may not be an expert but for the past 15-20 years I have studied God's Word daily, researched "hot" topics such as creation/evolution, its history, other religions, pluralism, postmodernism, cults, aberrant Christian views, its inspiration, authority, internal consistency, methods of interpretation, logic, language etc.

Albert Mohler Jr. would be more authoritative than I would on most subjects related to the Bible but I am not without a good knowledge of it.

You said,

"The bible is not a historical record."

Sorry to be so blunt PriveR, but that is a statement based on ignorance. The four gospel accounts and 66 books that the Bible consists of are all historical documents. There are over 5000 manuscripts and over 24000 fragments of scripture, the earliest fragments dating back to the first century. THESE ARE HISTORICAL RECORDS.

Then there is the internal consistency of the Bible that rings true with secular or external evidences (i.e. those not of the Bible itself, but of historical writings of the period) that confirm settings, places, events and people.

So when the Bible says in Luke 1:1-4, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us (talking of the coming of Messiah as well as the OT prophesies predicting the coming of the Jewish Messiah), just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were EYEWITNESSES and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED everything from the beginning, it seems good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophillus, so that you may KNOW the CERTAINTY of the things you have been taught."

Notice the phrase "may know the certainty of the things...taught."

It then goes on to relate the historical setting, "In the time of Herod king of Judea...." (v. 5). You will find many references throughout the Old and New Testaments referring to actual historical people, places, events, locations, etc. These things have been attested to by archaeological evidences and other historical writings.

Then there are the many facts relating to Jesus as an actual historical person in the Bible as well as the countless external evidences of non-Biblical data. (When you say that Jesus was mythologized you go against a wealth of historical evidence that says otherwise from the first sources we have, and here you are PriveR, thousands of years removed, saying otherwise. It just shows your bias to the fact that Christianity spread because eyewitnesses had seen a Man who said He was the Son of God who was put to death and three days later was alive again.

If these stories were mythologies why did the Jewish authorities not produce the corpse? That would have squashed any talk about a person rising from the dead and people putting their trust in Him. Instead you find twelve apostles risking their lives daily to proclaim the risen Savior and truth of Christianity that, if a lie, they would have gone to their deaths proclaiming something that they knew was not true.

Paul could say, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (Isaiah 53 for one), that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He APPEARED to Peter, and then the Twelve. After that, He APPEARED to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, MOST OF WHOM ARE STILL LIVING..." (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

If anyone wanted to refute what Paul was saying there were over five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were still alive at the time this was written (55-57AD) to back up his statements, and yet, there is no historical evidence to the contrary, except what is recorded in the Scriptures themselves that the Jewish leaders were accusing the disciples of stealing the body. Having produced the body the following and spreading of Christianity could have been squashed immediately. The unlikelihood is that most of the Twelve would have died horrid deaths proclaiming something they knew was not true. Would you be willing to die a horrid death for something you knew was a lie, having claimed you had seen someone whom in fact you had not seen? It is obvious from the early writings and accounts that they believed fully in the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

"In my former book, Theophillus [referring to Luke], I wrote about all that Jesus began to DO and to teach until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen. After His suffering (referring to His crucifixion), He SHOWED Himself to these men and gave many CONVINCING PROOFS that He was alive. He APPEARED to them over a period of forty days and SPOKE about the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:1-3)

PriveR, you said,

"The more I looked for outside evidence, from archaeology or other sciences, the less information I could come up with. There's no real proof that anything in the bible occurred. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's true."

First of all there is a vast array of information. The early church Father's alone could reproduce in their writings the entire New Testament from their quotes of the Bible, except for a few verses, so that is a mute point. Both of us can serve up countless evidences for either case, but there is real proof for the facts of the Bible. Whether you choose to believe or not is another matter, in which again the Bible gives an explanation for your unbelief.

"You cannot serve two masters. Either [you] will HATE the one and love the other, or [you] will be devoted to the one and DESPISE the other." (Matthew 6:24; also Mark 8:38)

"Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22-23)

This again is confirmation of what the Bible says. You have expressed your hatred for the God revealed in the Bible as per your previous posts. Your opinion is already formed. Only God's grace can change it. All I can do is to show you how inconsistent your belief is.

PriveR, you said,

"Neither do I. Synchronicities in Nature are observable for anyone who wishes to look. Interplay between light and dark, death and life, is happening all around us all the time."

That is a really weak argument in as far as I can understand it. I believe that we have commonalities with animals because God made us to live on this terrestrial ball and share the same environment and food supply. Therefore we share certain similarities to animals and yet we, as humans, are distinct. We have a God given ability to think about and worship our Creator that all other creatures do not because we are created in the image of God. We also experience and share certain things in common because God made us that way, not "Nature." You are a pantheist, classing everything as part of God. As a Christian I believe God is separate and transcends His creation. Another point that shows that what we believe is contradictory and therefore our beliefs cannot both be true.

I said,

"You base your authority on yourself"

PriveR, you said,

"Wrong. I base my authority on Nature, and Her processes."

Your highest standard is you; my highest standard is the God of the Bible. Your authority is derived from you and how you interpret "Nature" and your surroundings. My authority is derived from the Word of God which claims to be the highest objective standard man/woman can appeal to. Your standard cannot make sense of anything without appealing and borrowing from mine (God's word).

As I have pointed out numerous times "good" cannot be measured without an objective standard. It becomes arbitrary if a person feelings is the standard for "Good." (i.e. totally subjective) Besides, when atrocities happen you cannot call them "bad." They are just Nature's or “Mother Earth’s” or “the Goddess’” molecular structures colliding together in randomly chance reactions that create a result.

When Joe Blow goes on a rampage and kills 3o or blows himself up in a crowded market place it is just his chemicals reacting in a random chance way to create the happening. When Hitler, Stalin or some other despot kills tens of millions it is not good or bad but the acts of chance random chemicals mixing together, being molded by the environment. When you tell me that you could never worship the God of the Bible you are acting as you believe your worldview dictates, in a random chance illogical chemical reaction.

So why do you promote empathy for others. Empathy is again something you borrow from the Christian worldview. A biological bag of flesh and bones with chemicals randomly reacting cannot account for any values. IT IS WHATEVER THE CHANCE CHEMICAL REACTION PRODUCES THAT DETERMINES THE VALUE TO BE. So when you critique me for my belief in the God of the Bible you again borrow from my worldview to criticize it, because only my worldview can make sense of the world as it really is. The reason you have an innate sense of right and wrong is because you have been created in the image of God and He has placed it in you. The reason you do not acknowledge this is because you suppress the knowledge of God to justify your rebellion towards Him.

"(Indeed, when the Gentiles, who do not have the law [given to the Jews], do by nature things required by the law [doing unto others, for one, not stealing, coveting, lying, etc., for another], they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law, since THEY SHOW THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW ARE WRITTEN ON THEIR HEARTS, THEIR CONSCIENCES ALSO BEAR WITNESS, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" Romans 2:14-15

Have you ever seen a stone with a conscience? If evolution is the reason we are here how do we get immaterial things such as consciousness or logic?

Why is it "bad" to steal or to lie? If the universe is all there is or was or ever will be then it is impersonal and value judgments are meaningless, just chemical/biological reactions taking place.

PriveR, you said,

"I have found a truth that works for me."

Jesus made Himself the issue while He lived on this earth. Countless times this is revealed in Scripture. As I mentioned in the last post He said "...I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to Me."

He said, "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I AM THE ONE I CLAIM TO BE, you will indeed die in your sins."... "Why is My language not clear to you? Because you are UNABLE TO HEAR WHAT I SAY. You belong to your father, the devil, and you carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, NOT HOLDING TO THE TRUTH, for there is NO TRUTH IN HIM. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell you the truth you do not believe Me." (John 8:24, 43-44)

Again, truth is not subject to each person’s whims. Truth is true; it can never be false. It is objective in the sense that it is always true. To be otherwise would be totally non-sense. There are personal truths in that they apply to each one of us and our particular circumstances, but nevertheless, they are still true, even if I choose not to believe them it does not change their validity. Sometimes I discover them and sometimes I do not, but my disbelief does not alter the truth, just my perception of it. And I know I can know truth because God has told me I can. I do not have a 99.999% chance of knowing I am typing this post. It is 100% certain, only because God is a God of truth. I contend that you, on the other hand, as a skeptic can never be 100% sure of anything. Your evolutionary worldview does not logically allow it. I am 100% sure you are wrong, not because I am all knowing, heaven forbid, but because God has revealed it by His Word. I know you do not like me making such statements. You judge them as arrogant, and that would be true if they were false. I remind you of your last post,

"In your case it's only to prove your 'superiority', not actual acceptance with the idea that there are others out there who think like me, same as there are others who think like you."

I do not believe I am superior to you, but I do believe that my God is and He has revealed in His Word that He has made foolish the wisdom of this world. (1 Corinthians 1:19, 20)

"For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'"

That is what is happening. You are finding the claims of the Bible frustrating because they go against what you believe.

"A song I love says it this way: What makes a person so poisonous righteous that they think less of anyone who just disagrees?"

Because I know the truth and the truth has set me free only because of the grace of God, not because of any righteousness that I have (righteousness is found in my Savior in whom I stand justified in God's sight. It is not because of any inherent righteousness in my own nature) can I point these things out to you. I do not think less of you. You are a person, created in God's likeness and are deserving of respect and love. In using the arguments of Scripture I am pointing out to you that you are wrong in the hopes that God will change your heart and nature towards Him (Ephesians 2:1-5 if you are interested). That is not for me to decide.

You said,

"The truth is, I have faith that the divine is far bigger than any book."

I totally agree with you, but where we disagree is in how we come to know this God who is. It is both through His revelation to us and by looking at what He has created (Romans 1:19), for that, for the time being, is how He wishes to communicate to us.

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers [that would apply to you as being Jewish] through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After He provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So He became as much superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is superior to theirs." (Hebrews 1:1-4)

Jesus Christ is God's final revelation until the Second Coming of the Son to earth.

PriveR, you said,

"As stated before; I, for one, have more of a problem with the folks who shout about how good a Christian they are and how I'm going to burn for all eternity and try to convert me rather than those who may privately be just as steadfast in their belief in Jesus but don't proselytize, who quietly make taking care of others a priority in their lives."

You only know about me from what I have disclosed on these blogs. As for the "good" I do (another value judgment, as we all make), that is not for man to decide but for God alone. I follow the Scriptures that tell me to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and follow the example laid out to go into the world to tell others the good news (Matthew 28:18 with Romans 10:14-17).

You said,

"This is why I think we may have to agree to disagree."

That is fine. I'm open to hearing more if you want to continue the discussion. If not, take care and best wishes.

Above post is mine. Sorry.

Mr. Huff:

"I hope you do not view this as mean spirited or unkind, but you are not an authority on the Bible."

Neither are you. The difference is I never claimed to be.

My belief is based on historical records, archaeological facts, names, places, people and events and by the internal consistency of the Bible.

The bible is not a historical record. I actually used to think so too. The more I looked for outside evidence, from archaeology or other sciences, the less information I could come up with. There's no real proof that anything in the bible occurred. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's true. 'internally consistent?' I assume then that you think it's perfectly acceptable to stone disobedient children and hold slaves?

My desire would be that God would grant you repentance and a knowledge of the truth but that is not my decision to make

I have found a truth that works for me. It has helped heal old wounds and forge new relationships and works to create unity rather than division.

I don't make up truth to fit my personal
preferences or the way I "feel."

Neither do I. Synchronicities in Nature are observable for anyone who wishes to look. Interplay between light and dark, death and life, is happening all around us all the time.

You base your authority on yourself

Wrong. I base my authority on Nature, and Her processes.

Only God can and He does this through His Word
Nope. Your god did that for you. That's it. And that fine. But what works for you doesn't for me. Nature speaks to me in a way that allows me to always keep learning and know that the path I have found is truly home for me.

All you can do is quote a bunch of subjective human authorities that have like beliefs or in whom you fashion your belief after.

And you don't? Any book is subjective. Seeing as how the bible was canonized and written by man, none of whom actually saw Jesus or anything he 'did' during his lifetime (assuming he actually existed at all, which I don't) this is something that you do as well. You never proved to me that you do not worship the creation (words on a page) over the creator. People who use the bible for inspiration as a guide to how to live understand that such stories are supposed to be metaphorical, used as one of many tools to figure out how to come to whatever their final faith is. I find something that works for me, is observable, and I never said I was perfect. I am merely a student, seeking truth whereever it shows up. I hold my faith in perfect love and perfect trust, without fear.

. I do not believe your view can stand an internal critique anyway

How do you know? You have already said that you don't know enough about synchronicity and other aspects of my belief system to comment on it. That is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Besides, why do you ask for outside proof of my beliefs when you are unable to provide any of your own? I think the bible is suspect, so using that only as a source for anything automatically makes it suspect as well. You're going to have to do better than that. You never answered any of my questions. I only asked them as a way of increasing my own knowledge of why you believe as you do. This was done to try to foster understanding and mutual respect. In your case it's only to prove your 'superiority', not actual acceptance with the idea that there are others out there who think like me, same as there are others who think like you.

A song I love says it this way: What makes a person so poisonous righteous that they think less of anyone who just disagrees?

What you advocate emphasizes 'power over' rather than real acceptance or empathy for others. The funny thing is, it's not us you have to worry about. The pagans are working to heal a broken world, helping where they can to restore a missing balance. Many Christians are doing the same. The truth is, I have faith that the divine is far bigger than any book. Your people, and church, kill others over this. As I said before, I don't think in this day and age you're going to find any pagans killing others in the name of the Goddess.

As stated before; I, for one, have more of a problem with the folks who shout about how good a Christian they are and how I'm going to burn for all eternity and try to convert me rather than those who may privately be just as steadfast in their belief in Jesus but don't proselytize, who quietly make taking care of others a priority in their lives.

This is why I think we may have to agree to disagree.

PriveR, you said,

"My question is this- Can we agree, for the purposes of discussion, to set aside any ideas of damnation or conversion?"

It is not my place to damn you or convert you PriveR. My desire would be that God would grant you repentance and a knowledge of the truth but that is not my decision to make. I believe only God can do this (1 Corinthians 3:5-7), but since you have been critical of my belief and believe it is false do I not have the same courtesy in examining your belief, understanding it and critiquing it?

My belief is based on historical records, archaeological facts, names, places, people and events and by the internal consistency of the Bible. It is not something I pull out of thin air or make wishful thinking of or mythologize. I'm asking you to show me that yours isn't either. If you decide not to do that that is fine. I do not believe your view can stand an internal critique anyway(2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

The Bible says it is the very Word of God, preserved by the Almighty so that those who are truly seeking after the only true God can know Him if God grants them that knowledge.

Through the Bible I can make sense of this world because God sheds light on it as it truly is. I don't make up truth to fit my personal preferences or the way I "feel." God reveals truth to me through His Word and by His Spirit. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit or by the Word of God because it is foolishness to him/her (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)In fact, the Word is not foolishness at all; it is just perceived that way by the world.

Through the Bible God reveals His attributes (what He is like)and why the world is in the state of affairs it is in. It also reveals the only way to approach God and have a relationship with Him. These are things I can never persuade you of. Only God can and He does this through His Word (Romans 10:17) and by His Spirit.

I hope you do not view this as mean spirited or unkind, but you are not an authority on the Bible. You have rejected its deeper truths and falsely interpret what it says. That is just a plain fact (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

You base your authority on yourself and start from the presupposition that it is not true and is not the Word of God. Your belief that it is not the Word of God is not something you can prove. You choose to believe this. All you can do is quote a bunch of subjective human authorities that have like beliefs or in whom you fashion your belief after. No belief is neutral; not yours or mine.

Thanks for the chat!

Peter you said that the Bible was God's revelation to us. I get that but we disagree one the fallibility and or interpretation of the Bible so we will see thing differently. We messed up his message.
Even considering a single religion, Christianity, within a single country, there are often thousands of individual "Christian confessions and denominations." For example, Barrett et al. states that there are:

4,684 groups in the U.S.

3,364 in South Africa.

2,079 in Nigeria.

1,581 in Brazil.

1,327 in South-central Asia.

So who should I follow? I follow my heart and my mind.

Between that and the number of scholars who can’t agree on the details. Canonization was done by man. Just because an apostle or someone close wrote it or said it doesn’t make it right.

Colin Powell was very close to the President and said there were weapons of mass destruction. I have the utmost respect for Powel and consider him, by my evaluation, to be a sincere individual.

There were many people close to Einstein and they didn’t comprehend everything he said. I am going to elevate Christ higher than Einstein in terms of being even more advanced than those around him. Again we messed up the message.

Regardless of whether the Bible is inerrant or not the idea that God is going to challenge man, a mere person of sin and limited knowledge, to make a decision out of thousands of possibilities with influences abound that push us away from the truth and when we fail to see ‘the truth’ hold us accountable (in terms of getting into Heaven) does not compute.

Everything else in the universe of God’s design computes. The things that don’t seem to compute are due to a lack of understanding on our part. The same holds for spirituality/religion.

Rob:

Very well said. Before I left Judaism I wondered why people often don't accept that evolution might be the way god worked. Why is it 'either' science or religion for so many these days? I don't understand that to this day. I don't remember it always being like this.

Mr. Huff:

My question is this- Can we agree, for the purposes of discussion, to set aside any ideas of damnation or conversion? That is the only circumstance in which I will continue. I will be happy to share my system for the purposes of explaining what I believe and how I got there, but not if I'm going to constantly be told how i am bad for believing as I do or going to burn for all eternity. I afford you the respect to believe as you like, I ask only the same.

Rob:

Very well said. Before I left Judaism I wondered why people often don't accept that evolution might be the way god worked. Why is it 'either' science or religion for so many these days? I don't understand that to this day. I don't remember it always being like this.

Mr. Huff:

My question is this- Can we agree, for the purposes of discussion, to set aside any ideas of damnation or conversion? That is the only circumstance in which I will continue. I will be happy to share my system for the purposes of explaining what I believe and how I got there, but not if I'm going to constantly be told how i am bad for believing as I do or going to burn for all eternity. I afford you the respect to believe as you like, I ask only the same.

Hi Rob, PriveR,

You are leaving more to unpack every post. The questions are good and I would like some time to think of how best to respond. since I am working I hope you will give me a few days.

PriveR, I've been finding in many posts questions go unanswered, sometimes the ones a person feels most strongly on. I can agree with you that no human has all the answers, but with God's answers I can be certain on. Rob mentioned that unless we received our revelation from God we can never know 100%. That is the amazing thing about the Bible; it is His revelation to us.

One thing about a skeptic, no matter what proof is offered it is not enough unless God is working in their heart to bring them to the truth. Just a couple of quotes and some thoughts to leave the discussion tonight with, "Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to Me. "What is truth? Pilate asked."" (John 18:37, 38)

When you say, PriveR, "You assume that I made claims of a singular ultimate truth. [If truth is not ultimate is it true? Can it change? Can it be true one day and false the next? How can you know you are not deceived? That is one of the problems of skepticism, you never know, just as Pilate said, "What is truth?"]I never did. I acknowledge that truth can be found in more than one way. What I have discovered works for me. That's all I need."

Since Jesus said, "I am THE way, and THE truth and THE life"

I disagree that truth can be found in more than one way. Since we have a contradiction that states polar opposites are you going to tell me that both our beliefs are true? If so then you are using logic to make statements and with the next breath denying that logic is logical. An apple to you would be both an apple and an orange at the same time. It doesn't work in real life. Feeling it "so" does not make it "so."

P.s. I'm curious to know more of this mystical "Goddess" that you have referred to?

Like you, I am curious to see more on how and what your faith operates.

Peter.

We are just not going to agree on final authority. I think we both agree that God is the final authority, but we differ on accepting the Bible as the ultimate communication from God.

It came through an imperfect filter, man. The politics of the time after Christ’s death leaves too much in control of man. The battle between the orthodox and the Gnostics is a prime example.

I know why the Gnostic gospels where left out of the Bible but that doesn’t mean some or most of it is not true. It’s like we can’t prove OJ killed his wife but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. Many people much smart than me who have spent there life studying history can’t agree on everything. We will not agree on canonization and that’s OK.

As for origins, I believe God set in motion the physical universe as we know it via the big bang approximately 14 billion years ago. Then the universe evolved per his design which includes evolution, physicals, chemistry and the rest of the ‘scientific’ process. It has always seemed perfectly simple to me that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. When someone tries to say that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old then I think they have there blinders on. Similarly if people don’t think Jesus existed I think they have their blinders on. To me Genesis is symbolism at best.

Peter. It all comes down to faith. To me there is blind faith and faith. Blind faith is never thinking on your own and never asking questions. I don’t think you fall into that camp. It appears to me that you used some kind of evaluation to determine your belief. As do I. Our evaluations just took us to different spots.

As I have previously stated unless we receive our own revelations from God can ever know 100%. I think ALL religion and spiritual though for that matter has inconsistencies since we do not currently understand the whole picture. Hence we shouldn’t rest but continue a sincere quest to understand more. In our human form that is really all we can do. Seek and trust that God will guide us.

Rob,

Thank you for your kind words.
you said:

"As for the Bible, I was/am a late comer in terms of reading it. While I think there is more to spirituality than just the Bible I do find it very fascinating. People who think that it is all made up are welcome to their belief."

I was also a latecomer reading it myself. You are not alone in that. It was best that way for me because then I could question and make my own decisions about what was important to me rather then blindly accepting what I was told. The more I questioned things, the less I could accept the god of the bible as worthy of worship. I believe that all stories can teach and inspire, but are not to be taken literally. However, I am fascinated by how people end up believing whatever they end up believing. There are more commonalities in people's experiences than most people would like to admit.

You also said:

"Perhaps our approach is flawed, but I wonder what Peter’s interpretation of God thinks of that if in our hearts it is a righteous quest for the truth?"

I would like to think that version of god would be understanding. Somehow I don't think so. This is why I think the divine is far more wondrous and bigger than any book.

Acceptance and understanding can go a long way in this world. Perhaps we can help create more of it.

That would be my hope as well.

Mr. Huff:

Any real spiritual teacher will be the first to acknowledge that there is much that they do not know. None of the teachers I've had ask for money. They will answer questions as best they can and allow the student to decide for themselves. To throw away your own questions is to me the height of arrogance and irresponsibility.

As previously stated before, my approach is based on FAR more than just feelings. Nature has much to teach for those willing to listen and look. You assume that I made claims of a singular ultimate truth. I never did. I acknowledge that truth can be found in more than one way. What I have discovered works for me. That's all I need. As Rob's does for him.

I suspect in this day and age you certainly won't find any pagans fighting bloody wars in the name of the Goddess.

Hi Rob, PriveR,

Thanks for the kind words Rob; much appreciated.

PriveR, you said, speaking of Rob,

"Your position is one that makes more sense to me. It shows that you have the ability to make your own decisions, and not discount your own experiences out of hand, about what seems to work for you. Your experiences have, for you, enhanced what you found in the bible."

The point I have been making all along is, since it is your own decision, based on your own ability and your limited knowledge and understanding and therefore totally subjective, what do you base your epistemology on (how can you arrive at truth when there are so many positions out there that are contrary to yours claiming to be just as true and still be sure it is true?)Is your idea of truth based on what you prefer to believe, on what feels good to believe, on the feelings on the majority, on the preferences of the intellectual elite? Who made you, them the experts on truth?

It is an infinite regression into meaninglessness, or as King Crimson once said in the lyrics to one of their songs (to paraphrase from memory since I no longer have the song or remember completely the words), "Knowledge is a deadly thing?friend? when no one sets the rules; the fate of all mankind I feel is in the hands of fools."

From Christianity and the belief that God is the ultimate absolute authority I can make sense of this world because it is His creation and He defines values, logic, truth, objectivity, etc.

Rob, I appreciate that you have a mind that has not ruled out Christianity. The deeper you dig into the Bible the more, I'm hoping, it will expose the inconsistencies of these other belief. Of course, and I'm glad you see this, no one comes to the table without a web of ideas built upon their particular starting point or basic assumptions.

Right now you are coming at the Bible from the belief that there are some things you can take as true and others you can discard. The problem in doing this is how do you determine what parts are true and which are false? When you become your own authority, or let yourself be led by self-professed authorities how do you decide which one you count as true and which ones as false?

As a Christian I trust God at His Word because of the faith He has given me. In doing so the big picture all makes sense to me; not because I am particularly intelligent but because in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3)

I have confidence that God's Word can "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God." (2 Corinthians 10:5)

So Rob, how about explaining exactly what you believe about origins? How did we get here? When did it happen? How can you be sure? I will be glad to explain my belief in origins as stated in the Bible and why there is only one way to correctly interpret origins from the Bible. It does not involve macro evolution.

I would like to unpack some more of your baggage that you laid out on May 9, 2007 later.

Thank you for the dialog.

All God's blessings in Christ Jesus.

Priver.

Blessing to you as well Priver

As stated I don’t agree with everything in the Bible or the interpretations. Peter is always an interesting debate partner. While we disagree I at least respect how he presents his case. As I have told him he is a good ambassador for his belief.

As for the Bible, I was/am a late comer in terms of reading it. While I think there is more to spirituality than just the Bible I do find it very fascinating. People who think that it is all made up are welcome to their belief. In my mind there is definitely some historical significance to it. I will continue to explore it and other sources.

Perhaps our approach is flawed, but I wonder what Peter’s interpretation of God thinks of that if in our hearts it is a righteous quest for the truth?

Acceptance and understanding can go a long way in this world. Perhaps we can help create more of it.

Hopefully God guides us all on our journeys.

Rob, you said: "Where do I get my authority for believing what I believe? I get it everywhere; internal (meditation, contemplation) and external experience reading of scriptures (multiple religions), books, other spiritual teachers and my experience. I am seeking, learning and hopefully evolving. It seems to have served me well so far."

Your position is one that makes more sense to me. It shows that you have the ability to make your own decisions, and not discount your own experiences out of hand, about what seems to work for you. Your experiences have, for you, enhanced what you found in the bible. I have enormous respect for that. I started in a similar place although I was raised Jewish. My path led me in a different direction. As a pagan, I find wisdom in any book that contains it, and leave the rest behind. The rest comes through my own experiences from Nature, spiritual teachers, etc, much as yours does. Whatever we call the divine, the path to get there is very similar for all faiths. I just wish more people could accept that I want what other people want, and work to make things better when I can, instead of telling me that I'm bad for not thinking as others do.

You also said: "I think it can be very dangerous when we do not think for ourselves otherwise we give up control."

I agree. The best example of what you describe that I can give is the administration currently in the White House.

I, for one, have more of a problem with the folks who shout about how good a Christian they are and how I'm going to burn for all eternity and try to convert me rather than those who may privately be just as steadfast in their belief in Jesus but don't proselytize, who quietly make taking care of others a priority in their lives.

Blessed be on your path!

Lepidopteryx,

I think you understand why I had to stop in my discussions here. I never got an answer to any of the questions I'd posed. The refusal to admit that other people may have a point of view that is not only logical for them, but allows them to find spiritual peace and live a moral life, but different from the majority, is what I don't understand. It closes off education and cooperation to address the ills of society.

Also-a beer and a joint? I'd be there too if i wasn't asthmatic! :) All that smoke..

Lepidopteryx,

Thanks once again for the chat!

Peter:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I once worrshipped your god, but I no longer do. But I am happier and more spiritually cnetered and balanced on the path I now follow than I ever was as a Christian. Your Jesus strikes me for the most part as a fellow that I could enjoy a beer and a joint with. But his daddy and I have nothing to say to each other.

Hi Lepidopteryx,

You said,

"Maybe we should copy to a blank Word page before sending just in case it gets lost?"

I used to do that all the time when corresponding with a panentheist in my home town. In that way I could always refer back to what I had previously said.

Let me try something different instead of posting the link. Try a Goggle search on A.W. Pink Archives. Go to "Gleanings from Genesis" and open the web pages to the fourth, fifth and sixth chapters of the free book. These chapters have a good perspective of the "Fall." I think it will explain to some degree from the Bible why God chose to allow evil. It is a question that all worldviews have to attempt an explanation of. The question is always, how consistent is that explanation with reality, with what is out there.

You said,

"You are still avoiding the crux of my question."

Lepidopteryx, no matter what reason I came up with I'm sure we would disagree unless God opens your heart to the truth of the Gospel and changes you from within, which is my prayer, because what do a believer and unbeliever have in common when it comes to belief in God? The very reason you are an unbeliever is because you do not trust the God of the Bible and do not find the evidence compelling. You have found reason to question His character. I cannot change that. But I can attempt to show you why your view is inconsistent with reality (that God created).

Why do people do bad things to other people as everyones live attests to? As with the apostle Paul, as a Christian, I can look with love towards those who peresucute and antagonize me for

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ. Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
'For Your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.' No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neitherheight nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
(Romans 8:35-39)

That is my hope, so that even when I am disappointed or bewildered when bad things happen, I know that God works for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:29). I can find my rest and comfort in Him because I trust Him.

The Bible does not try to hide the fact that there is evil in this world, it meets it head on, and in part explains it as a result of the Fall.

If we are just a biological bag of flesh and bones and nothing else there is no such thing as good or evil. Everything is just the workings of random, chance chemical or electrical impulses and reactions. Because you view something as good or bad does not mean that I will because my chemistry is different from yours and reacts in different chance mutations from yours.

Since we have been created we all have an innate sense of God and what good is(and after the Fall, bad) because God has put it there that we will know; it is called the heart, the conscious. People suppress their conscious when they deny the God of the Bible. (Romans 1:18-2:16)

Thanks for the questions.

Peter:
I had them drop one of mine to you as well a few days ago, and unfortunately, I was unable to reconstruct it, as I had done a good bit of editing during the composition process - I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe we should copy to a blank Word page before sending just in case it gets lost?

Hi Lepidopteryx,

I am having a hard time sending this blog to you. For some reason the site-master will not allow it. I have tried three times?

Hi Rob,

I look forward to the discussion. I have been called into work this evening and tomorrow so it will have to begin on the weekend. Thanks for the reply. There is a lot of good discussion material there!

Peter:
You are still avoiding the crux of my question.
If, from the beginning, before he ever created man, your god created a tree of knowledge of good and evil, then he made evil possible.
By commanding Adam and Eve not to eat of that tree, he denied them the ability to differentiate between the two, then punished them for it.
Why would your god not want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil?
And it reads to me as though your god was afraid that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree of life "and become like us" (whoever "us" is) and evicted them from the garden to prevent that. Soounds to me like he was afraid that if they had the knowledge of good and evil and immortality, they would become gods themselves and he would be out of a job.

Peter.

And so we begin...LOL

You said you were a believer and I am not. This seems like a very black and white statement and I think this is shades of gray. I am 100% convinced that God exists. I do believe more or less in 'your' God. I just doubt the details of the story.

Just because I believe that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true does not mean I throw out everything that is in it. Why do I not believe in the inerrancy? For ME the Bible is too ambiguous, there are contradictions, it doesn't mesh what with what we know scientifically and historically.

I would be interested on your take of Genesis and how that compares to what we know scientifically. Discrepancies are; age of the earth, the order things appeared; birds before animals, sun appearing before Earth, light without sun etc.

There are too many people, scholars, researchers etc that can not come to consensus. To me that indicates that man was not able to fully able to transcribe over hundreds of years the historically accuracy of the teachings. Between the resurrection and canonization there was much going on that influenced the writing. I believe the canonization itself brings error into play, again man was deciding what was in and out. It all comes down to interpretation and trust in man. We could fill page upon page with each of us citing our experts to back up our arguments.

I think generally man has shown he is not the authority on God. So unless I have my own revelations come to me through God or Christ then I need to take in what is available and decide what I believe.

I think it can be very dangerous when we do not think for ourselves otherwise we give up control. I am not afraid of giving control to God, but to man. Giving up our control to others has led to the use of religion for evil; war, genocide, hatred. That is why we must also use ourselves as a guide to right and wrong. Even atheists have this inane right and wrong meter so some of it is built in and yes I believe that comes from God.

Where do I get my authority for believing what I believe? I get it everywhere; internal (meditation, contemplation) and external experience reading of scriptures (multiple religions), books, other spiritual teachers and my experience. I am seeking, learning and hopefully evolving. It seems to have served me well so far.

How do I know it is reliable? No one can know 100% for sure. I guess that is why it is called faith. Just like you can not say that we are 100% certain the Bible is inerrant. That is a belief, not a fact.

Peter you said “Now I trust the God of the Bible as the ultimate source of all truth and authority for all things.”
I agree with that. I just don’t agree that the Bible tells us the complete story on truth and authority for all things. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, just incomplete.

As far as evil I think we are on the same page. Start the celebration!

Hi Lepidopteryx,

Your question,

"Why would your god not want Adam and Eve to have the knowledge of good and evil, and to live forever? What was he afraid of?"

You'll notice that God planted two trees; the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. (v. 8) God issued a command that had consequences to it. "The LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must NOT eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die." (v. 16, 17) There was no command not to eat of the tree of life and live forever. This was permitted by God. So when the woman and man chose to disobey God and ate from the tree God showed man that He always does what He says and band Adam and Eve from partaking in the tree of life and living forever. "You will surely die." (end of v. 8)

It was from eating of this tree of good and evil that the Curse descended on mankind with all its inherent misery. Before this God had pronounced everything He had made was very good. (Ch. 1:31)

The second tree (the Tree of Life)is a shadow of Jesus Christ in the first book of the Bible and shows God's provision for mans disobedience; that there is still a way back to Him. ("For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus." - Romans 6:23) By eating (metaphoric) of the second tree comes life and salvation. That is why Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53, 54) There are also numerous parallels that paint a picture between the "first Adam" and the "second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45-49); between the disobedience of one man that led to death and the obedience of the other Man that leads to eternal life (Romans 5:12 with 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22); between paradise lost and paradise regained (Genesis 3:24 with (Luke 23:43; Revelation 2:7); between the two gardens, Eden and Gethsemane (Genesis with Matthew 26:36).

The problem of dealing with a righteous Judge is that sin will be punished; there is no alternative for Someone who always does right than to punish wrong doing.

As for God being afraid, what would the Almighty be afraid of? There is nothing more powerful or more knowing than He is. Where do you get the idea that He would be afraid?

Thanks for the chat!

Hello Rob Adams,

A pleasure to dialog with you also.

You said,

"Unless we want to debate the theory (or from your perspective fact) that the Bible is without error we will need to agree to disagree on numerous items. I’m game and always start with Genesis, but perhaps that is a discussion for another time."

That is the nature of the believe and unbeliever; to disagree. The reason I am a believer and you are not is because God has been gracious to me and changed my perspective. Now I trust the God of the Bible as the ultimate source of all truth and authority for all things.

Starting at the book of beginnings is a good place to start. There is no time like the present, since the chances of hooking up again may be remote since you are game.

First of all, where do you derive your authority for believing what you do and how do you know it is reliable?

You said,

"Can we at least agree on the purpose of evil? In our relative world and limited understanding of the metaphysical realm evil allows us to comprehend good which in the end let’s comprehend the glory of God."

I think we can agree in part. It needs more thought on my part to exactly what you are saying Rob. Sometimes we can use the same words but have different definitions. The Jesus of the Watchtower Society is a different Jesus than the one defended by the historical Christian faith. We know what evil is because God has laid the standard and measure of what is "good." Evil is doing what our Maker has told us not to do. We see the glory of God all around us, in many ways. One of them is seen by His standard of good and His character of righteousness. He always does what is right.

Look forward to your reply.

Peter:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. - Genesis 3:22-24

Why would your god not want Adam and Eve to have the knowledge of good and evil, and to live forever? What was he afraid of?

Peter.

Unless we want to debate the theory (or from your perspective fact) that the Bible is without error we will need to agree to disagree on numerous items. I’m game and always start with Genesis, but perhaps that is a discussion for another time.

Can we at least agree on the purpose of evil? In our relative world and limited understanding of the metaphysical realm evil allows us to comprehend good which in the end let’s comprehend the glory of God.

Peter as always it is a pleasure conversing with you.

Hello Rob Adams,

Nice to dialog with you again!

To follow up on your thoughts,

"Looking specifically at “magnify His glory” and “the purpose of Evil” I would like your take on the following thoughts.

The essay speaks of “that man's chief end, or purpose in life, is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” I see this tying in with the concept that God created man so that he could experience what He is not which is separate from God. My belief is that God created everything and is everything and therefore there is nothing that He is not."

There are certain problems with your thinking from a biblical perspective.

Our sins have separated us from God and we need reconciling, something only the Savior can do. "But your iniquities have separated you from God; your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear." (Isaiah 58:2)

In contrast, nothing can separate us from the love of God if we are clothed (so to speak) in the Savior and His righteousness.(Romans 8:31-39, esp. 35-39)

Your belief that God created everything is correct because His Word tells us He did. Where you fall into error is where you believe that God is everything. That is a eastern belief that falls under the terms of pantheism.

The Bible makes a clear distinction between God and the creation in the very first verse of the Bible, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." It also makes a clear distinction between a living thing and matter numerous times when people carved an image to worship as "god". (Isaiah 44:9-20)

Robert Reymond (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith p. 167, 168, 169) takes a look at how The Westminister Shorter Catechism describes God. He has this to say,

"The first point is that God is personal, that is, self-conscious and self determining, living and active. This is the based upon which the Catechism answer can employee the pronoun "His" a few words later. (The fact that the Bible ascribes to Him such attributes as wisdom, knowledge, a will, and goodness also indicates that God is personal.) The God of the Bible is anything but inert impersonalness: He is the living and active Creator and Architect of the universe, beneficent Provider of the creature's needs, Advocate of the poor and the oppressed, Freedom-fighter, just Judge, empathetic Councilor, suffering Servant, and triumphant Deliverer. His personalness should not be taken to mean, however, that God is one person...The second thing God's spiritual nature means is that He is non-corporeal. This may be demonstrated from Luke 24:36-43, where, in response to the disciples' assessment that He was a "spirit," Jesus said: "Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have. (v. 39). But what does it mean for God, as spirit, to be non-corporeal? It means that NO property of matter may be ascribed to Him. He has no extension in space, no weight, no mass, no bulk, no parts, no form, no taste, no smell. He is invisible (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16) and, being one in essence and without parts, is indivisible...It is this fact of His spiritual essence that underlies the second commandment, which prohibits every attempt to fashion an image of Him...So the Christian must ever be solicitous never to think of God in His spiritual essence as having any material characteristic...Two words of caution: First, the doctrine of God's omnipresence should not be construed so as to identify God with the universe, as in pantheism. Nor should it be construed, as does the panentheistic process theologian, so as to identify God with the impersonal moving force in the world, with the world as His "body."...While God is everywhere present and active in His universe (Christian theism's doctrine of divine immanence), He as UNCREATED ontologically stands off over against the universe that He created and is essentially distinct from it (Christian theism's doctrine of divine transcendence). The biblical teaching on Creator/creature distinction is the guardian doctrine against pantheistic and panentheistic reconstructions of the biblical God."

Rob, you said,

"I have now been on a number of the topics on this site and what is interesting is how the conversation usually seems to break into a discussion of who has the truth. Not just the truth of the question being asked, but the overall truth of any religion or text."

Rob, I hope you will not be fooled by the fine sounding arguments of men (Colossians 2:4) that depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world. (Colossians 2:8)They do not compare to the truth of the Scriptures, which is our Creator speaking to us. There is no authority behind man's arguments. It is mere opinion if there is no ultimate standard behind what is said.

You said,

"Wiccan’s wonderful post on the ‘do unto others’ through out the ages in all religions is proof (or at least hints) that all (most?) religions have some shred of truth to them. The messages are present everywhere. Find them, learn them and try to live them and you will move closer to God."

Yes, the "do unto others" is a biblical principle, but just because other religions have shreds of truth and things in common in them (the Golden Rule principle) does not make the overall belief true. If all beliefs are true the law of non-contradiction would be false. Two contrary and opposing views cannot both be valid. Jesus is "THE way, and THE truth, and THE life" and "NO ONE comes to the Father except through" Him. (John 14:6) You will not move closer to God by any means other than His Son. "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18)

Rob, my hope is that God will grant you the grace of believe in Him. (1 John 5:20, 21)

Lepidopteryx,

I have answered your question on the forbidden fruit indirectly (in that you are attributing God as the Author of evil), you just do not like my answer.

You accuse the God of the Bible as being unjust. As C.S. Lewis said, "An accusation always implies a standard." (The Seeing Eye)

I find your answers to my question on what you base your authority on and how it can be trusted as very revealing. Basically, you are your highest authority/standard, as is ObiJon. When you base your reality on subjective "feelings" and "mystic experience" you are led in which ever way your emotions flow. You filter which things you will accept as "good" or "true." Mystic experience does not correct error; it fuels it. (Blind belief is sure to err and scan His work in vain, God is His own interpreter and He will make it plain - Old Hymn)

You said,

"Actually, the "pond scum on a lucky day" explanation for the origin of life makes a good bit of sense to me. I never said, however, that I knew the origin of life. I simply said that I didn't believe that it was spoken into existence by a supernatural being. and if you think about it, your version of Adam created from the dust of the earth and breathed into by God isn't that different from pond scum on a lucky day, except that yours includes a deity rather than a random electrical pulse as the source of the shift from inanimate to animate. I don't have to know the answer to a question in order to discount those I find unreasonable."

It sounds to me that you are putting your faith into a blind leap, of which the Christian faith is not. It answers the questions of a consistent worldview in explaining what is out there, how we know and what difference it makes. You view of the world does not explain how out of nothing something comes and how "random chemical or electrical impulses can generate logic or how something personal can come out of something impersonal. Ever seen a stone think? Ever seen a cat change into a dog? I forgot, your magical ingredient is time plus chance equals everything. Ever seen a big bang product complexity and order? Try putting a stick of dynamite under your house and see what order you create.

If all we are is a random electrical impulse then why are you so concerned with "being good" or being moral? If my molecules come together in a different way than yours do then why are you complaining that my God is immoral. How can anything be immoral if we are just random chance chemical or electric reactions? The fact that you do recognize a standard of "good" should be troubling since you have no way to justify your belief as objective.

C.S. Lewis said, "If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. (The Weight of Glory; Is Theology Poetry? p 91-92)Furthermore he said, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. (Miracles, p. 15)

Sin occurs in the mind first and then is carried out in word and deed. Satan did not come to Eve with an outright denial of God's truthfulness in the garden. First he planted seeds of doubt by the simple question, "Did God really say?" Then he contradicts what God has told Eve, "You will not surely die." Then he suggests that God is withholding good info from her by his proposition, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God..."

The object lesson God gives throughout the Bible is that man cannot live a righteous life without Him. God is ethically distinct from sinful man. He is infinitely pure and unchangeable morally in regards to His character, thoughts and actions.

"You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with You the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in Your presence; You hate all who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors." - (Psalm 5:4-6)

Eve decided to disbelieve God in exchange for the "wisdom" of one of His creatures. As is the aim of all who reject the worship of God, their worship is displaced by worshiping the creature or creation instead. They proclaim themselves to be all wise, having the ability to decide for themselves the difference between right and wrong; good and evil; truth and error.

That is why the world is in such a mess. God is giving His creatures a taste of the chaos and evil that results when man decides for himself to live independently of His Creator, as if that could ever happen. (Remember who is sovereign - Acts 17:24-30)

The Bible is the way God has chosen to reveal Himself to man (as His special revelation); the other being creation itself. It is a progressive revelation of God to man, but not exhaustive, as if that were possible to comprehend an infinitely wise God. As such God has chosen not to reveal all the answers, but to trust in His Word, for He does not lie.

Since He has decreed whatever comes to pass, He is the "First Cause" of all things, but not the Author of sin, because He decreed that these things would come to pass by the "nature of the "second causes," either (1) necessarily, as in the case of planets moving in their orbits, (2)freely, that is voluntarily, with no violence being done to the will of the creature, or (3) contingently, that is, with due regard to the contingencies of future events,..." A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond p.372

In other words, as seen by Adam and Eves example, they, through their own volition disobeyed God's commandment to not eat the fruit. All the evil in the world comes about by the direct action of man rebelling against his Maker. There would be no war, no killing, no stealing, no lying if we were capable of following the Word of God completely. Since the fall of Adam, mankind is not capable of doing so. His nature is fallen also, but even so the creation reflects the glory of God in what has been made - the shear magnitude and beauty in the natural realm and the ability of man to appreciate it despite his own wickedness, witnesses to God's glory.

You said,

"At the risk of repeating myself, I have never given "Because I say so." to my child as a reason for household rules. When she asked "Why?" I gave her a logical explanation."

God has given you a logical explanation of evil also. You do not like the answer. It does not fit with the god you have invented, even though you are dependent on Him every day for ever breath you take and even though you fail to see this, you rely on His ability to understand and make sense of everything you are taking for granted.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I appreciate your effort!

I went back and read a number of the posts from everyone.

I have now been on a number of the topics on this site and what is interesting is how the conversation usually seems to break into a discussion of who has the truth. Not just the truth of the question being asked, but the overall truth of any religion or text.

While I find these debates entertaining and sometimes enlightening I find that looking back has not served us (humans) that well. ALL texts are an incomplete description of what is ultimately real. As some would say God has chosen not to reveal everything to us.

There are ‘modern’ texts written in the last 1-50 years. And yes there are recent writings that are supposedly from/inspired by God. It depends on what you believe of course. Assume that these are true one would still have to say even these are incomplete in terms of ultimate reality.

Peter posted back on April 19 “A cannot be both A and non A at the same time.” Generally this is very sound. Assume that A is the color of a flower. The flower is either red and yellow or it is not. But if you look at it in the context of Wiccan’s analogy of a bee and a human looking at the same flowers A and no A are true. The flower is now both red and yellow as well as blue-white. The same can be said of religious texts if they are all incomplete which I think we would agree they are.

The grandness of God/universe(again depending on your belief) is too much for us to comprehend in our current form so we will need to work with what we have. Is not the purpose of a spiritual pursuit to either become closer to God or end up with God depending on your belief? Is there a spiritual pursuit for Atheists?

We need to question. Questions are creative. If you do not question you do not evolve. Wiccan’s wonderful post on the ‘do unto others’ through out the ages in all religions is proof (or at least hints) that all (most?) religions have some shred of truth to them. The messages are present everywhere. Find them, learn them and try to live them and you will move closer to God.

If you believe as I do that God has created the universe in perfection, including evil, then perhaps we are all on this site to learn something from each other. Perhaps this is another opportunity God has presented to us to get closer to him/her/it. It is our free will on how we approach this opportunity.

Peace.

Peter:

You say I have no knowledge of your god. You are wrong - I was raised Christian and left it because the more I learned about your god, the less I felt he deserved my worship.

You have never really addrssed my question about the forbidden fruit. If your god did not want Adam and Eve toeat it, then why did he put it in the middle of the garden? What parent would sit their child down at a banquet, point out the most attractive, appetizing dish on the table,and say, "You can eat all you want of everything else., but if you so much as touch that dish, I'll disown you. Don't ask me why you can't have any - just don't touch it." Your god set Adam and Eve up. He could have prevented the so-called Fall by simply not placing the Tree there.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have never given "Because I say so." to my child as a reason for household rules. When she asked "Why?" I gave her a logical explanation. S why should I accept "Because I say so." for matters so much more important than a prohibition against playing Frisbee in the house?

Lepidopteryx,

You said,

"From the essay: "These "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" were made for the specific reason of revealing God's wrath and displaying His power."

So your god picks out certain people to destroy simply because he can? Bullies pull the wigs off insects for the same reason. I can't worship a bully."

Without punishment there is no justice. You expect God, who is just to wink at wrong doing. By nature He is righteous; He always does what it right, or He would not be God. As Creator He has revealed His laws to you. You have broken them by your own volition. Now you are angry that you are going to be justly treated? Instead of admitting your wrong and asking for forgiveness in the one means He has provided to meet His justice on your behalf, His Son, are you going to kick against His goodness and ignore it to your grave? If so these words apply to you:

"He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. The wise inherit honor, but fools He holds up to shame." (Proverbs 3:34, 35)

There is always hope as long as you are alive to turn to the Savior. That is the "good news" of the Gospel, there is a Savior. (Lord, please have mercy on Lepidopteryx and open her ears so she can hear Your Word of life and truth!)

Lepidopteryx, you have no knowledge of God.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." (Proverbs 1:7)

"It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way. A man's own folly ruins his life yet his heart rages against the Lord." (Proverbs 19:2-3)

"Penalties are prepared for mockers, and beatings for the backs of fools." (Proverbs 19:29)

"to show partiality in judging is not good; Whoever says to the guilty, "You are innocent" - peoples will curse him and nations denounce him." (Proverbs 24:23b-24)

"Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully." (Proverbs 28:5)

You said,

"Again, had your god not allowed sin to enter the world, that would not have been necessary. Your god could have prevented evil, but didn't, according to your scriptures. So he ultimately must accept part of the guilt for the terrible things some people do."

Again, God created mankind "good" and for a purpose(Genesis 1:31). It was the man and woman who chose to disbelieve God over the supposed authority of one of His creatures. And the same thing has been happening ever since, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat.' The woman understood what God had said, just as you do. She just chose to suppress the truth of God's word because she liked the look of the fruit and the idea that she would be like God, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:1-113) Notice that when God asked her to give an account He said, "What is this YOU have done." She chose to eat the fruit. She did the sinful act. Why should God accept part of the guilt when she did the deed of her own volition?

You said,

"And we're back to "Because I say so," which I find absolutely unacceptable as a reason."

I understand that; it confirms God's Word. That is why I am a believer and you are not. You cannot accept His Word of truth.

Peter:
Actually, the "pond scum on a lucky day" explanation for the origin of life makes a good bit of sense to me. I never said, however, that I knew the origin of life. I simply said that I didn't believe that it was spoken into existence by a supernatural being. and if you think about it, your version of Adam created from the dust of the earth and breathed into by God isn't that different from pond scum on a lucky day, except that yours includes a deity rather than a random electrical pulse as the source of the shift from inanimate to animate. I don't have to know the answer to a question in order to discount those I find unreasonable. If someone asked me what type of undergarment you had on, I couldn't give a definitve answer because I have never seen you in your unmentionables. But I could say that I don't believe that it's a SpongeBob SquarePants thong.

"How does this show God's glory? Glory will be seen by His creatures when God brings judgment on them for breaking His laws (one of them is "Do not murder"). It will show that God is perfectly just, perfectly righteous; He always does right."

When my daughter breaks a houshold rule and a punish her for it, it does not glorify me, nor is it intended to do so. The consequences for her misbehavior are chosen to correct the damage done by the misbehavior if possible, and to precvent her from repeating it. For example, she has a vision restriction on her drivers license, and is supposed to wear her glasses when she drives. When she borrowed my husband's car and scraped a shopping cart corral in a parking lot because she misjudged the distance as a result of not wearing her glasses, she was required to knock the dent out of the fender (under supervision, of course), and to purchase touchup paint and repair the paint job herself, and her driving privileges were suspended. None of those actions were for his "glory" or mine (in fact, it inconvenienced us, because we had to drive her to work and school every day while she was not allowed to drive, which meant having to rearrange our daily schedules), which meant having to rearrange our schedules), but to impress on her the amount of work it takes to repair damage to a vehicle, and that it could have been avoided if she had simply worn her glasses.

As for events like VA Tech and Columbine, you asked, "First of all how do you explain them?
My explanation is very simply; mans rebellion against God's glorious standard of good create events like Columbine. Man is responsible for his actions."

My explanation is mental illness and no sense of connectedness with any sort of larger community.

"It will also bring God glory by those who have been saved by His grace because they realize that God could have left them to answer for their guilt before Him, but instead His mercy saved them from their guilt by paying the penalty and meeting that perfect standard in His Son, on our behalf."

If your God had the ability to prevent "sin" from entering into the world, and did not do so, then he must bear part of the blame for it. Instead, you seem to be saying that everyone should worship him because he has the ability to destroy us, but doesn't. To me, that sounds a lot like the scene in "Gladiator" in which Commodus tells Lucilla, after finding out that she aided Maximus' escape, that from now on, her young son will stay with him, and his life will be forfeit if she so much as gives him a look that displeases him, that if she takes her own life, her son will be killed, and that she must provide him with an heir, then screams at her "Am I not merciful?".

As for sending his own son to "die" for mankind, I have several problems with that scenario. First of all, what kind of parent would do such a thing? Who would create a child for the sole purpose of having it tortured to death for crimes it didn't commit? Do you think for a moment that I would hand my child over to be executed in place of serial killer? And how exactly would that erase the serial killer's guilt? The other problem I have with it is that, according to your scriptures, Ieshua knew that he would rise again in three days. So there was no net loss. If I take an action that I know will result in my death, in order to save someone else's life, I do so knowing that I am giving up something precious that I will not be able to get back - no refund, no rebate.

Hi everybody!

Glad to see you're still dropping in from time to time Rob! Did you get my post from April 24, 2007? Lepidopteryx, nice to hear from you again. ObiJon, I'm still interested to know more about what you believe in as to explaining origins, meaning and purpose and to what you base your authority on??? I believe I already know in part, but I would like you to tell me to confirm or disprove my thoughts.

Since I am working this weekend and would like to answer your questions to the best of my ability hope you will give me a few days to respond. There are a barrage and some good thought benders.

Lepidopteryx, I have time to respond to one post and yours is at the top of the heap. You said,

"Life is indeed precious, and I ma grateful to my parents for having given it to me."

Who gave it to your parents and grand, great grand, etc., down the line to what? Where does the line begin for you and how?

You said,

"And how do events like VA Tech, Columbine, etc. accomplish this?"

First of all how do you explain them?
My explanation is very simply; mans rebellion against God's glorious standard of good create events like Columbine. Man is responsible for his actions.

How does this show God's glory? Glory will be seen by His creatures when God brings judgment on them for breaking His laws (one of them is "Do not murder"). It will show that God is perfectly just, perfectly righteous; He always does right. In that day my hope is that Christ would be there to intercede for you and that you will not have to intercede on your own behalf.

It will also bring God glory by those who have been saved by His grace because they realize that God could have left them to answer for their guilt before Him, but instead His mercy saved them from their guilt by paying the penalty and meeting that perfect standard in His Son, on our behalf.

Who else can you say that of?

"What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath - prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom He also called, not only from among the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

God's glory may be seen in the good purposes that these sinful acts accomplished, that you or I have no idea of because we only see a fragment of the picture, not the whole.

You said,

"I honor my makers. I am in my 40's and still say "sir" and "ma'am" to my mom and dad."

This goes back to the previous question; who made them and their moms and dads, etc., down the line to what? Amoeba in a pond? Great, great, great, great Grandma? Great, great, great, great Grandpa? Whose my monkey's uncle?

Thanks everyone for the dialog!

Eric.

Sorry for the late reply. I had thought the dialogue had run its course!

Thanks for the response. I was trying to make the questions as hard as the Hebrew final :)

You commented “Instead of questioning His judgment, ought we live thankful for His mercy? I am thankful because I know my heart - that I deserve death, but God has saved me by the work of Jesus on the cross.”

An interesting question pops in my head. Explain deserving death to me. It sounds like we really should just blow away into infinity, but God allows you the chance to continue on after our bodies are gone. That doesn’t make sense to me.

As we agreed the Bible is incomplete in that God has not revealed everything to us. I see death as merely a transition to another realm(s) depending on your belief. I believe death to be much more complex than we tend to believe. I see it as much more natural but we just don’t understand anymore about it by just reading religious text.

But God has left us a cookie crumb trail! What we discover during life. For instance Robert Munroe’s experience and latter his foundations work on out of body experience hints at an enormously complex set of scenarios after the body dies.

I would be interested on your thoughts on my latest post to Peter as well.

Kind regards,

Rob.

Well said, Lepidopteryx.

Why WOULD a perfect being create imperfect beings? And don't go calling it inscrutability, that's just a cop-out.

I dropped in on the tail end of a colleague's class yesterday, one that I've previously attended in full,where he was explaining working magic during the phases of the moon. It occurred to me, as he was explaining the dark-of-the-moon dangers, that Nature is both cruel and kind. She is not all-good, and we delude ourselves when we pretend that She is. And yet she is awesome, awful, glorious, and astounding. That is why we honor her. We do not prostrate ourselves before her, although some of our rituals might appear that way to an outsider, we glory in being a part of Her. Knowing that we are a part of her cycles, and that we might as easily "be eaten" as "eat," we act with caution. But we do not need to fear Her to love Her.

She, however, is not evil. She does not violate Her own cycles. It is we intelligent beings that have the ability to do that, we that commit evil. We commit evil when we violate natural order. Our most evil actions result in the most dire of consequences. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria and viruses threaten us because we abused our knowledge of antibiotics. Nuclear disasters threaten because of our hubris at splitting the atom. I'm not saying that antibiotics or nukes are inherently evil, but that our arrogance in using them is. We can only defy Nature for so long, and then we realize to what point we pushed the energies of Her cycles.

What goes around comes around. That is my personal incentive for doing good and avoiding evil. I wish to make the world a better place, not a worse one.

Peter Huff.

Good to see you on the site again.

Your comment “Magnify His glory is showing His creation who He is by what He has made.” Made me go read read the link you posted http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/evil.html#glory.

While I don’t agree with everything in the essay there are some items in there that are similar to some of the things I believe in. I just look at things differently.

Looking specifically at “magnify His glory” and “the purpose of Evil” I would like you take on the following thoughts.

The essay speaks of “that man's chief end, or purpose in life, is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” I see this tying in with the concept that God created man so that he could experience what He is not which is separate from God. My belief is that God created everything and is everything and therefore there is nothing that He is not.

Again my belief is that we are not truly separate from God, but in the relative world we live in we perceive that we are separate from God through the four layers of consciousness; conscious, subconscious, superconscious and supraconscious.

This also ties in the reason for evil. In our relative world you need opposites in order to know things; hot/cold, light/dark/good /evil. This parallels the comment in the essay.

“Through God allowing and foreordaining evil, God works this together to accomplish the work of revealing His person. If God had not allowed sin to enter the world, could man truly know God and worship Him for all that He is?”

There can be nothing outside of God and thus He created evil for use in the relative world we live. This ties in with everything created is perfection. Without evil our minds in the world of the relative could not comprehend God.

I know we will disagree on the creation and intent of evil and perhaps even the reasons why evil exists. I find it interesting that these comments can support multiple positions or at least seemingly multiple positions.

Peter as always I look forward to your response.

Peace.

Peter,
I read the essay you linked to, and it is seriously flawed, especially if you assume (which I will do for the sake of the argument) that your god did indeed create the world and allow the entry of evil into it.

From the essay: "These "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" were made for the specific reason of revealing God's wrath and displaying His power."

So your god picks out certain people to destroy simply because he can? Bullies pull the wigs off insects for the same reason. I can't worship a bully.

From the essay: "God's chief end is to glorify Himself."

So your god is an egomaniac. I can't worship an egomaniac.

From the essay: "If God had not allowed sin to enter the world, could man truly know God and worship Him for all that He is?"

If your god had not allowed sin to enter the world, man would be sinless, as your scriptures say he was until he ate the forbidden fruit. Why put the fruit in the garden in the first place if he didn't want man to eat it? I don't put food on the table and then tell my child that if she eats it, I'll disown her.

From the essay: "Would man be able to know the grace of God that extends blessings to sinners who deserve wrath?"

This is like saying that my daughter could not appreciate my loving embrace unless I also beat the living snot out of her (or she at least knew that I could do so). Do you really believe that love is born from fear?

From the essay: "Could man know the love of God had God not displayed it in the greatest manner by laying down His life for those still dead in their sins?"

Again, had your god not allowed sin to enter the world, that would not have been necessary. Your god could have prevented evil, but didn't, according to your scriptures. So he ultimately must accept part of the guilt for the terrible things some people do.

From the essay: "We cannot always understand why God has chosen evil events to accomplish these good purposes. We do know that God never foreordains an evil event without a good purpose (Rom. 8:28). There may be other reasons than the ones we have mentioned, either to be found in Scripture or to remain locked up in God's own mind. We know that God has a reason for everything he does. Everything he does reflects his wisdom. But he is under no obligation to give us his reasons."

And we're back to "Because I say so," which I fund absolutely unacceptable as a reason.

Peter:
"God has given us this life as a precious gift. Looking at "Nature" shows you the grandeur and power of our Creator."

Life is indeed precious, and I ma grateful to my parents for having given it to me.

"His glory is magnified to us who fail to see is as it is, yet."

And how do events like VA Tech, Columbine, etc. accomplish this?

"you, for one, do not give Him the honor He deserves as your Maker."

I honor my makers. I am in my 40's and still say "sir" and "ma'am" to my mom and dad. Even though I have a key to every door in their house and the code to their alarm system, and I still call before I come over, and knock rather than letting myself in when I visit. And they reciprocate honor and respect to me.

ObiJon,

You said,

"You continue attacking my defenses of my worldview without attempting to defend your own."

I'll let the posts speak for themselves. You are trying to show the weaknesses of the Christian worldview and I am show the weaknesses of yours.

You want me to use your worldview to critique your worldview. I do not operator from your worldview. God is my authority, not your subjective worldview. I answer you from the highest authority there is, the Word of God. Now if you wanted to critic my interpretation of it that would be another matter. You would have to show me from the text where I am misinterpreting. I am just as capable of error as you are. However, saying so does not necessarily make it so.

You said,

"My defenses have been intrinsically sound."

Please get specific and show me where and why.

You said,

"They follow paths of reason and logic."

To say that truth is not always true is logical and reasonable???????

Basically, I am restating classic arguments taken up in the writings of Plato, Descartes, and other established philosophers."

Are these your highest sources of authority?

You said,

"Your arguments all refer back to your scripture. They come from your scripture, they go to your scripture, they bugger your scripture.
Do your own thinking. Don't just quote somebody and let them do your thinking for you."

Why would I refer to a lower source when I can go to the highest source available, Scripture, the Word of God? I have thought over and meditated on God's Word for over 15 years constantly. There is no comparison between His wisdom and that of the world.

When I quote someone it is because they can explain something biblical better than I am able to. I quote someone because I like what they say and believe it has meaning for the course of dialog I am engaged in and because I believe it confirms God's Word. These people are not slouches when it comes to thinking. Try thinking about what they are saying before you criticize me for not thinking. I have thought about it long and hard.

You said,

"Create your own meanings, find a reason for life that sparkles and resonates and flies. Don't buy your "meaning of life" at Wal-Mart."

ObiJon, that, I contend, is exactly what you are doing, you are creating your own meaning; living in a land of make-believe reality that does not correspond to the way reality really is. I understand it; it is a way of pretending you are your own boss, marching to your own tune so that you can believe you have control of your life. You are bitting the hand that feeds you, contending with your Maker.

You said'

"Still, what does "magnify His glory" mean? If He is supremely glorious, why should He care about His glory or man's perception of it?"

Magnify His glory is showing His creation who He is by what He has made. Since you do not hold your Maker in high esteem, there are constant reminders from the creation that reflect His magnificence, power and glory. The creation magnifies God's glory to us, His creation, for we now only know in part, one day we will know in full how glorious He is. His glory is magnified to us who fail to see is as it is, yet.

"O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth. You have set Your glory above the heavens. From the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise because of Your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for Him." (Psalm 8:1-4)

You said,

"If He is supremely glorious, why should He care about His glory or man's perception of it?"

Because you, for one, do not give Him the honor He deserves as your Maker. You treat God with contempt by denying Him for who He is. It is only by His providence that you live move or have your being (Acts 17:24-31).

"Or do you show contempt for the riches of His kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4)

ObiJon,

To continue on with your response from April 30th:

I said,

"You believe that something, just because it is accepted as true is not actually true (by your assertion that you disagree with the Bible as being an infallible source of revelation of right and wrong, good and bad)."

You said,

"-Yes. Just because something is believed to be true doesn't make it actually exit [I agree with this much of the statement], except as a belief. [God is real whether you believe in Him or not]The universe was accepted to be geocentric for many centuries before the belief was discarded. Many believed the universe to be constantly expanding, that "truth" is now in doubt."

It is either true that the universe is constantly expanding and we are understand correctly, or it is false and we are under a misconception. It cannot be true one minute and false the next.

I said:

"How do you know that your assertion is right?"

You said,

"-I have the right to assert such. (play on words)
-Is my assertion accurate? As accurate as yours."

How do you know that your assertion is accurate? Do you determine accuracy? Since you have already dug yourself into a hole with you assertion of May 2, in which you stated that you can only be "reasonable certain" how certain are you that your statements that contradict mine are as accurate as mine? Are you saying that two contradictory statements are both true, since they are both as accurate as the other? Or are you saying they are both subject to doubt and we cannot know for certain whether they are accurate at all? In that case why would what you have to say be believed as accurate at all?

You said that I did not answer your post on the subject of glory.

"So, how about that whole "magnify his glory" thing?"

I gave you a link that explains it, here it is again:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/evil.html#glory

I would appreciate that you tell me more about what you actually believe in (besides a "mystic experience") as how it pertains to origin, meaning and purpose. Are you an atheist, agnostic, materialist, polytheist, Eastern mystic, all of the above, none of the above. Since you make claims that Christianity is not true based on your own subjective experience it will be interesting to discover a little more about what makes yours believable and ring true to you.

Thanks for the exchange!

I'm still waiting for a response to my critique or your point of view. You continue attacking my defenses of my worldview without attempting to defend your own.
My defenses have been intrinsically sound. They follow paths of reason and logic. Basically, I am restating classic arguments taken up in the witings of Plato, Descartes, and other established philosophers.
Your arguments all refer back to your scripture. They come from your scripture, they go to your scripture, they bugger your scripture.
Do your own thinking. Don't just quote somebody and let them do your thinking for you. Even when I referenced Descartes' "Cogito" I related my own understanding of the piece. Create your own meanings, find a reason for life that sparkles and resonates and flies. Don't buy your "meaning of life" at Wal-Mart.
When you attempt to show your enlightenment, you betray your ignorance.

Still, what does "magnify His glory" mean? If He is supremely glorious, why should He care about His glory or man's perception of it?

Goodday ObiJon,

Let's see...
"Since all evidence is interpreted you bring a bias that can only be clarified by an objective standard. God said He created the heavens and the earth in six days. Fact.

"No. A human wrote that god did those things. It is not objective."

Yes, humans did write these things as they were moved/led and directed by the Holy Spirit of God, for prophecy and Holy Writ never had its origin in man, or by the will of man, but men spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:19-21; 1 Thessalonians 2:13) You do not believe it because you suppress the truth of God (Romans 1:18-25). You base your assertions on your limited knowledge of the universe, or possibly a science guru or a subjective mystical experience; Christians base their knowledge on the unchanging nature of God, who does not lie (Hebrews 6:16-19). I have the highest testimony available, that of God (Psalm 12:6; Proverbs 30:5-6). As it says, "Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

Well ObiJon, your worldview betrays you. You make two assertions that are self-refuting. First of all you say "No." If that is not an emphatic no why should anyone in this great wide world take your opinion for it? If it is an emphatic "no" then you are stating what you believe you cannot know, an absolute. Which view do you hold to in your heat (not just on paper)?

The second is that you say it is not objective. Where did you get to decide what is objective and what is subjective, from your own subjective opinion? God is the objective standard and there is a correct way of interpreting His Word (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16)

When you state,

"The only things we can be reasonable sure of are properties that can be tested and demonstrated in controlled-variable environments. That's the job of science."

"Reasonably sure" sounds very doubtful to me. It is a skeptics reply. You say that the "only things." Now are you reasonably sure they are the "only things" since you are stating such??? The problem with your intellectually invented worldview is that it is constantly bumping up against the real one, Christianity which makes sense of it all(1 Corinthians 1:19-24; Colossian 1:16-17; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 - you are living in God's world).

Is science your god? Is that what you are putting your faith in to answer the questions of origins, meaning and purpose?

You said,

"There is no "truth," objectively, only examples that fit the truth and seem to confirm it. With enough confirmation, we can be reasonable confidant in our findings, but never 100% sure."

Again you make the assumption that there is no "'truth,' objectively." Are you being objective when you make that statement (rhetorical question)? Are you reasonable certain that you are reading this; maybe 99.999% or how about 80%? Does 51% make it reasonably certain? Where do you draw the line on reason and certainty?

Here is a test for you:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Here is a basic critique of your worldview:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/other-worldviews2.php#mystic

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the same site:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
C.S. Lewis

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
C.S. Lewis

There are two different kinds of revelation, natural revelation, which we find in the world, and special revelation, which we find in the word of God. A basic rule of Biblical interpretation is that we should always interpret natural revelation through the grid of special revelation, that is the word of God. We don't look at the world and then say this is truth, therefore we must conform the Scriptures to what we see. This view is a deadly mistake and would lead to atheism. I interpret science through the lens of the word of God, which presupposes the truth of Genesis 1-3. There is no evidence of higher value or authority than the word of God.
Gene Cook

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
C.S. Lewis

For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything.
G. K. Chesterton

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.
Peter Kreeft

ObiJon, you said,

"When can truth be false?
Cats are four-legged animals. True?
My cat, Fluffy, lost her leg in a car accident. Isn't she still a cat? Well, okay, she was born with four legs.
Todd's cat, Banjo, was born without a leg due to chemicals the mother cat injested. Is Banjo not a cat? If it is a congenetal defect, and Banjo had 3-legged kittens, and those bore 3 legged kittens, do the spawn of Banjo ever cease to be cats?
Is it then not true that cats are four-legged animals?"

No you are wrong. Truth can never be false. You are making a generalization when you state that cats are four legged animals. That is true of the general NATURE of cats, just like a trunk is part of the nature of an elephant. Because of a physical deformity it is true that a cat can have three legs or no legs.

It is true that Todd's cat, Banjo was born without a leg only if Banjo does in fact have three legs and was born that way. That statement cannot be true if in fact Banjo was born with four legs just as it cannot be true for you and false for me. One of us would be deluded in our belief, depending on whether the cat had four or three legs.

Thanks for the dialog again!

Let's see...
"Since all evidence is interpreted you bring a bias that can only be clarified by an objective standard. God said He created the heavens and the earth in six days. Fact."

No. A human wrote that god did those things. It is not objective.

As for presupposition, I operate as if certain things can be taken for granted: the sun will rise tomorrow, gravity will continue to hold me to the Earth, there are intelligent beings that do not exist in the same physical way that we do. I could actually be wrong about any of these things, I freely admit. Armageddon could come tomorrow, but as we haven't had an Armageddon yet except for some bloody battles on Megiddo a long time ago, I don't operate as if the world and time will end and second now.
My beliefs might not pan out, but so what?

And the God of the Bible is made up. You made up your own "God of the Bible" as you read and studied your religion. Your ideas of God are not going to be exactly like your minister's, or the person in the pew sitting next to you, or a Jesuit priest's. Everyone's beliefs are experienced through the lens of one's own experiences. No one's lens is unclouded, therefore no one's ideas of anything can be completely objective. Even if you memorize and recite the Bible word-for word in its original languages (Hebrew and Greek?) and study for decades to figure out what the exact meanings (connotations and denotations) of those words were at the time, your understanding would still be imperfect.

The only things we can be reasonable sure of are properties that can be tested and demonstrated in controlled-variable environments. That's the job of science.

Anything else we believe in, we believe in by choice or perhaps accident. We can be coerced into professing beliefs, but to actively believe something takes a conscious affirmation.

****

Let's try this out:
Reality is its own cause. Cause and effect are all tied up in matter and energy. Intelligence expresses itself through the patterns in that matter and energy. The "higher" the intelligence, the more reactive and interactive the pattern.

****

When can truth be false?
Cats are four-legged animals. True?
My cat, Fluffy, lost her leg in a car accident. Isn't she still a cat? Well, okay, she was born with four legs.
Todd's cat, Banjo, was born without a leg due to chemicals the mother cat injested. Is Banjo not a cat? If it is a congenetal defect, and Banjo had 3-legged kittens, and those bore 3 legged kittens, do the spawn of Banjo ever cease to be cats?
Is it then not true that cats are four-legged animals?

There is no "truth," objectively, only examples that fit the truth and seem to confirm it. With enough confirmation, we can be reasonable confidant in our findings, but never 100% sure.

In statistical hypotheses, one's only options are to "reject" or "not to reject." Nothing can ever be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I reject the Christian doctrine's view of God.
I do not reject the views held by many pagans.
I do not reject the beliefs of many Christians, whose own private beliefs actually differ from the self-conflicting doctrine.
I reject that space aliens control human history.
I do not reject the possibility of extra-animal intelligence.

...

So, how about that whole "magnify his glory" thing?

ObiJon,

To address some of your other questions and comment on what you have said,

I said "Do you believe you view of the world is neutral or unbiased?"
Your reply - "No, and neither is anyone else's. That is a limitation everyone faces."

I agree, no view of the world is unbiased or neutral. As such, without an ultimate objective authority - God (and His written revelation) - an accurate view cannot be known, it is subject to each persons presumptions, preferences, feelings.

Since all evidence is interpreted you bring a bias that can only be clarified by an objective standard. God said He created the heavens and the earth in six days. Fact.

I said, "Do you believe that each person has to presuppose certain things to be true to believe anything?"

Your response "-Complicated question, almost a 2-parter. (That "to believe anything" is tricky.) I don't see much difference between belief and presupposition. I guess my experiences reinforce my presuppositions to create belief? "Presuppose..." What's your definition?"

As I am using it here, to presuppose something is to make an assumption about the world whose truth is taken for granted stemming from prior foundational committments. You are taking it for granted, based on your limited knowledge that the God of the Bible is made up. So you take it for granted that the God of the Bible is not real.

ObiJon, you said,

"First of all, my faith is a mystic one, which means it stems from personal experience...As a mystic I am not solipsistic. I do not believe mine to be the only reality. I do, however, only have my own experience. My experience is the tool with which I interact with the world. I assume that others have similar experiences, with similar limitations....One creates one's own "truth" and then tests it out against experience, modifying, reworking, or even discarding it as needed. I have no confidence that I will believe these same things that I believe today 20 years from now."

What does that faith entail? Do you believe in a god, goddess, "mother nature" or yourself as the cause of reality and origins? How do you test the accuracy of your knowledge, on what is real, having no objective standard to base your knowledge on (experience is subjective)?

Some observations from what you have stated above is experience is the tool and test ObiJon uses to determine truth; you assume (assumption being that you can never know for certain) others have similar experiences which is another validation your own view is true, at least for the moment for you have no confidence that you will believe the same things in 20 years from now? Since you create your own truth that changes as your beliefs modify I contend they were never true. Truth can never be false. Please explain how something true can be false? It seems like you are unsure of everything and in your worldview nothing makes sense; truth is false, reality (that which exists objectively and in fact) is something made up because your reality is not the only reality.

"To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to My teaching you are really My disciples. Then you will KNOW the truth, and the truth will set you free.'" - John 8:31, 32

Off to bed. I would like to answer the rest of your question to the post later. Thanks for the dialog!

ObiJon

Sorry to take this long in replying to your questions. Thanks for your patience! I am interested in pursuing this post further. I would like to split your questions into different posts.

With the question of evil, I will leave it for someone else to explain more fully than I am capable of at this time. ObiJon you said,

"On logic and Christian doctrine:
Christian doctrine declares god to be all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
Yet evil exists.
An all-good god would not allow evil if it was known about and could be counteracted. So either the god is not all-good, or my understanding of "good" is flawed. But if my understanding of "good" is flawed, we cannot state that god is all-good, because that statement is therefore flawed. (This can also be solved by admitting that the god is either not all-knowing or not all-powerful.)
I know there are some Christian scholars around here, and I'd be interested if the "logic-slingers" could address this construction for me."

Please read the following in answer to this question. I think you will find it logical although you may not like the logic:

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Apologetics/bahnsen_problemevil.html

From the same article:

"So then, the Bible calls upon us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight. The unbeliever, however, finds the situation intolerable for his pride, feelings, or rationality. He refuses to trust God. He will not believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, unless the unbeliever is given that reason for his own examination and assessment. To put it briefly, the unbeliever will not trust God unless God subordinates Himself to the intellectual authority and moral evaluation of the unbeliever -- unless God consents to trade places with the sinner.

The problem of evil comes down to the question of whether a person should have faith in God and His word or rather place faith in his own human thinking and values. It finally becomes a question of ultimate authority within a person's life. And in that sense, the way in which unbelievers struggle with the problem of evil is but a continuing testimony to the way in which evil entered human history in the first place. The Bible indicates that sin and all of its accompanying miseries entered this world through the first transgression of Adam and Eve. And the question with which Adam and Eve were confronted way back then was precisely the question which unbelievers face today: should we have faith in God's word simply on His say-so, or should we evaluate God and His word on the basis of our own ultimate intellectual and moral authority?

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, testing them to see if they would attempt to define good and evil for themselves. Satan came along and challenged the goodness and truthfulness of God, suggesting He had base motives for keeping Adam and Eve from the delight of the tree. And at that point the whole course of human history depended upon whether Adam and Eve would trust and presuppose the goodness of God. Since they did not, the human race has been visited with torments too many and too painful to inventory. When unbelievers refuse to accept the goodness of God on the basis of His own self-revelation, they simply perpetuate the source of all of our human woes. Rather than solving the problem of evil, they are part of the problem." [End of quote]

Evil is not done by God, but brought about through secondary agents who chose by their own volition to do evil acts. God uses all things to fulfill His purposes and even uses evil for His glory and for our good. God works through people to bring about His own purposes which are good.

Numerous times the Bible mentions God bringing evil and destruction on people as judgment against their sins or to bring sinners to repentance(i.e. - natural disasters, enemy armies). He uses evil human beings or demonic forces to bring about judgment. Everything is working to accomplish God's "good" purposes.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/evil.html

From the article:
"God has foreordained all of the things that have come to pass—including God's decree of evil, in that He knew that free, morally responsible agents would choose evil. By permitting man to sin, the blame and responsibility for evil must never be placed upon God, but on those beings who chose evil.

A sovereign God's ability to accomplish all of His purposes does not result in fatalism. God can maintain sovereignty through morally responsible beings freely choosing according to their desires, establishing man's responsibility, while accomplishing the good and perfect will of God in accordance with all that God decrees. Man is not forced to act against His will in choosing evil, but has freely acted, unknowingly resulting in the fulfillment of the decrees of God.

Genesis 50:20 (NKJV) — "But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring about as it is this day, to save many people alive."

Acts 2:23 (NIV) (In reference to Christ) — "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing Him to the cross."

Acts 4:27-28 (NKJV) — "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, where gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done."

Mankind is responsible for the wickedness of rejecting and crucifying Christ. Man alone is responsible for his own sin. Sin, however, has neither overtaken a sovereign God nor found a place outside of the things God had foreordained and determined by the good counsel of His will. Biblical Christianity demands a sovereign and all-powerful God. A biblical solution to the problem of evil must include a completely sovereign God." [End of quote]

ObiJon, I think you will find the concerns you raised about God's glory answered in these articles too, although you will most likely disagree.

"That "magnify His glory" phrase is where I balk and have serious questions about the nature of the Biblical god."

You said,

"I agree that evil is not a thing in itself. Perhaps it is more like a symptom than a pathogen. It is the thing that comes out of being ill or disconnected."

As a Christian I would say that evil is an act of rebellion towards God, a questioning of God's authority over His creation.

ObiJon, your point of view,

"My point of view: Evil stems from illness and disconnection. [I agree - disconnection from God] Good, although I haven't mentioned "good" so far, if it is the opposite of evil, must then stem from health and connection."

A question raised by your last statement is how do you determine what "illness and disconnection" are without an objective standard? As soon as I determine it is something different than your definition then who is "right?" As soon as you step into the field of "good" and "right" you are defining what "ought" to be. Without an objective standard you have the problem of explaining why I should take any credence in your view, and I don't.

Eric,
The gist of your post seems to be that your god's answer to the question "Why?" is "Because I said so."
As a parent, I can tell you that "Because I said so." is not a sufficient answer to a child's question. From the time my daughter learned to talk, I took the position that if she had the intellectual capacity to form a question, she had the capacity to understand a real answer. Surely a heavenly father could give as much credit for intelligence to the child he created as this mortal mother gave to the child she created?

Rob Adams:

Well, a week later, I thought I'd address some of your questions. Sorry about the delay - I've been studying for a Hebrew final.

You mentioned from an article you read that ""Contradiction is always a sign of error”. If not error then the Bible is theoretically incomplete." I agree with both. Contradiction IS a sign of error and YES the Bible is incomplete. God assembled for us in His word what we need to know - it is not possible for God to FULLY reveal Himself to us, our finite minds could not handle it.

A great example is in Ecclesiastes. In Eccl. 8:14, Solomon describes that he sought to answer why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people. He concludes in 8:17 that "man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out. Even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out." But it doesn't end there. He mulls over that answer in chapter 9. In 9:4 he says, "He who is joined with all the living has hope...For the living know that they will die." Then verses 7 through 10 are exhortations to enjoy life to the fullest - to make the most of what we have now. The two chapters taken together clearly state that God doesn't want us to understand all things, he wants us to live our best every moment. God wisely tells us what we need to know.

You asked, "What does God do to the Eskimo who has never heard of Christianity?" This question could frame a dissertation. Believers who KNOW God understand that He is just and trust that He will deal justly and mercifully to all people. Beyond that, we know that even without the gospel, there is sufficient evidence in what has been created (Romans 1:18ff) and in our own consciences (Romans 2:12-16)for God to judge us. Acts chapter 10 is about a gentile who was truly seeking God. What did God do? He sent Peter with the gospel. By this we know that God will provide for those who love Him.

For the two-year-old that you mentioned, I recommend you seek an article on the 'age of accountability' from an evangelical author. As far as the child being baptized, baptism does not save anyone - Grace does through faith. Baptism is merely the first act of obedience of a new believer.

You also asked, "why does God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?" God passed judgment on those cities. Read Genesis 18:16 to 19:29. God sends His angels to rescue the righteous (lot and his family) from the cities. Their sin was apparently so pervasive that He found it necessary to wipe them out. Also, notice in Genesis 15:13-16 that God puts the people of Israel in bondage in Egypt for 400 years because "the sin of the Amorite is not yet complete." The Amorites lived in the promised land and God put off their destruction until their sin was "complete." This answers how God could tell the Israelites to wipe out everyone in the promised land - their sin was "complete."

You could say, "that's not fair" or "if they lived, might they have repented? God didn't give them a chance." But think about this: When God gives the first command in Genesis 2:16-17 he says "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." It also says in Romans 6:23 that the "wages of sin is death." In other words, the human race earned a death sentence the very day that Adam and Eve ate of the tree. In that sense, we are all living on borrowed time. You and I both, as fellow sinners, sit here and type on borrowed time - we should be dead already. But God, in His mercy tolerates us for a while and gives us an opportunity to repent and believe in His Son, Jesus Christ. Instead of questioning His judgment, ought we live thankful for His mercy? I am thankful because I know my heart - that I deserve death, but God has saved me by the work of Jesus on the cross.

Concerning the Bible's "numerous contradictions," I can say with certainty that there are no REAL contradictions in the Bible. There are a few points (particularly where His sovereignty meets our accountability) that seem to contradict. In those instances, you are correct to say that the Bible is incomplete for His own reasons (see above comments).

In summary, I can confidently assert this, that those who live as if the Bible is God's inerrant and all-sufficient revelation are the best equipped for life and live with the fewest contradictions of any world view. For many like us, nothing needs to be added to or taken away from the Bible.

However, the only way to reach that point of total satisfaction in the Bible is an unconditional surrender to its author. A surrender that occurs before it is all understood, parsed, and justified in the mind. It is an act of FAITH - which is God's standard for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10). It is in essence a state of heart that says to God, "I believe you, now tell me." This is the faith of a child that Jesus talks about.

Continue seeking, Rob!

Your servant, Eric B.

ObiJon,

Thanks for the reply. I will be working the next two nights so I will respond on Wednesday or Thursday, if not before. Please check back in.

Obijan,
There's a Unitarian hymn I really like, mainly because of its last line: "We have found that to question truly is an answer."

ack, some things in my cut & paste got deleted, but the essential questions are still there. refer to the previous post, but if goes by one of the ">" I inserted
***
"Do we question that wisdom?"

YES!!!

"No, because God is perfect and His wisdom is perfect. In other words, the perfect plan to glorify God includes evil being present temporarily in Creation."

Mr Huff:
Dictionary definitions are okay, but it is much better when one defines one's own terms. There are two kinds of dicitionaries: descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive dictionaries explain how words are and were used. Prescriptive dictionaries outline how a word should be used as decided by a board of directors or other such body. Besides, they all list several definiions for a word. All definitions are not applied in every use of a word. Defining one's own terms allows one to restrict the conversation and make one's meaning more clear to a reader or listener. Some words are actually their own opposites, for example, "moot." "Moot" can mean "worthy of discussion" or "not worthy of discussion."

To answer your queries:
"Do you believe you view of the world is neutral or unbiased?"
-No, and neither is anyone else's. That is a limitation everyone faces.

"Do you believe that each person has to presuppose certain things to be true to believe anything?"
-Complicated question, almost a 2-parter. (That "to believe anything" is tricky.) I don't see much difference between belief and presupposition. I guess my experiences reinforce my presuppositions to create belief? "Presuppose..." What's your definition?

"Do you believe that how you view the world is formed by certain basic principles or starting points that weave together your web of belief?"
-That statement makes sense. To create any syllogism, one needs "givens."

"You believe that something, just because it is accepted as true is not actually true (by your assertion that you disagree with the Bible as being an infallible source of revelation of right and wrong, good and bad)."
-Yes. Just because something is believed to be true doesn't make it actually exit, except as a belief. The universe was accepted to be geocentric for many centuries before the belief was discarded. Many believed the universe to be constantly expanding, that "truth" is now in doubt.

"How do you know that your assertion is right?"
-I have the right to assert such. (play on words)
-Is my assertion accurate? As accurate as yours.

"Are you the final judge in what is "right" and "good"?"
-I haven't mentioned "right" or "good," but once. I mentioned "evil." If something promotes ones health and the health of others and puts one in closer connection with the cycles of nature/ the world, then it is good. The long run is the judge. Is health increased? Are healthy cycles perpetuated? Then it is right or good.

"If not why do you think your opinion is valid and how can you be sure?"
-Yes, it is both logically sound, and intuitively verified. (It just feels "right.") Can something healthy that contributes to the health of all be "wrong?"

"When you say that the Bible has no authority, other than the authority of tradition, are you the final authority on that? If not how do you know? Is it just a presumption, just your preference?"
-Authority is granted by the submissive party. One creates power by submitting to it. The Bible has only the authority that people who believe in its authority lend to it. Nature has the power to destroy me, no matter what I will. I think its cycles trump some musty pages.

The "Lord Jesus Christ" is not a historical figure, he is a mythological figure. Jesus might be historical, a preacher who gathered followers who believed him to be the "Son of Man" or "Son of God" or somesuch, just like quite a few "messiahs" of his age. His followers, however, managed to eventually convert some kings, who won some wars, and spread those beliefs. His "Lord" and "Christ" attributes, however, are not historical. No more than Alexander the Great's semidivine status. Was Alexander historically the son of Zeus?

As a mystic I am not solipsistic. I do not believe mine to be the only reality. I do, however, only have my own experience. My experience is the tool with which I interact with the world. I assume that others have similar experiences, with similar limitations.
I do believe that there is a concrete reality with which we all interact to some degree, but all imperfectly. Have you read "Cogito Ergo Sum?" I don't want to go over that whole process again, and I don't want to recall anything incorrectly. Descartes already walked this whole thought process out.

One creates one's own "truth" and then tests it out against experience, modifying, reworking, or even discarding it as needed. I have no confidence that I will believe these same things that I believe today 20 years from now. I'm doing the best I can with what I have.

I hope I have answered your questions. How about mine from earlier, I'll copy and paste it below, with some ">>" for emphasis on my questions:
***
I follow you all the way to the selection from Romans.

"Second, God did not and will not condone evil. But God does let evil be done. Meaning He could stop sin from happening but sometimes does not, thus He allows it to happen."

My point exactly.

"Usually, He stops evil from happening by His restraining grace, but obviously He lets much evil happen. Why?"

Okay, why?

"Because in His wisdom He knows that evil will work to magnify His glory."

WHAT!?
He lets people die or be slaughtered or suffer evil to "magnify His glory?" >>Okay, maybe "magnify His glory" is some code, but reading that in English, he sounds like some kind of powerhungry sadist.

"Do we question that wisdom?"

YES!!!

"No, because God is perfect and His wisdom is perfect. In other words, the perfect plan to glorify God includes evil being present temporarily in Creation."

>>Why should this god care for glory? Is not he the source and ultimate glory? How could it be any greater? If the point of his creation is to reveal his glory, why not just create it as perfectly glorious? Why allow so much suffering and evil?

"And in the mean time, all of creation groans, and we ourselves eagerly await for redemption. [Romans 8:22]"

Well, I certainly groan. But promise me not the "sugar candy mountain" of redemption. I'd rather believe in a host of flawed deities that in a perfect deity who choses to allow humanity to be subject to evil for the good of his own glory.

ObiJon,

Here is a bit of hilarity for you. You will have to listen closely.

http://podcast.unchainedradio.com/podcast/atheistcoalition.mp3

ObiJon,

Here is a bit of hilarity for you. You will have to listen closely.

http://podcast.unchainedradio.com/podcast/atheistcoalition.mp3

Hello ObiJon,

Some terms that need to be defined:
"Belief"
"Truth"
"Exist"

be·lief (bĭ-lēf') pronunciation
n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

truth (trūth) pronunciation
n., pl. truths (trūTHz, trūths).

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

ex·ist (ĭg-zĭst') pronunciation
intr.v., -ist·ed, -ist·ing, -ists.

1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: “Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category” (Thomas G. Exter).

ObiJon, to proceed further let me ask you some questions. Please give me a reason but put it in terms that I can understand.

Do you believe you view of the world is neutral or unbiased?

Do you believe that each person has to presuppose certain things to be true to believe anything?

Do you believe that how you view the world is formed by certain basic principles or starting points that weave together your web of belief?
(i.e. An atheists basic starting point would be that God does not exist and he builds his view of reality on that basic premise. Everything he interprets is filtered through that basic premise. All the evidence he looks for is biased by that assumption. The opposite would be true for a Christian)

You believe that something, just because it is accepted as true is not actually true (by your assertion that you disagree with the Bible as being an infallible source of revelation of right and wrong, good and bad).

How do you know that your assertion is right?

Are you the final judge in what is "right" and "good"? If not why do you think your opinion is valid and how can you be sure?

If you are the final judge, then anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (and I would contend your thinking is delusional). But the problem is if you are not then who is? Or should the question be what is? Is science the final judge? Is science objective? If there is no final judge on matters of right and wrong, good and bad, how can we know anything for certain about what is good or right; and yet that is not the way you conduct your life, I'm sure of that. You are making the truth claim that the Bible is not the infallible word of God so without borrowing from my view that God is the final judge, being the absolute ultimate objective standard on right and good, how do you determine that, by your own personal opinion? Big deal. That is how many wars are started, by a disagreement on values.

If truth is anything that is congruent with your beliefs, then is anything opposed to your belief, such as what the writers recorded in the Bible and saw as truth wrong/untrue?

When you say that the Bible has no authority, other than the authority of tradition, are you the final authority on that? If not how do you know? Is it just a presumption, just your preference?

If reality is in the mind of the beholder (i.e. seeing things from your own point of view), then if my reality is different and contradictory from your reality, and in the absence of objective truth, there is no final source of appeal. All such views lead to skepticism. Truth is arbitrary; nothing matters. It is a power game that fills the void. Do what you want as long as you can get away with it.

Without checking, if I remember correctly, you said that you are a mystic. Christianity is based on an historical figure, the Lord Jesus Christ. What is a mystic experience based on other that the self as the center of the universe?

Hope to hear from you.

Do you discover truth or do you create it?

Thanks PriveR,

I agree we definitely disagree.

Mr Huff:

"God is just; God is our Creator."

The god as presented in the bible is certainly not just. Do you feel that innocents should be murdered in place of someone who commits real horrible crimes? What about stoning disobedient children to death, or slavery? I believe that it is the real beginning of arrogance to claim to know all just by reading in a book written for a political cause. I do not make such claims, but I can support those who find some good in a book that they COMBINE with their own experiences to get a bigger picture of a clearer whole.

Nature, through the processes involved in procreation when my parents joined, is my Creator.

"Because God has given us this life as a precious gift. Looking at "Nature" shows you the grandeur and power of our Creator."

As I believe that Nature is the source of all divinity and all things are interconnected, I do agree that life in the here and now is a precious gift. As such it is incumbent upon us all to maintain the web of life and our place in it, to restore balance when it is lost. But it appears to me that you are arguing both ways by saying that life in the here and now is a precious gift and then turning around and saying that true life begins at death. Which is it? Is life in the here and now merely a cosmic waiting game with a few things to look at and admire in the nicely decorated waiting room?

To me, Nature shows me the grandeur and power of Nature as a living entity.

All you have served to do is to claim the truth of Christianity by coming back to the idea that 'it's true because it says so'. Limiting, and not good enough.

Recorded words are in and of themselves an act of creation. The application of natural human imagination and mental processes assigned to the words allows people to make meaning. You have an understanding of your god based on such processing. As previously stated before, I hold that all acts of human imagination and creation have something of the divine (Awen) in the execution and creation of the product. However I do not hold one higher than the other because one book has a character in it named God who killed an awful lot of people for no reason in an attempt to prove his superiority. All books are acts of creation and therefore equally important. They assist us to make sense out of our world and to find a way of operating within it in such a way as to ensure the betterment of all. This is not just limited to books, but any time an idea manifests as something that others can interact with and understand that unites us rather than divides us, restores the natural cycles, that is a manifestation of the divine.

I have found my journey. I seek information from many sources. The bible is limited, finite. The more I find out, the less I know. I have merely pulled a couple tiny Puzzle pieces out of an infinitely large box. I love learning and the processes therein. Also, the greater my love for this life and wonder at the complexities and mysteries that I find every day in this beautiful place we all call home.

You and I sir, are going to need to agree to disagree. Blessed be.

PriveR

I decided to start reading the paper by Farinaccio (2002) that Peter Huff posted recently.

I read up to page 15, but I have fundamental disagreements with his definition of terms, so what follows is inherently nonsense to me.

Some terms that need to be defined:
"Belief"
"Truth"
"Exist"

Belief: Belief is the assertion that a particular property or set of porperties exitsts. This is often done without scientifically verifiable proof.
Examples: One believes in faeries. One believes that there are intelligences that exist that are often unseen, that can affect the physical world in minor ways, maliciously, mischievously (often!), or benevolently.
One believes in an onmiscient God. One Believes that God is aware of everything that is done, happens, or is thought everywhere.

I CAN believe in the laws of thermodynamics, but I really don't have to. They operate independent of my belief in them. The influence of faeries or God, however, seems to rise and fall with belief.

Truth: Truth's opposite is the lie. I lie when I knowingly assert something that contradicts my beliefs. I say the truth when I assert things that are congruent with my beliefs.

(One might disagree with my definition of truth. Aother definition might be the truth whose opposite is falsehood. But, when one is in a court of law, mine is the funtioning definition when one promises to "tell the truth, wthe whole truth, and nothing but the truth." You are not guilty of perjury if you state a falsehood.)

Exist: Something exists if it has some effect on the physical world in an observable, scientifically reproducible way. The properties described by the laws of gravity exist. The chair I'm sitting in exists. My mind exists, as far as I identify it as the thing that guides my actions and choice of keystrokes.

One can assert that things exist that do not fit this definition. That does not make them exist. One can cite proof of their existence by claiming other things have been affected physically by them, but that "proof" might not be scientifically reproducible. Luckily, belief in something's existence does not require it to actually exist in this manner.

One's belief, however, does exist. It guides one's choices and actions, and how one interacts with physical existence.

So, that is why I disagree with the Bible as an infallible souce to tell humanity what is good and what is evil. The bible is recorded beliefs, what the recorders saw as truth. That does not prove the existence of anything asserted by the words of the Bible. The Bible has no authority other than the authority of tradition. No book or scripture has any inherent authority.

PriveR

"If it was true, it would make him schizophrenic. Murderous. I don't see how any loving god kills their own child voluntarily to prove a point."

Your missing the point I laid out in the last post. God is just; God is our Creator.

It was something the Son voluntarily did to reconcile man with God by meeting His just requirements and dying in place of the sinner who believes.

"You in your limited knowledge are calling your creator, the one in that book, and mine the same."

Here are some answers to your questions why Christianity is true:
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/FaithReason.pdf

"If, as you say, 'true life begins after we die', then why live here and now? What do you live for? Why bother with helping people at all?
why don't you just say 'I believe' and get the process underway?"

Because God has given us this life as a precious gift. Looking at "Nature" shows you the grandeur and power of our Creator. Hopefully it leads mankind to further inquiry after God.

Lepidopteryx,

The reason I appeal to the Bible is because there is no higher authority. Why would I appeal to a lower authority than God? Just because you do not believe in His authority?

As for your suggesting that you stay in an abusive relationship, forgive me if I gave you the impression that you should just ride it out. In my opinion, in such a relationship you definitely need help and need to get away from the physical abuse. But to abandon God in the process is what I find sad.

Mr Huff:

"PriveR, the God of the Old Testament or Jewish Scriptures is the same God of the New Testament."

If it was true, it would make him schizophrenic. Murderous. I don't see how any loving god kills their own child voluntarily to prove a point. That god is not a god I want anything to do with. It allows you to abdicate responsibility for your own actions and the harm that is caused to others.

"You in your limited knowledge are calling your Creator evil and not worthy of worship"

You in your limited knowledge are calling your creator, the one in that book, and mine the same. I call your creator as defined by the bible as out of balance and unworthy of worship. My creator comes from no book, but Nature itself. Nature, through synchronicity, reunites us with our higher purpose and drives us to fulfill it. It heals us and helps us to understand why we behave as we do. It helps to confront and work with our fears and shadows. It seeks to regain the balance that is lost.

"PriveR, in answer to your questions, I do not know enough about synchronicity to comment other than to say that I’m sure believer’s in all faiths can report such happenings. Feelings are a subjective issue."

Sir, my results are presented in such a way that others can observe similar results. Synchronicity involves far more than just 'feelings'. It is about learning to work in step with Nature, for me it is as an act of worship. I honor the energy and life in all things on this beautiful planet as my source of divinity. Do you have any evidence outside the bible or any other book for that matter to prove anything you quote infallible? Many contemporary Christians appear to believe that there is more meaning to be taken from the text when it is not looked at as infallible, but as a source of inspiration, and when combined with personal experience allows for a deeper and more fulfilling relationship with the higher energies.

"It is not the book or the printed text we worship, but the God revealed through the printed text. He has revealed Himself to us by His Word which has been recorded so that we may know Him better. Through that word we can understand our Creator and His instruction on how to worship Him."

How do you know that you have the unedited, uncut, original translated version of that book? Words by themselves have an inherent power. You appear to feel that way, or else the words laid down as you see them would not hold such sway. But words also change meaning over time. Perhaps my question should have read "how can you prove that you do not hold the creation (words in a set order) above the creator?" I already acknowlege that I do not separate the two.

"What happens when God regenerates someone is that He gives them a new life in the sense that we receive a new nature that is not in rebellion towards Him."

That sounds a lot like some of the Sci Fi stories that I occasionally enjoy. Especially the one where the guy creates a stitched together man with a brain programmed with a computer chip specifically designed to program blind obediance. Maybe Mary Shelley and Asimov knew what they were talking about. We all know how THOSE stories end.

When the Bible gives the analogy of what our bodies were and what they will become at the resurrection of the dead, it is talking of a time after we have died when we will be reunited with our bodies and it compares the two; our earthly body and our heavenly body.

This is starting to get into zombie territory. Are you aware of the processes that the body undergoes after death? Also makes for interesting stories and movies. If this is supposed to be metaphorical language, then this and other passages like it are no longer infallible, thereby negating the bible's supposed 'inerrancy'. As does the part that says 'stone children to death who talk back to their parents'. Are we supposed to take that literally too?

"The lifetime actions of your family will be judged just as yours will. If they or you are depending on their/your own merit do you think it will meet the righteous requirements of God?"

The god of the bible? I sure hope not. That god sets people up to fail. 'the bad fruit is over there, don't touch it!' 'i give you a brain with logic and free will, don't use it!' 'i kill my son because you and your descendents are unworthy of me'. Besides, anyone who lets 6 million jews along with millions of other people be murdered in the most elaborate technologically advanced killing machine ever seen in the history of the world doesn't deserve my loving family. That god did nothing to save them. Especially not one who marks people for hell based on who they are born to, and even the littlest ones before they have a chance to do anything.

If, as you say, 'true life begins after we die', then why live here and now? What do you live for? Why bother with helping people at all?
why don't you just say 'I believe' and get the process underway?

PriveR

Peter:
Again, you try to validate/prove your book by referring to your book. Using that technique, I could prove that there existed a creature called the frumious bandersnatch by quoting Lewis Carroll's warning to beware of it - why would he warn the reader to beware the frumious bandersnatch if ther was no such thing? I could also prove the existence of the Greek pantheon by quoting Homer. I find much practical advice in your book - don't steal, don't murder, be faithful to your significant other, don't lie, set aside time to refresh your spirit, treat others respectfully, offer food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless, comfort to the afflicted - I could go on, but you get the picture. For me, this is sufficient, and can be done no matter what deity you believe in, or if you believe in no deity at all.
As for Ieshua paying man's price, it doesn't work that way. If I commit a capital crime, and someone else is executed for it, even if that person willingly allows himself to be, it does not absolve my guilt. In fact, it compounds it, for now I am not only guilty of the original crime, but also of the death of the innocent person who was executed in my place. I don't believe that people should be held accountable for crimes other people committed, and that works on both ends. Just as I would never punish my daughter for misbehaviors committed by my great-grandmother, nor would I take the punishment for a crime committed by someone else.
As for your assertion that your God stands by people in times of crisis, where the hell was he when I asked for his help with my abusive marriage? Praying did not stop the violence. I prayed that he would change my ex-husband's nature, so that he would no longer be violent. I prayed that he would change my nature so that I would not make him angry - but sometimes something as simple as too much salt in the stew would result in a plate full of hot food flying across the room. I prayed for God to help me, and I received no help from him. A god who withholds his aid from those in need of it is as useless. Things only got better when I stopped praying and started walking. How long was I suposed to have faith and pray - until bruises healed? Until fractured bones knit? Until the furniture he broke during his rages was repaired? If I had kept praying, I would have prayed myself into an early grave. If I had followed my instincts and left when I first had the idea to do so, I would have saved myself a lot of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual pain. I have come to the conclusion that it is far better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

Hi Lepidopteryx, PriveR and ObiJon,

Your response Lepidopteryx:
"You say that God did not create evil, But your scripture says (I believe in Isaiah) that both good and evil come from God."

I think the scripture you are referring to is Isaiah 45:7. Depending on which translation into English you are citing would read either "evil" or "disaster" or "calamity." Not being versed in the original Greek and Hebrew I cannot go into the etymology of the word as to its original meaning. The NIV renders the word "Disaster" and since the same word is used in other passages to mean disaster I would concur. Disaster also fits with the context of the passage and in many other verses of the Bible God brings disaster.

"I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create DISASTER." (Isa. 45:7)

Isaiah 45:7 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

7The One forming