"Christian Nation" A Label That Disrespects God

vhrcgfitb fcgsd wnoxpcvt oukt zfbu ipax alkvds

vhrcgfitb fcgsd wnoxpcvt oukt zfbu ipax alkvds

http://kukan-travel.com/air/northwest-airline-flight-tracker.html ">northwest airline flight tracker

http://kukan-travel.com/air/northwest-airline-flight-status.html ">northwest airline flight status

http://kukan-travel.com/air/northwest-airline-flight-information.html ">northwest airline flight information

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-discounts-for-military.html ">airline discounts for military

http://kukan-travel.com/air/paul-gaughin-tahiti-cruise.html ">paul gaughin tahiti cruise

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-discount-tickets-discount-airfare.html ">airline discount tickets discount airfare

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-discount-tickets.html ">airline discount tickets

http://kukan-travel.com/air/pan-american-airlines-home-page.html ">pan american airlines home page

http://kukan-travel.com/air/pan-am-airline-reservations.html ">pan am airline reservations

http://kukan-travel.com/air/pakistan-international-airlines.html ">pakistan international airlines

http://kukan-travel.com/air/overweight-buying-airline-tickets.html ">overweight buying airline tickets

http://kukan-travel.com/air/online-airline-ticket-websites.html ">online airline ticket websites

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-discount-codes.html ">airline discount codes

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-credit-cards.html ">airline credit cards

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-credit-card.html ">airline credit card

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-consolidated-tickets.html ">airline consolidated tickets

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-reservations-online.html ">airline reservations online

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-companies-low-prices.html ">airline companies low prices

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-reservation-philippines.html ">airline reservation philippines

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-cheap-discount-tickets.html ">airline cheap discount tickets

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-ratings-pet-travel.html ">airline ratings pet travel

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-points-on-credit-cards.html ">airline points on credit cards

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-car-deal-hotel-orbitz-rental-ticket-travel.html ">airline car deal hotel orbitz rental ticket travel

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-pet-travel.html ">airline pet travel

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-northwest-ticket.html ">airline northwest ticket

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-minute-airfare-ticket-fare.html ">airline minute airfare ticket fare

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-and-hotel-reservations.html ">airline and hotel reservations

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-miles-credit-card.html ">airline miles credit card

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airfare-cheap-deals-discounts-student-tickets-travel.html ">airfare cheap deals discounts student tickets travel

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-travel-tickets-canada.html ">air travel tickets canada

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-travel-ticket-prices.html ">air travel ticket prices

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-low-price-ticket.html ">airline low price ticket

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-low-fares.html ">airline low fares

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-tickets-discount.html ">air tickets discount

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-international-flight-tracker.html ">airline international flight tracker

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-international-flight-routes.html ">airline international flight routes

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-tickets-cheap-deals.html ">air tickets cheap deals

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-international-fares.html ">airline international fares

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-tickets-canada.html ">air tickets canada

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-industry-statistics-fuel-prices.html ">airline industry statistics fuel prices

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-to-thailand.html ">air ticket to thailand

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-in-flight-tracking.html ">airline in flight tracking

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-to-malaysia.html ">air ticket to malaysia

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-in-flight-status.html ">airline in flight status

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-thailand.html ">air ticket thailand

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-free-tickets.html ">airline free tickets

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-sale.html ">air ticket sale

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flightsto-australia.html ">airline flightsto australia

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-reservations.html ">air ticket reservations

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flights-to-florida.html ">airline flights to florida

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-insurance.html ">air ticket insurance

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flights-to-alaska.html ">airline flights to alaska

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-for-jarkata-in-singapore.html ">air ticket for jarkata in singapore

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flights-tickets-cheap.html ">airline flights tickets cheap

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-europe.html ">air ticket europe

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flights-newark-nj-to-juneau-alaska.html ">airline flights newark nj to juneau alaska

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-auction-deals.html ">air ticket auction deals

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-ticket-auction.html ">air ticket auction

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flights-cheap.html ">airline flights cheap

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-sahara-india-tickets-online.html ">air sahara india tickets online

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-tracking-real-time.html ">airline flight tracking real time

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-tracking-current.html ">airline flight tracking current

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-plane-tickets-for2-to-california.html ">air plane tickets for2 to california

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-tracking-canada.html ">airline flight tracking canada

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-tracking.html ">airline flight tracking

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-line-tickets-to-puerto-rico-from-florida.html ">air line tickets to puerto rico from florida

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-trackers.html ">airline flight trackers

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-line-tickets-online.html ">air line tickets online

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-track.html ">airline flight track

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-line-tickets-cheap.html ">air line tickets cheap

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-to-philippine.html ">airline flight to philippine

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-line-tickets-and-cheap-flights.html ">air line tickets and cheap flights

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-times.html ">airline flight times

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-line-ticket-voucher.html ">air line ticket voucher

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-tickets.html ">airline flight tickets

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-line-ticket-travel-zoo.html ">air line ticket travel zoo

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-status-information.html ">airline flight status information

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-line-ticket-gift.html ">air line ticket gift

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-status.html ">airline flight status

http://kukan-travel.com/air/air-line-ticket-auction.html ">air line ticket auction

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-school.html ">airline flight school

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-schedules-and-lax.html ">airline flight schedules and lax

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-schedules.html ">airline flight schedules

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-routes-map.html ">airline flight routes map

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-maps.html ">airline flight maps

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-information-ps-vienna.html ">airline flight information ps vienna

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-info.html ">airline flight info

http://kukan-travel.com/air/aida-broadway-musical-tickets.html ">aida broadway musical tickets

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-codes.html ">airline flight codes

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-flight-arrival-times.html ">airline flight arrival times

http://kukan-travel.com/air/affordable-cruise-vacation-travel-myrtle-beach-sc.html ">affordable cruise vacation travel myrtle beach sc

http://kukan-travel.com/air/airline-fares-and-schedules.html ">airline fares and schedules

http://kukan-travel.com/air/ace-sport-tickets-kansas-city.html ">ace sport tickets kansas city

http://kukan-travel.com/air/a-romantic-weekend-cruise.html ">a romantic weekend cruise

http://porno-studio.info/1/newbienudes.html ">newbienudes

http://porno-studio.info/1/senior-sex.html ">senior sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/adultactioncam.html ">adultactioncam

http://porno-studio.info/1/simple-nudes.html ">simple nudes

http://porno-studio.info/1/underage-sex.html ">underage sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/nude-males.html ">nude males

http://porno-studio.info/1/xxx-sex.html ">xxx sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/adultmovies.html ">adultmovies

http://porno-studio.info/1/pregnant-sex.html ">pregnant sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/sex-personals.html ">sex personals

http://porno-studio.info/1/preteen-nudes.html ">preteen nudes

http://porno-studio.info/1/public-sex.html ">public sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-guys.html ">sexy guys

http://porno-studio.info/1/incest-sex.html ">incest sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexpics.html ">sexpics

http://porno-studio.info/1/wild-sex.html ">wild sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/porn-sex.html ">porn sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-xxx-porn.html ">free xxx porn

http://porno-studio.info/1/sex-position.html ">sex position

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-xxx-video.html ">free xxx video

http://porno-studio.info/1/young-sex.html ">young sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/nude-lolitas.html ">nude lolitas

http://porno-studio.info/1/celebrity-sex-tapes.html ">celebrity sex tapes

http://porno-studio.info/1/nude-male.html ">nude male

http://porno-studio.info/1/sex-postions.html ">sex postions

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-feet.html ">sexy feet

http://porno-studio.info/1/nudest.html ">nudest

http://porno-studio.info/1/forced-sex.html ">forced sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexxx.html ">sexxx

http://porno-studio.info/1/adultsex.html ">adultsex

http://porno-studio.info/1/blackadultdate.html ">blackadultdate

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-sex-clips.html ">free sex clips

http://porno-studio.info/1/girls-having-sex.html ">girls having sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/kinky-sex.html ">kinky sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-xxx-pictures.html ">free xxx pictures

http://porno-studio.info/1/interacial-sex.html ">interacial sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/xxxsex.html ">xxxsex

http://porno-studio.info/1/pornografia.html ">pornografia

http://porno-studio.info/1/rough-sex.html ">rough sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/sex-parties.html ">sex parties

http://porno-studio.info/1/sex-porn.html ">sex porn

http://porno-studio.info/1/sex-tapes.html ">sex tapes

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-black-girls.html ">sexy black girls

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-nudes.html ">free nudes

http://porno-studio.info/1/xxxpics.html ">xxxpics

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-sex-cams.html ">free sex cams

http://porno-studio.info/1/lolita-sex.html ">lolita sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/freeporno.html ">freeporno

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-moms.html ">sexy moms

http://porno-studio.info/1/nude-ladies.html ">nude ladies

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-shoes.html ">sexy shoes

http://porno-studio.info/1/nude-resorts.html ">nude resorts

http://porno-studio.info/1/cyber-sex.html ">cyber sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexpictures.html ">sexpictures

http://porno-studio.info/1/sex-machines.html ">sex machines

http://porno-studio.info/1/adult-fan-fiction.html ">adult fan fiction

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-legs.html ">sexy legs

http://porno-studio.info/1/xxx-pics.html ">xxx pics

http://porno-studio.info/1/bbw-personals.html ">bbw personals

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-adult-pics.html ">free adult pics

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-adult-movies.html ">free adult movies

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-nude-girls.html ">free nude girls

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-xxx-pics.html ">free xxx pics

http://porno-studio.info/1/girl-sex.html ">girl sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/nude-boys.html ">nude boys

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-videos.html ">sexy videos

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-videos.html ">sexy videos

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-videos.html ">sexy videos

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-videos.html ">sexy videos

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-videos.html ">sexy videos

http://porno-studio.info/1/girls-nude.html ">girls nude

http://porno-studio.info/1/hard-core-sex.html ">hard core sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/teen-nudes.html ">teen nudes

http://porno-studio.info/1/xxx-videos.html ">xxx videos

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-adult-videos.html ">free adult videos

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-xxx-movies.html ">free xxx movies

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-pornography.html ">free pornography

http://porno-studio.info/1/homosexuality.html ">homosexuality

http://porno-studio.info/1/midget-sex.html ">midget sex

http://porno-studio.info/1/lesbiansex.html ">lesbiansex

http://porno-studio.info/1/male-nudes.html ">male nudes

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-ladies.html ">sexy ladies

http://porno-studio.info/1/porno-pictures.html ">porno pictures

http://porno-studio.info/1/porno-sites.html ">porno sites

http://porno-studio.info/1/xxxx.html ">xxxx

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-adult-porn.html ">free adult porn

http://porno-studio.info/1/transexuals.html ">transexuals

http://porno-studio.info/1/freesexpics.html ">freesexpics

http://porno-studio.info/1/adult-pics.html ">adult pics

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-xxx-pics.html ">free xxx pics

http://www.hometown.aol.com/topdrugz/topamax.html ">topamax

http://porno-studio.info/1/blacksex.html ">blacksex

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-xxx-movies.html ">free xxx movies

http://www.hometown.aol.com/topdrugz/flomax.html ">flomax

http://porno-studio.info/1/adult-pictures.html ">adult pictures

http://porno-studio.info/1/free-sex-video.html ">free sex video

http://www.hometown.aol.com/PingPongZzz/SexyTeens.html ">sexy teens

http://porno-studio.info/1/sexy-pics.html ">sexy pics

http://www.hometown.aol.com/PingPongZzz/NakedTeens.html ">naked teens

http://www.hometown.aol.com/ZooomZ3/CumShots.html ">cum shots

http://www.hometown.aol.com/ZooomZ3/FatChicks.html ">fat chicks

http://www.hometown.aol.com/TopTenSearch/YoungerBabes.html ">younger babes

http://www.hometown.aol.com/PingPongZzz/WetPussy.html ">wet pussy

http://www.hometown.aol.com/TopTenSearch/NudeBeaches.html ">nude beaches

http://www.hometown.aol.com/TopTenSearch/HotBlondes.html ">hot blondes

http://www.hometown.aol.com/PingPongZzz/Plumpers.html ">plumpers

http://www.hometown.aol.com/TopTenSearch/HotBabes.html ">hot babes

www.kukannnn.com

www.kukannnn.com

Harry, you said on 13 December 2006
"Susan Thistlethwatte is absolutely right. Religious coercion of any kind--be it of faith of practice--is a complete contradiction of terms. Jesus coerced no one into believing as he did or doing as he did. His call to conversion was simply: "Come, follow me."" -- Please look at St. Luke's gospel Chapter 19 verse 27; you will see that Jesus said quite clearly: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me " How much more coersive can you get?!

In addition to my above response, I wanted to add some answers to the questions you asked and some additional comments:

You wrote, "I ask you, is this [inherent sinfulness] what you see when you look around you – or when you look at yourself for that matter. Maybe we see people doing good things relative to the rest of us, but what is the intention of the heart?"

The word for "sin" in the New Testament is hamartia (ἁμαρτία) which literally means "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target." The meaning of "sin" in English is to stand as one guilty of wrongdoing. However, to miss the mark, there has to be a target; and to stand as guilty, there must be a law. Therefore, if a person sets up a mark (i.e., a moral imperative or rule to follow) for him or herself and misses it (i.e., fails to obey by their own code of morality), then they are sinful. Otherwise, a man or a woman cannot be sinful. Thus, when I look at the majority of humankind, I see that people in general fail to follow their own moral laws. This is true. Religion, however, is of no use to helping people follow their own moral laws. Religion merely imposes alien imperatives on people and demands that they not question their value in their lives, since they are given by God. Therefore, if anything, religion creates more sin insofar as it creates new marks that people have not set up for themselves and therefore do not genuinely value.

You wrote, "I just ask you to consider whether or not what you see in the world confirms or denies this claim that human beings are helplessly depraved."

No, humans are not "helplessly depraved." Well, at least, the whole of humanity are not depraved. There are many in the world who are depraved, but again, religion does not help us get food or shelter. Religion is superstition and mis-belief. What we need is humanism and compassion. We don't need religion for that.

You wrote, "He is holy and just, thus, it is imperative that he execute his wrath on the wicked."

I do not see the God of the Bible as just. On the contrary, I see it as quite unjust. It condones the killing of those that don't believe in it and condones its followers celebrating in their death. The believers in a pagan god named "Yaweh" killed off all the other pagans and proclaimed their god as the true God. That is how we got the Bible. Might does not make right, sorry. Power is not truth. Killing those who do not agree with you does not make you moral. Sorry, the God of the Bible is an evil, unjust deity and so were those who killed off their competition.

You wrote, "Yet, this is what his holiness and justice requires."

I do not agree with your standards of holiness or justice. You express your personal conceptions of holiness and justice perhaps because you were raised with the Bible in your left ear and the threat of hell in your right ear if you disagreed with them. If you weren't raised Christian, then in any case, you now have soaked your mind in these values and accept them fully. I do not. I need good reasons to believe that these cruel and impertinent acts of the Biblical God were in accord with holiness and justice. There appear to my mind no reasons whatsoever.

You wrote, "What writer would be content to let another person claim the Pulitzer for his own work?"

A humble writer. Or a writer that didn't care about recognition. Even if we can't imagine a human being so self-effacing, we can surely imagine a God so humble, since God can be anything. You create God in your own image and then say that God created you in his image. How ironic!

You write, "The God you say you can imagine, the humble, self-effacing, unassuming God, could this not be Jesus Christ?"

Yes, it could be Jesus. Or Ram Dass. Or you. Or me. In short, there is no reason to believe that it was any of them.

You wrote, "The only source of true and lasting joy can be found in him."

On the contrary, the only lasting happiness that I have found is in atheism and humanism. Why then do you persist in your assertion that belief in God is necessary for happiness? As one who has found the opposite to be true, I find this utterly unconvincing.

You wrote, "The creator deserves the glory not the creation."

This would be true if we had a reason to believe that nature was created. We do not have any such reason. Thus, while we are ignorant about the ultimate cause of nature (or perhaps there is no ultimate cause, but rather a succession of causes reaching back to infinity) we have no reason to praise a creator but we marvel in nature alone, uncreated.

You wrote, "Many of the [religions] you mentioned actually, to my knowledge, don’t claim to be absolute in the sense that they believe there are many paths that one can take."

Yes, the problem is your knowledge. They all, each and everyone of them, claim absolute exclusivity in as strong (or stronger) language than the Bible. Followers of those religions, just as Christians, soften that exclusivity to make their religion sound more tolerant. They are not tolerant. Or at least, there are believers in all those faiths who claim that their religion is the absolutely true path excluding all others. Why should I not believe them?

Lastly, I admit that I will read the books you recommend that seem interesting. However, those books that you recommend in the place of arguments I will definitely avoid, because they have clearly not furnished you with the powers of reasoning necessary to defend your faith.

That is all for now. Thanks again, Will!

Sorry, Will. My question was not "Why was Jesus God’s mouthpiece on Earth?" It was "Why should we believe that Jesus was God's mouthpiece on Earth?" These are very different questions. Its the difference between asking "Why did God place the Earth on the back of a giant elephant standing on the back of a giant tortoise?" and "Why should we believe that God placed the Earth on the back of an elephant on the back of a tortoise?"

There is no more reason to believe that Jesus was God's representative than there is to believe that either you or I are God's representatives. Why? Because we do not know what type of person God would send, because we do not know anything about God. For all we know, God would send a representative to humanity who would instruct us to ignore people like Jesus.

Please acknowledge my question as it is worded properly so that we may continue our discussion. Unfortunately, the lack of focus or order to your post made it very difficult for me to read. If you would please organize your responses to correspond with my few simple questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Will!

Dear Mavaddat,

“Why was Jesus God’s mouthpiece on Earth?” – Why not Buddha? Why not Muhammad? Why not Joseph Smith, or you, or me? I can really only affirm the biblical claim of Hebrews 1. God’s final word is the person of Christ and more than just a mouthpiece. He is God! You said you are interested in the truth about God and humanity presented in the Bible, so let me begin with the Bible’s claims about humanity.

Doubtless, you are aware that the biblical claim is that man is sinful, but often we fail to see the gravity of that claim. I think Genesis 6:5 really gets the weight of this claim across when it says, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” I ask you, is this what you see when you look around you – or when you look at yourself for that matter. Maybe we see people doing good things relative to the rest of us, but what is the intention of the heart? We cannot answer that for others, only for ourselves (see next paragraph). A friend pointed something out to me about a verse in Romans 1 that has become a favorite of many who argue for intelligent design. Romans 1:20 specifically. The claim in it is that God’s invisible attributes are made known through creation so that no one has an excuse. My friend’s point was that we often look outside (e.g. at stars, trees, etc.) and we forget that humans are part of that creation. Is our nature a witness to these things? Specifically, is God’s holiness (let us assume this is one of his attributes for the time being) magnified by the contrast with human sinfulness. People often assert that organized religion causes hate and evil to fester. I would assert that people organized together causes this, and organized religion simply isn’t a way to stop it. Is it a wonder that Jesus condemns the Pharisees for their religion. It magnified their hypocrisy. Christ’s call was not to religion- his call was to faith.

Moreover, as I look at myself, as I consider the content of my own heart, I see evidence that there is a wide gulf between myself and God in terms of holiness (for the time being let us assume certain attributes that are commonly attributed to God). I consider that no matter how much effort I put into trying to be humble, my mind wanders to prideful thoughts so quickly. I think about all the times I’ve told a sibling I hate him and will never talk to him again. I look at some of the horrible things I see happening in the world and I think, take that hate that I’ve seen in myself and compound that over years and years and I’m no different than they are. I just ask you to consider whether or not what you see in the world confirms or denies this claim that human beings are helplessly depraved.

We’ve been assuming certain things about God, but let’s actually consider what would be the most accurate understanding of God. You point out that the God of the Bible is “jealous, haughty, and a proud sovereign.” Moreover, you say that you can imagine a self-effacing, unassuming, humble God. I think we are not as far apart in our understanding as it might seem. The God we see in the Bible is indeed wrathful. He is holy and just, thus, it is imperative that he execute his wrath on the wicked. Yet the Bible clearly states that he does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18 for one). The interesting thing is, the Bible also conveys a gracious, merciful, loving God. It not only claims that God is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (Exodus 34:6), it is demonstrated through God’s treatment of Israel.
They repeatedly turn from him though he brought them out of Egypt, gave them a fertile land, and made them a great nation. He disciplined them and chastened them for continually turning from him. At times, he punished with death, with famine, with disease, etc. This, I think, is where many derive their view of the God of the Bible as an awful and horrible deity. Yet, this is what his holiness and justice requires. And if we conclude that we are as sinful as the people of Israel are, then we have only to wonder why God does not crush us at this very moment. But he is slow to anger, gracious and merciful. We also see this in the Bible, where God restores Israel and promises deliverance. He promises that he will not forget his people, nor will he cast them aside. If you read Isaiah and Jeremiah, you see how and why God (according to the biblical record) passes judgement on Israel, but you also see his promise of restoration and the eventual promise of deliverance from sin and condemnation through Christ.

You wondered if God cares that we recognize him for his works. You went on to say, “Even in that case, it only matters to God, not necessarily to us.” I wonder why would God create the universe. I have heard some claim that he created it as “an arena for his glory.” This is just a thought, but think about a writer as an analogy. If he is a supremely gifted writer, he might desire to write a book to get a message across. He might want to give something of worth to humanity, to leave something behind when he is gone. But I also think he desires to display this great talent of his. It is why he leaves his name on the book (pen names and anonymous books not withstanding). It is why he copyrights it. He is then desirous to accept the praise and acclaim that would come his way if his work is well thought of. What writer would be content to let another person claim the Pulitzer for his own work? What scientist, after finding a cure for a horrible disease, would be content to watch another man claim the Nobel for it. If we accept the Bible’s claim that we are created in God’s image, I do not think we would go too far to say that this is a reflection of that image. The second part of what you said was that it doesn’t matter to us even if it matters to God. If he is sovereign, it does matter to us. If he is able to punish us, and if he is in control, it does matter to us. But I’m not going to give you a “Sinners in the hands of angry God” argument (though I do appreciate Jonathan Edwards’ writings very much) because I don’t think belief ought to be motivated by the fear of condemnation.

The God you say you can imagine, the humble, self-effacing, unassuming God, could this not be Jesus Christ? His humility was a staple of his ministry. He was a servant in all things. He is God, yet he washed his disciples feet. He is God, yet he dined with the least respected members of society (i.e. tax collectors, fishermen, etc.). And most of all, he bore God’s holy and just wrath in our stead. Thus, we saw God’s mercy and his justice, his wrath and his love, his righteousness and his grace – and none of these attributes are in conflict or contradictory.

You say that you can imagine a God that cares only about our happiness. While I wouldn’t say that the God of the Bible cares only about our happiness, I would say that he does care about it. And here is my point. The only source of true and lasting joy can be found in him. So in calling men and women to come to him, he is offering infinite joy. I cannot say this better than C.S. Lewis did in The Weight of Glory.

“Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

Terms like egomaniac I would not apply to God but to men for this reason: when men and women are egotistical, it is an affront because we have no reason to be. God has every reason to be. While it is wrong for men to be arrogant, God seeks his own glory and I don’t think this is wrong. The creator deserves the glory not the creation. Furthermore, when others seek their own glory, it often puts others down, makes others feel worse about themselves – it is at our expense in many ways. When God demonstrates his glory, it is exactly the opposite. It is to our benefit. By demonstrating grace in saving sinners, he is seeking glory, yet if he decided not to be “selfish” and seek the glory, we’d all be left condemned.

Indeed there are many claims out there. Many of the ones you mentioned actually, to my knowledge, don’t claim to be absolute in the sense that they believe there are many paths that one can take. There are a few that make claims of absolute truth. I will deal with these in general. Two contradictory statements cannot be true. There is such thing as a paradox, but I’m talking about two things that cannot be reconciled. They say things that are totally contrary to each other. Now something is true: Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, etc. I claim that Christianity is true, but as you pointed out, many make similar claims about their belief sets. This is why I recommended Basic Christianity by John Stott because it starts by looking at Christianity with the skeptic, you might say. It doesn’t begin with implicit claims that one would begin with when speaking to other Christians. I will try to more fully answer the question later though.

I know there wasn’t much flow in that response, but I hope it was helpful, if for nothing else, to see my point of view and to better understand the basis for my beliefs. Looking forward to your thoughts.

Sincerely, Will

Thank you for the reply, Will.

You are right in your understanding that the historical fidelity of the Bible is uninteresting to me. That is because it doesn't actually matter whether Jesus of Nazereth existed, since many people have existed in the history of humanity who have done extraordinary things. Jesus may very well have been important to the people of his time. That, in itself, does not make him a representative of God.

So the question is "Why should we believe that Jesus was God's mouthpiece on Earth?" Jesus may have been God too, but he was at least God's mouthpiece, so we can start with this question. In short, the truth about God and humanity presented in the Bible is what I am interested in.

You wrote, "The greatest sin we believe is to reject our creator. If indeed we were created, I think that we can agree that to reject that creator would be wrong." You are right in saying this only if we assume that God has the personality that is ascribed to him in the Bible. That is, only if it cares about our recognizing it does our rejecting or accepting God matter. And even in that case, it only matters to God, not necessarily to us.

On the other hand, I easily can imagine a God who is humble, self-effacing, and unassuming as opposed to the Biblical image of God as a jealous, haughty, and proud sovereign. My conception of God does not care in the least whether we recognize it, because all it cares about is our happiness, and not whether or not we acknowledge its existence. It allows humanity to accumulate wisdom through its own natural faculties, and not by divine intervention. In fact, such a God would even advise humanity to ignore and shun people like Jesus or Moses, since they would make God seem like an egomaniac who needs recognition and praise at every moment, whereas the true God (i.e., my idea of God) would in reality be quite meek and timid.

In short, there is no reason to suppose that God cares about our recognizing it or ackowledging its existence. Why then should we care about God? I do not believe in God and I lead a very fulfilling and happy life, full of beauty and ecstasy. I appreciate the beauty in nature, because I have evolved to see beauty and order around me. It is amazing to me that my mind imposes such a joyous outlook on my environment. Why then do I need God or Jesus? If you too can derive happiness from the simple appreciation of nature, why do you need God? You may think you need God because you cannot imagine your life without belief in God, but if you tried, you might find greater fulfillment and responsibility in an existence without belief in a God. So it seems as if the question of God is fundamentally unimportant. Why do you see it as important to how you live your life?

Lastly, and most importantly, how do you answer the thousands of other (self-proclaimed) "true" Christians and religious people who say that you have the wrong interpretation of the Bible and the wrong conception of God? Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists... all these Christians have differing interpretations of the meaning of the Bible and its implications for humanity. How do you argue that yours is the right interpretation? Your version of Christianity seems no more or less coherent or convincing than their versions. How then am I supposed to choose from amongst all these presentations of Christianity and decide who got it right?

More generally, how am I supposed to choose Christianity as the true religion of God from amongst all the thousands of religions in the world? Every one supposes that they have the correct description of God or the "ultimate reality" and they all oppose one another in fundamental ways. There are the Jews who say that the Messiah has yet to return, the Muslims who say that another Comforter from whom humanity should seek guidance has come since Jesus, Bahais who say that another Manifestation of God has come since both Jesus and Muhammad who we should turn to, Buddhists who say that there is no God at all, Hindus who say that there are thousands or millions of Gods, etc. Who is right? Why should we believe them?

Dear Mavaddat,

Here is an answer, earlier than I had expected.

As I searched for answers to your questions, I asked several questions. Why does the reliability of scripture matter? I believe that Christianity is good news: salvation through Jesus’ historical incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. This contrasts with views that only Jesus’ teaching matters – that is, that he was only a good moral teacher. And even in this case, if Jesus teaching matters only, our only access to it is the biblical record. A second question follows. I think we may have misunderstood each other on this one (or at least I misunderstood you). What does reliability mean? Two things, I would propose: historical fidelity of the scriptures and veracity of the claims within the text. I think I was focused on historical fidelity while you are looking for a defense of the claims as true.

First, there are many good, scholarly books that have been written to deal with the question of the historical fidelity of the Bible, but I do not think this is of as much concern to you as the question of the veracity of Christ’s claims. In any case, I will recommend some books on the first subject. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? By F.F. Bruce is an excellent starting point. Also, The Canon of Scripture by Bruce, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Harper and Row. Finally, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen and other works by Sir William Ramsay may provide some insight into this. Sir William M. Ramsay (the archaeologist rather than Nobel prize winning chemist) is an especially interesting person to consider since he set out to prove the gospels to be historically inaccurate. But of course, this does not deal with what you are most interested in – the question of veracity in scripture.

Perhaps, for Christians, one of our problems in defending our faith is to make it seem as if we have an exceedingly rational reason to believe and everyone else is ignorant. This is not the case. As you have pointed out, biblical accounts can be interpreted in a thousand different ways (at least). How are we to know which interpretation is correct? And even if we can determine the intent of the writers, how are we to know that their claims are not fallacious? I believe there is evidence, but it is mostly circumstantial. That is not to say it is not enough to formulate an opinion. Simply, it is not enough to form a conviction. We all have opinions as to whether certain accused criminals who have not been convicted are guilty or innocent, but we cannot convict on circumstantial evidence alone.

Likewise, we do not believe based on wisdom of our own. Certainly some have reasoned in their mind as to why belief in God, and Christ specifically, is true. C.S. Lewis is a good example, but Lewis was an atheist for a long time. I seriously doubt he suddenly came upon some new evidence that seriously altered his views. Rather, part of our belief (a belief, I admit, that many Christians actually do not hold) is that God graciously opens our eyes to the truth. This is impossible for me to prove to you. A god that does not exist cannot make me believe in him. If he does exist and is the sovereign creator, than he certainly would be able to make me believe in him. In this case, no scientific proof would be necessary. I believe, that is all I know. I say like the blind man in John 9, “One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” (sorry, I know you did not want me to reference the Bible).

Belief is entirely irrational, yet to Christians it is overwhelmingly rational. I cannot explain this other than the work of God in our lives. Call me crazy or foolish for this, but I cannot help it. I believe. The circumstantial evidence seems as great as all the scientific evidence in the world pointing to one truth. This is pretty much inexplicable, but the Bible affirms it. I am not citing this as proof, just saying that we believe in the inerrancy of the scripture, so we believe that our faith is God’s doing.

I will try to be as rational as possible in this next part. It is a common saying that “no one is perfect.” As a Christian I take that to the extreme. Let me apply it to why we do or do not believe. Our natural bent is toward sin or wrong doing, or whatever. Call it what you will. We are imperfect creatures. The greatest sin we believe is to reject our creator. If indeed we were created, I think that we can agree that to reject that creator would be wrong. It is not in any person to believe. Thus, I affirm what I previously stated. My belief is not of me, but of God. The belief of Christians, whether they agree with this is not, is from God. Just like the story of the blind man, we who once could not see have been made to see.

I did not mention this previously, but I think another reason why the historical fidelity of the gospel accounts is important is because the greatest claim is the person of Jesus Christ. We must know that he actually existed. Did he do the things and claim the things that the gospels say? How can we trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John anyway? These are important questions, though I will not deal with these, but you can read a book titled Basic Christianity by John Stott that deals with them very well, in my opinion. I affirm that Christ is the foundation for my belief and the belief of Christians. He is the reason, he is the center of it. I believe because I believe that Christ is God in Man. I believe that he is fully God and fully man. I will leave you with a rather lengthy quotation of John Stott from an interview with Christianity Today. He was questioned as to why he did not mention the Bible when speaking about authority for Evangelical Christians. Here is his response:

“I did, actually, but you didn't notice it. I said Christ and the biblical witness to Christ. But the really distinctive emphasis is on Christ. I want to shift conviction from a book, if you like, to a person. As Jesus himself said, the Scriptures bear witness to me. Their main function is to witness to Christ.
“We believe in the authority of the Bible because Christ has endorsed its authority. He stands between the two testaments. As we look back to the Old Testament, he has endorsed it. As we look forward to the New Testament, we accept it because of the apostolic witness to Christ. He deliberately chose and appointed and prepared the apostles, in order that they might have their unique apostolic witness to him. I like to see Christ in the middle, endorsing the old, preparing for the new. Although the question of the New Testament canon is complicated, in general we are able to say that canonicity is apostolicity.”

I highly recommend Stott’s book. Also, could you recommend some books that I might read that offer your point of view? I would like to see both sides of the issue, if for nothing else, to simply know the arguments against Christianity – or any belief system for that matter. I think that to argue for a case, we ought to be familiar with the strongest cases of the opposition.

I do hope that you eventually find the answers that you are looking for. Let me know if I can be of any more help, and I am sorry if I disappointed you with my response. I was planning to write something a little more in depth, a little better, but I think it would probably not be fruitful. In any case, I probably will not return to the On Faith website very much in the future (except in the next couple days to see your responses). I think it has become a little bit silly. Everything that is being discusses has been discussed for years. I do not think anything new is really being said, but I truly have enjoyed our dialogue. It has pushed me to look for answers, so I thank you for that. I wish you my best, and enjoy your holiday.

Sincerely,
Will

sok7, I am familiar with the Christian account of the incarnation. Your post was unnecessary. What I would like to know is why anyone should believe any of it. More importantly, why should anyone believe that the Bible describes God accurately?

Please notice that I do not care about prophecies, miracles, or the alleged beauty of the Bible. Prophecy is open to a thousand interpretations and any prophecy can be fulfilled spiritually, or mystically, in a way that cannot be verified or falsified. There is no reason to suppose that one interpretation of a prophecy is any more accurate or true than any other. There is no measure or metric that can establish such a hierarchy of accuracy.

Furthermore, miracles, even if they are true, do not imply that God had anything to do with them. Miracles could be the result of anomalies in nature, the use of rare human powers, or the working of evil demons or aliens of whose powers we are not aware.

Beauty, likewise, communicates nothing about the truth. The beauty of a story, be it a fairy tale or a history book, does not in anyway support the truth of that story. Furthermore, I do not think that the Bible was written beautifully. I think that the character ascribed to God in that book is one of a cruel, impatient, and egotistical deity who I would never worship or describe as "perfect".

Thanks SOK7.

Mavaddat, I will try to respond to your questions by Friday evening. At the latest, Saturday evening.

In the mean time, I will respond to what SOK7 said, "I do not know if any of these prophecies foretold that the Messiah would be Incarnate." I don't think this will specifically address any of your objections; however, it could be interesting at the very least. I got this information from a little book called "Messianic Prophecy in the Old Testament" copyrighted in 1993 by Rock of Israel Inc.

There are more than one, but I will focus on Isaiah 7:14. "Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: behold, this young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and she shall call his name 'Immanu'el, (God with us)."

First, it is called a sign. The Hebrew word is "oth," which also means "wonder" or "miracle." I think it is interesting to note that no Christian asserts that virgin's having babies is a normal thing. It is obvious now, and it was obvious then that reproduction in humans requires intercourse. This is why the word "oth" is used.

Second, the Hebrew word that was translated as "young woman" is "almah." This word is used to describe a young woman of marriageable age who is a virgin. There is a lenghty explanation of it, which I won't go into, but it includes looking at other uses of the word "almah."

Isaiah says that the virgin is to call her son's name "Immanu'el" which means "God with us." When God assigns a name in Scripture, it is somehow indicative of the person's nature or character (i.e. Genesis 17, Hosea 1). I know some object that Jesus was not named Immanu'el. Well, there are responses to this which can be found online, and their are more objections. I haven't found any on either side that unequivocally push me in one direction, but I trust that it is meant as something meant more to be symbolic than a literal naming. Point is, if you look long and hard enough, you can come up with an objection on just about everything. I just find that many of them hold little weight in that they provide little fact, just a possibility in another direction.

Anyway, there are more than 50 specific OT prophecies that I have seen that Christ fulfilled according to the four gospels. They're worth looking into. If nothing else, it's at least interesting.

Sincerely,

Will

Mavaddat,

I will attempt to explain the incarnation, or at least my understanding of it.

To understand the Incarnation of Jesus, you have to go back to the beginning. God [the Father] created man in his own image, and because we are created in His image, each man is devine.

But man fell into sin. And sin intoduced the feelings of shame and guilt that caused us to pull away from God. After eating the forbidden fruit in the garden, Adam tried to hide from God in shame.

Every man since that time has sinned. No man has lived a perfect life. This sin separtes us from God, but God wants to draw close to us again. He wants a personal relationship with each one of us.

Man, because of own sinful nature, cannot reach God. But Christianity believes that God can bridge this gap. More than this, Christians believe that God wants to bridge this gap.

The Book of John begins with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

In the 14th verse, John continues, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

The 'Word' John refers to is Jesus. Jesus did not come into existance at the moment of his birth, but according to John, has existed always. God sent Jesus from heaven to be born as a man, to live among us as a man, and die the death of a man. This is the Incarnation - God made flesh. Fully perfect and yet fully human.

The full importance of this does not become apparent until the crucifixion. The Law of the Old Testament says that the wages of sin are death. Jesus did not come to earth to change the Law. He came to pay the price of sin [by dying] for any man who would repent his sins and turn to God. Only God has the authority to make such an offer. Only Man can face death and thus pay the required penalty.

The profits of the Old Testament foretold the comming of a Messiah, but I do not know if any of these prophecies foretold that the Messiah would be Incarnate. Perhaps Will can better answer this part of your question.

Thanks for the reply, Will.

I am familiar with the entire New Testament and the so-called "Old" Testament, too. In fact, you may assume I have them both memorized.

However, I entreat you not to quote or cite from them, unless you are able to establish their credibility first. You see, while I mean no disrespect, I deem those books as truthful as I would fairy tales; which is to say, I see no truth in the Bible, except insofar as it agrees with scholastic accounts of history or science.

Notwithstanding that simple caveat, I look forward to your response!

Mavaddat,

This is a fair question, yet difficult to answer in a single post. It requires a good deal of thought and research on my part, and as I am finishing a final paper on an entirely different subject, it will be very difficult for me to think about this until I finish this paper. I will be free to respond tomorrow night. In the mean time, I have one question. How familiar are you with the New Testament? I would like to know what I can assume you know when approaching your question.

Sincerely,
Will

Dear Will,

Thanks for your response. I would like, if you would please provide them, rational or evidential proofs or reasons to believe in anything you say.

For example, how does The incarnation of Jesus] make "sense of everything else that the New Testament contains"? Relying on Jesus' incarnation to explain anything is like relying on a cliff edge to support a massive church. We do not explain great mysteries by the invocation of other great mysteries.

Mavaddat,

I was rather surprised to see a response to my post. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I hope I can be of some help, although I doubt it. I'm going to need to cite some individuals more knowledgeable than me on this issue.

J.I. Packer wrote in Knowing God, "It is no wonder that thoughtful people find the gospel of Jesus Christ hard to believe, for the realities with which it deals pass man's understanding." He goes on to point out that Christians and non-Christians alike have many objections to the claims of the Bible like the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus healing the sick, feeding 5000+ people with a few loaves and fish, etc. But Packer points out that the greatest mystery, is God in man. John 1:14 claims that "The Word was made flesh." I understand "the Word" to be Christ, as many Christians also do. He writes, "The incarnation is in itself an unfathomable mystery, but it makes sense of everything else that the New Testament conatins."

I claimed earlier that it is a matter of faith, but I don't believe it is like having faith that I can fly. Nothing would give me reason to believe that. I do believe there is evidence to bring me to belief in Christ as both God and man. But how can I claim to explain or argue for something that is beyond my comprehension. So when you say ask, "How can we measure or know whose interpretation is the more correct one," I say that it requires your own individual search. That is the example that the early Church gave us (Acts 17:10-12). I've suggest the gospel of John as a starting point for looking into Christ as God.

This past year, I've been reading through the Bible in it's entirety. Before this year, I was only familiar with the New Testament and a few books in the Old. It has really been a joy to see how all of scripture points to the Jesus Christ and how Christ is the fulfillment of everything the Old Testament points to. Thus, I think the "relevant scripture" is all of it. The whole of the Bible is God's progressive revelation of his redemptive purpose. It is not a collection of independent stories, each with its own moral points. I am not making my argument from isolated passages, but from the whole of the Biblical message.

John MacArthur pointed out the uniqueness of the Christian claim, saying, "Whether it's the ancient pharaohs demanding the worship of others, or the millions of modern skeptics who reject God, dethrone Him as Creator, and worship themselves, man's inherent pattern has always been to exalt himself. . .
"And while history is crowded with men who would be God, only one God would be man. . .
"And in an unfathomable act of selfless, sacrificial love, He left heaven's glory to die for sinners. He offered mercy to a people who deserved only His wrath. He stooped to accomplish that which we not only could not do, but also would not do. In love, the God of the universe stepped from eternity to intervene in human history and save those wholly unable to save themselves."

So, I know I haven't tried to provide proofs, scriptural or rational, for my belief that Christ is God. If you would like me to, let me know. If you would like, tonight I will look and try to find more scriptural support for this, but I do think the gospel of John is sufficient for this.

Sincerely, Will
-----------------------------------------------
I cited J.I. Packer's book, Knowing God, and John MacArthur's article, "The King Who Would Be Man," found here--> http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/kingtoman.htm

Will,

As far as the truth is concerned, it doesn't matter what you think Jesus intended or didn't intend. Your opinion is no more or less supported by fact than the opinion of those who disagree with you. You are all basing your understanding of Jesus' intentions based on your personal interpretations of the relevant scripture. How can we measure or know whose interpretation is the more correct one?

The fact of the matter is that many people believed and still believe that Jesus was God and/or the Son of God. Is there a scriptural reason to believe that? Perhaps. Is there a rational reason to believe it? There is none whatsoever.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It seems clear the founding fathers respected the right of people to worship God as they saw fit, but I do not believe the First Amendment was designed to create a Godless state. It was a simple recognition that Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, Calvinists, and Anglicans had been fleeing to America’s shores to worship as they saw fit – a privilege denied them in Britain and much of Europe.

I am glad that this right has been applied to people of other faiths than Christianity. If your faith is a Godless one, then good for you. But in making sure that government does not favor one faith over another, we should not pretend that Christians have not made significant contributions to the growth and success of America. We should not pretend that The Ten Commandments had no influence on the making of our laws. The truth is, most of the people who wrote and signed the Bill of Rights were Christians who thought that their religion would benefit less from the intrusion of government than government would benefit from the contributions of men of faith.

Are we a Christian nation? Even in today’s scientific and skeptical world, more Americans identify themselves as Christian than call themselves either Republican or Democrat. And most of these Christians are happy to respect faiths other than their own so long as their right to practice their faith is respected in turn. This tolerance is not only a part of the Christian Ideal, but something most Americans can agree on regardless of the nature of their faith.

And now for Christmas: Christmas is a Christian holiday on which the birth of Jesus Christ is celebrated. If it were not a national holiday, most Christians would take it off anyway, citing their right to exercise their faith under the Constitution. The trees, the tinsel, the presents, the lights - all the imagery, if they disappeared there would still be a Christmas. You are welcome to join us if you like, or spend the time enjoying the company of your family and friends, or you can be the Grinch with your feet, ice cold in the snow.

Come in where it’s warm. We’d like to have you.

I have a question. In this thread and others on this topic some have claimed that many or most of the founding fathers were deists or agnoistic or atheist or what have you.

Being the skeptic that I am, I went a lookin' on the internets for confirmation of this claim. What I found was a set of quotes from 5 or so of the founding fathers, repeated over and over again on mostly atheist-oriented sites. To make matters more complicated, most of these quotes were also contradicted by other quotes from these same 5 or so people on mostly Christian-oriented sites.

Now I can accept that these 5 or so were likely deists (Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and couple others). But what of the other 100 or so founding fathers?

I'm not sure what constitution Yunos Yusof has been reading. The whole text of the US constitution is available online (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt), and a quick search will show you that the words "God", "Christ", "Christian", and "Christianity" appear nowhere in the document. The only usage of the word "religion" is in the 1st amendment, which says Congress can't make a "law respecting an establishment of religion." The only usage of the word "religious" is in article 6, which prohibits religious tests for officeholders. The constitution establishes a secular nation, with no special status for Christianity or any other faith.

Also, the Black Plague was the 1300s. Not the same time as the Thirty Years War.

The Thirty Years War was as bloody as they come....without factoring in the Plague. My favorite history teacher likened the war to this century's World Wars since much of the known world was involved in them, and the population of what is present-day Germany was just about wiped out.

J~ The 30 yrs war took place from 1618-1648 and the American Revolution at the end of the 18th century, so I'm not sure I can agree with your proposision that this conflict was "fresh in their minds".

However, I'm glad you brought up the point that religious doctrine (and, most importantly, the way the population views religion) is always changing depending on historical context.

You are correct in pointing out that "modern" Christianity has more in common, and shares historical roots, with the Protestant reformation revival that took place here in the United States. It's worth noting that this took place well after the Founding Fathers set up our country, in order to differentiate the argument from those that argue this country is Christian because the first settlers were here seeking religious freedom. Yes, things do change.

It seems to me that historical education on religion (that is presented in a completely historical way) could help to dismiss the idea that modern-day religion has always been exactly as it is today. What are others thoughts on this? I'm not sure this is even possible.....?

J, while you have a valid point about the history of Christianity, I suggest that isn't the point when it comes to American government. As far as the government is concerned, there is no such thing as heresy and there is no such thing as "one true faith." Doctrinal disputes between religions or within a religion do not involve government, which should take a position of neutrality. (I've never heard your definition of classic satanism - I always assumed that satanists explicitly worshipped the devil like Anton LeVay or Mercyful Fate.)

Lady Reverend: you haven't the foggiest notion what the founders believed about God. They called him The Supreme Being, which meant he had perhaps started everything in motion but that he didn't have the power or interest or concern to get involved with people and their needs. This is Deism.

That is the most on could expect in the 18th Century, Deism. Today a Deist would be considered a religious fool of sorts. David Hume, in the samed 18th Century, showed that Deism is just as credulous as Christianity, since there is no evidence of a creator God or any other kind of God that we can know about.

The idea that America's religious tradition was equivalent to this modern incarnation of Christianity is utterly ridiculous. Many of the founding fathers where ANTI-Christian Diests - having the catastrophic 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants (arguably in terms of percentages the bloodiest conflict of all human history when you factor in plague deaths alongside (two out of every three people dead)) fresh in mind.

In fact, many theologians of the time called the American Revolution the most SATANIC thing that ever happened (classical satanism being to believe oneself can know God / is equated with God without the mitigation of a religious institution or a 'divinely righted' king).

Furthermore, this idea that these so called 'christians' in America even are Christians to begin with is laughable. There hasn't been a true Christian since Constantine. Before Constantine, Christians were throwing swords down in gladiatorial arenas and getting ripped apart because they were COMPLETE PACIFISTS. 200 years after Constantine, you HAVE TO BE CHRISTIAN TO SERVE IN THE ARMY. Times do change, don't they? The Roman Empire effectively altered the Christian religion to appease its own ends and helped the Council of Nicea effectively annihilate any memory of what might have been the core beliefs of Jesus.

Modern American 'christianity' is based on religious thought of a second protestant reformation here in the U.S. that occurred less than 150 years ago. The dangers of these new found religions are quite similar to the dangers of the fluidity of belief in Islam. Mainly, that there are no traditions, structures, or people of authority which are held in any regard to keep individual interpretation in check. If you don't like how a passage in a religious text has been interpreted for hundreds of years - no problem, form your own branch of the religion and interpret it whatever way you want.

Essentially, people refer to the concept of 'Evangelicals' in the United States and equate it to Christianity. Quite the opposite. 'Evangelicals' are essentially the product of over 200 years of self-determined heresy in a religion which was already politically altered to begin with.

To argue even remotely that the beliefs of this modern radical wing have anything to do with a group of intellectuals during the Age of Reason devoted solely to ROOTING OUT THEOCRATIC AND ECCLESIASTICAL INFLUENCE IN POLITICS is utterly ridiculous.

And just as an afterthought, the maddened King George III our forefathers were fighting against had the title 'defender of the faith'. Clearly this was also on the founding father's minds.

This is not directly related to the original post by Rev. Thistlethwaite, but it is a response to something that has been voiced in subsequent posts. I want to respond to this question which I have heard often: if Christ does not specifically claim to be God in the gospel accounts, why do Christians believe he is God?

First let me say, there is a substantial evidence to support the historical fidelity of the gospels. Whether or not Christ is God, man, king, and savior is a matter of faith.

Jesus never intended to come proclaiming himself as God. He did not intend to start a movement. Simply look at all the instances where he "sternly warned them" not to tell anyone. Rather, Jesus came calling men to faith, that they might acknowledge him as their Lord and savior.

Look at two examples-first, Jesus and Martha in John 11. When Martha claims that her brother Lazarus would not have died had Jesus been there, Jesus responds that he will rise again. Martha says that she knows he will rise again in the resurrection. Jesus responds by saying, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" Martha's responds in faith. "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world." This is the faith to which Jesus calls men and women. The second example that I will leave the reader to consider is that of Peter's confession of Christ (Matthew 16:13-20).

The name by which Peter and Martha call Jesus, Christ, is telling. It means "annointed one." They say Jesus is "the Christ." This is a recognition of him as the long awaited Messiah. The scriptures bear witness to Christ. All that Moses wrote, all the law, all the prophets bear witness to him (John 5). Knowing this witness, they knew that Jesus was the fulfillment of all these words. He was the Christ.

Ultimately, belief in Jesus as divine is a matter of faith. "Flesh and blood" cannot reveal it to you, but "my Father who is in heaven." For those who are searching though, I would propose study and meditation of John's gospel. Each gospel looks at Jesus from a different, yet non-contradictory view. It is like looking at a building. The four sides are different but no less a part of one building. John specifically focuses on Jesus as God. Thus, instead of starting with an earthly geneaology like Matthew and Luke, it starts, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . " I will leave the rest for the reader.

Sorry for the length of this post.

In your article you mentioned that the founding fathers were not secular at all, I think there is a major difference between some people's idea of what secularity is and mine. Because to me secularity is an inevitable feature of democracy, and founding fathers were secularists. Their practice of seperating state and church or any religious institution was secularity. Some think secularity is banning religion or opressing it. On the contrary, secularity provides the impartiality of government and it comes from the ides that religions are for humans and not for states.

I am from Turkey 'the only secular and democratic country' in the world %90 percent of whose people are muslum. Thanks to our founding father Ataturk, we have set a great example to how a country where mostly muslums live can have democracy. Government simply does not interest what you believe in, and you have the right to practice your religion as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. Yes, we have our own issues, and right now our prime minister is trying to turn us into a naton of islam -whatever that means- and this is driving the people whose mission is to protect our constitution crazy.

My point is, I think there is a misunderstanding derived from the paranoia of communism once upon a time, that somehow affiliates secularity with banning the religion. Just the opposite, secularity is the greatest gift to concience (of course if your goal is to practice your religion or do what your concience tells you to do, not if you want to abuse the power of belief and distort it according to your benefits) and democracy can not be obtained without practice of secularity.

Although Dr. Thistlethwaite is discussing the issue using Christian language, her post is an excellent one. I would amend it to say that the "free search for God" doesn't have to apply to the Abrahamic God or even to a monotheistic deity from any religious tradition. It can apply to any deity or deities, or any meaning or purpose for one's life. Whatever the individual believes, the state's role is to stay out of the matter.

Yunos Yusof,

you are correct that Jesus was a human being. Muhammad was a human being too. It is good that you point this out, however, there is absolutely no reason to suppose, as you do, that either of them spoke to or for God. These men spoke, not as mouthpieces for God, but on their own accord about their own philosophies and their own prejudices.

The eloquence of the Koran (or the Bible) is not a proof that either man spoke to God, neither is it a miracle. It is merely the expression of your personal feeling of that literature's beauty, which impresses itself on your mind most likely out of a sense racial pride or other such prejudice. I do not find it impressive, neither in the Arabic nor in English, and neither do many many other people. It is a work of poetry and prejudice, that is all.

Also, regarding your claim that "Prophet Jesus never claimed he was the son of god or god. He claimed he was the son of man," I would recommend taking a closer look at the Bible, for you are clearly ignorant of its content. Jesus states explicitly in John 10:29-30 that he is both the son of God and God itself:

"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."

It is better to seek the truth for yourself, my friend. In that, you will find that there is no need for this silly superstition called "God" or "Allah".

The label "Christian Nation" does not insult anything or anyone who does not exist, but the "concept" of a "Christian Government" insults the rights of everyone who does.

Paul,
You hit the nail on the head,
Thomas Jefferson
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]

Benjamin Franklin
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..."

This is ridiculous. Many, if not most of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, were deists, not Christians. In other words, they did believe in God, but they did not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, nor the virgin birth, nor the many other myths of Christianity. Deism was very popular around the time of the founding fathers. Church going at that time was significantly less than it is today. We are a much more religious nation than the one in which the founding fathers wrote the constitution. I wonder if these Christian conservatives who tout the founding fathers understand those father's faith.

Susan Thistlethwatte is absolutely right. Religious coercion of any kind--be it of faith of practice--is a complete contradiction of terms. Jesus coerced no one into believing as he did or doing as he did. His call to conversion was simply: "Come, follow me." We help no one and convince no one of the rightness or wrongness of what we believe or what we do by forcing conformity on them. The truths of faith, beliefs, or practices have to be evident to and embraced by those who hold or practice them to be authentic AND MERITORIOUS--otherwise it is all sham and humbug. You'll show who you are and what you are by what you do--and if you live in a way that is worthy of your beliefs you might conceivable get others to "follow you," that is, come to believe as you do and think as you do about life and the world around you. What was it Jesus said? "Let your light so shine before men that they may glorify your Father in Heaven." It's long past time for Christians to get off that coercion kick and leave it up to the individual as to whether he will embrace the Christian faith and the Christian way for himself--and that means letting other Christians follow their own lights wherever their Chrsitian conscience takes them in their journey with Jesus.

Salaam wa laikum,
Prophet Jesus (pbuh) never claimed he was the son of god or god. He claimed he was the son of man. He didn't mean he was the son of man what he was trying to say he was trying to say he was the son of a human being. That human being was a pious woman named Maryam. A whole chapter is named after. Aren't women human beings too. Than you need to know for too long woman has been treated as second class citizens. In terms of income and how they have treated at home by husbands. The second class citizenship must be over.

Salaam wa laikum,
I go to the Islamic Center of Central Missouri. I have read your Constitution. It does clearly state that America's official religion is Christianity but followers of others faiths can and practice their faith as long as they don't infringe on other people's believes. Christians go to Church, Jews go to a synagogue, and muslims go to a mosque or masjid. If you interested to find out look at the copy of your constitution and you will see it for yourself.

Khoda Hafiz