Columnist and former president, Catholic University
The Reverend William J. Byron, S.J., a former president of Catholic University, is on leave this year from his position as research professor at the Sellinger School of Business and Management, Loyola College in Maryland to serve as president of St. Joseph's Preparatory School in Philadelphia. The “On Faith” panelist served as interim president of Loyola University , New Orleans in 2003-04 and for three years prior to that, was pastor of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington , D.C. From 1992 to 2000, he taught "Social Responsibilities of Business" at Georgetown University , where he was Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Ethics and served as rector of the Georgetown Jesuit Community. He was president of Catholic University for a decade (1982-92). Byron writes a syndicated bi-weekly column, Looking Around , for Catholic News Service, and is the author of a dozen books, including A Book of Quiet Prayer (2006); The Power of Principles: Ethics in the New Corporate Culture (2006) and Answers from Within: Spiritual Guidelines for Managing Setbacks in Work and Life (1998) . A founding director and past chairman of Bread for the World , Byron was also named the 1999 recipient of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities' Theodore M. Hesburgh Award for his contributions to the advancement of Catholic higher education. In that same year, he received the Council of Independent Colleges' Academic Leadership Award. Byron, who holds a doctorate in economics as well as theology degrees, served in the U.S. Army's 508 th Parachute Infantry Regiment before entering the Jesuit order in 1950. He was ordained a priest in 1961.
Close.
William J. Byron
Columnist and former president, Catholic University
The Reverend William J. Byron, S.J., a former president of Catholic University, is on leave this year from his position as research professor at the Sellinger School of Business and Management, Loyola College in Maryland to serve as president of St. Joseph's Preparatory School in Philadelphia.
more »
prove that Christ resurrected? Easy! The Bible is the most tested, the most picked apart, but NEVER disproven! Yes the different gospels have variations in verses, they are 4 different people, if they all wrote exactly the same then I'd have a problem. Before any of you try to have an apologetical discussion, you need to be ready with truths and proofs, which I haven't read here.
Calm down, e. You've gotten your knickers in a twist for nothing.
"You identify as a Christian, but from what I've seen of you here, you don't seem like a very good one. You seem intolerant, imperious and mean-spirited."
If you reresd my posts you will see I have not identified my FAITH. In fact, my FAITH might surprise you. I am a Crisis/Grief Counselor and work with all FAITHS including Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Wiccan and those FAITHS not mentioned here Vodou, Santería, Setianism. Also those without FAITH.
As Bernie Taupin wrote and Elton John sings: "Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word"
Well, as there is a new question for you to ponder -I will say au revoir..
One witness - I suppose that if I had said Thomas had "beatific" written all over his face it would have been OK to mention looks on the forum. Apparently you do think there’s a “place on this public forum” to repeat unpleasant comments about looks twice, (in two different ways, thus amplifying them) as an object lesson about the impropriety of commenting on looks. It’s hard to imagine at this point that Rev Byron sees you as a defender. (ps Rev Byron – you look fine to me – friendly and good-humored.)
Also, by your comments, you think there a place to assert that another poster here is an “offender,” has a “narrow bias” and that their views are “suspect” because they are critical of Christianity. You think there a place here to "out" someone, with the implication and obvious hope that doing do would shame the person in front of others here.
You identify as a Christian, but from what I've seen of you here, you don't seem like a very good one. You seem intolerant, imperious and mean-spirited. That's my opinion from what you’ve written. Others reading through this can decide for themselves.
"I don’t consider myself an “offender” of any kind"
Don Imus is in the news for having made "comedic comments" (his words) about Rutgers women's basketball team. He wasn't commenting on their athletic ablity, he was commenting on their looks.
"you did relate my comments (that smug was written all over Cal Thomas' face) to those (that Reverend Byron looks like a shrivelled prune etc). I’m not sure why."
I relate them because you were both commenting on looks. Something I think has no place on this public forum.
Rutgers University President said this yesterday and I'll close with it. I wish these words might be embraced by posters here:
"We celebrate diversity and We celebrate civility.."
[addendum - I posted this hours ago, but don't see it here - apologies if it eventually turns up twice]
ONE WITNESS - it sounds like you're signing off, but in case you're back to read this –
Seems like you really wanted to out me, but in all honesty, I want people to know what I think and I love understanding how others think. I want people to consider my views and I want to consider theirs. If you did more research, I think you’d see that trend too. A lot of what I say here I had no idea of a couple of years ago. I figure there are others out there like that. I don’t consider my views and information a reflection of a narrow bias, but understand that you do. I don’t consider myself an “offender” of any kind, but understand you do. I read through some of the essays and post on some, as do most people, from what I can see – but I haven’t done a study of it and I’m not avoiding Wiccan and Jewish essays. I am less interested in them, though. Christianity interests me much more. Why? Because it’s the religion I was raised in and in my opinion how Christianity is handled, especially in the US, is critically important. I think a lot of people feel that way these days.
I’ll stick with Cal Thomas’ photo looking smug – I don’t think it serves him well. In person he might be a sweet guy, who knows. I do want to dissociate myself from the quote in your last post with the expletives, caps and exclamation points. I want to make sure people know I didn’t write that. You didn’t say I did, but you did relate my comments to those. I’m not sure why.
I also disagree that my “atheist views are suspect” – any more than I’d think Christians would be suspect if they said they were critical of atheism. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find that Christians are critical of atheism.
Alfred – thanks for your support.
Rob Adam – thanks in advance for the “A”
One Witness – I hope you consider what I’ve said outside your point of view that I have a narrow bias.
I agree there are a number non believers/agnostics/atheists on this board. Some are definitely more in attack mode. However a number of them provide quite thoughtful discussion and raise good questions.
I am an independent in that I don’t prescribe to any specific religion, though I enjoy the study of many religions. My spiritual pursuit is unified theory of spirituality which to me encompasses something from most (all?) religions.
I have a question for you and anyone else on this forum. Does one need to have a religion to have faith? I don’t have religion but I have faith in my spirituality.
If say I am a Buddhist and I am losing faith in that religion or that I find it lacking a Christian would invite you to try Christianity. Someone does and finds faith in Christianity. That would be a good thing. Conversely someone comes to the conclusion that for them Christianity has too many contradictions or maybe they don’t believe in original sin. They find Buddhism and its approach seems simpler and is something that resonates inside of them. They find faith in Buddhism. This is also a good thing.
Finding something that resonates with you on an individual level and allows your spirituality to grow is a good thing. In the example of the Christian turning to Buddhism it does not mean they necessarily reject all that is Christianity. It probably means they took what they felt was useful and ignored the rest. This probably applies to the Buddhist who turned to Christianity.
Personally I don’t think there is any one religion today that one could say is the perfect answer. I liken it to an essay test. You and E Fav can both write significantly different words, even ideas and both end up with a A. for the course.
Well, e.. I have outed you. I knew you would be fully aware of your posting bias, but now everyone who reads here is fully aware too.
I truly thought you were an equal opportunity offender until I took a cursory look at your previous posts. Even then I half expected you would call me out and produce some witty and conversant posts you'd made on the Jewish and Wiccan threads.
eFav, you have been candid but your words have been disrespectful. It is one thing to say -FAITH has failed me- and entirely another to say -I hope your FAITH fails-
And imagine my surprise at reading your comment that smug was "written all over Cal Thomas' face" This after reading:
"is it not (curse-word) ironic that all these Christian people always the (expletive) people that look like (expletive)(expletives)
LIKE HIS GLASSES, MAN...... seriously. GET SOME STYLE YOU OLD MAN!!!!!!!!!! JUST BECAUSE YOURE OLD DOESNT MEAN YOU HAVE TO LOOK LIKE A SHRIVELLED PRUNE. DO YOURSELF UP YOU OLD DISGRACE.
which was posted on this thread. I thought I had uncovered a trend. If you tire of disparaging a FAITH, insult looks.. And may I remind you these insults are directed at "distinguished figures from the academy, the faith traditions, and journalism" to quote from this board's "About On Faith" page.
In a prior post, I asked you two questions:
"What has made you so confident in your narrow opinion? What makes you so active on a FAITH board?"
You have answered them both in one sentence:
"I’m critical of Christianity and find this forum a place to express my thoughts"
To share your bias with me is open and refreshing. But it makes your Atheist views suspect and seem motivated by that bias. I understand.
I have enjoyed chatting with you and wish you well on your journey through life.
Hello One Witness – No problem, you haven't outed me. I'm fully aware of what I post here and am flattered that you took the time to pull some of my quotes together. I stand by them – especially the one about Cal Thomas – that man really needs a new publicity shot.
I think my words are candid, but not disrespectful. I’d be reluctant to say some things directly to people whom I thought might disagree with me, but the beauty of these forums is that you can express your thoughts more openly, knowing the person with whom you’re conversing can take some time to respond, or not respond at all. I find it very refreshing and possibly the only way currently available to have an open conversation about religion.
I spent the last two years examining Christianity (the faith in which I was raised) and finding it wanting. I see now I’m not at all alone, but it’s not something that you can gracefully bring up in a typical conversation. I’m critical of Christianity and find this forum a place to express my thoughts as well as engage in conversation with like-minded and other-minded people. No one perspective takes precedence here.
I suppose believing Christians aren’t used to being challenged the way they are on this forum. But I’m glad we’re all here. It would be boring and completely un-thought provoking if everyone had similar views.
I think the list needs to have a discussion specifically about what "disrespect" and "insult" on a serious list such as this one.
Maybe Ms Quinn and Mr. Meachan could set up a question like: ought we to show respect for other people whose beliefs we do not share? Put another way: should we respect people whose beliefs we do NOT respect?
"A person WITHOUT FAITH may be: clearheaded, undeluded, perceptive, analytical, accepting of reality, able to see things as they are, free of false hopes" and maybe not..
You get points for spontaneity and creativity. Hey, maybe you can write a whole dictionary when you're not posting here.
Hi Alfred,
Definition of RESPECT:
to treat something or someone with kindness and care, to accept the importance of someone's rights or customs and to do nothing that would harm them or cause them offence
Definition of DISRESPECT: Having or exhibiting a lack of respect; rude and discourteous; flippant and disparaging
This is from bartleby.com, but Norrie Hoyt may make up a definition for you if you ask him.
So how would you define disrespectful? It seems that you find any statement that is contrary to your own as lacking respect. Frankly I think that e-fav. has made a number of excellent and insightful posts over the past month or so since I found this site.
I find the variety of viewpoints here to be interesting and (sometimes) stimulating. That is why I keep coming back.
For the record, right-wing christians have easily been among the most intolerant and bigoted people that I have known.
Can't believe Byron would make such a flimsy defense of the faith. To rely on "facts" as "history" in matters of faith is reductionistic and not helpful to elucidating a great truth that lies at the heart of Christian belief and worship.
Then again, the question posed by this website is ludicrous. As if the truth of Christ's immortal presence could be stymied by an external discovery. Faith is not opposed to reason; but the workings of faith, to paraphrase Pascal, have reasons of which reason may not know.
"Let me throw in a few antonyms of FAITH:
doubt, insecurity, mistrust, uncertainty, disbelief, unbelief"
How about: A person WITHOUT FAITH may be: clearheaded, undeluded, perceptive, analytical, accepting of reality, able to see things as they are, free of false hopes.
"I've had many respectful conversations with people here whose views are different from mine"
I thought I would read several of your previous posts to better understand your thoughts. I found you post almost exclusively on Christian threads. Almost all of your posts have a bias against Christianity:
"I hope that someday there will be as uplifting an event that isn't centered on believing, or in feigning belief, in a supernatural father who chose to sacrifice his earthly son."
"I hope someday gays and other misunderstood people can be accepted for their obvious human goodness without it having to have come from Jesus"
"The word "smug" was meant to be descriptive. I see signs of it in your posts and it's written all over Cal Thomas' face."
"If it weren't for good, loving, compassionate, humble Christians like **** giving you a pep talk"
"It seems that if people are taught to believe something,(e.g. Santa Claus, Jesus)"
"Individual atheists can have hope or not and certainly many atheists and other non-christians have found purpose in their lives."
Sorry to out you -but your words have not been respectful. I only took a few minutes to find these and as I've told you -I'm only an occasional reader here. Maybe I've missed your posts on the Hindu, Wiccan, Moslem and Jewish threads. And those where you are showing tolerance towards Christians. If I have, Please accept my sincere apologies..
I've enjoyed my chance to speak openly with you. You were the only one to respond to my post and you are not the only one who posts disrespectful or insulting remarks. Best wishes.
One witness - that's funny - I got the feeling that you were trying to discourage me and people like me from posting here because we question faith rather than support it.
Here's an excerpt from "about on faith" "...conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world."
I'm not an expert (nor are you, I suppose) but I am currently very interested in the influence of religion, regardless of my personal faith.
I've had many respectful conversations with people here whose views are different from mine and hope to have many in the future.
Thanks for your honest response, eFav. Let me share a few definitions of
FAITH:
1} belief that is not based on proof
2) belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
2) a system of religious belief
Lets face it e, FAITH just isn't your best subject. I don't consider you a troll. I consider you a person without FAITH. It makes you stumble. Again, you may be an expert on doubt and unbelief. You (and others posting here regularly) may have arguments you haven't even used yet against FAITH and people of FAITH.
Also, you are right. This is a FAITH board not a Christian board. However, Christianity is a FAITH and the comments I have made apply to all FAITHS. So don't try to run me off this board. But don't break a sweat, I'm not a regular poster.
Let me throw in a few antonyms of FAITH:
doubt, insecurity, mistrust, uncertainty, disbelief, unbelief
Its always nice to define language, so you can have clear communication..
Oy Vey, eFav.. Your response was predictable. It seems I've heard that PING before.. Pick yourself up, brush yourself off and we'll try again. Maybe faith just isn't your subject. Maybe you're much better right now at unbelief and doubt? It seems I could give you 1000 links to 1000 stories like the NEWSWEEK piece from every denomination and every nationality and you would say "no proof". What has made you so confident in your narrow opinion? What makes you so active on a FAITH board?
And I've noticed that in spite of its name, most of the regular ON FAITH posters are faithless and unbelieving. They treat these boards like a shooting gallery, quickly knocking down each new statement of faith. Ping. Ping. Ping.. And are completely unaware they are singing a one note song. The thought of faith makes them stumble. Yet by its definition, faith requires a leap. Once entered into -faith can be tested. Is there power to redeem, to restore, to reconcile? Those are questions only the faithful can answer.
A recent NEWSWEEK "My Turn" is a lovely example. Hope you will read:
You said that Paul was lifted up to "seventh heaven." I thought he went to "third heaven." (2 Corinthians 12:2 "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven."
"My Christian faith is rooted in the fact of the resurrection. It stands or falls with that historic fact."
Considering there is no "historic" evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (or anybody else, for that matter), I guess I'll be seeing you at your local atheist watering hole sometime this week.
Let's chat...I'll be the guy slugging the stout at the end of the bar...
BTW - what, exactly, constitutes historic "fact" from your perspective?
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
I've never understood this line of reasoning. I've heard it used many times and it is just hogwash. Jesus never called himself God and in fact his persecutors tried to trick him into saying as much but he only told them "I am what you say I am".
He had numerous occasions to claim divinity but did not. He was a person very much in touch with God but there have been others throughout history. I call myself Christian because I understand life from Christs perspective better than any other spiritual teacher. I am reading the Dalai Lama and am finding much to like about the Buddhist way as well. There are undeniable truths in each philosophy. Sorry but the first century Jews were not promised something the rest of the world was gonna be denied "Unless they changed their minds".
If you are calling your self Christian because you think you will be saved from some future Armageddon or that somehow you will be spared something that others will not you are sadly mistaken. That is absolutely the most selfish theology on earth and NO ONE thinks selfishness is a manner to live in tune with GOD.
Ben, C.S. Lewis and others - what authority do you have to define Christianity? I do not believe in Christ's resurrection but I am a Christian. And you have absolutely no authority to say otherwise.
The teachings of Jesus are valid regardless of his stature as a superhero who returns stronger from the dead. What is important is to listen to what he said, he told you that again and again. Let him who has an ear...
Regarding the claims of Jesus, remember that the Gospels are accouts written by others after Jesus died. There was no CNN and no one has Yeshua ben Yosef on tape or film claiming what we say he was. The writers of the Gospels were not objective reporters, they were trying to proclaim the "good news", to sell a religion. What they said happened may be true (although I doubt that "bodily ascended into Heaven" part in the light of modern astronomy). But we are not faced with the choice that Jesus was the Son of God or a lunatic or liar.
Does Jesus care more for our faith in him as a man and god than he cares for our faith in his teachings and our commitment to living as he teaches us we should? I believe the teachings are the important part. We should be honest and good to eachother. We should turn the other cheek when we can, avoid coveting what we can not have, and make sacrifices for the needy. On judgement day, I believe that faith without attention to the teachings will be viewed as shallow. We will be judged by our actions here on earth. To accept Jesus in your heart means to live as he would have you live. A diety who merely wanted our faith would not be worth believing in.
In the spirit of education here's a few thoughts on Jesus position from the bible:
Who the people of the Bible thought Jesus to be:
1. First lets ask the angel Gabriel?
Luke 1:35 -- Son of God
2. Next John the Baptist testified him to be:
John 1:34 -- Son of God
3. God himself declared him to be his son:
Matthew 17:5
4. Who did the apostle John say we need to believe Jesus to be?
1 John 4:15 -- The Son of God
5. Let's hear from Peter:
Matthew 16:13-16 -- The Son of the Living God
6. Who did God promise to send Himself?
John 3:16 -- His only-begotten Son
7. Who did Jesus tell Thomas to believe him to be?
John 20:29-31 -- The Christ, The Son of God
8. Now, let's hear from Jesus himself. I wonder if he knew who he was???
John 10:36 -- "I am God's Son."
9. The chief priest of Israel said Jesus called himself what?
Matthew 27:43 -- God's Son
10. Now did Jesus, under oath, declare himself to be God? NO!
Matthew 26:63-64 -- God's Son
11. What about Mark? What did he have to say about it?
Mark 14:61-62 -- God's Son
12. What about the testimony of an army officer?
Mark 15:34-39 -- Son of God
13. Apostle Paul, the chief of the apostles, after getting the Truth went into the synagogues immediately and taught Jesus to be what? Let's look and see:
Acts 9:20 -- Paul said Jesus was the Son of God, after he returned to heaven.
14. Well now, we have heard from the brothers in the early Christian congregations. Maybe the brothers are mixed-up. Let's ask a sister -- Martha -- who she believed Jesus to be:
John 11:27 -- Son of God
Hmmmmm.
Maybe the people educating you about what the bible teaches need a little educating themselves....
Read up on Tertullian sometime and you'll see he was one source of the confusion. It's interesting after having such an impact on Catholicism, he gave it up calling it a "church of bishops".
I was delighted to see you responded to the question with just a couple of verses from the bible. So few of the "on faith" panelists do this, it begs the question as to whether they know or believe the bible. (I suspect the same is true of 99% of the "christian" commenters on this site as well.)
I also appreciated the scriptures were from the Apostle Paul. His life, proves the reality and the impact of Christ. Why would a guy, set for life, from a prominent family, who had to be brilliant, essentially on track to be a member of the supreme court of his day, give it up to be an humble preacher and teacher to peoples considered pagan and degenerate by his family and jewish friends. It's good to remember that initially he was not trusted by the christians (as he was their persecutor) and hated by the Jewish elite. Why choose to live like that unless there was a compelling reason?
As far as the petty debates by the self assumed intelligent commenters, I can only say - I really don't care about your opinion. Read Ecclesiates sometime and you'll understand.
The comments here also prove Paul was right when he wrote 2 Tim 3:1-5. So as Paul advised, I'll turn away.
If Christ truly arose from the dead and went to heaven, he would have no use of his material body. He could have easily left it behind. So finding his remains should be irrelevant. At least that is how I see it, as an atheist.
So,
(1) If A were not true, I could not have faith in A.
(2) I have faith in A.
(3) Therefore, A is true.
What a lousy argument. Premise (1) is wrong from the start. Faith is defined as belief independent of evidence. You have faith that something is true, regardless of whether it is true. Premise (2) is a statement of fact.
The conclusion (3) does not follow. Your state of mind vis a vis faith, does not determine the truth of A.
I am going to go foolish to the max… or perhaps I am a lunatic, but I would be comfortable with that. But let’s really get the conversation going.
I won’t necessarily refute that Jesus was God, but I would put forth that perhaps we are all God… it is just that Jesus understood this or knew this at such a deeper level than us that he could claim to be God. Further more he was able to perform the miracles he did because of this understanding. If we each understood to the extent he did then we too could do the things he did.
I’ve never gotten the “fall at his feet” deal. I don’t think God designed the universe based on an org chart. My belief is we are all made of the same “stuff” as God, only we are not as aware as Jesus was, or Buddha for that matter. If we are the same “stuff” then why can’t we do what god does, or what Jesus did. It’s the same as the rock which is made of the same ‘stuff’. The rock is even less aware and hence does even less.
Is that crazier than just thinking Jesus was a good guy with some good ideas?
I could be wrong in my belief and so could Christians. Heck the atheist could be right. Oh my! If that was I true I had better grab some booze, a bong and some naked women and get the party started! I am of course making light of the fact people pick on atheists because they “believe nothing” and “live for today”.
C.S. You should read the post by Paula Fredriksen on this same question. As she put it (paraphrasing here) “Each person’s interpretations is what sustains a belief”. That is why you have some many flavors of Christianity, actually many religions have branches or off shoots. Interpretation is why we also part of the reason we have other religions and other beliefs.
The differences between religions is the gift from all religions. The differences are what make us explore and grow.
All this talk, Talk, TALK about Jesus. Was He, wasn't he, whatever. Jesus was a man of wise words, but Jesus was also a man of action. Jesus DID things to help people, not just talk about them. How many of you are actually doing anything, other than criticizing others? Your action speaks louder than your words. You are welcome to preach at me all day long, but if you're out there feeding the hungry, supporting the poor, taking care of the sick, you'll score a lot more points with me than all the scripture you quote and verse you share.
And while we're tossing around poetry:
####
All the streets are filled with laughter and light
And the music of the season
And the merchants windows are all bright
With the faces of the children
And the families hurrying to their homes
As the sky darkens and freezes
Theyll be gathering around the hearths and tales
Giving thanks for all God's graces
And the birth of the rebel Jesus
Well they call him by the prince of peace
And they call him by the savior
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
As they fill his churches with their pride and gold
And their faith in him increases
But theyve turned the nature that I worshipped in
From a temple to a robbers den
In the words of the rebel Jesus
We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when Christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus
But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgement
For Ive no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.
-- Jackson Browne, "The Rebel Jesus"
It is the hallmark of Christian apologists to state assumptions and beliefs as historical fact.
There exists no historical evidence of the alleged resurrection of Christ apart from conflicting Biblical accounts. Where is the proof to support your claims? Or are they purely faith-based? What does that mean about the statement, "My Christian faith is rooted in the fact of the resurrection. It stands or falls with that historic fact."? What historical fact?
Believing something happened does not make it an historical fact. Period.
Gee Norrie, You've never mentioned Ba'al's age to him and he's much older than I am.
Since it's Good Friday I'll share a hymn with the readers here. Even though it is a few centuries old, its meaning is still fresh in many hearts and its truth still endures.
"Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood ...
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were an offering far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all."
I go mad-house in my inner world when i see photographs of people like this William J. Byron.
is it not (curse-word) ironic that all these Christian people always the (expletive) people that look like (expletive)(expletives)
LIKE HIS GLASSES, MAN...... seriously. GET SOME STYLE YOU OLD MAN!!!!!!!!!! JUST BECAUSE YOURE OLD DOESNT MEAN YOU HAVE TO LOOK LIKE A SHRIVELLED PRUNE. DO YOURSELF UP YOU OLD DISGRACE.
Love, & a 666, because you know you love it - & you deserve it too because you're not a fun'loving kid anymore, you're just a boring common example of deteriation of the brain.
why are you allowed a job as a collumnist writer when you look & act that bad??
BA'AL tells us:
If Christ was not Risen, then the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes are meaningless?
Hi, Ba'al,
I agree that taken out of context this is nonsense. Of course they're meaningful. But Paul was always talking from within the dimension of the world of spirit that he had seen -- as a mystic who had been lifted up into "the seventh heaven". Yes, he was also a theologian, an interpreter of others' experiences, but what seemed to dominate all of his thinking was his awe and love of God-Christ, and for him (as I understand him) a life without God-Christ was relatively worthless. Many mystics say the same sort of thing, which is unimaginable to us non-mystics, I'll grant you.
Also, preachers in Paul's day (including Jesus Himself) used regularly used great exaggerations to make themselves clear, so I can see more than one reason why he would talk as he did.
The resurrection of Jesus is one of the few stories that is told repeatedly in the bible--more than 5 times--so it provides an excellent test for the orthodox claim of scriptural inerrancy and reliability. When we compare the accounts, we see they don't agree.
What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13[23])
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at that first appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
Why do we require a "physical" and "material" resurrection as proof of life after death? I think we're too caught up in the material world to see or think straight on this. If someone you knew were to come to you after their death, you would see them as being alive whether they had a physical body or an ethereal one.
In my humble opinion as America's foremost dead literary critic,
Mr Byron's post shows a marked' poverty of moral and historical imagination.
Jesus, as portrayed in the bible (we know virtually nothing that is verifiable about the "man")
said many highly moral and humanistic things, and seems like he was high on the list of moral teachers.
To believe in the fantastical supernatural myth of the literal resurrection is certainly anyone's right,
but it shows a moral poverty to believe that the meaning of Jesus's purported life was this parlor trick, especially since people like to believe it mostly because it is in their infantile self interest to escape the pain of coming to terms with the fact that they are going to die and need a fairy tale to tell them that they won't REALLY die.
Mr Byron would be one of the last people I would choose as a moral interlocator.
I thought it was appropriate to have some fun with someone who posts as C.S. Lewis. If he'd posted as ANONYMOUS and said that here's what C.S. Lewis wrote, that would be fine.
Believe it or not, there are probably some readers of these posts who have no idea of who C.S. Lewis is/was, and are totally at sea because of what amounts to false advertising by the author of the post.
And how did CSL come to know Jesus's supposed intentions, which he tries to use to hammer people who think Jesus was a pretty good guy - and that's all he was.
I am not a Christian and have adverised that fact frequently in these posts. I do think it's beneficial to humanity when Jesus or the Buddha teach some good things and people accept those teachings.
I think it's insane for C.S. Lewis to say that a man who taught what Jesus did is either a lunatic or the Devil if he's not God. Why, for Heaven's sake should that be the case. It just doesn't parse (or pass the laugh test).
And why didn't you say something on behalf of "Isaac Watts"?
I don't know that teasing people who don't feel prepared to name themselves is a particularly compassionate way of dealing with their attempt to move the discussion forward.
The point that someone was trying to make with the "CS Lewis" post is that many people attempt to accept things they like about Christ without interacting with the full story of his life and claims. If you have a desire to make up your own religion whose focus is renewal in this life and enjoyment of what is right in front your face, that's fine. However, to say you are Christian while not interacting with the full story of Christ is merely lying. Why might I not say I am a Muslim who only accepts some of Mohammed's teachings, while also being a paganist who just happens to believe in only one God?
Again, it's fine to think all that stuff if you'd like. It's just not Christianity. The desire of the late CS Lewis for apologetics was to ask non-Christians to be intellectually honest. I fear that many people today have ignored that call.
CS Lewis, who are YOU to demand the choice of lunatic or Lord?
I think you're just another Christian apologist trying to mislead and scare people into believing in Jesus. ("Hmm, calling Jesus a lunatic would be blasphemous, so I guess I better call him Lord.")
Maybe Jesus was a great teacher, maybe a legendary hero, a myth, maybe some combination of these.
Please drop this "lunatic or lord" business - You've got no way of knowing and it's not nice to try to scare people like that. I bet Jesus wouldn't like it one bit. He took a more gentle approach.
All Comments (62)
prove that Christ resurrected? Easy! The Bible is the most tested, the most picked apart, but NEVER disproven! Yes the different gospels have variations in verses, they are 4 different people, if they all wrote exactly the same then I'd have a problem. Before any of you try to have an apologetical discussion, you need to be ready with truths and proofs, which I haven't read here.
April 18, 2007 2:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 18, 2007 02:58
Calm down, e. You've gotten your knickers in a twist for nothing.
"You identify as a Christian, but from what I've seen of you here, you don't seem like a very good one. You seem intolerant, imperious and mean-spirited."
If you reresd my posts you will see I have not identified my FAITH. In fact, my FAITH might surprise you. I am a Crisis/Grief Counselor and work with all FAITHS including Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Wiccan and those FAITHS not mentioned here Vodou, Santería, Setianism. Also those without FAITH.
As Bernie Taupin wrote and Elton John sings: "Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word"
Well, as there is a new question for you to ponder -I will say au revoir..
April 11, 2007 12:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 12:38
One witness - I suppose that if I had said Thomas had "beatific" written all over his face it would have been OK to mention looks on the forum. Apparently you do think there’s a “place on this public forum” to repeat unpleasant comments about looks twice, (in two different ways, thus amplifying them) as an object lesson about the impropriety of commenting on looks. It’s hard to imagine at this point that Rev Byron sees you as a defender. (ps Rev Byron – you look fine to me – friendly and good-humored.)
Also, by your comments, you think there a place to assert that another poster here is an “offender,” has a “narrow bias” and that their views are “suspect” because they are critical of Christianity. You think there a place here to "out" someone, with the implication and obvious hope that doing do would shame the person in front of others here.
You identify as a Christian, but from what I've seen of you here, you don't seem like a very good one. You seem intolerant, imperious and mean-spirited. That's my opinion from what you’ve written. Others reading through this can decide for themselves.
April 11, 2007 11:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 11:40
Hi again e.
"I don’t consider myself an “offender” of any kind"
Don Imus is in the news for having made "comedic comments" (his words) about Rutgers women's basketball team. He wasn't commenting on their athletic ablity, he was commenting on their looks.
"you did relate my comments (that smug was written all over Cal Thomas' face) to those (that Reverend Byron looks like a shrivelled prune etc). I’m not sure why."
I relate them because you were both commenting on looks. Something I think has no place on this public forum.
Rutgers University President said this yesterday and I'll close with it. I wish these words might be embraced by posters here:
"We celebrate diversity and We celebrate civility.."
Best wishes..
April 11, 2007 10:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 10:07
[addendum - I posted this hours ago, but don't see it here - apologies if it eventually turns up twice]
ONE WITNESS - it sounds like you're signing off, but in case you're back to read this –
Seems like you really wanted to out me, but in all honesty, I want people to know what I think and I love understanding how others think. I want people to consider my views and I want to consider theirs. If you did more research, I think you’d see that trend too. A lot of what I say here I had no idea of a couple of years ago. I figure there are others out there like that. I don’t consider my views and information a reflection of a narrow bias, but understand that you do. I don’t consider myself an “offender” of any kind, but understand you do. I read through some of the essays and post on some, as do most people, from what I can see – but I haven’t done a study of it and I’m not avoiding Wiccan and Jewish essays. I am less interested in them, though. Christianity interests me much more. Why? Because it’s the religion I was raised in and in my opinion how Christianity is handled, especially in the US, is critically important. I think a lot of people feel that way these days.
I’ll stick with Cal Thomas’ photo looking smug – I don’t think it serves him well. In person he might be a sweet guy, who knows. I do want to dissociate myself from the quote in your last post with the expletives, caps and exclamation points. I want to make sure people know I didn’t write that. You didn’t say I did, but you did relate my comments to those. I’m not sure why.
I also disagree that my “atheist views are suspect” – any more than I’d think Christians would be suspect if they said they were critical of atheism. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find that Christians are critical of atheism.
Alfred – thanks for your support.
Rob Adam – thanks in advance for the “A”
One Witness – I hope you consider what I’ve said outside your point of view that I have a narrow bias.
April 10, 2007 9:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 21:11
One Witness.
I agree there are a number non believers/agnostics/atheists on this board. Some are definitely more in attack mode. However a number of them provide quite thoughtful discussion and raise good questions.
I am an independent in that I don’t prescribe to any specific religion, though I enjoy the study of many religions. My spiritual pursuit is unified theory of spirituality which to me encompasses something from most (all?) religions.
I have a question for you and anyone else on this forum. Does one need to have a religion to have faith? I don’t have religion but I have faith in my spirituality.
If say I am a Buddhist and I am losing faith in that religion or that I find it lacking a Christian would invite you to try Christianity. Someone does and finds faith in Christianity. That would be a good thing. Conversely someone comes to the conclusion that for them Christianity has too many contradictions or maybe they don’t believe in original sin. They find Buddhism and its approach seems simpler and is something that resonates inside of them. They find faith in Buddhism. This is also a good thing.
Finding something that resonates with you on an individual level and allows your spirituality to grow is a good thing. In the example of the Christian turning to Buddhism it does not mean they necessarily reject all that is Christianity. It probably means they took what they felt was useful and ignored the rest. This probably applies to the Buddhist who turned to Christianity.
Personally I don’t think there is any one religion today that one could say is the perfect answer. I liken it to an essay test. You and E Fav can both write significantly different words, even ideas and both end up with a A. for the course.
April 10, 2007 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 13:22
One Witness,
What is wrong wth being critical of Christianity? I think that E-Fav. has been fair in his remarks.
April 10, 2007 12:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 12:33
Well, e.. I have outed you. I knew you would be fully aware of your posting bias, but now everyone who reads here is fully aware too.
I truly thought you were an equal opportunity offender until I took a cursory look at your previous posts. Even then I half expected you would call me out and produce some witty and conversant posts you'd made on the Jewish and Wiccan threads.
eFav, you have been candid but your words have been disrespectful. It is one thing to say -FAITH has failed me- and entirely another to say -I hope your FAITH fails-
And imagine my surprise at reading your comment that smug was "written all over Cal Thomas' face" This after reading:
"is it not (curse-word) ironic that all these Christian people always the (expletive) people that look like (expletive)(expletives)
LIKE HIS GLASSES, MAN...... seriously. GET SOME STYLE YOU OLD MAN!!!!!!!!!! JUST BECAUSE YOURE OLD DOESNT MEAN YOU HAVE TO LOOK LIKE A SHRIVELLED PRUNE. DO YOURSELF UP YOU OLD DISGRACE.
which was posted on this thread. I thought I had uncovered a trend. If you tire of disparaging a FAITH, insult looks.. And may I remind you these insults are directed at "distinguished figures from the academy, the faith traditions, and journalism" to quote from this board's "About On Faith" page.
In a prior post, I asked you two questions:
"What has made you so confident in your narrow opinion? What makes you so active on a FAITH board?"
You have answered them both in one sentence:
"I’m critical of Christianity and find this forum a place to express my thoughts"
To share your bias with me is open and refreshing. But it makes your Atheist views suspect and seem motivated by that bias. I understand.
I have enjoyed chatting with you and wish you well on your journey through life.
April 10, 2007 9:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 09:56
Hello One Witness – No problem, you haven't outed me. I'm fully aware of what I post here and am flattered that you took the time to pull some of my quotes together. I stand by them – especially the one about Cal Thomas – that man really needs a new publicity shot.
I think my words are candid, but not disrespectful. I’d be reluctant to say some things directly to people whom I thought might disagree with me, but the beauty of these forums is that you can express your thoughts more openly, knowing the person with whom you’re conversing can take some time to respond, or not respond at all. I find it very refreshing and possibly the only way currently available to have an open conversation about religion.
I spent the last two years examining Christianity (the faith in which I was raised) and finding it wanting. I see now I’m not at all alone, but it’s not something that you can gracefully bring up in a typical conversation. I’m critical of Christianity and find this forum a place to express my thoughts as well as engage in conversation with like-minded and other-minded people. No one perspective takes precedence here.
I suppose believing Christians aren’t used to being challenged the way they are on this forum. But I’m glad we’re all here. It would be boring and completely un-thought provoking if everyone had similar views.
April 9, 2007 10:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 22:35
Hello, all,
I think the list needs to have a discussion specifically about what "disrespect" and "insult" on a serious list such as this one.
Maybe Ms Quinn and Mr. Meachan could set up a question like: ought we to show respect for other people whose beliefs we do not share? Put another way: should we respect people whose beliefs we do NOT respect?
April 9, 2007 8:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 20:22
Hi Norrie Hoyt,
"A person WITHOUT FAITH may be: clearheaded, undeluded, perceptive, analytical, accepting of reality, able to see things as they are, free of false hopes" and maybe not..
You get points for spontaneity and creativity. Hey, maybe you can write a whole dictionary when you're not posting here.
Hi Alfred,
Definition of RESPECT:
to treat something or someone with kindness and care, to accept the importance of someone's rights or customs and to do nothing that would harm them or cause them offence
Definition of DISRESPECT: Having or exhibiting a lack of respect; rude and discourteous; flippant and disparaging
This is from bartleby.com, but Norrie Hoyt may make up a definition for you if you ask him.
Why not let e.fav speak for himself?
April 9, 2007 7:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 19:17
One Witness,
So how would you define disrespectful? It seems that you find any statement that is contrary to your own as lacking respect. Frankly I think that e-fav. has made a number of excellent and insightful posts over the past month or so since I found this site.
I find the variety of viewpoints here to be interesting and (sometimes) stimulating. That is why I keep coming back.
For the record, right-wing christians have easily been among the most intolerant and bigoted people that I have known.
April 9, 2007 5:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 17:14
Can't believe Byron would make such a flimsy defense of the faith. To rely on "facts" as "history" in matters of faith is reductionistic and not helpful to elucidating a great truth that lies at the heart of Christian belief and worship.
Then again, the question posed by this website is ludicrous. As if the truth of Christ's immortal presence could be stymied by an external discovery. Faith is not opposed to reason; but the workings of faith, to paraphrase Pascal, have reasons of which reason may not know.
April 9, 2007 5:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 17:13
One Witness,
"Let me throw in a few antonyms of FAITH:
doubt, insecurity, mistrust, uncertainty, disbelief, unbelief"
How about: A person WITHOUT FAITH may be: clearheaded, undeluded, perceptive, analytical, accepting of reality, able to see things as they are, free of false hopes.
April 9, 2007 4:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 16:35
Hello again e.
"I've had many respectful conversations with people here whose views are different from mine"
I thought I would read several of your previous posts to better understand your thoughts. I found you post almost exclusively on Christian threads. Almost all of your posts have a bias against Christianity:
"I hope that someday there will be as uplifting an event that isn't centered on believing, or in feigning belief, in a supernatural father who chose to sacrifice his earthly son."
"I hope someday gays and other misunderstood people can be accepted for their obvious human goodness without it having to have come from Jesus"
"The word "smug" was meant to be descriptive. I see signs of it in your posts and it's written all over Cal Thomas' face."
"If it weren't for good, loving, compassionate, humble Christians like **** giving you a pep talk"
"It seems that if people are taught to believe something,(e.g. Santa Claus, Jesus)"
"Individual atheists can have hope or not and certainly many atheists and other non-christians have found purpose in their lives."
Sorry to out you -but your words have not been respectful. I only took a few minutes to find these and as I've told you -I'm only an occasional reader here. Maybe I've missed your posts on the Hindu, Wiccan, Moslem and Jewish threads. And those where you are showing tolerance towards Christians. If I have, Please accept my sincere apologies..
I've enjoyed my chance to speak openly with you. You were the only one to respond to my post and you are not the only one who posts disrespectful or insulting remarks. Best wishes.
April 9, 2007 2:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 14:57
One witness - that's funny - I got the feeling that you were trying to discourage me and people like me from posting here because we question faith rather than support it.
Here's an excerpt from "about on faith" "...conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world."
I'm not an expert (nor are you, I suppose) but I am currently very interested in the influence of religion, regardless of my personal faith.
I've had many respectful conversations with people here whose views are different from mine and hope to have many in the future.
Regards
April 9, 2007 11:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 11:20
Thanks for your honest response, eFav. Let me share a few definitions of
FAITH:
1} belief that is not based on proof
2) belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
2) a system of religious belief
Lets face it e, FAITH just isn't your best subject. I don't consider you a troll. I consider you a person without FAITH. It makes you stumble. Again, you may be an expert on doubt and unbelief. You (and others posting here regularly) may have arguments you haven't even used yet against FAITH and people of FAITH.
Also, you are right. This is a FAITH board not a Christian board. However, Christianity is a FAITH and the comments I have made apply to all FAITHS. So don't try to run me off this board. But don't break a sweat, I'm not a regular poster.
Let me throw in a few antonyms of FAITH:
doubt, insecurity, mistrust, uncertainty, disbelief, unbelief
Its always nice to define language, so you can have clear communication..
April 9, 2007 8:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 08:34
One witness: Hi - this is a public forum, open to everyone who has an interest in the subjects presented.
We all have opinions and all of them are welcomed here, from what I've seen.
You are right - no matter how many heartwarming articles you sent about religion, I would still say "no proof."
That's my opinion. If you don't want to hear it, there are plenty of Christian forums you can go to where people like me would be considered "trolls."
That's not the case here, because this is not a Christian forum.
April 8, 2007 11:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 8, 2007 23:01
Oy Vey, eFav.. Your response was predictable. It seems I've heard that PING before.. Pick yourself up, brush yourself off and we'll try again. Maybe faith just isn't your subject. Maybe you're much better right now at unbelief and doubt? It seems I could give you 1000 links to 1000 stories like the NEWSWEEK piece from every denomination and every nationality and you would say "no proof". What has made you so confident in your narrow opinion? What makes you so active on a FAITH board?
April 8, 2007 9:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 8, 2007 21:28
One witness - I read the Newsweek piece. It sounds like the pentacostal church is great treatment for an autistic.
That's wonderful. It doesn't reflect, however, on the truth of their faith.
April 7, 2007 7:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 19:17
Umm..
was my little posts on removing The Book of Revelation from the Bible deleted? I thought it was rather a brilliant idea for the Catholic Church!
April 7, 2007 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 14:12
I am an occasional reader here...
And I've noticed that in spite of its name, most of the regular ON FAITH posters are faithless and unbelieving. They treat these boards like a shooting gallery, quickly knocking down each new statement of faith. Ping. Ping. Ping.. And are completely unaware they are singing a one note song. The thought of faith makes them stumble. Yet by its definition, faith requires a leap. Once entered into -faith can be tested. Is there power to redeem, to restore, to reconcile? Those are questions only the faithful can answer.
A recent NEWSWEEK "My Turn" is a lovely example. Hope you will read:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17551802/site/newsweek/
April 7, 2007 1:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 13:55
All the proof I need of Christ's ressurection lies lies within my heart.
April 7, 2007 1:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 13:39
Dear Ann O -
You said that Paul was lifted up to "seventh heaven." I thought he went to "third heaven." (2 Corinthians 12:2 "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven."
Please clarify.
Thanks.
April 7, 2007 1:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 13:00
Rev Byron writes:
"My Christian faith is rooted in the fact of the resurrection. It stands or falls with that historic fact."
Considering there is no "historic" evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (or anybody else, for that matter), I guess I'll be seeing you at your local atheist watering hole sometime this week.
Let's chat...I'll be the guy slugging the stout at the end of the bar...
BTW - what, exactly, constitutes historic "fact" from your perspective?
April 7, 2007 12:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 12:56
Thanks Norrie and May your Buddhist reading guide you to make compassionate choices...
April 7, 2007 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 12:48
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
I've never understood this line of reasoning. I've heard it used many times and it is just hogwash. Jesus never called himself God and in fact his persecutors tried to trick him into saying as much but he only told them "I am what you say I am".
He had numerous occasions to claim divinity but did not. He was a person very much in touch with God but there have been others throughout history. I call myself Christian because I understand life from Christs perspective better than any other spiritual teacher. I am reading the Dalai Lama and am finding much to like about the Buddhist way as well. There are undeniable truths in each philosophy. Sorry but the first century Jews were not promised something the rest of the world was gonna be denied "Unless they changed their minds".
If you are calling your self Christian because you think you will be saved from some future Armageddon or that somehow you will be spared something that others will not you are sadly mistaken. That is absolutely the most selfish theology on earth and NO ONE thinks selfishness is a manner to live in tune with GOD.
peace
April 7, 2007 11:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 11:59
Ben, C.S. Lewis and others - what authority do you have to define Christianity? I do not believe in Christ's resurrection but I am a Christian. And you have absolutely no authority to say otherwise.
April 7, 2007 11:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 11:10
The teachings of Jesus are valid regardless of his stature as a superhero who returns stronger from the dead. What is important is to listen to what he said, he told you that again and again. Let him who has an ear...
April 7, 2007 11:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 11:00
Regarding the claims of Jesus, remember that the Gospels are accouts written by others after Jesus died. There was no CNN and no one has Yeshua ben Yosef on tape or film claiming what we say he was. The writers of the Gospels were not objective reporters, they were trying to proclaim the "good news", to sell a religion. What they said happened may be true (although I doubt that "bodily ascended into Heaven" part in the light of modern astronomy). But we are not faced with the choice that Jesus was the Son of God or a lunatic or liar.
April 7, 2007 2:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 02:30
To C.S. Lewis:
Does Jesus care more for our faith in him as a man and god than he cares for our faith in his teachings and our commitment to living as he teaches us we should? I believe the teachings are the important part. We should be honest and good to eachother. We should turn the other cheek when we can, avoid coveting what we can not have, and make sacrifices for the needy. On judgement day, I believe that faith without attention to the teachings will be viewed as shallow. We will be judged by our actions here on earth. To accept Jesus in your heart means to live as he would have you live. A diety who merely wanted our faith would not be worth believing in.
April 7, 2007 12:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 7, 2007 00:19
Ba'al - nice name, I'm sure it fits.
By the way, how did that little skirmish with Elijah work out? 1Ki 18:18-40.
April 6, 2007 11:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 23:58
C.S. Lewis:
In the spirit of education here's a few thoughts on Jesus position from the bible:
Who the people of the Bible thought Jesus to be:
1. First lets ask the angel Gabriel?
Luke 1:35 -- Son of God
2. Next John the Baptist testified him to be:
John 1:34 -- Son of God
3. God himself declared him to be his son:
Matthew 17:5
4. Who did the apostle John say we need to believe Jesus to be?
1 John 4:15 -- The Son of God
5. Let's hear from Peter:
Matthew 16:13-16 -- The Son of the Living God
6. Who did God promise to send Himself?
John 3:16 -- His only-begotten Son
7. Who did Jesus tell Thomas to believe him to be?
John 20:29-31 -- The Christ, The Son of God
8. Now, let's hear from Jesus himself. I wonder if he knew who he was???
John 10:36 -- "I am God's Son."
9. The chief priest of Israel said Jesus called himself what?
Matthew 27:43 -- God's Son
10. Now did Jesus, under oath, declare himself to be God? NO!
Matthew 26:63-64 -- God's Son
11. What about Mark? What did he have to say about it?
Mark 14:61-62 -- God's Son
12. What about the testimony of an army officer?
Mark 15:34-39 -- Son of God
13. Apostle Paul, the chief of the apostles, after getting the Truth went into the synagogues immediately and taught Jesus to be what? Let's look and see:
Acts 9:20 -- Paul said Jesus was the Son of God, after he returned to heaven.
14. Well now, we have heard from the brothers in the early Christian congregations. Maybe the brothers are mixed-up. Let's ask a sister -- Martha -- who she believed Jesus to be:
John 11:27 -- Son of God
Hmmmmm.
Maybe the people educating you about what the bible teaches need a little educating themselves....
Read up on Tertullian sometime and you'll see he was one source of the confusion. It's interesting after having such an impact on Catholicism, he gave it up calling it a "church of bishops".
April 6, 2007 11:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 23:53
William J. Byron -
I was delighted to see you responded to the question with just a couple of verses from the bible. So few of the "on faith" panelists do this, it begs the question as to whether they know or believe the bible. (I suspect the same is true of 99% of the "christian" commenters on this site as well.)
I also appreciated the scriptures were from the Apostle Paul. His life, proves the reality and the impact of Christ. Why would a guy, set for life, from a prominent family, who had to be brilliant, essentially on track to be a member of the supreme court of his day, give it up to be an humble preacher and teacher to peoples considered pagan and degenerate by his family and jewish friends. It's good to remember that initially he was not trusted by the christians (as he was their persecutor) and hated by the Jewish elite. Why choose to live like that unless there was a compelling reason?
As far as the petty debates by the self assumed intelligent commenters, I can only say - I really don't care about your opinion. Read Ecclesiates sometime and you'll understand.
The comments here also prove Paul was right when he wrote 2 Tim 3:1-5. So as Paul advised, I'll turn away.
April 6, 2007 11:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 23:43
If Christ truly arose from the dead and went to heaven, he would have no use of his material body. He could have easily left it behind. So finding his remains should be irrelevant. At least that is how I see it, as an atheist.
April 6, 2007 6:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 18:54
OH, My ECLATI in me, hidden within my MEME, you
see:
You ALL are Nice Folks. Ya Ya.
What A BEAUTIFUL WORLD.
What Great Blogers
Holy Mackerel! Ya Mon :=)/
There really is LIFE-IN-LIGHT and Our Eclati Never Dies.
So Round and Round WE go and NOBODY Knows.
Imagine being resurrected in the Eclati-an Way
and never in the Biblical way?!
Now thats True Justice mixed with Genuine Love via our COSMIC Holy Heart Beats and us being in ITSELF (G-d)
via the PALANDROME of Absolut Contraction of Temperature [TIME] and then the Absolute Expantion, over and over again.
Thus we are in Eclati thus Eternaly Avoiding Lonliness via IT (G-d). Lord. Eclat, Almighty...
Can You Feel It Sisters, Brothers, HUMATES et al? Praise Eclati ! WOW! :-)/ Ya Mon! Umm Umm.
April 6, 2007 6:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 18:21
So,
(1) If A were not true, I could not have faith in A.
(2) I have faith in A.
(3) Therefore, A is true.
What a lousy argument. Premise (1) is wrong from the start. Faith is defined as belief independent of evidence. You have faith that something is true, regardless of whether it is true. Premise (2) is a statement of fact.
The conclusion (3) does not follow. Your state of mind vis a vis faith, does not determine the truth of A.
April 6, 2007 5:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 17:43
C.S. Lewis.
I am going to go foolish to the max… or perhaps I am a lunatic, but I would be comfortable with that. But let’s really get the conversation going.
I won’t necessarily refute that Jesus was God, but I would put forth that perhaps we are all God… it is just that Jesus understood this or knew this at such a deeper level than us that he could claim to be God. Further more he was able to perform the miracles he did because of this understanding. If we each understood to the extent he did then we too could do the things he did.
I’ve never gotten the “fall at his feet” deal. I don’t think God designed the universe based on an org chart. My belief is we are all made of the same “stuff” as God, only we are not as aware as Jesus was, or Buddha for that matter. If we are the same “stuff” then why can’t we do what god does, or what Jesus did. It’s the same as the rock which is made of the same ‘stuff’. The rock is even less aware and hence does even less.
Is that crazier than just thinking Jesus was a good guy with some good ideas?
I could be wrong in my belief and so could Christians. Heck the atheist could be right. Oh my! If that was I true I had better grab some booze, a bong and some naked women and get the party started! I am of course making light of the fact people pick on atheists because they “believe nothing” and “live for today”.
C.S. You should read the post by Paula Fredriksen on this same question. As she put it (paraphrasing here) “Each person’s interpretations is what sustains a belief”. That is why you have some many flavors of Christianity, actually many religions have branches or off shoots. Interpretation is why we also part of the reason we have other religions and other beliefs.
The differences between religions is the gift from all religions. The differences are what make us explore and grow.
April 6, 2007 5:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 17:34
Isaac Watts,
Very nicely said, and I like the hymn.
A Happy Easter to you.
April 6, 2007 5:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 17:05
Like Rev. Byron, I too believe that God raised Jesus from the dad.
April 6, 2007 4:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 16:21
All this talk, Talk, TALK about Jesus. Was He, wasn't he, whatever. Jesus was a man of wise words, but Jesus was also a man of action. Jesus DID things to help people, not just talk about them. How many of you are actually doing anything, other than criticizing others? Your action speaks louder than your words. You are welcome to preach at me all day long, but if you're out there feeding the hungry, supporting the poor, taking care of the sick, you'll score a lot more points with me than all the scripture you quote and verse you share.
And while we're tossing around poetry:
####
All the streets are filled with laughter and light
And the music of the season
And the merchants windows are all bright
With the faces of the children
And the families hurrying to their homes
As the sky darkens and freezes
Theyll be gathering around the hearths and tales
Giving thanks for all God's graces
And the birth of the rebel Jesus
Well they call him by the prince of peace
And they call him by the savior
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
As they fill his churches with their pride and gold
And their faith in him increases
But theyve turned the nature that I worshipped in
From a temple to a robbers den
In the words of the rebel Jesus
We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when Christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus
But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgement
For Ive no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.
-- Jackson Browne, "The Rebel Jesus"
April 6, 2007 3:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 15:39
It is the hallmark of Christian apologists to state assumptions and beliefs as historical fact.
There exists no historical evidence of the alleged resurrection of Christ apart from conflicting Biblical accounts. Where is the proof to support your claims? Or are they purely faith-based? What does that mean about the statement, "My Christian faith is rooted in the fact of the resurrection. It stands or falls with that historic fact."? What historical fact?
Believing something happened does not make it an historical fact. Period.
April 6, 2007 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 15:33
Gee Norrie, You've never mentioned Ba'al's age to him and he's much older than I am.
Since it's Good Friday I'll share a hymn with the readers here. Even though it is a few centuries old, its meaning is still fresh in many hearts and its truth still endures.
"Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood ...
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were an offering far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all."
April 6, 2007 3:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 15:14
C.S. Lewis (the real one) was a third-rate philosopher / logician. You can poke holes in his arguments with ease.
April 6, 2007 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 14:42
I go mad-house in my inner world when i see photographs of people like this William J. Byron.
is it not (curse-word) ironic that all these Christian people always the (expletive) people that look like (expletive)(expletives)
LIKE HIS GLASSES, MAN...... seriously. GET SOME STYLE YOU OLD MAN!!!!!!!!!! JUST BECAUSE YOURE OLD DOESNT MEAN YOU HAVE TO LOOK LIKE A SHRIVELLED PRUNE. DO YOURSELF UP YOU OLD DISGRACE.
Love, & a 666, because you know you love it - & you deserve it too because you're not a fun'loving kid anymore, you're just a boring common example of deteriation of the brain.
why are you allowed a job as a collumnist writer when you look & act that bad??
April 6, 2007 2:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 14:27
BA'AL tells us:
If Christ was not Risen, then the Sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes are meaningless?
Hi, Ba'al,
I agree that taken out of context this is nonsense. Of course they're meaningful. But Paul was always talking from within the dimension of the world of spirit that he had seen -- as a mystic who had been lifted up into "the seventh heaven". Yes, he was also a theologian, an interpreter of others' experiences, but what seemed to dominate all of his thinking was his awe and love of God-Christ, and for him (as I understand him) a life without God-Christ was relatively worthless. Many mystics say the same sort of thing, which is unimaginable to us non-mystics, I'll grant you.
Also, preachers in Paul's day (including Jesus Himself) used regularly used great exaggerations to make themselves clear, so I can see more than one reason why he would talk as he did.
Happy Easter to you and everyone on the blog :-)
Ann O.
April 6, 2007 1:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 13:03
Brambleton - I'm not afraid of anything that I think does not exist. That would be silly.
What I said is that some Christians TRY to scare people with the forced choice of lunatic or lord.
April 6, 2007 11:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 11:52
EFAV,
How, exactly, can you be scared of something that you don't believe exists?
April 6, 2007 11:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 11:24
The resurrection of Jesus is one of the few stories that is told repeatedly in the bible--more than 5 times--so it provides an excellent test for the orthodox claim of scriptural inerrancy and reliability. When we compare the accounts, we see they don't agree.
What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13[23])
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at that first appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
April 6, 2007 11:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 11:19
Why do we require a "physical" and "material" resurrection as proof of life after death? I think we're too caught up in the material world to see or think straight on this. If someone you knew were to come to you after their death, you would see them as being alive whether they had a physical body or an ethereal one.
April 6, 2007 9:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 6, 2007 09:51
In my humble opinion as America's foremost dead literary critic,
Mr Byron's post shows a marked' poverty of moral and historical imagination.
Jesus, as portrayed in the bible (we know virtually nothing that is verifiable about the "man")
said many highly moral and humanistic things, and seems like he was high on the list of moral teachers.
To believe in the fantastical supernatural myth of the literal resurrection is certainly anyone's right,
but it shows a moral poverty to believe that the meaning of Jesus's purported life was this parlor trick, especially since people like to believe it mostly because it is in their infantile self interest to escape the pain of coming to terms with the fact that they are going to die and need a fairy tale to tell them that they won't REALLY die.
Mr Byron would be one of the last people I would choose as a moral interlocator.
April 5, 2007 8:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 5, 2007 20:17
Ben - Are you "CS Lewis?"
April 5, 2007 5:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 5, 2007 17:28
Ben,
Thanks for your post.
I thought it was appropriate to have some fun with someone who posts as C.S. Lewis. If he'd posted as ANONYMOUS and said that here's what C.S. Lewis wrote, that would be fine.
Believe it or not, there are probably some readers of these posts who have no idea of who C.S. Lewis is/was, and are totally at sea because of what amounts to false advertising by the author of the post.
And how did CSL come to know Jesus's supposed intentions, which he tries to use to hammer people who think Jesus was a pretty good guy - and that's all he was.
I am not a Christian and have adverised that fact frequently in these posts. I do think it's beneficial to humanity when Jesus or the Buddha teach some good things and people accept those teachings.
I think it's insane for C.S. Lewis to say that a man who taught what Jesus did is either a lunatic or the Devil if he's not God. Why, for Heaven's sake should that be the case. It just doesn't parse (or pass the laugh test).
And why didn't you say something on behalf of "Isaac Watts"?
Regards in the Buddha.
April 5, 2007 3:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 5, 2007 15:29
Norrie,
I don't know that teasing people who don't feel prepared to name themselves is a particularly compassionate way of dealing with their attempt to move the discussion forward.
The point that someone was trying to make with the "CS Lewis" post is that many people attempt to accept things they like about Christ without interacting with the full story of his life and claims. If you have a desire to make up your own religion whose focus is renewal in this life and enjoyment of what is right in front your face, that's fine. However, to say you are Christian while not interacting with the full story of Christ is merely lying. Why might I not say I am a Muslim who only accepts some of Mohammed's teachings, while also being a paganist who just happens to believe in only one God?
Again, it's fine to think all that stuff if you'd like. It's just not Christianity. The desire of the late CS Lewis for apologetics was to ask non-Christians to be intellectually honest. I fear that many people today have ignored that call.
April 5, 2007 2:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 5, 2007 14:53
CS Lewis, who are YOU to demand the choice of lunatic or Lord?
I think you're just another Christian apologist trying to mislead and scare people into believing in Jesus. ("Hmm, calling Jesus a lunatic would be blasphemous, so I guess I better call him Lord.")
Maybe Jesus was a great teacher, maybe a legendary hero, a myth, maybe some combination of these.
Please drop this "lunatic or lord" business - You've got no way of knowing and it's not nice to try to scare people like that. I bet Jesus wouldn't like it one bit. He took a more gentle approach.
April 5, 2007 11:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on