 |
|
|
|
 The Bible presents us with an evolving story, writes John Shelby Spong.
December 29th, 2011
09:10 AM ET
My Take: The 3 biggest biblical misconceptions
By John Shelby Spong, Special to CNN The Bible is both a reservoir of spiritual insight and a cultural icon to which lip service is still paid in the Western world. Yet when the Bible is talked about in public by both believers and critics, it becomes clear that misconceptions abound. To me, three misconceptions stand out and serve to make the Bible hard to comprehend. First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it. The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament. Actually, that's not in the Bible Can a defining tribal narrative that is passed on orally for 45 generations ever be regarded as history, at least as history is understood today? Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture. This means that everything we know about Moses in the Bible had to have passed orally through about 15 generations before achieving written form. Do stories of heroic figures not grow, experience magnifying tendencies and become surrounded by interpretive mythology as the years roll by? My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality? Jesus of Nazareth, according to our best research, lived between the years 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Yet all of the gospels were written between the years 70 to 100 A.D., or 40 to 70 years after his crucifixion, and they were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write. Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written - that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John - we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100. For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative. In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side. Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all. My Take: Yes, the Bible really condemns homosexuality Instead, it’s an interpretive account designed to conform the story of Jesus’ death to the messianic yearnings of the Hebrew Scriptures, including Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. The Bible interprets life from its particular perspective; it does not record in a factual way the human journey through history. The second major misconception comes from the distorting claim that the Bible is in any literal sense “the word of God.” Only someone who has never read the Bible could make such a claim. The Bible portrays God as hating the Egyptians, stopping the sun in the sky to allow more daylight to enable Joshua to kill more Amorites and ordering King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites. Can these acts of immorality ever be called “the word of God”? The book of Psalms promises happiness to the defeated and exiled Jews only when they can dash the heads of Babylonian children against the rocks! Is this “the word of God? What kind of God would that be? The Bible, when read literally, calls for the execution of children who are willfully disobedient to their parents, for those who worship false gods, for those who commit adultery, for homosexual persons and for any man who has sex with his mother-in-law, just to name a few. The Bible exhorts slaves to be obedient to their masters and wives to be obedient to their husbands. Over the centuries, texts like these, taken from the Bible and interpreted literally, have been used as powerful and evil weapons to support killing prejudices and to justify the cruelest kind of inhumanity. The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging. Instead, the Bible presents us with an evolutionary story, and in those evolving patterns, the permanent value of the Bible is ultimately revealed. It was a long road for human beings and human values to travel between the tribal deity found in the book of Exodus, who orders the death of the firstborn male in every Egyptian household on the night of the Passover, until we reach an understanding of God who commands us to love our enemies. The transition moments on this journey can be studied easily. It was the prophet named Hosea, writing in the eighth century B.C., who changed God’s name to love. It was the prophet named Amos who changed God’s name to justice. It was the prophet we call Jonah who taught us that the love of God is not bounded by the limits of our own ability to love. It was the prophet Micah who understood that beautiful religious rituals and even lavish sacrifices were not the things that worship requires, but rather “to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” It was the prophet we call Malachi, writing in the fifth century B.C., who finally saw God as a universal experience, transcending all national and tribal boundaries. One has only to look at Christian history to see why these misconceptions are dangerous. They have fed religious persecution and religious wars. They have fueled racism, anti-female biases, anti-Semitism and homophobia.They have fought against science and the explosion of knowledge. The ultimate meaning of the Bible escapes human limits and calls us to a recognition that every life is holy, every life is loved, and every life is called to be all that that life is capable of being. The Bible is, thus, not about religion at all but about becoming deeply and fully human. It issues the invitation to live fully, to love wastefully and to have the courage to be our most complete selves. That is why I treasure this book and why I struggle to reclaim its essential message for our increasingly non-religious world. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Shelby Spong. soundoff (6,068 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next »
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Thursday, December 29
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor’s note: John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, is author of "
God is life
God is love
God is liberty
Find Jesus find God in 2012
Salvation for the nation in 2012
Break the chains. Be free of religion and other foolish supersti-tions for 2012 and beyond.
Break free from religion in 2012.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
@ Bob: as I said below...
a better question for Marshall Brain (creator of that site) to ask would be: why didn't the Father spare his own Son?
Marshall Brain's questions virtually all presume a closed, anthropocentric, purely materialistic existence. If you ask that question of someone who actually believes in more than that (especially that God came & died for us), his questions are moot.
Why not actually ask a Christian amputee or paralytic instead of raising his questions in a vacuum?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Eareckson_Tada
@Russ Just answer the question: Why does god never regenerate limbs?
Luk 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
Luk 22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
He also raises people from the dead-which is much more impressive. Next.
Incidentally, the crucifixion was anything but pretty.
Murder generally isn't pretty, but somehow christians think the murder of Christ was beautiful, because then they get to live forever in paradise and don't have to be responsible for their own actions. Hence, the pretty lie.
I believe the crucifixion was horrible, the resurrection was beautiful. Paul states very clearly that we are responsible for living a holy life as Christians. He rejected the system of belief (that had some followers in his day) that said grace was a license to sin. He told Christians if we continue to live in sin after believing, we have fallen from grace.
I wonder why god went through all of the drama of blood, torture, and murder? If he wanted to lift the curse he placed on mankind because Adam and Eve wanted knowledge he could have simply waved his magic wand and did it.
And why all of the drama of the big flood killing every living thing on the planet? Couldn't god have just zapped all the wicked people to death and leave everyone else alone?
Probably you should ask Him.
I can see why John Shelby Spong is a "former" Episcopal bishop. His ideas are way out in left field, even by the Episcopalian Church's standards.
Not really. Clergy are taught about the historical Bible in seminary, but do not teach it from the Pulpet. If they did, they might loose their parishiners.
He's a former bishop because he's retired, dumb.ass
Historians and theologians are never going to solve the "God question." There are learned theologians on both sides of the debate. You can have all the facts, as Judas did, and turn your back. You can be wholly dedicated to killing Christians, as Saul/Paul was, and turn around and believe. In the end, there is a moral element to belief that goes beyond our mere knowledge base. It is a good thing to study, but this is not like a math problem. At some point, you simply have to decide what you are going to believe. If you ask God to reveal HImself to you, I believe He will, in His time and His way. He did to me, and to millions of others.
I believe in things which can be proven, not in pretty lies that make me feel better about myself.
Then you would have to be a skeptic or agnostic. As you wish. The non-existence of God cannot be proven.
Which makes god as real as vampires or unicorns. Do you believe in them, too?
@SG
You said, "Then you would have to be a skeptic or agnostic. As you wish. The non-existence of God cannot be proven."
It's the believers that claim there to be such a creature. The burden of proof is exclusively on their shoulders.
The belief in gods is, in essence, the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy. There is equal evidence to support their existence. Equal evidence means equal merit. The fact that I can't prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, does little to invalidate the disbelief in it.
Claims for the existence of a creature, or a phenomenon, have no merit until, at the very least, a hypothesis is presented that does not conflict with any known fact. Even if this hypothesis is available, that in and of itself doesn't do anything to support the existence of the phenomenon described. For this phenomenon to go from "not impossible" to "probable", evidence is required. The amount and quality of the evidence govern how probable the phenomenon is to exist.
The most rudimentary hypothesis of gods may be consistent with all of the know facts. This pretty much requires that these gods don't, or no longer, interact with our universe. That means that we can't entirely rule out the possibility that they exist. On the other hand, gods that have mutually exclusive traits are impossible to exist.
Without evidence in support of the existence of gods, the default position is that they do not exist. Assuming they exists isn't reasonable. Atheism argues from the default position.
Note that there are really two basic versions of atheism:
a) Believing there are no gods, and
b) Not believing there are any gods.
Version a is the strong form of atheism and asserts there are no gods. This is a statement of belief, because this assertion is made without evidence that proves there are no gods.
Version b is the weak form of atheism, and is a statement of disbelief. It asserts that there is no reason to believe there are any gods because there is no evidence to support their existence.
I can't prove there are no gods. I therefor don't dismiss the possibility, however miniscule, that there are any. The complete and utter lack of any evidence in support of the existence of any gods, leads me to disbelieve they exist. When evidence is produced that shows there are gods, I will amend my position.
I have not met you but i have met God. Of the two guess who i believe?
Rationalism is a system of thought that bases belief on reason, as opposed to sense perception or revelation. It is therefore based on an assumption as to how we acquire knowledge. The truth of that system of thought cannot be proven. It is an assumption just as faith in a deity is an assumption.
If belief in God were equivalent to belief in vampires or unicorns, than all believers would also believe in those things. But they don't because they are not the same. There is evidence for the existence of God, both objective and subjective. Bram Stoker, who wrote "Dracula", never asserted that vampires were real. It was a work of fiction, and has been received by the world as a work of fiction. The analogy is inapposite.
@SG
You said, "There is evidence for the existence of God, both objective and subjective."
Where is the objective evidence?
Creation, fulfilled prophecy, Scripture, testimonies of believers who have personally encountered God, and the risen Christ, specifically. To bring it to the subjective level, you have to ask God to reveal Himself to you. If and when that occurs, and you see He is the same as what the Word and other believers say He is, you have the opportunity to come to faith yourself.
@ LinCA: you said: "Without evidence in support of the existence of gods, the default position is that they do not exist."
Christians claim both existence itself and the historical person Jesus are evidence.
Moreover, as Paul Chamberlain has noted: it is logically erroneous to as'sert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not. All truth claims bear a burden of proof. For example, subst'itute another historical figure for Jesus. If you claimed there was no George Washington or Plato – or (as some have) that we didn't really land on the moon – the burden equally falls on your shoulders. It is not the default position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot#Counterarguments
@SG
You said, "Creation, fulfilled prophecy, Scripture, testimonies of believers who have personally encountered God, and the risen Christ, specifically."
So, no objective evidence.
The material world and written/verbal testimonies, are objective realities. Subjectively, we choose to interpret them as we wish. If you don't believe the material world is objective, then you fall into solipsism.
@Russ
You said, "Christians claim both existence itself and the historical person Jesus are evidence."
Neither prove the existence of any gods.
You said, "Moreover, as Paul Chamberlain has noted: it is logically erroneous to as'sert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not. All truth claims bear a burden of proof. For example, subst'itute another historical figure for Jesus. If you claimed there was no George Washington or Plato – or (as some have) that we didn't really land on the moon – the burden equally falls on your shoulders. It is not the default position."
If I claimed that there are no gods, you would have a point. I don't. I claim that there is no evidence for any gods, they are thus unlikely to exist. My form of atheism falls in the second category in my post above.
@SG
You said, "The material world and written/verbal testimonies, are objective realities. Subjectively, we choose to interpret them as we wish. If you don't believe the material world is objective, then you fall into solipsism."
I accept the material world as objective. It just doesn't prove the existence of any gods.
The material world does not conclusively prove the existence of God, yes. It is one objective evidence of His existence. I choose to believe He created the world we live in, with all its beauty, intricacy, inter-dependence between the plant and animal world and nature, etc. You choose not to believe. That was the point of my original post. In the end, we have to look at the evidence and make a choice. Nothing ultimately compels us, but our own hearts.
@SG
Actually, since it is the believers that are positing a god, it would be their burden to supply evidence that god does indeed exist.
No one can prove a negative. I can't prove that god does not exist. I also can't prove Santa Claus does not exist.
But in life, we decide what is real and not real, based on what we see in the world around us.
In the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.
I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature. I can't prove vampires or werewolves or fairies don't exist. But, I bet you would agree, that they are not real. They just don't fit in with the reality we see all around us.
Skepticism is the adult response to anything, for which there is no evidence. Only children under the age of 6, should suspend their critical thinking and believe in magic.
I bet you don't believe in Zeus, or Isis, or Allah, or Krishna. Right? They just don't seem "real". There just isn't any evidence... Except the universe must have a creator. Something can't come from nothing. Which doesn't mean the Christian god was responsible. Zeus seemed quite capable.
So, we can look for attributes of the Christian god, that should provide evidence that He exists. Sort of like measuring the direction and force of the wind...
If positive evidence is found, we should conclude that god probably exists.
If positive evidence is not found, then we should conclude that the Christian God, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not exist.
Just like Santa. Just like fairies. Just like vampires. Just like the other gods you reject?
One of the most compelling reasons for rejecting a god, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s). Some, not even human (The elephant-faced god – Ganesha etc.). Each religion, each denomination of each religion, defines god's wants differently. All of these religions cannot be right. But they can all be wrong.
Perhaps man has not yet found the one true god, or perhaps the one true god does not exist.
Christians claim their god is Omnipotent ( all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all good).
1). If god is Omnibenevolent, He would WANT every human to believe in Him.
The bible says He does:
2 Peter 3:9
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. King James Version (KJV)
1 Timothy 2:4
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. King James Version (KJV)
2.) If god is Omniscient, then He would KNOW exactly how to convince anyone and everyone that He exists.
3.) If god is Omnipotent, then He would be ABLE to convince anybody and everybody that He exists.
Yet, ~ 67% of the world's population are not Christians.
Therefore, the Christian god is very unlikely to exist.
In the same vein as the above, notice how many denominations of Christianity there are (~ 38,000 – World Christian Encyclopedia (2001)).
Each denomination can show you scripture, that "proves" they understand the wants of Jesus/god.
All of the denominations could not be correctly interpreting the bible. Many are contradictory.
Many of these denominations believe only their members will be saved.
If the Christian god exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful and all good, why didn't He provide a bible that could not be misinterpreted? That everyone's comprehension of His wants would be the same?
The bible says:
1 Corinthians 14:33 – KJV
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Christians believe god's purpose in creating the Bible is to guide human beings towards a knowledge of God, and to help them lead moral lives. If this is so, then Christians must be certain of the meaning of the Bible.
ambiguity – a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression.
"There are in excess of 1,000 Christian faith groups in North America. They teach diverse beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, the second coming, Heaven, Hell, the rapture, criteria for salvation, speaking in tongues, the atonement, what happens to persons after death, and dozens of other topics.
On social controversies, faith groups teach a variety of conflicting beliefs about abortion access, equal rights for ho_mo$exuals and bi$exuals, who should be eligible for marriage, the death penalty, physician assisted suicide, human $exuality topics, origins of the universe, and dozens of other topics.
The groups all base their theological teachings on the Bible. Generally speaking, the theologians in each of these faith groups are sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful and careful in their interpretation of the Bible. But, they come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it teaches.
Further, most are absolutely certain that their particular interpretations are correct, and that the many hundreds of faith groups which teach opposing beliefs are in error." Source: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
If the bible is ambiguous, then it cannot be said to be inerrant. If the bible is not without error, then how do we know which parts to accept as truth and which to reject as fiction? Is the will of god, subjective?
The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.
Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. So far, science has found no need for a god. The claim, that "God Did It", has always been wrong in the past. On this issue, I think the future will look a lot like the past.
Belief without a reason or evidence, is called "delusional".
Christians often quote:
John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
If the Christian god so loves the world, why does He allow / cause so much suffering? Disease, famine, floods, earthquakes etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. ?
I can explain the existence of these horrors as being due to natural causes and evolution, but my explanation fails when I include an all loving Creator in the equation. I keep getting a "Can't divide by zero" error.
Christians say their god is omnibenevolent (all good); omnipotent (all powerful); omniscient ( all knowing)
1. If the Christian god is all knowing, He would be AWARE of all the suffering on earth.
2. If the Christian god is all good, He would WANT to rid the world of suffering / evil.
3. If the Christian god is all powerful, He would be ABLE to rid the world of suffering / evil.
4. Yet, evil persists.
Therefore, The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.
The Christian god is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. But these attributes are not compatible.
If the Christian god is all knowing, if the future can be known, then even god would be bound by events in the future. Everything would be predetermined.
1. If the Christian god, knows what will happen in the future, and does something else...then, He is not all knowing.
2. If the Christian god knows the future and cannot change it, then He is not all powerful.
3. The attributes attributed to the Christian god conflict with one another.
The Christian god with these attributes cannot exist. No being can have these attributes at the same time.
Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.
If god created all the organisms on the planet, then He must have created even the diseases that have caused and are causing so much death and misery for humans and animals. He would have had to fashion the tick and the flea. The mosquito and blood flukes. And worms that bore into a child's eye.
How could an all good god do such a thing? Why would He spend His time creating gruesome things to cause human suffering? Yet, these horrors exist. And if god didn't create them, who did?
Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the pathogens and the parasites that have caused so much human death and misery.
If the Creation Story is a fable, then Adam and Eve did not exist.
If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.
If there was no original sin, then it cannot be the reason god allows so much suffering in the world. Instead, there are natural causes for earthquakes and floods and other disasters.
If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a redeemer.
If there was no redeemer, then Christianity is a based on a false premise.
"If we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last [Christ]?" 1 Corinthians15:45
If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible, for the entire bible is base on Genesis.
If we evolved, there is no soul –> no afterlife –> no need of a heaven or hell.
LOL, which is why the Creationists fight so hard against evolution. And why many Evangelicals are reinterpreting Genesis to encompass an old earth. Their reasoning is that everyone before them, interpreted the Creation Week, incorrectly. *snicker*
Let's see... "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." – Umm... That's millions of years to you and me!
The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes, or Allah, or Zeus or Santa. And you don't believe in any of those, Right? If I post Krishna is a myth, you wouldn't post back that, that cannot be proven.
The reason why we can find no empirical evidence for God's existence is not because "God is a magical being completely able to hide from us." It is because God is imaginary.
Cheers!
@SG
You said, "The material world does not conclusively prove the existence of God, yes. It is one objective evidence of His existence. I choose to believe He created the world we live in, with all its beauty, intricacy, inter-dependence between the plant and animal world and nature, etc. You choose not to believe. That was the point of my original post. In the end, we have to look at the evidence and make a choice. Nothing ultimately compels us, but our own hearts."
Your argument is, in essence, that you have to have faith to have faith. Without faith, what you present as evidence, isn't evidence.
In a trial, all types of evidence will be produced. Jurors decide how they will interpret the evidence. You can look at the material world and accept it as evidence of the existence of God. You can look at it and decide that the material world had a natural (or some other) source. The existence of the material world is evidence, regardless of your conclusion.
Believers are not so much positing the existence of God, as acknowledging that God posits His own existence. It is up to each individual to decide where he stands. If God made it so that everyone had to believe, there would be no free will. In the case of Judas, he had every reason to believe, but chose to reject Jesus anyway. That is because of the moral (heart) element to faith. In the end, we decide to believe what we want to, because of, or in spite of, the evidence.
The existence of Santa can be disproven. You can trace his origins to the poem "Twas the Night Before Christmas", and follow the history from there. You can go to the North Pole and see his shop is not there. You can put parents on the witness stand and ask them under oath if they, or Santa, gave their children toys at Christmas. That would be ridiculous, but you made the assertion that belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa.
@ LinCA: per your claim that the historical person Jesus is not evidence...
Jesus claimed to be God. (Jn.8:57-59 is a prime example)
If he is (which is what Christians believe), that is proof (God didn't give a watertight argument, but a watertight person: himself).
If he was not, then Christians are idiots.
This is not a matter of probability; it's a question of historical reality. Did this happen?
If not, Christians are wrong.
If so, God has more than proved his existence; he's revealed himself.
David Johnson, Don't you get tired of pasting this file of yours? I noticed you didn't try to refute my comments on prophecy further down the page. Not feeling well tonight?
LinCA
Let me repeat what you just said :”The belief in gods is, in essence, the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy. There is equal evidence to support their existence. Equal evidence means equal merit”
=>You can actually sit there and say that makes sense at some level? Can you not see that what this actually points to is that you have either established your own rules of evidence that fit your personal world view or using rules for the wrong purpose? Let’s see 92% of the world view is theistic. Close to 0% of sane adults believe in the Tooth Fairy yet your rules of evidence say belief in the Tooth Fairy and God are the same.
An excess of 25,000 manuscripts supporting God of the Bible alone and no manuscripts or historic record regarding the existence of a Tooth Fairy outside of known attested fictional writings.
Hundreds of millions of witnesses testify to the power of God. Tooth Fairy Zero.
The concept of Diety has altered our world. Tooth Fairy has no effect.
“ The fact that I can't prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, does little to invalidate the disbelief in it. ”
=>I am not sure how to respond except OMG!
Here is a fact for you the Tooth Fairy does not exist therefore your rules of evidence must be wrong. You know it to be a fact thus you are either in denial as to functionality of your rules of evidence or intentionally misusing them.
@David Johnson "I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature"
=>as has been pointed out numerous times, this is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question"
"Begging the question (or peti tio principii, "as suming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."
@David Johnson "So, we can look for attributes of the Christian god, that should provide evidence that He exists. Sort of like measuring the direction and force of the wind..."
=>You have the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the existence of the Jewish people, the origin of the universe, the fossil record, and the experience of BILLIONS of people that provide exactly that proof.
@David Johnson "One of the most compelling reasons for rejecting a god, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s)."
=>The fact that many people have constructed fake gods, has no bearing plus or minus on the existence of a real god. It is a logical fallacy to make that claim.
@David Johnson "If god is Omnibenevolent[sic], He would WANT every human to believe in Him ... Yet, ~ 67% of the world's population are not Christians."
=>God allows free will, you have a choice. That is consistent with God being omniscient and loving.
@David Johnson "Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. So far, science has found no need for a god"
=>staggeringly inaccurate. You will find NO SCIENTIST ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH that will say that science has figured everything out.
David, you lack the ability to construct a logical argument....
Chad, David built an elaborate argument in defense of his conclusion. He is in no way begging any question. You seem to aspire to being seen as learned and intellectually rigorous and keep prat falling and laying eggs.
@JohnR "David built an elaborate argument in defense of his conclusion. He is in no way begging any question."
David cut and pasted a large amount of text as he regularly does. One of those statements I pointed out clearly falls into the category of "begging the question"
Contrast Davids statement: "I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature. I can't prove vampires or werewolves or fairies don't exist. But, I bet you would agree, that they are not real."
With this example from begthequestion dot info "
A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" - they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question."
In that paragraph, David merely equates belief in God with a belief in mythological creatures as if that is some kind of proof.
He makes further statements (which I did not say were begging the question) that were refuted.
@Keith
I answered one from Fox apologizes... This one will have to wait. I am feeling under the weather. I'm not used to drinking anything but beer and everyone keeps sticking a glass in my hand. I took a break but I am still feeling "numb". Someone reported a UFO, so everyone is rushing in and out. I think booze may have been the father of the gods.
Anyway, Happy New Year to you.
Cheers!
@SG
You said, "In a trial, all types of evidence will be produced. Jurors decide how they will interpret the evidence. You can look at the material world and accept it as evidence of the existence of God."
For anything to be evidence for the existence of a god, a causal relationship has to be established. For the material world to be used as evidence for the existence of your god, you will have to show that he caused it. You haven't. Just saying that he must have because you reject all other possibilities is an argument from ignorance.
You said, "Believers are not so much positing the existence of God, as acknowledging that God posits His own existence."
But by acknowledging their god, believers posit it's existence.
--------
@Russ
You said, "per your claim that the historical person Jesus is not evidence...
Jesus claimed to be God. (Jn.8:57-59 is a prime example)"
Any lunatic on a street corner can claim to be anything. It doesn't prove jack-shit.
You said, "If he is (which is what Christians believe), that is proof (God didn't give a watertight argument, but a watertight person: himself)."
See above. Anybody can claim anything. It doesn't prove anything.
You said, "If he was not, then Christians are idiots."
Couldn't have said it any better myself.
You said, "This is not a matter of probability; it's a question of historical reality. Did this happen?"
Even if it happened, it doesn't prove anything. Anybody can claim anything.
You said, "If not, Christians are wrong."
They are.
You said, "If so, God has more than proved his existence; he's revealed himself."
He hasn't, because he/she/it doesn't exist.
--------
@fred
You said, "Let me repeat what you just said :”The belief in gods is, in essence, the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy. There is equal evidence to support their existence. Equal evidence means equal merit”
=>You can actually sit there and say that makes sense at some level? Can you not see that what this actually points to is that you have either established your own rules of evidence that fit your personal world view or using rules for the wrong purpose? Let’s see 92% of the world view is theistic. Close to 0% of sane adults believe in the Tooth Fairy yet your rules of evidence say belief in the Tooth Fairy and God are the same."
What part of "Equal evidence means equal merit" is so hard to grasp? Just because most people parrot what they've been told, doesn't make it true. You can't appeal to majority opinion and expect a rational person to accept it as evidence. Please look up "Ad Populum" fallacy.
You said, "An excess of 25,000 manuscripts supporting God of the Bible alone and no manuscripts or historic record regarding the existence of a Tooth Fairy outside of known attested fictional writings.
Hundreds of millions of witnesses testify to the power of God. Tooth Fairy Zero.
The concept of Diety has altered our world. Tooth Fairy has no effect."
Bullshit. Just because we tell kids the Tooth Fairy isn't real once they lose all of their baby teeth, doesn't mean it's any different. Just because people refuse to admit they lied or have been lied to, doesn't make the notion of a god any more real.
You said, "Here is a fact for you the Tooth Fairy does not exist therefore your rules of evidence must be wrong. You know it to be a fact thus you are either in denial as to functionality of your rules of evidence or intentionally misusing them."
See my response above. Equal evidence means equal merit. Your argument fails because of you rely on the "Ad Populum" fallacy.
Rationalism is not "opposed to sense perception". In fact there is no other kind of "perception" whether that is conceived of as "revelation", or belief, or any other sort of mental activity. The premise that there is any sort of human mental activity without brain chemistry is fallacious. We acquire what we "think" is knowledge, (much of which eventually proves to be incorrect), only by the functioning of brain cells. That leaves no room for "revelation". "If belief in God were equivalent to belief in vampires or unicorns, than all believers would also believe in those things." False premise. All "believers" do not believe in gods. "It was a work of fiction, and has been received by the world as a work of fiction."...Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. "Creation, fulfilled prophecy, Scripture, testimonies of believers who have personally encountered God, and the risen Christ, specifically." Wrong. All of those require subjective choices, and NONE of them are demonstrably objective.
Up until the Greeks introduced the Gnostic concept of "gnosis", the "word of god" never ebtered the discourse. THAT was a human cultural development, not a "divine" idea, and ONLY the Gnostics used it, until it was hijacked by the christians.
By your reasoning, Harry Potter is objective evidence for magic. Complexity does not imply a creator. Choas Theory has proven it can arise from nothing. You are right about one thing. You CHOSE to belief. That irrational choice ultimately is a psychological position, since it cannot be based on any objective evidence. The question remians, "Why would you NEEDb to make that irrational choice" ? Obviouly you NEED to have a simplistic for the world you see around yourself, and choose not to look for another, because it makes you FEEL better than the alternatives. But to posit that you can jump from the small irrational position, to the TOTALLY ridiculous one that the creator is a person, just because you cannot image any other form of being, is totally baseless, and even further to the position that it is a angry, (a human trait), and requires sacrifice. "Something can't come from nothing." Wrong. 1st, physics has shown that relying on your intuition is dangerous, (relativity, quantum uncertainty), 2nd, physics has proposed mechanisms for "something from nothing". Jesus never said he was god, if he had, he would have been instantly stoned to death. All the gospels have differing views of his divinity. The salvation paragigm was introduced by Paul, not Jesus, not the apostles. The concept of a flat earth was held by millions. They were all wrong. (Argumentum ad Populum again). It is not a attribute of "free will" to assert something which I believe to be false. Your god wants THAT.
@Chad
"I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature"
Begging the question is also called circular reasoning. Example:
You: God exists!
Me: How do you know?
You: Because the bible says so – See all these passages? !
Me: Why should I believe your bible?
You: Because the bible was written by God!
Or
"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
You and most idiot believers subscribe to the above.
My statement does no begging. I am stating my hypothesis. "The Christian god can be ruled out in the same way that we rule out other mythological creatures.
Consider, there is no circular reasoning. The first part of my statement is "I believe god can be ruled out" I am stating my belief. I am not stating a fact.
The second part of my statement is [The Christian God can be ruled out] "in the same way that we rule out other mythological creatures."
As we look at my evidence, it becomes evident that god is most probably a myth. *smile*
________________________________________
I said: "So, we can look for attributes of the Christian god, that should provide evidence that He exists. Sort of like measuring the direction and force of the wind..."
You replied: "You have the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
The only proof that Jesus ever existed, is in the New Testament. Certainly the story of the resurrection is not a sure thing. EVIDENCE PLEASE!
You: God exists!
Me: How do you know?
You: Because the bible says so – See all these passages? !
Me: Why should I believe your bible?
You: Because the bible was written by God!
You: "the existence of the Jewish people"
The existence of the people of India, prove Krishna? The existence of the people of Mecca, prove Muhammad and Allah?
That is totally stupid. But, I've come to expect that of you.
You said: "the origin of the universe,"
God has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe anything or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which a god's presence is either required, productive, or useful.
Even if you were somehow able to show that a god was needed to create the universe, it would not necessarily be the Christian god. Could have been Zeus or Allah. LOL
You said: "the fossil record"
Your Christian bible gives a solid account of the Creation Week. It even describes the length of a day. The question should be asked, that if god created all life, in its present form, once... Then why are there transitional fossils? Did your god have to keep making animals such as the horse, until He got it right? LOL
Watch: Evolution proves the Creation Story is bogus. So I fail to see how your fossil record proves your god. The bible is true or not true.
If the Creation Story is false, then there was no Adam and Eve. -> No Adam and Eve and no original sin. -> No original sin, and there was no need of a redeemer... other than a Messiah that would kick the Roman's butt and set the Jews free. Jesus failed to do that. Oh well, maybe next time. The Jews believe the real Messiah won't need two trips. But, you can expect only so much from a myth.
You said: "and the experience of BILLIONS of people that provide exactly that proof."
Believers of every god can tell you of experiences they attribute to their god. The Hindus and the Muslims love their god(s) very much.
Look through the articles in this Blog. You will find converts to Islam who feel they have found the one true god. How people feel, is irrelevant.
Believers from all faiths including Christianity, are deluded. Their feelings are just brain chemistry. Nothing more.
__________________________________________________
I said: "One of the most compelling reasons for rejecting a god, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s)."
You replied: "The fact that many people have constructed fake gods, has no bearing plus or minus on the existence of a real god. It is a logical fallacy to make that claim"
The fact that there are and have been so many manmade gods, shows man has a propensity for making gods. But since there are so many, it also shows people don't have a preference for any one god. There is no way to tell the counterfeit from the real.
Or, if any are real. Certainly if the Christian god were the only god, it would be in the believer's favor. Not so, if there are hundreds if not thousands of gods throughout human history.
Babies are born atheist. Parents begin almost immediately to fill them with the belief in whatever god the parents worship. There definitely is not a Christian god or any god seed embedded in an infant. The child can be "trained" to worship a golf club, if you have enough Church services, Sunday schools, summer camps etc.
Or, they can be made to worship a Messiah for which there is absolutely no evidence outside of an ambiguous holy book. *smile*
Most believers, believe because some "authority" told them it was so.
________________________________________
I said: "If god is Omnibenevolent[sic], He would WANT every human to believe in Him ... Yet, ~ 67% of the world's population are not Christians."
You replied: "God allows free will, you have a choice. That is consistent with God being omniscient and loving.
God is on sad salesman. Only 33% of the world are buying this story. 67% are not impressed. Sad dude.
Christians say, "Free will is given to man, by God". Each person can choose to accept god's love and spend eternity in Heaven or to reject god and spend eternity being tortured in Hell. How is that freedom of choice when it is the same thing as The Godfather, making you an offer you cannot refuse?
The problem with free will is, that Christians have insisted on their god being Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.
No god can be all three at the same time. The attributes contradict each other.
If god knows what He will do in the future and because He is Omnipotent, does something else, then He is not omniscient.
If god knows what He will do in the future and cannot do something else, then He is not omnipotent.
See the problem?
If God knows the future, if the future can be known, that means that the future is predictable and unchangeable. This, in turn, means that our actions are predetermined. If god is all knowing, free will is an illusion.
This also binds god, in that He knows what he will do in the future, and He must do it.
It doesn't matter if He lives outside time or what He is made of. If the future can be known, then everything is predetermined.
Let's look at Jesus and his predictions that Judas would betray him and Peter would deny him.
Those were future events. Do you think Judas could have used his free will to opt out? Not, if Jesus/God was omniscient. Same goes for Peter.
The actions of Peter and Judas were predetermined. They had no choice.
When Moses was attempting to secure the release of the Jews from Egypt, God repeatedly "hardens Pharaoh's heart". God did not allow Pharaoh to release the Jews, until He had delivered His 10 plagues upon the Egyptian people. Pharaoh didn't have free will. The Egyptian people, who suffered the plagues, didn't either.
Biblical prophecy would not be possible, unless events and human actions were predetermined and there is no free will.
The fulfillment of a prophecy cannot be left to random chance.
What about the child who is murdered by a monster, or a people slaughtered by a stronger opponent (or a god)?
Did they choose to be harmed? Where was their free will? These acts show that the strong or the people in power have greater free will than their victims. Hmm... Isn't this a lot like what would happen if there was no god?
If god has a "plan for each of us", if there is an agenda, then that pretty much rules out free will.
"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." [Jeremiah 29:11]
"You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]
You might argue, that while god has a plan for each of us, He doesn't force us to follow this plan. The problem with this argument, is that if a person does not follow god's plan, it may affect my ability to follow god's plan. A drunk driver may run me down. A robber may shoot me. My plan would be cancelled.
Ephesians 1:11 "We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
"this man [Christ Jesus] delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23a NASB).
The 5 point Calvinists believe our fates are sealed, even before we are born. This would mean that god allows humans to be born, knowing they will someday burn forever. Seems wrong to me, even for a mysterious god.
There is no evidence that a god gives or safeguards free will. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary.
Humans have free will not because of god, but because god does not exist.
I said: "Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. So far, science has found no need for a god"
You babbled: " staggeringly inaccurate. You will find NO SCIENTIST ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH that will say that science has figured everything out."
__________________________________________________
That's not what my statement says. You really need help in reading comprehension.
God does not exist, as far as science can tell. This isn't absolute. It does not mean evidence for a being might not be found at some point in time. But this is true of Santa and the fairies living in my left shoe. It means that as of now, god and Santa and my fairies are put in the myth column.
Early man invented the gods, because they were scared of death and they didn't know very much about the world around them. So, a god(s) were born.
Why does the sun race across the sky? God makes the sun race across the sky. Why does it rain? God opens a window in heaven. Why does the mountain rumble? God is angry.
As man's knowledge increased, he found that god did not do these things. They had natural origins. As science makes more and more discoveries, more and more of the gaps that god once filled, are explained. All the gaps are not yet filled. But one day, I believe they will.
It is dumb to say god did it, simply because man does not yet have all the answers. It has no more meaning than if you said Santa did it.
God did it has always been wrong in the past. I see nothing to suggest this will change in the future.
So, let's see some real proof that your Christian god exists! Pray about it!
Cheers!
@David Johnson "The Christian god can be ruled out in the same way that we rule out other mythological creatures”
=>excellent example of circular reasoning (begging the question). You equate God with other mythological creatures and that’s your proof (after all, the other mythological creates aren’t real, so neither is God).
@David Johnson “The only proof that Jesus ever existed, is in the New Testament. Certainly the story of the resurrection is not a sure thing. EVIDENCE PLEASE!”
=> LOL, well of course, we have been through this before. You and a couple thousand (my estimate) other people don’t believe Jesus ever existed. It’s akin to believing the earth is flat.
“Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher and healer in Judaea,[22] that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.” – Wikipedia
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_a_historical_person for a somewhat complete treatment ( I wont do what you do an cut and paste the entire content of that page, then complain that a responder doesn’t address every point as you do.. 🙂
@David Johnson “God has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations”
=>but, there isn’t a scientific equation for everything, right?
@David Johnson “cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe anything or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which a god's presence is either required, productive, or useful.”
=>hmm, wrong on every point… prophecy in the bible, origin of the universe, cosmological argument..
@David Johnson “Even if you were somehow able to show that a god was needed to create the universe, it would not necessarily be the Christian god. Could have been Zeus or Allah. LOL”
=>an external force IS required, if you choose to believe it was Zeus that is your choice.
@David Johnson Your Christian bible gives a solid account of the Creation Week. It even describes the length of a day
=>It describes the length of a day? I never realized that.. where?
@David Johnson “The question should be asked, that if god created all life, in its present form, once... Then why are there transitional fossils? Did your god have to keep making animals such as the horse, until He got it right? LOL “
=>There are transitional fossils? Example please, I’m sure you’ll get immediate media attention for your discovery..
“"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." – Stephen J. Gould – "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
@ David Johnson “The fact that there are and have been so many manmade gods, shows man has a propensity for making gods”
=>again, the fact that there are many false gods doesn’t imply anything positive or negative about there being a real one.
Vegas is full of fake Elvis Presly’s, does that mean Elvis never existed? You see the fallacy in that kind of argument.
More to come later, dinner is ready
FYI: “That is totally stupid”, “you’re an idiot”, “your god is sad”.. those aren’t arguments…
@Chad, re: "FYI: “That is totally stupid”, “you’re an idiot”, “your god is sad”.. those aren’t arguments…" perhaps but in the context they were used they probably should be called "statements of fact."
LinCA
Your rules of evidence that result in claiming evidence for or against the Tooth Fairy have the same merit as evidence for or against God does not make any sense. The simple fact you actually find equality between the two appears to assault common sense. Put your philosophy rules of engagement aside for a moment and let me know if common sense prevails. You know there is no Tooth Fairy you do not know what Abraham or Moses knew or did not know. Common sense.
fred, why shouldn't common sense rules of evidence be applicable to determining whether or not your god exists? Because The Babble or your cult's shamans says so? If yes, you've just one circular once again.
HotAirAce
Ok, there seems to be a communication problem. Do you claim the evidence for and against God have equal merit with the evidence for or against the Tooth Fairy? Now, simple gut common sense tells you that beyond any doubt whatsovever Tooth Fairy is a childs tail that never was intended to be anything other than that, plain and simple. The existence or non existence of God is something very different.
Your last two points:
@David Johnson "God does not exist, as far as science can tell. This isn't absolute. It does not mean evidence for a being might not be found at some point in time"
=>Wrong on a couple points:
1] The origin of the universe, an uncaused cause is required. Now, that uncaused cause does not have to be the God of Abraham, but there has to be an uncaused cause.
2]The fossil record, as was demonstrated here and elsewhere Punctuated Equilibrium is fantastically impossible w/out supernatural intervention
3] The fact that the universe obeys laws and that science by definition relies on that which it can not by definition EVER explain: "Science starts from the existence of those laws, can NOT EVER disprove God". – Leonard Mlodinow Co-author along with Stephen Hawkings of A Briefer History of Time.
@David Johnson "Early man invented the gods, because they were scared of death and they didn't know very much about the world around them. So, a god(s) were born."
=>sigh... you keep cutting and pasting that same point.. You need to understand, just because there are in fact fake gods, doesnt say anything about the existence of a real one.. get it?
@fred
You said, "Your rules of evidence that result in claiming evidence for or against the Tooth Fairy have the same merit as evidence for or against God does not make any sense. The simple fact you actually find equality between the two appears to assault common sense. Put your philosophy rules of engagement aside for a moment and let me know if common sense prevails. You know there is no Tooth Fairy you do not know what Abraham or Moses knew or did not know. Common sense."
The total and complete lack of evidence for any gods (including yours) or the Tooth Fairy makes them equally likely to exist. It really isn't rocket science. Believing in either is equally childish.
Let me see if I can make it even clearer. There is no reason to assume your god exists as there is no evidence to suggest he/she/it does. There is also no reason to assume the Tooth Fairy exists, ergo the hypotheses for the existence of either have equal merit. None to be exact.
You haven't presented any evidence. Once you do, we can talk.
LinCA
The evidence that the tools and rules you demand Christians to use produces a false result is itself evidence that your methods and methodology are flawed. I assume from your conclusion that your common sense clearly tells you there is no Tooth Fairy yet your methods and methodology conclude that based upon these rules evidence for and against Tooth Fairy and God are equal. The conclusion is wrong therefore the methods or methodology must be wrong since you claim the evidence to be of equal merit.
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God is worshiped as God by billions of sane adults
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God is known by billions of sane adults over time
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God exists yet 8% of adults deny that existence
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God has revealed himself through the Bible
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God revealed himself through Creation
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God is revealed through followers
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God is revealed through Jesus
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God is revealed by faith
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God is revealed
Tooth Fairy is known to never exist / God is
@fred
You said, "God is worshiped as God by billions of sane "
And, "God is known by billions of sane adults over time"
And, "God is revealed through followers"
These are Ad Populum fallacies. Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. These are not evidence.
You said, "God has revealed himself through the Bible"
And, "God is revealed through Jesus"
These are Appeal to Authority fallacies. There is no reason to believe the bible or Jesus have anything authoritative to say about whether there are any gods. These are not evidence.
You said, "God revealed himself through Creation"
There is no evidence for creation. This is not evidence.
You said, "God is revealed by faith"
And, "God exists yet 8% of adults deny that existence"
And, "God is revealed"
And, "God is"
These are statements of faith (yours, not mine). These are not evidence.
In short, you have exactly equal evidence for your god as for the Tooth Fairy, ergo they are equally likely to exist.
My my my someone is deep in denial and it would be a relief if was just between you and me. Let us begin with that. My common sense says there is no Tooth Fairy and your common sense says what?
@fred
You said, "My my my someone is deep in denial and it would be a relief if was just between you and me."
This sound a lot like an Ad Hominem fallacy.
You said, "My common sense says there is no Tooth Fairy and your common sense says what?"
Appealing to "common sense" is a fallacy (appeal to Traditional Wisdom). My sense, though apparently not very common, tells me that before I believe any creature exists, I'd like to see some evidence. I don't believe te Tooth Fairy exists. Neither do I believe in The Abominable Snowman, Santa Claus, Loch Ness Monster, Pink Unicorns and Bob the Magical Blue Sock. Any gods, including yours, fall squarely in the same category.
Again, come back when you have evidence.
LinCA (and fred)
Belief in God identified as the first cause, or perhaps as the source of universal moral law, can properly be a basic (or foundational) belief. Unqualified belief in the Tooth Fairy cannot. If you feel you can set up the Tooth Fairy as a basic belief in the same way as one might the existence of God, I would encourage you to pursue that as far as you can. For you, "Tooth Fairy" might end up being a symbol for God. You'd be in a better place.
@Brad
You said, "Belief in God identified as the first cause, or perhaps as the source of universal moral law, can properly be a basic (or foundational) belief."
And you base your belief on what, exactly?
You said, "Unqualified belief in the Tooth Fairy cannot."
Why? What is the difference?
You said, "If you feel you can set up the Tooth Fairy as a basic belief in the same way as one might the existence of God, I would encourage you to pursue that as far as you can. For you, "Tooth Fairy" might end up being a symbol for God. You'd be in a better place."
You don't get it, do you? I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. There is no reason to believe in the existence of it, just as there is no reason to believe in any gods. Maybe you should try to shed your infantile beliefs, if you did, you'd be in a better place.
LinCA
Review Foundationalism and basic beliefs.
LinCA
Ok, we both know and agree the Tooth Fairy does not exist. There is a difference between what is known not to exist and what cannot be proven or disproven to exist, yes? If the difference is not in the merit of the evidence then it is in the merit of the tools or methodology. Given that you and I agree the Tooth Fairy does not exist the problem is not in the evidence you demand but in the tools and methodology.
What you are saying is what has been known i.e. God can be found (proven) by faith or proven not to exist by faith. God created the world as it is known to us. That creation was intentionally designed so that only by faith can one see God. Now, that is clearly stated in the Bible and you would call that circular reasoning.
You claim that your basis for reasoning and your rules produce the same conclusion. Therefore, it is not circular reasoning from your perspective and further your own conclusion verifies the Bible true and correct on the issue of faith.
What else do we know? Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. You have not heard the Word of God, although you may have read many things. Faith is assurance of that which cannot be seen. God spoke the universe into existence creating what is from what was not. The heroes of the Bible old had faith in a promise a hope that could not be seen which they never saw in their lifetimes. We likewise can never have faith that pleases God until we step out in that area that cannot be seen and does not have the security of things known.
@Brad
You said, "Review Foundationalism and basic beliefs."
I realize that you think that a belief in a god is a foundational belief. I accept that for your religion, it may very well be. There just isn't any reason to believe that it is correct.
@fred
You said, "Ok, we both know and agree the Tooth Fairy does not exist."
No. You appear to believe that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, while I don't believe it exists. Subtle but significant difference.
You said, "There is a difference between what is known not to exist and what cannot be proven or disproven to exist, yes?"
OK.
You said, "If the difference is not in the merit of the evidence then it is in the merit of the tools or methodology. Given that you and I agree the Tooth Fairy does not exist the problem is not in the evidence you demand but in the tools and methodology."
But the difference is in the merit of the evidence. Without evidence you can't know whether something exists, or doesn't.
You said, "What you are saying is what has been known i.e. God can be found (proven) by faith or proven not to exist by faith."
No that's not what I'm saying. I say that acceptance (not proof) of the existence of gods requires faith, as there is no evidence in support.
You said, "God created the world as it is known to us. That creation was intentionally designed so that only by faith can one see God. Now, that is clearly stated in the Bible and you would call that circular reasoning."
It is circular reasoning. It requires faith in your god to accept the bible as true, and it requires you to accept the bible as true to believe in your god. Unless you already believe, there is no way in. There is a way out, though.
You said, "You claim that your basis for reasoning and your rules produce the same conclusion. Therefore, it is not circular reasoning from your perspective and further your own conclusion verifies the Bible true and correct on the issue of faith."
Since I don't, no it doesn't.
You said, "What else do we know? Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. You have not heard the Word of God, although you may have read many things. Faith is assurance of that which cannot be seen. God spoke the universe into existence creating what is from what was not. The heroes of the Bible old had faith in a promise a hope that could not be seen which they never saw in their lifetimes. We likewise can never have faith that pleases God until we step out in that area that cannot be seen and does not have the security of things known."
We don't know this. These are merely the stories and fairy tales of your religion.
fred, yes, the rules of evidence for the existence of anything, including your alledged god and the Toorh Fairy, should be *exactly* the same! Based on the available independent, factual, verifiable evidence, the probability of your god existing is exactly the same as the Tooth Fairy existing.
LinCA
“No. You appear to believe that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, while I don't believe it exists. Subtle but significant difference.”
=>Da Nile river is wide indeed. It is also murky.
You said, "If the difference is not in the merit of the evidence then it is in the merit of the tools or methodology. Given that you and I agree the Tooth Fairy does not exist the problem is not in the evidence you demand but in the tools and methodology."
But the difference is in the merit of the evidence. Without evidence you can't know whether something exists, or doesn't.
=>LinCA you said the evidence of Tooth Fairy and God had the same merit. I did not agree with your statement only accepted it to prove your methodology does not apply. If you are now saying the merit of the evidence supporting a Tooth Fairy and God are different then your tools and methodology for belief that God does not exist are not necessarily invalid. I can go with that.
HotAirAce
As I mentioned to LinCA since it is known Tooth Fairy does not exist the rules of evidence cannot apply to God as they produce a plausable false positive.
@LinCA
But if the tooth fairy doesn't exists... who put the quarter under my pillow this morning?
@fred
What part of, "There is NO evidence that your god exist", is so fucking hard to understand?
Without evidence it is moronic to assume he/she/it exists.
Again, you have exactly equal evidence for your god as for the Tooth Fairy, ergo they are equally likely to exist. If you reject the Tooth Fairy for lack of evidence, you should also reject gods for the same reason. If you choose to believe in gods (without any evidence in support) yet don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, you are applying a double standard.
LinCA
Sorry, I know the Tooth Fairy does not exist. I know you know that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. We are not in philosophy 101 at the moment so artificial academic constructs do not apply. We either agree or disagree that the merit of evidence God exists is different than the merit of evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists. The problem is it does not matter. If we agree as to merit then we are both fools because we know there is no Tooth Fairy and if we disagree as to merit then existence of the Tooth Fairy must be accepted by men of faith. No one with or without faith can accept the Tooth Fairy thus the method or methodology inherent in the rules of evidence cannot be applied to validating the existence of God.
Please take the quarter and get some sleep (pillow talk)
fred, one more time but simplified so that you don't get distracted...
The rules of evidence for the existence of anything should be *exactly* the same!
Based on the available independent, factual, verifiable evidence, the probability of your god existing is virtually zero.
HotAirAce
Based on that what is the probability of the Tooth Fairy existing?
@fred
You said, "Sorry, I know the Tooth Fairy does not exist. I know you know that the Tooth Fairy does not exist."
I also know, with the exact degree of certainty, that the christian god does not exists.
You said, "We either agree or disagree that the merit of evidence God exists is different than the merit of evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists."
I've lost track of what you think, but for me, equal evidence yields equal merit. None, in this case.
You said, "If we agree as to merit then we are both fools because we know there is no Tooth Fairy and if we disagree as to merit then existence of the Tooth Fairy must be accepted by men of faith. No one with or without faith can accept the Tooth Fairy thus the method or methodology inherent in the rules of evidence cannot be applied to validating the existence of God."
In short, you are saying that you apply different rules to one versus another mythical being. See my earlier remark about double standard.
John Shelby-
Clearly 'your take' is a poor understanding of the scriptures.
Misconceptions?- NO, mischief-Yes!
Thou shall read 2 Timothy 3:16 and enlighten yourself about THE word of God as found in the scriptures.
@2Tim3:16 – You are perfectly correct.
This former Episcopal bishop; and I’ll stress "former" for a specific reason; probably tried to teach his "former" flock the same garbage; and they in turn, made him their "former" Episcopal bishop. First, God says in the Bible that He (through the Holy Spirit, who is also God) gave the “entire of Scripture” to mankind; or, to be more specific, He said, "... as it was 'given' (dictated directly from Him) into the minds of the holy men of God." Nowhere do Moses (in the first 5 books), or any of the OT prophets (in the next 34 books); or any of the apostles or disciples of Jesus (in the next 27 books), say that it is the Word, according to "them" ... but, “heretical” pseudo-Christians and non-Christians alike, do make that very statement as frequently as possible, hoping that someone will be stupid enough to believe them; or, to believe that “man” wrote the Bible. No, just like a secretary; she writes only what “her boss dictates” to her; she doesn't listen to him, then goes on to re-write what “she thought” he said; and she certainly wouldn’t just “make up” a letter, then sign “his name” to it, because if something goes wrong, she has to be able to “rely on” what the “boss said” … and if the boss ever found out that she wrote a “different letter” than what “he dictated,” how do you think that would go for the secretary in the end? Well, God, in the same way, “dictated it all” and “man simply wrote” what he heard “directly” from God; thus, if there is anything that goes wrong, and mankind ends up in error, then God Himself would be the only one liable; and He wouldn’t be able to (ever) judge anyone either, because He would have to admit that He said one thing, and He let man write another; it doesn’t work that way; God WILL judge; and He will be able to do so, because He will be able to point to His Holy Word and say; there is My Holy Truth, given to you by My holy men throughout the ages; what part of it was “not understandable” to you? So, it isn’t man’s Word that we will be judged by, it is, and always will be, ONLY God’s Word that will either convict us, or Save us; and that choice to accept or reject His Word is all yours, not God’s.
Everyone must understand, that when God gives his (Holy) Word; He (also) protects His (Holy) Word, and He maintains His (Holy) Word throughout the ages. He doesn't give it then leave it to (sinful) man to protect His (Holy) Word; because He knows that (sinful) man, left unchecked, will always allow himself to be infiltrated by Satan, in order to deceive the flock. No people; don't fall for the heresies of people like this contributor writer and "former" Episcopal bishop; let him go and join himself to his ilk, like the “highly heretical” modern-day Jesus Seminar group; where God's Holy Truth means nothing to them; and “their (sinful) interpretation” is everything.
Mankind is too “pea-brained” to interpret the “Infinite-Mind” of God – or His Holy Word – on his own. God says that, “all those who are truly Mine, “WILL (not maybe) HEAR” My voice, and that they “WILL (not maybe) FOLLOW” Me.” He also says that once a person is ‘born again’ (as is mandated by Jesus Himself (also God) – in John 3: 1-7, in the NT Greek text); that you are “able to do” two very, very critical things from that day forward; [1] UNDERSTAND the Holy Scriptures of God; and [2] ENTER into Heaven; thus, if you aren’t born again Jesus said, you will NOT be able to “either” of the two. So, whenever anyone comes to tell me what the Scriptures mean (which I’m very well versed in, as a born again Christian teacher and researcher-writer, thank You Jesus), I simply ask them, “Are you born again?” If they say no; even if they claim to be a Christian, the conversation ends there; because I have nothing to learn from them, because God wasn’t the one that taught them; that is how the Word of God tells us to proceed. See, the Bible clearly says, that “The Holy Spirit Himself (thus, God Himself) will teach ALL those that seek Him in truth (John 6: 45). So when any (so-called) Christian person or group, tries to tell me that they are the (true) source of any "true interpretation" of God's Word, I walk away from them; why? Because they aren't of God, they are of “their father”... and in the Bible, you can find out, who “their father” really is, by reading what Jesus said (in John 8: 38-47). Jesus is speaking to “those kinds” of people; of whom this “former” Episcopal bishop appears to be one. Let us hope this “former” bishop goes back, becomes ‘born again’ then, re-reads God’s (Holy) Truth, so that his eyes will be opened before it is too late. Man doesn’t interpret Holy Scripture; God’s Holy Scripture interprets itself, and God is ever ready to do so, to “anyone” that truly wants to know and learn.
@AwatchmanforGod: I am sorry, but you have provided no evidence that your god even exists. Please do so, and then we can discuss the evidence you have as to the stories in the scriptures you follow.
Without proof of your gods existence, you cannot make claims of truth about your Bible.
I am waiting for your evidence for verification.
eric g I have met God i have not met you guess which of the two i believe?
2nd TImothy... While I do not completely agree with Bishop Spong I have to mention that your post is ordering him to read scriputre that he has been reading and lecturing on at Harvard.... Your "orders" highlight the very thing he has been teaching for many many years. You may want to read about him and attempt to understand his Unothodox interpritation of theology. Unorthodox does not mean wrong just not mainstream and he has some historical "evidence" to back up his claims.
So what does she look like?
@just sayin: You have met god? Which god? How do you know it was god? Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
If you do claim to have met god, what you believe is irrelevant because without evidence to support your claim, you are obviously delusional.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
It is interesting to note how the different gospels of the NT present how Jesus felt at the moment of his death on the cross.
According to Luke, Jesus last words before dying on the cross were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" an expression of confidence. But According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus last words before dying on the cross were "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" an expression of doubt.
Yes, you're right...it is very interesting to see how different people view things from different vantage points and perception. There are no contradictions in any of the 4 gospels, but all 4 complement each other. Whatever one missed, the others fill, whatever one simplified, the others detailed.
That's like saying, Jack said the red car hit the blue car. Jill said the blue car hit the red car. The truth may be within the combined accounts of Jack and Jill. However, at least one of the individual accounts is unreliable.
Break the chains. Ask some questions. Be free of religion and other foolish supersti-tions for 2012 and beyond.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
He does not want them to have a leg up on non believers?
He likes Tebow and hand offs are critical?
Break the chains. Ask some questions. Be free of the sick dogma of the Christion religion, and other foolish supersti-tions, for 2012 and beyond.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
@ Bob: a better question for Marshall Brain (creator of that sight) to ask would be: why didn't the Father spare his own Son?
Marshall Brain's questions virtually all presume a closed, anthropocentric, purely materialistic existence. If you ask that question of someone who actually believes in more than that (especially that God came & died for us), his questions are moot.
Why not actually ask a Christian amputee or paralytic instead of raising his questions in a vacuum?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Eareckson_Tada
The Bible, the inerrant word of God points out TWO MAIN THINGS:
1) All the books in the bible point to the Son of God, Jesus Christ...I mean ALL of books in the bible point to Him.
2) Jesus mostly talked about Hell; and how to avoid it (Hence, His famous sermon on the mount); The bible imparts knowledge, wisdom and instruction on how to avoid HELL.
Believe it or not, these two main points are biblical facts. There's no way around them and there is no point denying them. The reason why I am stating these two points is because this is exactly what this article (and its author) are clearly and conveniently steering away from. In other words, this whole article is devoid of accountability. There is no such thing as a 'half' truth...and to say that God is a good God is certainly a half truth, or perhaps a quarter of a truth, as God is not only good, He is Holy, He is a Righteous and a Just Judge who certainly passes on His Judgement, He is Jealous of His own and He is merciful to the ones who are seeking His mercy. To limit God to just being good is basically creating your own god which suits your lifestyle. And many of us have done that from time to time. This is called idolatry. Of course, we can steer away from this by reading the Bible, God's inerrant word to learn more about who God really is. And at the same time, we can realize that we have offended God greatly and without a Savior and Redeemer, we will die in our sins and be eternally cast from the His presence. Believe it or not, this will come to pass...just like every other bible prophecy has.
The only pro-phe-cies that have "come true" (big quotes) are those that are so va-gue as to be mean-ingless, or that likely would have happened at some point in time, pro-phe-sied or not. Show just one bible predi-ction that came true on the day and date speci-fied in the past year. Show where your bible states that day and date, down to the day. Good lu-ck; there are no such pr-ophe-cies in your bible.
Break the chains. Ask some questions. Be free of the Christian religion and other supersti-tions for 2012 and beyond. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
"Believe it or not, these two main points are biblical facts. There's no way around them and there is no point denying them."
Sorry BoldGeorge, you will need to provide verifiable evidence that they are facts. Facts and reality do not require belief. They are supported by demonstrative evidence.
Your post would be improved and more honest if you just included "This is what I think are facts". You still have the burden of proof issue to deal with, but at least you would admit that you have no evidencial support for your beliefs.
EricG
They are "biblical facts" as George mentioned. That is a fact!
@fred: Sorry, his claim was that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God". The rest of his post is based on this as-sumption. His claim that the bible is the inerrant word of God carries a burden of proof responsibility that a God exists, and then that the bible is the inerrant word of that God. These claims are not fact unless supported by verifiable evidence that satisfies the burden of proof.
Please try harder next time.
The problem with getting your information from a book that has been translated many times without respect to cultural context is that sometimes what you read isn't what was said.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
This is a nice site that explains how mistranslations might lead someone to believe that Jesus spoke a lot about hell.
Sorry to say but you have no notion or understanding of what a prophecy is. A prophecy in no shape or form is limited to any specific date. (I think you might have been reading to much on the Mayan doomsday prediction.)
A prophecy is a process (as opposed to a specific time) to which an event is set to occur. It does not necessarily indicate any specific point in time, but nonetheless, it does imply a future event. There are many predictions and prophecies which were mentioned in the Old Testament and New testament which were fulfilled back in those. But obviously these won't ever help you understand, much less make you believe. Here are some recent biblical prophecies fulfilled (and you'll notice how other historic non-biblical sources back up these predictions):
1) In 760 BC, Amos predicts Israel would be restored as a nation and would never be uprooted again (Amos 9:15)–Fulfilled in 1948.
2) In 430 BC, Malachi prophesies that God’s name would be honored by the Gentiles (pagans), not just by the Jews (Malachi 1:11).–Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present:
3) 30 AD, Jesus tells his disciples that they will be persecuted and hated by the majority of the people on the earth because they follow him (Matthew 24:9).–Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present.
4) In 589 BC: Ezekiel predicts about the fall of the great city Tyre, claiming that the Lord “will cause many nations to come up against thee,” (Ezekiel 26, 27).–Fulfilled in 586-573 BC: Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon lays siege against the city. Fulfilled in 370s BC: a king of Cyprus conquers the city. Fulfilled in 332 BC: Alexander the Great conquers the city. Fulfilled in 315-316 BC: Antigonus, who served under Alexander, attacks and conquers the city. Fulfilled in 1124: The city falls to the Crusaders. Fulfilled in 1291: The city falls to the Muslim armies of the Mameluks.
5) Here's a good for you to research: In Ezekial Chapter 35, Ezekial and more importantly God Himself made made several prophecies against the nation of Edom (Edom as also referred to as Jacob's brother Esau), and that it would become no man's land and will be desolate and inhabited by wildlife because of there disobedience and idolatry against God. Edom was located in the region to the southeast of Israel. Mount Seir was a notable landmark in this region.
God promised that travelers would no longer pass that way; the country would be so litter with slain that people would avoid the stench. But most importantly, God states that the country would never be rebuilt. Just as Edom had perpetual hatred for Israel, their country would remain perpetually empty. That has remained entirely true. Various countries have controlled the territory that was once Edom, but Edom as a nation disappeared. When the edict was made allowing people to return to the homelands, Israel and many other countries rebuilt, but Edom never did. During the time of the Greeks and Romans, the region was known as Idumea, which is the Greek transliteration of Edom. The territory is currently controlled by Jordan.
I wouldn't call the re-birth of Israel on May 15, 1848 va-gue and meaningless, Bob.
1948, typo
tallulah13
Yes, hell is somewhat overplayed as is heaven. In short we are not given a clear picture of heaven and know that streets of gold, walls of jasper etc. are nice speak to say it will be very precious (whatever precious is). The Kingdom of God will contain the fruits of the spirit and those who are in Christ. Not a clear picture of what it is to be "in Christ" yet we know what is sin or that which is unHoly is not there. It does not take a lot to be "in Christ" based on the crimanal that hung next to Jesus who only asked the other criminal "do you not fear God" and then said to Jesus "we deserve this yet you did nothig wrong, remember me". Jesus said today you will be with me in paradise.
Hell is reserved for Satan and his demons. The rest of us are in for what appears to be a variaty of afterlife possiblilites that range from nonexistence to an eternity outside the presence of God. Jesus decides based upon what we have done with what we were given. Jesus was God and reflected Love for all and willingness to give endlessly to those loved. Jesus also said we will be surprised who is in heaven and who is not!
tallulah 13 you and may both well find ourselves at that banquet table Jesus prepared for those the Father has given to Him. or, we may become nonexistent but, Hell was not reserved for either of us as far as I can tell.
Bob, Luk 19:41 ¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things [which belong] unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
Luk 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
A couple of them here: 1) Israel didn't recognize the time of the cutting off of Messiah-they should've. AND 2) Jerusalem was destroyed because of it.
Bob, Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Bob, This is a sermon note from Chuck Smith from Blue Letter Bible Commentaries:
III. THE TIME OF THE COMMANDMENT. NEHEMIAH 2:1 TELLS US THAT IN THE MONTH OF NISAN, IN THE TWENTIETH YEAR OF ARTAXERXES THE KING THAT NEHEMIAH WAS BEARING THE CUP TO THE KING. ON THAT DAY THE KING MADE THE DECREE.
A. Longimanus Artaxerxes ascended to the throne of Persia in 465 B.C. The twentieth year of his reign would then be placed in the year 445 B.C. The Jewish month of Nisan would have begun on the 14th of March in the year 445 B.C.
1. The prophecies in Daniel are predicated upon 360 day years, of the Babylonian calendar, 483 360 day years would be 173,880 days.
2. Luke tells us that Jesus began His public ministry in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. This means that the year of His crucifixion would be 32 A.D. That year the 14th of Nisan would have fallen Thursday, when the Passover meal would have been eaten. The previous Sunday would have been the 10th of Nisan, or in the Julian calendar, April 6th.
3. From March 14th 445 B.C. to April 6th A.D. is exactly 173,880 days.
B. God kept His promise, He sent His Son as the Messiah, to be the Savior of the world. To reconcile the world back to God. He came riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, amid the shouts of the people as they cried, Hosanna, Hosanna.
C. Luke tells us that as they were descending the Mount of Olives Jesus began to weep as He looked at the city. He said, "If you only knew the peace that you could have in this thy day, but now it is hid from your eyes. The days will soon come when your enemies will besiege you, and they will lay you even with the ground, they will not leave one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.
D. He wept over them because of the horrible calamities that would come upon them as a result of their missing their day of opportunity to know peace with God.
E. Today you have an opportunity to know peace with God, this is your appointed day, don't miss it.
fred, Jesus preached Hell as hot and furious. Hell ends up getting thrown into the lake of fire which is eternal. I guaran-damn-tee you it won't seem overplayed for those who are going there. If indeed t13 has rejected Jesus Christ as Savior, then his/her new address will eventually be the LAKE OF FIRE. It's now up to t13 to make a decision as to where he/she wants to spend eternity. As long as t13 draws breath-there's still hope for him/her. But don't sugarcoat Hell-Jesus didn't.
fred, Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Keith
I will pray about that some then re read the words of Jesus. I am clear that Satan and his demonds have a sure place. As to others there is some link between what we were given and what we did with those gifts. There is also clear instruction that we do not have the capacity to judge as to tares vs wheat but, clearly at the harvest there will be tares that are burned up. Glad I am not involved in that decision yet, I hope my liberal thoughts on who goes to hell never cause any to stumble.
fred, Fair enough. The workers are few. Press on to the high calling of God. There's not much time left.
The biblical concept of a prophet, (a "mouthpiece"), is not a forecaster of the future, or a "seer". This argument is PROOF that you have no real knowledge of the bible. A prophet is a person who speaks "truth to power". Their function was EVER to foretell the future, and the fact that some of their "predictions" happened to come true, is proof of nothing. I can say the sun will "come up" tomorrow. Does that make me a prophet ? That fortune teller thing is from Hollywood, (and Bible College.)
I'm sure there are many Christians and for sure a lot of Muslims who are just as sure that YOU are going to hell, Keith. And they may well be right!
JohnR, Not a chance.
Rom 8:1 ¶ [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
JohnR,
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
JohnR,
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
JohnR, I'm good. How about you?
The Bible does not accurately reflect the word?? Blessed is he who believes without seeing. Not you of course! You are really mixed up. You think that fake device around your neck adds validity to YOUR account? You are doing great spiritual damage to those that are not mature believers. You are not even a beleiver your. You have Never been enlighted yourself. (HEB 6)There are so many flaws in your acounts that it is obvious that you are tailoring the Bible to meet your needs. There is no Spirit within you.
If there is an "essential message" contained in the Bible, the whole theological confusion of history has yet to agree upon exactly what that is and the result is a religious conception we broadly call 'the church' virtually eclipsed of any relevance, moral authority, guidance or solutions to offer the modern world. There is nothing to reclaim. The Bible itself is not a prepackaged revelation but a selection chosen from a greater collection of scriptural material by an early roman church to enforce, and I mean enforce, a theological uniformity, which has been unraveling for the last two thousand years. It is doubtful that 'Christianity' has even started yet. What God would leave his true servants without the means to achieve His ends? All is chasing after wind. http://www.energon.org.uk
Prayer changes things
Always has always will
Talking with God is the breath of life
Strength for the soul
And nourishment for the mind and body
There is no "nourishment" in the bible to feed the millions of starving children in the world. Your "loving" "god" just lets them suffer and die awful deaths.
Break the chains. Ask some questions. Be free of religion and other foolish supersti-tions for 2012 and beyond.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Bob\
It is men who starve the children not God. We have the resources but our thoughts are not on our children
There is no "nourishment" at all in the bible to feed the millions of starving children in the world. Your "loving" "god" just lets them suffer and die awful deaths.
Break the chains. Ask some questions. Be free of religion and other foolish supersti-tions for 2012 and beyond.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
God is love
God is Truth
God is the way
Find Jesus find God in 2012
Prayer changes lives
@Bob
Besides thinking gays are an abomination, Why do humans with defects or handicaps creep god out?
Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. – Leviticus 21:17
Do you think that is the reason god never gives an amputee their limb back? God is just too disgusted at imperfection?
God is a pi$$er, isn't He?
Cheers!
Cheers!
David, I think you know the story behind a perfect offering. I can only conclude you do these things because you find it cute. Then again it could be the excitment of causing someone weak in their faith to fall.
Prayer changes things
Overcome the lies with the love of God
Break the chains. Ask some questions. Be free of the Christian religion and other foolish supersti-tions for 2012 and beyond.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
"Faith", the ability to hold to a belief in spite of the evidence, is not a virtue. It is merely evidence that you are adept at lying to yourself and others. There is no question that humans need religions, they need the supernatural narrative, they need to feel superior based solely on what they believe and whom they choose to associate with. There's no other explanation for the fervent way people follow their religions, whether that religion is Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Hinduism, or whatever.
No endeavor in human history has taken more of our energy than the pursuit and worship of deities. But for anyone willing to set aside "faith" and look with clear eyes at the facts of our universe and our existence, there is no denying that:
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
- Richard Dawkins
That sounds bleak, unless you're the type of person who wants to be in control of your own destiny. If you relish the challenge of carving out a place and defining a purpose for this glorious chance we call "life", then you will revel in the knowledge that this universe is not the result of some capricious deity. You'll be relieved to know that your fate hasn't been mapped out, sitting in the head of a prescient god. You will welcome the opportunity to walk tall and independent, not prostrate and debased. And you will not be afraid to contribute a verse to the grand human drama – a drama written entirely by the hands of the people, not by some divine overlord.
And the serpent said you can be like God and the woman saw it was good then ate the forbidden fruit.
Rick, I notice how once you are decieved the next step is:"you will revel in the knowledge that this universe is not the result of some capricious deity. You'll be relieved to know that your fate hasn't been mapped out, sitting in the head of a prescient god. You will welcome the opportunity to walk tall and independent, not prostrate and debased. And you will not be afraid to contribute a verse to the grand human drama – a drama written entirely by the hands of the people, not by some divine overlord." Your own words Rick, now that we know you hear and listen to serpents how can you deny they are not capable of deception?
Mr. Sprong seems to be out of touch with reality in regard to the Evangelical mind set. From listing to the Christian Satellite Network radio broadcasts I can conclude that they believe 1) the bible is literally historically true (we're talking 6,000 year old earth, Noah's flood, and talking donkey's here), 2) the bible is the literal Word of God (including all inconsistencies, contradictions, and blatant deviations from reality), and 3) the Word is static and unchanging. Hereditary slavery is alright because of the cultural context of the time and murdering people was OK because they were nonredeemable (even the kiddies).
Thanks Cantard...You cleared the air and I believe that you set Mr. Spong straight. Some where down the line, he got it "twised". No one could have said it better.
@Cantard
You said: "Mr. Sprong seems to be out of touch with reality in regard to the Evangelical mind set."
Or maybe it's just that Evangelicals are out of touch with reality.
Cheers!
I have a really big Bible misconception to point out: It is not, actually, nonfiction.
Thank you, interwebs!!!
Amy, I hope ('cause praying is a sign of being delusional and is completely ineffective) that you fuck off just like The Babble Thumpers did when I threw them off my property last week.
What happened in canada should stay in canada. We have our own idiots here to deal with you're not needed or wanted. There's your sign
Bishop Spong follower of the wife-killer, Henry VIII, forgot to mention the Infamous Angelic Cons:
To wit:
Joe Smith had his Moroni.
Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;
Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).
Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day dem-on of the de-mented.
The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.
Added details available for the asking.
don't ask don't read hit report abuse on all reality bull sh it
May God forgive you for misleading so many people to disbelief. Lord Jesus I pray that those who are trying to lead those I love astray will be silenced.
Intolerance of any and all criticism of the power structure is the hallmark of dictatorships, you know?
Silence them like the Amalekites? Maybe the Midianites? Or maybe with a really big flood? God is good at silencing those he doesn't like.
Jim
Not God, but the people who believe that he exists. Have you ever heard of Hypatia? She was mobbed by Christians, cut apart using pieces of pottery, and then burned just for being critical of the religion.
Sue
We have no history of atheist behavior reflecting benevolence towards others only wishful thinking. Stalin, Mao would be prime examples of godless drift resulting in over 285 million religious people killed. We do have a history of a direction towards benevolence from God to his people followed with Jesus directing love of neighbors including enemies.
So fred, how many millions have died at the hands of the religious?
So much for free will,right?
Jim
“Silence them like the Amalekites? Maybe the Midianites? Or maybe with a really big flood? God is good at silencing those he doesn't like”
=> I assume you know the nature of the Amalekites, Midianites and the ungodly generation of Cain. If you use the Bible as your source then properly reflect the God of that Bible as the authors reveal Him to us. A hint of intellectually integrity would be helpful when attempting to degrade a Holy God. To suggest a Holy God is behaving as a foolish dictator rather than executing the right of the Creator to terminate defect in His creation makes sense how? What exactly gives you greater knowledge of the past present or future than that of God who is not bound by our time line having created time and space as we know it. Do you not think for a moment Gods perspective has a slight edge?
HotAirAce
It is more than a numbers game. We have a 3,000 year plus history of life in a world where the vast majority were aware of accountability beyond this lifetime. A history where man from earliest recordings consisted of a race that worshiped something greater and something outside themselves. The nonsense from non believers that a godless world offers security and peace, without any history or evidence whatsoever is the foundation for darkness.
fred, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that life would be perfect without religion but I think it is safe to say that there would be at least one less reason to kill each other if religion was gone. And the fact that man has been inventing gods for thousands of years is no reason to continue believing in them, especially given there is not one bit of evidence for any god.
Dirty Sanchez
The current structure allows all the free will necessary for you to expose that which is in your heart and most likely has been in your heart from the beginning. You are not God and although you are certain your thoughts are greater consider none of know what we don’t know.
fred – you're going to have to get over this misconception that Stalin and Mao represent atheism. They were simply purveyors of their own brands of religion, using all the tools, rituals, mythical fables, and other elements of religion. Communism was a faith, followed and worshipped in the absence of evidence. Look at North Korea, with its constant reference to the divine, heaven-sent nature of its rulers.
Consider:
Theist: "I believe in God".
Pope: "I speak for God".
Kim Jong-Il: "I am a god".
atheist: "I don't believe in gods"
Which of these is not like the other?
Amy, I stand in agreeance with you.
Fred when did I say I say I was God? You idiotic Pr1ck.
RickK
Then how about the non believers on this site get over the misconception that religion is the cause of death and suffering in this world? If the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitchens and Maher do not reflect atheists in their expressions of hate towards the faithful in Christ, why are there not more like you out there setting the record straight? It has been the atheist leading the drive to destroy the only stable image of goodness this world has ever known. It has been the atheist leading the drive to remove Jesus from public, shoving Christ in the closet and promoting godlessness indoctrination of children. As the world sleeps that grand long awaited experiment of man led only by his own desires, the agenda of the atheist approaches. Consider further that this is the exact problem in the beginning.
It was man in the Garden rejecting God and deceived by the desire of knowledge. God had to be pushed away, all the guidance from God ignored, warnings ignored, blessings of peace and unity ignored. Deception is being deceived, not aware it is deceptive, as we are today. The acts of the atheist community are in lockstep with the fall of man yet unaware of the deception. As in the Garden atheists claim knowledge greater than God, as in the Garden atheists ask “did God really say that” yet they are unaware of the great deception.
Consider Jesus came as a servant, to give his live that others may live, expressed the Love of God, reflected the Love God and was the Love of God. As man crucified him Christ’s words were “forgive them for they know not what they do”. This is the focus of atheist attacks; did Jesus really say that, did Jesus really exist, Jesus is the religion of hate, Jesus is a liar, and Christians are evil, ignorant and backward. The mocking of Christ who is held dear by the faithful has not stopped since he was hung on the cross. The killing of the faithful has not stopped since he was hung on the cross.
Yes, please speak to the atheist community and warn them of the deception. We do not hate atheists we pray for them because they know not what they do.
Spoken like a true Evangelical fascist.
Cheers!
@fred
Lots of talk about god.
Prove that your god exists. Then all the atheists... the entire world will listen to you.
I don't mean the stuff Chad calls evidence. That reeks. I mean real solid evidence.
Cheers!
David
If God were to give you the solid (material for the materialist) evidence you demand how would that change the condition of your heart? You have read the Bible and know that God is not pleased with that which has little or no faith. Since it so important to you that there are no contricitions in the Bible then God could not contradict himself simply to please your need for solid material evidence that is compliant with the rules of scientific reasoning.
Gods path is simple believe through faith then God opens the floodgate of knowledge of that which cannot be seen.
@just helping out, Actually there is no commandment in the bible against being an atheist. It says you can't have other gods, but there's no directive about not worshiping any god at all. Isn't that funny that god didn't see that one coming?
@ ashrakay: I think you overlooked Ps.14:1 & Ps. 53:1
Russ....uh, how about the 1st commandment?
Sorry, I meant to reply to ASHRAKAY's comment....uh, how about the 1st commandment?
@BoldGeorge, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." is the first commandment. Did you even read my post. He's saying don't have other gods, not that having no god is a problem.
@Russ, Psalm 14:1/Psalm 53:1.. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no god.", Let me educate you on what atheists (Realists) stand for. There are 2 arguements: 1) No atheist is saying with 100% certainty that there is no god—only that there is no verifiable evidence of a god, just like there is no verifiable evidence of fairies. 2) Even if the god of the bible is true, he is responsible for great atrocities and suffering and therefore does not deserve our love and worship. HOWEVER, my point still remains, there is no commandment against not having a god. In this case, I'd rather be a fool, than sink to the moral depravity of the bible. You're going to have to try harder than this.
@ashrakay...why are you leaving out words? Ok, you asked for it. Here is what the bible says about the 1st commandment:
Exodus 20:1-3
1 And God spoke all these words, saying:
2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
Deuteronomy 5:6,7
6 ‘I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
7 ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.
Don't leave out "BEFORE ME....BEFORE ME....BEFORE ME"
posted in wrong place above...
@ ashrakay: you said there were no commands against atheism. i gave you a text that pointed out the opposite. you may not agree with the text, but you are attempting to dodge the clear intent of the text thru an appeal to semantics. do you really think that was not the author's intent?
i think you are confusing atheism with agnosticism. "atheism" literally means "no god" or "without god." "agnosticism" literally means "no knowledge" or "i don't know for sure." many of the 'new atheists' are pretty demonstrative about this.
in order for you to claim the God of the Bible has committed moral atrocities, you must be claiming there is an objective moral standard by which you are judging that 'deity'. a few things to consider:
1) on what basis do you derive your moral outrage without an appeal to an objective reality (god)? For example, is what the Nazis did ALWAYS wrong? How can you claim that if there is no objective basis for morality? In other words, your absolute moral indignation is actually a sign that you believe in an objective reality – at least in practice.
2) if there is a god out there, would your low opinion of that being's actions keep him from being real?
3) a good literary critic always reads with an eye for the author's intent and attempts to be sure you're hearing the author in context. what do you think was the intent of these passages that have you outraged? if the same God who died on a cross for humanity did those things yet is not schizophrenic (as Christians contend), then what might these passages actually mean?
It is a lazy scholarship to say "it doesn't have to make sense. it was all cobbled together anyway. 'God get angry. God smash people.' those people worship an angry god." that is merely constructing a self-fulfilling straw man. that's not what Christians believe nor what the Bible teaches. i hope you'll take the time to actually discover what the text says from the author's intent.
"1) on what basis do you derive your moral outrage without an appeal to an objective reality (god)?"
lol @ "objective"
@ frank: speaking of being taken out of context...
objective vs. subjective, not objective vs. biased
speaking philosophically, not CNN vs. Fox News
@Russ, I have to post this in sections because CNN is blocking my message for some reason.
I guess you have to be on a pretty slippery slope when you start comparing your own god's actions to that of the N azis, but I'll bite.
1) Actions don't always have to be wrong in an individual for us to see fit to exclude him from our society. A man may k ill a child and then donate to charity. Should we just forget that that man is guilty of m urder? This is what christians ask us to do about god.
2) If there were a god out there I would a ccept that reality. If he is similar to the g od described in the b ible I would j oin f orces with whatever available to try to end him. (apparently this is the problem paragraph though I can't see why)
3) Your contention that I am outraged at the author is incorrect. It's like being angry at Shakespeare for something he wrote, no offense to Shakespeare. If anything I feel quite comfortable in my moral superiority. You may think this is smug or arrogant, but I'm not angry. The author's intent in my opinion in some aspects were intended to bring people out of a stagnant philosophical position and elevate them to a higher standard. That might have been successful for the first 100 years of the 1st millennium but now it works against itself and has created a following of intellectually lazy automatons. The author lacked the insight to recognize people's potential to deify that which is lacks the intelligence to understand. Even Buddha saw the fallacy of this human condition and tried to build in fail-safes to prevent people from worshiping him. Sadly, even this wasn't enough. Overall, the author lacked the maturity to understand how weak-minded and lazy people are and in an attempt to improve their standing, provided a doctrine that has been used as a justification for torture and killing for the past 2 thousand years.
Yes, I'm aware of the various senses of the word. Thanks!
@Russ, Unfortunately, it wouldn't let me post the things that god is responsible for which was part 2... Apparently, even CNN has issues with it, but it is related to your question #1.