 |
|
|
|
 Evangelicals are expected to account for about 40% of the Republican vote on Tuesday's primary in Florida.
January 28th, 2012
02:00 AM ET
Florida Evangelicals a different breed of voter than brethren in Iowa, South CarolinaBy John Sepulvado, CNN (CNN) - Conservative Christian activist Ralph Reed has called the Bible Belt home for decades, but he grew up in Miami in the 1970s, when the city was emerging as a diverse megalopolis. Among his middle school friends were Jews, Catholics and Methodists. Then, at age 15, Reed's family relocated to the sleepy mountain town of Toccoa, Georgia, so his dad, a doctor, could take a better-paying job. “It was very conservative,” says Reed, who now lives outside Atlanta. “At first – as would be true of any 15-year-old – I didn’t like it. I think it was a culture shock.” Ultimately, the mostly evangelical residents of Toccoa shaped Reed’s faith, helping lead him to Jesus in his 20s. But in terms of his faith-based organizing, the well-known activist drew more on his experiences in hyper-diverse Miami. "Later on in life, when I became a leader in the Christian Coalition, I had a greater appreciation [for] ethnic and religious diversification,” Reed says. That could be good news for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is looking to regain momentum from chief rival Newt Gingrich, after the former speaker’s upset in South Carolina, in Florida’s Tuesday primary. There are signs that Florida’s evangelical voters may be more forgiving of Romney’s past social liberalism than their Iowa and South Carolina brethren – and more willing to support a Mormon candidate. “I think Romney could do well in Florida,” Reed says. A more centrist evangelicalism As a percentage of GOP voters, there are fewer evangelicals in Florida compared to South Carolina and Iowa, where Rick Santorum won the presidential caucuses, according to CNN exit polls from 2008. In that year, evangelicals accounted for 40% of Republican primary voters in Florida, compared to 60% in the Iowa caucuses and South Carolina primaries. And compared to those other early primary states, Florida is much more religiously diverse. In the 2008 primary there, Catholics were nearly a third of the Republican vote, with other kinds of Christians, Jews and those with no religious affiliation each claiming a chunk of the vote. Still, evangelical Christians claim a bigger share of the Florida Republican vote than any other religious tradition. There also are signs they may be more tolerant of a Mormon candidate than born-again Christians in the Bible Belt and Midwest. In the South Carolina primary, Romney claimed 22% of the evangelical vote, compared to 44% for Gingrich, according to CNN exit polls. Florida’s evangelicals are “more open” to the idea of a Mormon in the White House, according to Orlando area pastor Joel C. Hunter. “Our nature, of being a fairly mobile state, with a lot of tourism and a lot of transcultural and transnational interaction really makes us boundary spanning, rather than sticking to our own affinity groups,” Hunter says. He leads a congregation of 15,000 at Northland, a Church Distributed, a nondenominational megachurch of the kind that are more popular in Florida than in Iowa or South Carolina. “For any independent church, you’re going to be open – necessarily open – to non-ready made boundaries, open to other religious groups,” Hunter says. “You’ll be more likely to partner with groups that aren’t necessarily like your own.” The pastor cites his church’s partnerships with local synagogues and mosques to help local homeless children. For Hunter, teaming up with different religious traditions follows the example of Jesus. “Jesus talked to the people, the religious leaders others wouldn’t talk to,” he says. “As an evangelical, I should be ready to talk to a lot of people that aren’t like myself, because that’s what I see in the life of Christ, and I’m looking to build relationships.” Mark I. Pinsky, the Florida-based author of "A Jew Among Evangelicals," says there are other key differences between evangelicals in Florida and those in Iowa and South Carolina. “In Iowa,” Pinsky says, “they tend to be rural and older. In South Carolina, they tend to be more fundamentalist, and more likely to be affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention,” a denomination that isn’t shy about pointing out theological differences with Mormonism. Pinsky says Florida evangelicals, especially in the central part of the state, are more likely to have Mormons as neighbors, compared to their brethren in South Carolina and Iowa. “Nondenominational evangelicals are less likely to demonize someone who is a real person,” Pinsky says. Less Preaching, More Teaching Even in smaller Baptist churches in Florida’s Panhandle, there are “notable differences” with Christians in more historically evangelical parts of the country, according to pastor Curtis Clark. “There’s still a lot of yelling from the pulpit in South Carolina,” says Clark, who leads a congregation of 2,500 at Thomasville Road Baptist Church in Tallahassee. Clark says his congregation is split between Republicans and Democrats, that almost all the adults have college degrees and that the parishioners want to be led, not yelled at. “I try and teach, try and encourage,” Clark says. “Florida evangelicals are a little bit more educated, and have a broader experience.” Census figures from 2010 show Florida has a slightly greater share of college graduates than South Carolina. Both the Romney and Gingrich campaigns are reaching out to evangelicals to quell concerns about their candidacies. Both campaigns held conference calls with influential conservative religious leaders last week, discussing religion, personal and policy decisions. Many evangelicals have expressed concern about Romney’s past support for abortion rights and gay rights and over Gingrich’s failed marriages. But Romney doesn’t need to win big among evangelicals to take Florida, Reed says. Because evangelicals make up a smaller portion of Republican voters, Reed says Romney only needs to win a sizeable share of their support. “If Romney gets a third of evangelical voters” Reed says, “he wins the primary.” While Romney skipped meeting with some evangelical leaders in South Carolina, including officials at Bob Jones University, his campaign has started more aggressively courting pastors and religious community networks in Florida. The campaign has participated in multiple conference calls with religious leaders and activists. “In part, I think [the Romney campaign is] more open to outreach by virtue of the Florida demographic,” Reed says. That suggests the Romney camp suspects Florida’s evangelicals will be more open to his candidacy than other evangelicals in the primary states so far.
Next entry »My Faith: What people talk about before they die
« Previous entryAmerican Jews confront internal rancor over Israel
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Jesus said that the two commandments that are the most important are that we should love God and love our neighbor. Sometimes I feel that we forget that and get caught up in arguements about whose beliefs are better than others. That is not helpful or productive for our faith and for our country. Lets use our energy to try to work together to make things better for everyone.
Heck, I made a Florida evangelical this morning...and then flushed it away.
Winner winner chicken dinner
Potty humor? Really? Score two points for the other side.
sin and perversion don't have a side they are just sick
My experience with Christians: People who fear death and need comfort about it, people who need daddy/mommy figures, people who tend to want to be told what to do. That's okay. I understand. But please stopping voting in people/practices that affect MY life.
remember, without fear religions couldn't exist. When they deny it's fear, look out, they are the next terrorist.
What about African Americans (who overwhelmingly voted for Obama)? Or, Jews? Or, women? Please, wise one, tell each group how they should vote to please you. You personify what is wrong with our country.
Get thee hence Ralph Reed. That guy is more slimy than lard. Any money he made was advising politicians on what to say in order to get Christians votes. Not tell the truth... but what crap to feed. All I have to do his hear his name and I get nauseous.
The 'church' is a perfect business. Many of the larger ones bring in millions of dollars in revenue annually, I know of two that bring in over million each week, yet they produce nothing, sell nothing, and have no accountability of their income to the federal government. They hire professional marketing teams to ensure that they enlistment is as high as it can be, so that their profits can be as high as possible. When this type of money floats, corruption follows it, hence the patterns of the Catholic church over the last millennia. This power grab and pattern of control is of course the reason why so much blood shed has happened in the name of Christianity. The religious 'nuts' are merely the brainwashed soldiers to carry out the orders. The church is a very well oil machine of profitability and control. Always has been, always will be. Fortunately, there are less these days that buy into the lifestyle.
They produce nothing? Really?? What about the trillions of dollars of human services – and countless volunteer hours – they provide through faith-based hospitals, schools, senior centers, homeless shelters, feeding programs, clinics, counseling centers... Say what you want about churches but you CAN'T say "they produce nothing". Idiot.
Yes, churches do "good work" that only slightly offsets the need for it they create with their policies in the first place.
SuZie, you're in over your head. Bye.
You ignored the last posting I told you this fact. You must be religious 😉 . Good governments, like most western ones outside of the US provide all those services, and a lot better.
@ J Tolbert
Do these religious charities hold their offerings hostage for a conversion?
Check out Mexico City or any other large Catholic city where the injunction against birth control has created massive poverty and suffering. Sure, the church can go in a run a soup kitchen or orphanage, but real improvement in lives, by allowing women to control their own bodies and limit the size of their families to a number they can feed? Not allowed.
J. Tolbert
"SuZie, you're in over your head. Bye."
Suzie may speak for herself in response to this - but for me... by this comment you have proved yourself to be an ass, and everything else that you have said or will say is in serious jeopardy of being dismissed as obnoxious braying.
Ralph Reed = Boyd Crowder
To all the anti-Christian trolls here (again): Me thinks thou protesteth too much. Honestly, why you exert so much time, energy and hatred against them is beyond me. Many of you profess tolerance yet you are so intolerant yourself.
I can tolerate you just fine, fundie, as long as you keep your nose out of my private life and off the laws that protect me from your interference.
I've seen the pictures of Jesus. He's a white guy who looks like Willie Nelson. For this reason I'm playing the "Red-Headed Stranger" every day until Willie... I mean Jesus... comes to have that big fight with the Devil – played by Dick Cheney in the movie.
where do those pics of jesus come from anyway? he never would have had long hair.
he was a jew and lived by the law which forbid long hair on a man.
I wonder if we should tell Willie about that law? (How about the "white guy" part" I believe the Bible described him as having "skin of bronze".)
It is time we stopped letting the crazy 20% (evangelicals and the other religious nut jobs), run this country. They are ignorant and can't think their way out of a paper bag. You ever try to work with these folks at something that requires thought, analysis and intelligence. They may have all sorts of advanced degrees, but when you start with belief in virgin births, a supernatural Santa in the sky (who will help you win the football game, if you pray hard enough, eh Tebow? Ooops, maybe not) you can't get any kind of consistent or accurate thought processes going.
Damn right, Suzie! Their religious belief is total hypocrisy. They are pro-Death and Anti-Democracy.
The society they want here in the U.S. can be seen in the Middle East, by looking at the hateful, sadistic, disgusting, primitive world of Saudi Arabia.
It's a fascist dictatorship where the brutality is justified because their invisible "God" sanctions it. It's a childish aggression taken to horrible extremes.
If evangelicals are such wonderful people, and don't hate anyone (since they are opposed to people hating them), why did they vote for a serial cheater like Newt Gingrich.
Exit polls from South Carolina indicated that evangelicals shunned Romney solely because he was a mormon.
So, to evanglicals and their ever lasting god, a serial cheater is better than a mormon?
And please, leave out the "redemption" argument. That like the smoker who's quit smoking hundreds of times.
they hated and still hate Obama.. Yet he is a very good family man. Sure says a lot about the religious hypocrites.
Obama IS a Christian. Oh, I see, but he's a 'nice' Christian so you like him. Hypocrite!!
you really are delusional.. Understood
Obama is a Christian. This was made explicitly clear, especially in the early days of his presidency when he was challenged about his affiliation with Rev. Wright. So, you either throw the baby out with the bath water (that is, all Christians are bad, including Obama who IS a Christian) or you have to discriminate which are good and which are bad. Well?
I will never vote for a guy who's religion asserts that a woman can't get into heaven unless some man "raises her up," to be his eternal servant.
I guess I'm not aware of what religion you're referring to.....could you clarify? And what scriptural reference do they use to support such a claim?
Mormonism, my friend. It is what it is. "Celestial" marriage, as [their] eternal marriage is often called, is essential for Mormon women. Without being celestially married to a holder of the priesthood, a woman cannot be "saved." Mary Ettie Smith, a Mormon woman who left the church and Utah in 1856, said that "women do not amount to much in themselves," and that women in those times were often celestially married to men they had no intention of ever living with, so that they could have a man who would be able to get them into heave." "...In the temple marriage ceremony, women are given secret names known only to their husbands, for identification purposes, so their husbands can pull them through to "the other side" after death ."
If I am wrong about this, how about a Mormon come contradict? No? This won't happen. It is doctrine. Women get to serve the man who raises her up into heaven for all eternity. Its how their system works.
over 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, with more planets than stars and our's being one of the youngest, there are likely those far more advanced than us.
Two thousand years ago aliens could have visited our planet and one may have said to the others, "Do you guys want to play the jesus joke here too?"
Evangelicals, along with their other born-again travelers, are masters at self-delusion. Pathectic people who can't think for themselves.
The idea of aliens playing a practical joke on humanity is slightly less improbable as there being an all knowing being. The most probably explanation is there was an extraordinary human being that advocated helping one's fellow human beings.
how about this chef.. the catholics stand, kneel and sit on command. They drink blood and eat human flesh. They kiss bones of dead people. And our government allows this disgusting group around children?
Tim,, you've lost it. My post has more rational than xtian and muslim beliefs..
You're ok with super intelligent extraterrestrials that have a sense of humor and faster than light travel. Neither of which have accepted empirical evidence, only that they're not NOT possible. But God, "whoa, that's just crazy talk!"
yes, god talk IS crazy. You see, you lunatics could easily say there is a possibility of a god and that would be fine. However to use bronze age manipulations? Fabricated writings? Then interpret those writings? That is what's crazy.
If god has always existed, why is it so hard for evangelicals to conceive of the possibility that the universe has always existed, and didn't need god to create it?
More specifically, if god has always existed, what took him/her/it so long to getting around to creating the earth 6,000 years ago. Did he/she/it just get bored?
Aplogize for the repost – but wanted to keep he discussion going.
better question.. It was once a belief that god wrote the bible, they changed that belief later. They know claim he inspired it.. Sounds like a delusional's dream. This all perfect god's bible required interpretation? Not so perfect now, is it. And it required translation? Even more limitation to this god.
@Fair Tax Task Force "If god has always existed, why is it so hard for evangelicals to conceive of the possibility that the universe has always existed, and didn't need god to create it?"
=>the universe hasnt always existed, it had a beginning.
google "Big Bang"
@Come on, be honest for a change.. "better question.. It was once a belief that god wrote the bible, they changed that belief later. They know[sic] claim he inspired it.. "
=>No idea where you got that from, it is inaccurate. What is your source?
The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head that God actually wrote was the 10 commandments, and the writing on the wall of in Daniel 5 to Belshazzar.
Jewish tradition has always held that Moses authored the Pentateuch, David and others Psalms, Solomon and others Proverbs, Prophets etc..
@Fair Tax Task Force
You said: "If god has always existed, why is it so hard for evangelicals to conceive of the possibility that the universe has always existed, and didn't need god to create it?"
When positing their first cause argument, it is necessary to proclaim that god was the ONLY thing that did not require a creator. Otherwise, you get into the infinite regress problem... Who created god, who created the creator of that god ad infinitum.
The problem with this is that once you declare an exception to the rule, that everything requires a cause, then your rule becomes only a suggestion. Which means, as you say, the universe could have always existed.
Another big problem with this argument, is that even if you buy into the "everything requires a cause and the first cause was god" argument, it doesn't mean the god responsible was the Christian god. Rumor has it, that Allah and Krishna both make a fine universe.
Cheers!
I see many atheists asking religios people questions on this blog, but I almost never see it reciprocated. Tells you something, doesn't it?
@David Johnson "Which means, as you say, the universe could have always existed."
=>hmm, no.. see "Big Bang"
If you want to believe Allah did it, or Captain Crunch, that's fine, that's your right.
But, the universe had a beginning. That's science talking, not philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
@Come on, be honest for a change..
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.
Cheers!
@CHAD
The big bang, is a theory of how the current universe began. It is not known, if this beginning happened once... or a billion times. Expansion and Contraction... Each time new laws of physics being created. Each time... or only once in a billion times resulting in life. The universe could well have always existed.
Cheers!
1. @David Johnson “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?”
=>God can’t be held at fault for peoples failures, right?
=>Does it reflect on Einstein that only a tiny fraction of the worlds population actually understand what he said?
=>pointing at mans failures as a supposed demonstration that God doesn’t exist, is of course entirely fraught a basic propositional error, right? God exists or doesn’t exist entirely independent of mans understanding or misunderstanding of Him. Right?
2. @David Johnson “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.”
=>here you are displaying a basic misunderstanding of Christianity. You first need to seek to understand that which you would attempt to criticize, right?
=>Christians believe Gods purpose in creating the bible was to record Gods interaction with humanity. That interaction with humanity started with the fall and estrangement of humanity from God, then the act of reconciliation beginning with Abraham and the Law and culminating with the Messiah-Jesus of Nazareth.
=>you are presenting a straw man argument there. That is not Gods purpose in creating the bible. As a result your logic is a non-starters and your conclusion erroneous.
3. @David Johnson “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.”
=>first and foremost, all Christian churches preach the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
=>failures of man don’t reflect on God, see #1 above.
@David Johnson "The big bang, is a theory of how the current universe began. It is not known...."
"The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model.[6][7] Georges Lemaître first proposed what would become the Big Bang theory in what he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." Over time, scientists would build on his initial ideas to form the modern synthesis. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying ass umptions (such as ho mogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[8]" -wikipedia
@David Johnson "The universe could well have always existed."
=>"If the universe has always existed, then time has always existed, for matter has always existed and presumably was not entirely inert (i.e. events would occur by which the pas sing of time could be measured). This implies that an infinite number of events have occurred prior to now, as there was an infinite time prior to now for them to occur. Yet this is the same as claiming that one can count to infinity: it is the claim that infinity has already been counted to, by counting each event prior to now. Since infinity can't be counted to (there is no number at which one reaches "infinity," only an increasingly large finite number), the universe hasn't always existed. "
@Chad
No. If god thought it important enough to supply man with a bible, then why would He supply one that would be interpreted in any other way, than the way He wished it to be interpreted? Otherwise, why supply it at all?
In contract law, a court will typically interpret any unclear language of such a contract against the contractor writer (god); in other words, the court will generally favor the cause of the other party. If it is recognized that mere mortals have this burden, how much more should it be expected of a god?
You are talking about an all powerful, all knowing god. Does it seem likely that He wasn't capable of "inspiring" a bible that was not subject to errors in interpretation? Is it likely that His inspired work, would contain only the ideas and morality of ancient people?
The bible, because it has so many different interpretations, is not inerrant. It was written by men and reflects the morals and beliefs of their times. You are just trying to spin this. Go ahead. But the fact is, there are 38,000 different denominations. LOL
Your god as a perfect, all knowing, all powerful, all good god, is very unlikely to exist.
Cheers!
@David Johnson "No. If god thought it important enough to supply man with a bible, then why would He supply one that would be interpreted in any other way, than the way He wished it to be interpreted?"
=>again
1. All christian churches preach the same way to get to heaven, the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross. That's the contract, and there is no dispute on that.
2. Additional church teachings on societal issues are not at all relevant to the central point of #1. This is not part of the contract.
see 🙂
@David Johnson "The bible, because it has so many different interpretations, is not inerrant. It was written by men and reflects the morals and beliefs of their times."
=>again, you are conflating the incontrovertible and unambiguous contracts that exist in the bible (the Old Testament, and the New Testament), with additional church teachings... So your argument fails.
David Johnson, still trying, I see ...
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1 John 2:20-21
Amen.
apologies, I forgot one..
“Jesus was not content to derive his ethics from the scriptures of his upbringing. He explicitly departed from them. [...] Since a principal thesis of this chapter is that we do not, and should not, derive our morals from scripture, Jesus has to be honored as a model for that very thesis.” – Richard Dawkins (A leading atheist and member of Atheists for Jesus see – http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com)
Entropy. If it always existed then it would have to be constant, but this is not what we witness in the universe is it.
What I don't understand is why US "Christians" are so conservative. It's pretty clear to anybody who has ever read the Bible that Jesus was a radical Socialist community organizing liberal. He fought against the oppressive conservative establishment and the brutal, immoral inequality of his time.
You just gotta wonder what Jesus would say about the money grubbing churches, and especially the ones using charitable donations to pay of child molestation victims.
you mean like the filthy catholick church
@Shawn "Jesus was a radical Socialist community organizing liberal"
=>where in the world do you get that from?
The very early church after Jesus death and resurrection was characterized by communal organization, but this economic organization was never espoused by Jesus as a must have.
Jesus preached loving thy neighbor(which conservatives do better than liberals), and also recognized the role and position of centralized government.
In any case, Jesus first and foremost preached an impossible standard of conduct to show us that we could never attain Heaven by our own righteousness, we needed a savior (Him).
@CHAD
You said: "In any case, Jesus first and foremost preached an impossible standard of conduct to show us that we could never attain Heaven by our own righteousness, we needed a savior (Him)."
Jesus was an urban legend. He never actually existed.
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? Did He whistle while He worked? 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 based 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!
Think I've seen your list before David, so just to jump to the end.. Let me know if I missed anything
@David Johnson: “God cant be Omniscient (all knowing)/biblical prophecy obviates humanities free will and makes future predictable and unchangeable because if God foreknows/preordains, then we have no choice in the matter.”
=> God exists outside of our time and space, so He has already "seen" that which has yet to happen. As such, He knows the choices that you will make by your free will. That is how biblical prophecy exists side by side with our exercising free will. As we can exercise free will, the future is entirely unpredictable.
Think of it this way, suppose I went back in time to 1940 and wrote down that Obama was going to be president and buried it in a box. If we dug it up in 2012 would that obviate our free will just because I knew what was going to happen?
Predetermination reflects Gods plan of salvation, when He sovereignly steps in. The reality is that God calls and we answer
@David Johnson: “God cant be Omnipotent ( all powerful) and Omnibenevolent (all good) because only 1/3 of the world population is Christian”
=>God doesn’t force us to believe in Him, we have free will.
@David Johnson “Jesus didn’t exist”
=>see Wikipedia “Historicity of Jesus”
“Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.”
@David Johnson “People make up all kinds of gods, they made up the God of Abraham also”
=>That isn’t an argument.. The fact that people make up fake gods has no bearing on the existence of a real God any more than the existence of fake Elvis Presleys means the Elvis never existed. Circular reasoning.
Chad, we know enough about (have factual, independent and verifiable evidence of) the real Elvis and fake Elvi to know, to a high degree of certainty, that Elvis existed and who the fakes are. Please provide references to evidence for real gods so that we can know to the same degree of certainty that you are telling the truth or merely spewing believer crap.
My list of evidence that God exists:
1. The scientifically required necessity of an uncaused cause at the origin of the universe. The universe is expanding in all directions and cooling. Going backwards there was a point in time when the universe had infinite heat and density. Prior to this singularity there was nothing. Not “something”, nothing. Matter and time were created at that point of rapid expansion. By definition whatever caused this expansion could not have itself had a prior cause (the infinite regression problem). Whatever caused it must have always existed. That is what physicists call the “uncaused cause”
Atheists who dont want to believe in an uncaused cause, are stuck with either the problem of an infinite regression, or the problem of the universe being created out of nothing, by nothing.
Atheists who do believe in an uncaused cause, are stuck with the issue of having an enti ty creating the universe, but after that taking no interest in it.
2. The phenomenal preciseness of the “big bang” expansion which was required to allow stars/planets to form. The fact that space and time were created at that cosmic singularity. (And God said, "Let there be light"). It didn’t just randomly explode, rather it expanded in such a precise manner that an infinitesimal change would have rendered a universe where matter was so spread out no formation of stars could have possibly occurred.
Atheists are stuck with the “well, even though it was fantastically improbable to have happened, it did!”
3. The fact that the universe obeys laws and that science by definition relies on that which it can not 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.
An atheist must ignore the fact that the universe obeys laws, or like Leonard Mlodinow, just “wonder from time to time why they do”, but do nothing about it.
4. The fossil record which shows millions of years of stable species, then an explosion of necessary mutations, all occurring at the precise necessary time required for complex organisms to develop, and ALL escaping fossilization
“the sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation” – Wikipedia
An atheist needs to believe that ALL species, every single one, millions of them “evolved” along this pattern: nothing happens for millions of years, then in a time period short enough to ALWAYS escape fossilization ALL of the mutations occur, precisely orchestrated such that complex organs can develop.
5. The historical evidence of Jesus Christ “Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher and healer in Judaea,[18] 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.[19] Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement.” –Wikipedia
An atheist needs to believe that Jesus Christ was an insane man, truly insane, who believed he was fathered by a deity.
6. The historical fact that Jesus died and was buried in a tomb. Three days later that tomb was found to be empty, following that hundreds of people reported they witnessed the resurrected Jesus and were willing to go to their death saying that.
An atheist is stuck with trying to understand how so many people could have been tortured to death knowing it was for a lie.
7. The demonstrated historical accuracy of the biblical narrative in all accounts, the Gospel of Luke alone has hundreds of verified historical accuracies and has NO historical inaccuracies.
An atheist has to believe that the authors of the Gospels a) said what that what they were writing was true and in some cases claimed to be witnesses of Jesus b) were extremely diligent with recording historical details and yet, were completely and utterly hallucinating about having seen a resurrected Jesus.
The fact that we have a universal understanding of good and evil.
– If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
– Evil exists.
– Therefore, objective moral values exist. (Some things are evil!)
– Therefore, God exists.
An atheist has to believe that some universal morality “evolved”
Not a single thing you listed is proof or evidence of a God, Chad. It's simply the explanation you choose to believe for the things that are as yet unexplained.
People used to believe that bad humours caused diseases and the the earth was the center of the universe. Our current lack of an explanation for events does not make God the answer.
Chad is a bit like anti-vaccine nuts who are absolutely convinced that because the cause of autism is unknown, it must therefore be caused by vaccines.
Chad, congratulations on living up (down?) to expectations. You have posted once again your usual list of believer crap that has been thoroughly demolished in this forum numerous times by far smarter people than me. Bottom line is that you, nor any other believer, do not have a shred of real evidence for any god.
@Chad
I said: “God cant be Omniscient (all knowing)/biblical prophecy obviates humanities free will and makes future predictable and unchangeable because if God foreknows/preordains, then we have no choice in the matter.”
You replied: " God exists outside of our time and space, so He has already "seen" that which has yet to happen. As such, He knows the choices that you will make by your free will. That is how biblical prophecy exists side by side with our exercising free will. As we can exercise free will, the future is entirely unpredictable."
No. It does not matter where god resides or if He is made of spirit or yellow marshmallow like an Easter Peep. 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. Consider the prophesies of the bible. If they are to come true, as predicted, there can be no free will. Events and people's actions would have to be predetermined. Prophesy cannot be left to random chance as would be so, if the future is "entirely unpredictable". You may believe you are choosing a path, but if god knows ahead of time which path you will choose, because He has seen the future, then in reality, you are not choosing. There is no spin that works for this. God is either Omniscient or He isn't. If He is, then all events and human actions are predetermined. Was Judas to blame for his betrayal? Did Peter have a choice in his denials? Not if god / Jesus is Omniscient. Not, if the quote below is true:
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."
The key word in the above quote is "predestined".
But don't despair. We have free will not because of god, but because god does not exist.
You said: "Think of it this way, suppose I went back in time to 1940 and wrote down that Obama was going to be president and buried it in a box. If we dug it up in 2012 would that obviate our free will just because I knew what was going to happen?"
It certainly would call into question the idea that the future in "entirely unpredictable". LOL
I said: “God cant be Omnipotent ( all powerful) and Omnibenevolent (all good) because only 1/3 of the world population is Christian”
It is also said, that god is all knowing (Omniscient).
If god is all good, He would want everyone to believe in Him and be saved. The bible says this is so.
1 Timothy 2: 3 – 5 says the Christian god does desire this:
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
If god is all knowing, He would understand what would be needed to convince everyone of His existence.
If god is all powerful, He would be able to do what it takes to convince the entire world of His existence.
In spite of all these attributes, 2/3 of the world do not believe the Christian god is the one true god.
Free will has nothing to do with it. It is an almighty god persuading a people, that He so loves, that He is the one true god.
Also:
No god can be Omniscient and Omnipotent 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?
I correctly stated: “Jesus didn’t exist”
You replied: "see Wikipedia “Historicity of Jesus”
“Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.”
Most (all?) of those scholars, are affiliated with a Christian organization. Their rice bowl is at stake. They all have something to lose, if Jesus isn't real. Their prestige and livelihood depend on Jesus being a living being. Also, if the scholars are Christian, then belief and faith come into play. They may be willing to accept "evidence" that sane people would not.
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." – Martin Luther
The Gospels talk about the miracles and huge crowds that followed the fabled Jesus. They tell of ecliptic events and earthquakes that released zombies into the towns. Yet, no historians living at the time of Jesus, wrote of Him. In fact, nothing was written about Jesus until 25 years after His death. 25 years was most of the average person's lifetime, in the 1st century. 25 years is a lot of time for the myth to grow and prosper. The story being told and retold... Tell a big enough lie...
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) a contemporary Jewish historian, never wrote a word about Jesus. This is odd, since Philo wrote broadly on the politics and theologies around the Mediterranean.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 4 BCE – 65 CE) A.K.A. Seneca the Younger. A contemporary of Jesus wrote extensively on many subjects and people. But he didn't write a word about a Jesus.
Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 AD – August 25, 79 AD), better known as Pliny the Elder, was a Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher. Plinius wrote "Naturalis Historia", an encyclopedia into which he collected much of the knowledge of his time. There is no mention of a Jesus.
The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. Nothing about this miraculous savior.
Virtually all famous people at least have a description. Muhammad has a description. Jesus has nothing. It is like He never existed...
I said: “People make up all kinds of gods, they made up the God of Abraham also”
You replied: "That isn’t an argument.. The fact that people make up fake gods has no bearing on the existence of a real God any more than the existence of fake Elvis Presleys means the Elvis never existed. Circular reasoning."
It is indeed an argument. There have been hundreds if not thousands of gods invented by men. Odds are, the Christian god is also man made. You are making the extraordinary claim. It would be your burden to show your god is not as fake as the rest.
Cheers!
Yep, think we already went over these, right?
@David Johnson: “God cant be Omniscient (all knowing)/biblical prophecy obviates humanities free will and makes future predictable and unchangeable because if God foreknows/preordains, then we have no choice in the matter.”
=> God exists outside of our time and space, so He has already "seen" that which has yet to happen. As such, He knows the choices that you will make by your free will. That is how biblical prophecy exists side by side with our exercising free will. As we can exercise free will, the future is entirely unpredictable.
Think of it this way, suppose I went back in time to 1940 and wrote down that Obama was going to be president and buried it in a box. If we dug it up in 2012 would that obviate our free will just because I knew what was going to happen?
Predetermination reflects Gods plan of salvation, when He sovereignly steps in. The reality is that God calls and we answer
@David Johnson “Jesus didn’t exist”
=>see Wikipedia “Historicity of Jesus”
“Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.”
@David Johnson “People make up all kinds of gods, they made up the God of Abraham also”
=>That isn’t an argument.. The fact that people make up fake gods has no bearing on the existence of a real God any more than the existence of fake Elvis Presleys means the Elvis never existed. Circular reasoning.
@Chad
Chad's list of evidence that God exists:
They are not even exclusive to the Christian god. They could easily be used as "proof" of any god.
1. The scientifically required necessity of an uncaused cause at the origin of the universe. The universe is expanding in all directions and cooling. Going backwards there was a point in time when the universe had infinite heat and density. Prior to this singularity there was nothing. Not “something”, nothing. Matter and time were created at that point of rapid expansion. By definition whatever caused this expansion could not have itself had a prior cause (the infinite regression problem). Whatever caused it must have always existed. That is what physicists call the “uncaused cause”
Reply to 1:
By giving an exception to this god, you destroy your own rule that everything must have a cause. Where did your god come from? You demote it to a suggestion. So, the universe could have always existed. Expanding and contracting over and over. And once (?) life evolved on at least one of the planets.
As far as something from nothing:
There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy — via natural processes.
--------------------------
2. The phenomenal preciseness of the “big bang” expansion which was required to allow stars/planets to form. The fact that space and time were created at that cosmic singularity. (And God said, "Let there be light"). It didn’t just randomly explode, rather it expanded in such a precise manner that an infinitesimal change would have rendered a universe where matter was so spread out no formation of stars could have possibly occurred.
Reply to 2:
The Big Bang expansion and contraction may have happened once...or billions and billions of times. Random chance could well account for conditions being the way they are. A toss of the die. The fact is, we and the universe are here. You have no proof a god was involved. It means no more than ancient man saying god was responsible for driving the sun across the sky.
It is just one more "God did it!"
Believers like to use stats that are actually not worth much. They try to impress us with how unlikely an event is.
Consider I have a large bowl of rice. Each grain is numbered. I mix it and mix it in a tumbler. Then, I pour it into a bowl. The grains of rice are now ordered as they are. We could carry on about how it would be virtually impossible to ever have this bowl of rice achieve this exact order again. And we would be right. But, you can't argue that it didn't do it once...
--------------------------
3. The fact that the universe obeys laws and that science by definition relies on that which it can not 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.
An atheist must ignore the fact that the universe obeys laws, or like Leonard Mlodinow, just “wonder from time to time why they do”, but do nothing about it.
Reply to 3:
You are right. I can't PROVE any god absolutely does not exist. I cannot prove Santa or talking snakes do not exist. But, in life we decide, based on the reality we see around us, what is likely and what is unlikely to exist. I bet you agree that Krishna and Allah do not exist. Yet, you can't prove it. You only disagree, when it is your ox / god that is being gored. LOL
Gravity and inertia are the reason the universe as we know it, formed. No god needed. No one is ignoring them. Nor is it necessary to do so, and not believe a god is responsible.
--------------------------
4. The fossil record which shows millions of years of stable species, then an explosion of necessary mutations, all occurring at the precise necessary time required for complex organisms to develop, and ALL escaping fossilization
“the sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation” – Wikipedia
An atheist needs to believe that ALL species, every single one, millions of them “evolved” along this pattern: nothing happens for millions of years, then in a time period short enough to ALWAYS escape fossilization ALL of the mutations occur, precisely orchestrated such that complex organs can develop.
Reply to 4:
The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.
However, NOT ALL phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.
Geologists found fossils PREDATING the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.
The information for evolution comes from the environment – change the environment, change the creature.
It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.
So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that an omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
http://debunkeymonkey.blogspot.com/2009/08/debunking-cambrian-explosion-myths.html
--------------------------
5. The historical evidence of Jesus Christ “Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher and healer in Judaea,[18] 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.[19] Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement.” –Wikipedia
An atheist needs to believe that Jesus Christ was an insane man, truly insane, who believed he was fathered by a deity.
Reply to 5:
From an earlier post:
Most (all?) of those scholars, are affiliated with a Christian organization. Their rice bowl is at stake. They all have something to lose, if Jesus isn't real. Their prestige and livelihood depend on Jesus being a living being. Also, if the scholars are Christian, then belief and faith come into play. They may be willing to accept "evidence" that sane people would not.
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." – Martin Luther
The Gospels talk about the miracles and huge crowds that followed the fabled Jesus. They tell of ecliptic events and earthquakes that released zombies into the towns. Yet, no historians living at the time of Jesus, wrote of Him. In fact, nothing was written about Jesus until 25 years after His death. 25 years was most of the average person's lifetime, in the 1st century. 25 years is a lot of time for the myth to grow and prosper. The story being told and retold... Tell a big enough lie...
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) a contemporary Jewish historian, never wrote a word about Jesus. This is odd, since Philo wrote broadly on the politics and theologies around the Mediterranean.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 4 BCE – 65 CE) A.K.A. Seneca the Younger. A contemporary of Jesus wrote extensively on many subjects and people. But he didn't write a word about a Jesus.
Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 AD – August 25, 79 AD), better known as Pliny the Elder, was a Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher. Plinius wrote "Naturalis Historia", an encyclopedia into which he collected much of the knowledge of his time. There is no mention of a Jesus.
The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. Nothing about this miraculous savior.
Virtually all famous people at least have a description. Muhammad has a description. Jesus has nothing. It is like He never existed...
The Resurrection as reported in the Gospels are hardly concrete evidence. The only evidence we have are the 5 New Testament accounts (counting Paul's account). These evidences contradict each other. The question I ask, is why would an omnipotent, omniscient God arrange that the only evidence of the Resurrection be so p_oor?
The Gospels talk of ecliptic events and zombies running through the towns. Yet no one outside of the Gospels, reported anything of the sort.
--------------------------
6. The historical fact that Jesus died and was buried in a tomb. Three days later that tomb was found to be empty, following that hundreds of people reported they witnessed the resurrected Jesus and were willing to go to their death saying that.
An atheist is stuck with trying to understand how so many people could have been tortured to death knowing it was for a lie.
Reply to 6:
Josh McDowell popularized this argument, as "proof" that the resurrection happened. The argument states that no one would die for something they knew to be false. So, since the disciples died, the resurrection must have occurred.
This argument has a problem. People may not die for something they know to be false, but they would and do die for something they believe in.
Believers, are willing (expected?) to endure hardships in exchange for a reward. The greater the perceived reward the greater the hardship they are willing to suffer.
2 Timothy 2:3
"Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ"
People have often died for things they believed to be true. Muslim extremists, blow themselves to bits, because they believe in an afterlife overflowing with virgins. Does their willingness to die, make the promise of virgins real?
Consider Jonestown, Heaven's Gate and the Solar Temple . Do you think these people might have willingly died for a lie?
Yep, all it takes is strong faith.
Believers are victims of delusion. Dying for a belief, doesn't make it true.
--------------------------
7. The demonstrated historical accuracy of the biblical narrative in all accounts, the Gospel of Luke alone has hundreds of verified historical accuracies and has NO historical inaccuracies.
An atheist has to believe that the authors of the Gospels a) said what that what they were writing was true and in some cases claimed to be witnesses of Jesus b) were extremely diligent with recording historical details and yet, were completely and utterly hallucinating about having seen a resurrected Jesus.
Reply to 7:
The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They were written for the purpose of establishing Jesus as the Messiah. No texts outside the Gospels back up their claims. Jesus who? LOL
--------------------------
The fact that we have a universal understanding of good and evil.
– If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
– Evil exists.
– Therefore, objective moral values exist. (Some things are evil!)
– Therefore, God exists.
An atheist has to believe that some universal morality “evolved”
Reply to Objective Morals:
All morals are subjective and relative.
Society and each of us as individuals, decide what is right or wrong.
This concept of what is right or wrong is subject to the circu_mstances. If the society is at war, it is not wrong to kill.
Our morals evolved along with our intellect. It is part of the survival of our species. We began to feel empathy for our fellow creatures. Sympathy for their misfortunes and pain. The Golden Rule was born!
Scientists have found this trait developing in primates.
"Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior" New York Times March 20 2007
We learn our morals and our religion from our parents.
Society stamps every individual with its concepts. If you were born in U. S., you have many Christian concepts whether you are religious or not.
If you were born in a Muslim country, you would develop the Muslim slant on morality. Can you say "Sharia law"?
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 not moral. He cannot be the moral lawgiver.
Cheers!
David, you are certainly dedicated to the proposition that quanti ty can defeat quality.. 🙂
@ David Johnson “People may not die for something they know to be false, but they would and do die for something they believe in.Believers, are willing (expected?) to endure hardships in exchange for a reward. The greater the perceived reward the greater the hardship they are willing to suffer.”
=>hmm, lets look at that possibility, you are saying that:
– Jesus claimed to be the son of God and claimed that he would be resurrected from the dead on the third day.
– Jesus was killed for that claim
– Jesus was never resurrected at all
– the disciples felt that they would get brownie points with God by claiming Jesus was resurrected.
now, if they knew that Jesus was never resurrected, they knew at that point that that Jesus was completely delusional. His claims of being the son of God were totally bogus. God had nothing to do with him.
so, why would they think that god would view favorably them saying that Jesus was resurrected? That would have been a heresy.
There were many, many people that claimed to be messiahs at the time. Some achieved followings during their life, but following their death that following quickly died out. It makes sense right? A man claims to be divine, then dies an ignoble death and everyone slinks off to their respective corners. A follower can be deluded by a man claiming to be divine and immune to death, but if he dies, then those claims are exposed as hoaxes.
People don’t willingly die for what they know to be a lie.
God doesnt reward people for dyng for a lie, you think that God is going to reward those Buddhist monks who burned themselves to death? Does that make sense to you? "Well fella's, you rejected my son, but since you died a horrible death I guess I'll let you in..".. lol
People dont think God rewards people for dying for a lie. Do you know anyone that believes that God likes heresy?
God rewards people who endure hardship to remain faithful to the truth
--------–
@ David Johnson “The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They were written for the purpose of establishing Jesus as the Messiah.
=>Two Gospels written by disciples (Matthew, John) who spent years with Jesus.
@ David Johnson “No texts outside the Gospels back up their claims. Jesus who? LOL”
=>Not sure what world you live in, try these sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100) writings, which doc ument John the Baptist, James the Just, and Jesus of Nazarent, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus
Mara bar Sarapion
The Talmud
Thallus
Lucien
--------–
@ David Johnson
1. If the Christian god is all knowing, He would be AWARE of all the suffering on earth.
=>He is
2. If the Christian god is all good, He would WANT to rid the world of suffering / evil.
=>He does
3. If the Christian god is all powerful, He would be ABLE to rid the world of suffering / evil.
=>He did
4. Yet, evil persists.
=>Until Jesus comes again, see Revelation
I'll hit your other ones later...
@Chad
Assumptions:
(1) Jesus died in about 30 C.E.
(2) Hearsay is not acceptable evidence.
Hearsay – hear•say/ˈhi(ə)rˌsā/
Noun: Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.
The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
Synonyms: rumor – report – gossip – whisper – scuttlebutt – crap (mine)
Hearsay evidence, if allowed, could be used to "prove" the Greek gods and demigods were real. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Josephus wasn't born until 37 C.E. Is Hercules real, just because his tales were told?
So, let's look at your authors:
First the 2 Gospels you say were eyewitnesses:
John – was written in ~ 90 C.E. 50 years after Jesus was dead and gone forever.
"According to most modern scholars, John was not the author" – Source: Wikipedia "Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Ep_istles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355
Mathew – Mathew – was written in 80 to 90 C.E. 50 years after Jesus ran into that tree.
Mathew is a combination of material from Mark (over 90% of Mathew was copied from Mark), a docu_ment called "Q" and some of his own material, "M".
Mathew was not an eyewitness to anything. He was just copying stuff people told him - HEARSAY
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100) – Born after Jesus was in the grave. Anything he might have written would have to be hearsay.
Mara bar Sarapion – confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man.
In the British Museum is a manuscript preserving the text of a letter written some time later than A.D. 70, but how much later we cannot be sure. What he writes, is hardly eyewitness news. Hearsay.
The Talmud – The Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
Thallus – The testimony (supposed, as the work in question is now lost) of Thallus is also worthless on the historicity question. Julius Africanus, in a surviving fragment, states that Thallus in the period before 221 A.D., wrote that the darkness which supposedly covered the earth at the time of the Crucifixion was due to the death of Jesus. He is merely telling what the Christians of the time believed. We have no evidence at all that there ever even was an eclipse at the time when Jesus was supposedly crucified.
The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell
Gordon Stein, Ph.D.
Lucien – a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians.
Hmmm... Jesus was no longer among the living. The Jesus saga was in full swing by this time. This also was hearsay.
Struck out again, Sparky. Jesus was not real.
Cheers!
David, I updated your usual list with responses to your most recent cut and paste nonsense from infidels.org
@David Johnson "The big bang, is a theory of how the current universe began. It is not known...."
"The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model” – Wikipedia
===========
@David Johnson: “God cant be Omniscient (all knowing)/biblical prophecy obviates humanities free will and makes future predictable and unchangeable because if God foreknows/preordains, then we have no choice in the matter.”
=> God exists outside of our time and space, so He has already "seen" that which has yet to happen. As such, He knows the choices that you will make by your free will. That is how biblical prophecy exists side by side with our exercising free will. As we can exercise free will, the future is entirely unpredictable.
Think of it this way, suppose I went back in time to 1940 and wrote down that Obama was going to be president and buried it in a box. If we dug it up in 2012 would that obviate our free will just because I knew what was going to happen? Of course not, I merely had already witnessed the result of how events unfolded as a result of the interaction of everyone’s free will.
===========
@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 “Jesus didn’t exist”
=>see Wikipedia “Historicity of Jesus”
=> see extrabiblical evidence: Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100) writings, which doc ument John the Baptist, James the Just, and Jesus of Nazareth, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus,
See also: Mara bar Sarapion, The Talmud, Thallus, Lucien
“Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.”
==============
@David Johnson “Biblical accounts of Jesus are heresay”
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.
First person accounts are NOT heresay, by definition. Right? Now remember David, a person who directly witnessed events can write down something after the fact, right? That’s precisely what everyone except court stenographers do.
– Two of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus: Matthew and John. It’s also probable that Mark was with Jesus as a follower.
– Many of the New Testament letters were written by disciples of Jesus: 1,2 and 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude and James.
In all the below, remember that written Gospel accounts were circulating 20-30 years after Jesus death/resurrection at a time when many folks that personally witnessed the events were still alive to challenge them.
Also, remember that the early Christians were intensely persecuted as a heretical sect and ANY factual misrepresentation in the Gospel accounts would have been pounced on as proof that the new sect was heretical and could be discounted.
==============
@David Johnson “Jesus didn’t come back to life”
1. there was a tomb
–a. Gospels record Joseph of Arimathea as having supplied the tomb
–b. Had there NOT been a tomb, Jewish authorities seeking to discredit this new sect that they believed to be a heresy, could simply have pointed out that there was no tomb that Jesus could have risen from.
2. the tomb was empty
– a. Jewish authorities accused Christians of stealing the body
– b. Had the tomb still contained the body of Jesus, those authorities could simply have pointed out that fact and destroyed the central tenant of this new sect.
3. hundreds of people reporting seeing a resurrected Jesus
– there can be zero doubt that the behavior of the disciples radically changed upon reporting that they witnessed a risen Christ. From denying the knew Jesus, hiding from authorities to proclaiming it publicly and enduring beatings/torture for same. No one would die for a reason they knew was a lie.
==============
@ David Johnson “Those people died to get brownie points with God.”
=>hmm, lets look at that possibility, you are saying that:
– Jesus claimed to be the son of God and claimed that he would be resurrected from the dead on the third day.
– Jesus was killed for that claim
– Jesus was never resurrected at all
– the disciples felt that they would get brownie points with God by claiming Jesus was resurrected.
now, if they knew that Jesus was never resurrected, they knew at that point that that Jesus was completely delusional. His claims of being the son of God were totally bogus. God had nothing to do with him.
so, why would they think that god would view favorably them saying that Jesus was resurrected? That would have been a heresy.
There were many, many people that claimed to be messiahs at the time. Some achieved followings during their life, but following their death that following quickly died out. It makes sense right? A man claims to be divine, then dies an ignoble death and everyone slinks off to their respective corners. A follower can be deluded by a man claiming to be divine and immune to death, but if he dies, then those claims are exposed as hoaxes.
People don’t willingly die for what they know to be a lie.
God doesnt reward people for dyng for a lie, you think that God is going to reward those Buddhist monks who burned themselves to death? Does that make sense to you? "Well fella's, you rejected my son, but since you died a horrible death I guess I'll let you in..".. lol
Wow Christians are MEAN! Damning people to hell, calling other people names, generally unloading because someone challenges their beliefs. I usually ascribe these biblical virtues to God in the Old Testament. Thanks for straightening us out!
SuperHyperbole Example:Liberals are atheists that hate God. Who are you? Newt Gingrich?
@Whatev. For the record I'm Baptist and this article is as offensive to me as it is to you. This doesn't really represent evangelical Christians.
It's not surprising to me that Florida evangelicals are slightly more tolerant than their counterparts in other states. Florida has always been a "go-to" state - that is, people have a reason to go there from all over the country, so their residents got exposed to new ideas. Nobody's lining up to move to Iowa or South Carolina.
That slime they used in the Ghostbusters movies wasn't ectoplasm. It was santorum.
Man, I wished I believed that after I died I was going to inherit my own planet with multiple wives, and sharing this belief was just cause to vote for some guy for president... What a Croc, Religion and politics mix like oil and water....
Make way for the militant atheists!!! Do not question them just like their Religious Fundamentalist counterparts don't want you to question them!!
GAW – as an athiest, all I want is religious zealots to leave me alone, and stop making me subsidize their beliefs through tax exemptions.
Worship snakes, have human sacrifice provided the victims are willing. I don't give a damned. Just stay out of my life and my government.
I ain't seen no atheists putting up billboards with weekly "quotations" on, on their front lawns, like all them dang'd roadside churches do. I guess that means atheists don't wanna do "conversions", like the churches do. But then i Iain't ever seen no atheist collection plate neither.
GAW,
Go ahead, ask your questions. We're here to help!
@GAW
Any atheist worth his salt would be happy for you to question them. It is how you learn... by asking questions from those wiser than you.
Just helpin' to mend fences
No atheist is worth salt or anything else, atheism is a blight on civilization that impedes the progress of mankind.
@just sayin
na na na-na-na ! A response worthy of your comment.
just sayin..Humanity would have found and possibly eliminated a lot of diseases if it was not for religion and its intervention in science.. Please feel free to advise how humanity has been held back by freethinkers over the millennia...Did god make the computer you are typing on or the human intellect?
God gave science to mankind. More disease would be eliminated if ALL Mankind worked with God. Those few that oppose God block Gods knowledge from those who need it most.
@just sayin
Your task is easy. Prove your god exists. It is an extraordinary claim and must be presented with extraordinary proof, if you are to be taken seriously.
Atheists lose their worth, because they refuse to accept claims that people outside your religion, also reject? I bet you do not believe in Allah or Krishna. You would demand hard empirical evidence, before you would accept them as being true. Yet, you claim atheists are worthless because they demand this evidence of you? Pfui!
The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.
Cheers!
How do 'those few that oppose God' do so? Who are those "few"? What, precisely, are 'they' doing to 'oppose God'? If your God is omnipotent, then why doesn't he simply ignore "them" and give "his knowledge" to everyone else? What diseases would be eliminated, and how do you know this?
justlyin, you really make some asinine claims. Back them up or admit you're just flapping your gums.
David Johnson is so caught up with being impressed by the lies he has bought into and spews that he would not recognize Truth if it jumped up and bit him on the ass. Creation testifies to the creator God. Jesus Emanuel God with us testifies to God and all the believers and testimony of those who have met God testify of God. But davy is waaaaay too smart to be taken in by evidence like that. What a predestined loser.
He IS too smart to be convinced by nonsense that is not evidence, which is all you have presented.
If you can't do any better than that, incontinent liar, you have no one to blame but yourself.
sorry you are you tom tom
I'm shocked that you are unable to answer the questions I posed, justlyin.
/sarcasm
Now, what question do you have for me?
Incontinent liar, what "lies" did David tell? If you can't answer, perhaps you should consult with justlin'. Both of you might come up with a thought if you used the 3 brain cells you've got between you.
sayin is *all* that @just sayin does. Perhaps some just thinkin, or just readin, or just verifyin is in order.
@An inconvenient truth
You said: "Creation testifies to the creator God. Jesus Emanuel God with us testifies to God and all the believers and testimony of those who have met God testify of God."
Again, as I stated previously:
Even if we all agree that Creation testifies to the creator god, which god is responsible? Couldn't Zeus or Isis or Krishna or Mithra be responsible? What proof do you have that the Christian god was the creator?
The feelings of meeting god etc. are all in your head... literally. It is brain chemistry. Members of every religion NOT just Christianity get the warm and fuzzies from praying and fasting and howling at the moon. You and the rest of your Christian brethren, are NOT special.
You have only your faith and an ambiguous holy book, to support your beliefs.
You speak of Jesus testifying for your god... but, only in the New Testament.
You can't use the bible as proof of god's existence. It would be circular reasoning:
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 need to furnish empirical evidence, that your god is the one true god.
Cheers!
@David Johnson "Even if we all agree that Creation testifies to the creator god, which god is responsible? Couldn't Zeus or Isis or Krishna or Mithra be responsible?"
=>Since our universe has a beginning, it must have had a cause. There is a need for an external force to have created the universe, to have been that cause.
You are free to believe that Zeus or Mithra did it, but it seems irrational.
The God of Abraham has provided proof that He did it by the birth/life/death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the proof that the God of Abraham was the cause.
@Chad
You said: "Chad
I said: "Even if we all agree that Creation testifies to the creator god, which god is responsible? Couldn't Zeus or Isis or Krishna or Mithra be responsible?"
You replied: "Since our universe has a beginning, it must have had a cause. There is a need for an external force to have created the universe, to have been that cause."
No. There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy — via natural processes. No first cause needed. LOL Good thing Jesus has those carpentry skills huh? His gig as a Messiah is pretty much over.
You said: "Jesus is the proof that the God of Abraham was the cause."
The cause was not needed. Also, the proof to YOU is the mythical Jesus. Not to 67% of the rest of the world. Each religion has its own "proof(s)" that their god is the one true god.
You have drank the Kool Aid. Your posts testify to this. Fortunately I comment here, to show people who have not yet decided, that what you say, ain't necessarily so.
Jesus and His Pa, are not real. They are figments of your and the other believer's imaginations.
You have failed to prove there is a god, much less the Christian god.
Just settin' the record straight
@David Johnson "No. There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy — via natural processes. "
=>incorrect, you need to do some more reading, they are talking about a different "nothing" than existed prior to the big bang.
The "nothing" they are talking about is the vacuum of space being devoid of all matter.
Now, that's a different nothing than existed before the big bang.
For example, even in the vacuum of space, time exists, whereas time did not exist prior to the big bang.
Empty space is a way different "nothing" than before the big bang, where there was no space, no time, literally nothing.
What does Kraus actually say on this matter:
"I continued to try and explain that quantum gravity may imply that space and time themselves are created at the moment of the big bang....If time begins at the big bang, then we will have to re-explore what we mean by causality, just as the fact that electrons can be in two places at the same time doing two different things at the same time as long as we are not measuring them is completely nonsensical, but true, and has required rethinking what we mean by particles. Similar arguments by the way imply that we often need to rethink what we actually mean by 'nothing', from empty space, to the absence of space itself." Kraus
"it is quite possible, and indeed quite plausible, that time itself arose just as space arose. And there was no concept of time. It's something that arose as the world became classical. So it could be that the question what happened before the big bang is not even a good question, because before it had no meaning." -Krauss
His "A Universe From Nothing" does not posit a universe arising from the conditions that existed prior to the big bang, which is what he acknowledges above.
Hey CNN, I'm getting a little tired of these 'Faith' stories. Last I looked, CNN isn't a church bulletin and church news isn't news. Can we at least see some articles about Buddhists or Wiccians or something? At least make it look like you're not just trying to draw page views by stirring up controversy in the comments.
Thanks!
This is under the "Faith Blog"
As a christian, I'd be embarrassed too if blogs such as this one kept displaying, for all to see, how absurd and ridiculous the christian cult is.
JT,
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 10:33
Amen.