Category: Let's talk
I happened to have been on a CERTAIN PHONE SYSTEM that I won't mention, in a "listening" group, where articles were shared and discussed; ONE of such, which I hit the "RE-WIND" key to make ABSOLUTE SURE that I ACTUALLY HEARD CORRECTLY, until it FINALLY REGISTERED, was that a SIX-or-SEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY was ACTUALLY SUSPENDED for the following reason: he appropriately asked his teacher, who was a homosexual male, if he could be excused to go to the BOYS'S room, which he said the ACTUAL WORDS: "BOYS'S ROOM." The teacher ACTUALLY SUGGESTED that he use the "GIRLS'S ROOM," INSTEAD, NOT BECAUSE the BOYS'S was out of ORDER, mind you, but ONLY BECAUSE "STRAIGHT BEHAVIOR'S rather offensive to me," he later explained in an interview, and when the boy REFUSED, laughing at the teacher's request, because he THOUGHT he was ONLY JOKING, replying: "I'M not a GIRL! I'M a BOY!", and headed for the BOYS'S ROOM, ANYWAY, when he RETURNED, the PRINCIPAL, who happened to be a LESBEIAN, happened to be there, and told him that he wasn't allowed to return to class, to wait in the lobby's waiting area for his pick-up to take him home, and was NOT ALLOWED to return to school, until/unless his parents agreed to attend ENOUGH CLASSES on "SEXUAL-ORRIENTATION TOLERANCE" to COMPLETELY SATISFY their demand for "POLITICAL CORRECTION," which HE, of course, would be required to attend WITH them, before being allowed back. FORTUNATELY, the parents of this boy IMMEDIATELY pulled him out of that school, ENTIRELY, and like OTHER parents of OTHER children of that SAME SCHOOL, but not ALL, who heard about this incident, and did, LIKEWISE, are home-schooling him.
If THAT ain't enough, here's ANOTHER: a HETEROSEXUALLY-MARRIED couple, about to enjoy a meal in a certain restaurant, was suddenly told by the restaurant manager to leave, because a SAME-SEX pair, which I forgot if whether they were MALE or FEMALE, were ABSOLUTELY OFFENDED by their simply holding hands, ON the table, in PLAIN VIEW, NOT UNDER it, and smiling at each other, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would've been inappropriate in a public place was going on. FORTUNATELY, for the HETEROSEXUAL couple, they were only there long enough to look at the menu, and didn't get the chance to order their FOOD, so NO MONEY LOST, on THEIR end. I guess it didn't matter to the restaurant that they cheated THEMSELVES out of TWO, NOT ONE, but TWO CUSTOMERS, but OH, WELL!
If I happen to remember MORE, I'll POST them, but MY question to ALL above incidents is that the ONLY "PHOBIC-RESPONSE BEHAVIORS," SO FAR, have ONLY been that of the OFFENDEDS, but YET, the "OFFENDERS" are SUPPOSEDLY "HOMOPHOBIC." Why is that?
Honestly it sounds like these people who got "offended" were just doing what had probably been done to them on occasions. Gay people have been treated this exact same way. Personally I find the hwole discrimination aspect of our society incredibly silly. Not to mention petty. Unfortunately it's very real and won't just go away because I and others want it to.
If these things actually happened, then that's not right. They shouldn't have happened.
Here's the thing though. I'd be willing to bet that these things happen to gay/lesbian/transgender people far more often.
No matter who's doing it to whom, it's wrong.
The VERY POINT is that a PHOBIA is EXTREME FEAR, NOT an OFFENSE, ESPECIALLY a CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Whoever coined the term "HOMOPHOBIA" to mean a "HATE CRIME" might've been on whatever MIND-ALTERING DRUG CONCOCTION that if PROBABLY taken ANY MORE OF, COULD'VE MASTERED the skill of OFFICIALLY CRIMINALIZING all of the REST of WHATEVER EXISTING PHOBIAS.
The term homophobe is a misnomer. Almost always has been. A phobia denotes not simply fear, but extreme fear. I'm willing to bet most of the people who are labeled any kind of intolerant phobe - homophobe for instance - don't actually fear at all; they simply do not approve, and they let that disapproval work ugliness inside of them.
DISAPPROVAL is neither FEAR nor CRIMINAL; to be DISAPPROVING of ANY behavior, TOTALLY WITHOUT being DISRESPECTFUL of ANYONE that's BEHAVING the DISAPPROVED BEHAVIOR, is MORALLY ACCEPTABLE. To TOTALLY DISAPPROVE SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR, while SIMULTANEOUSLY DISAPPROVING ANY/ALL FORMS of ABUSIVE ATTACKS against ANYONE that SAME-SEX-BEHAVES, DOES BLEND PERFECTLY with doing to OTHERS as WE would want done to US. Attacking ANYONE, because of WHATEVER BEHAVIOR is the ONLY THING that MUSTN'T be tolerated.
I'm gonna go ahead and basically call bullshit on that one, on rather specific grounds.
I maintain that we don't have the right to approve or disapprove of such things as one's sexual orientation. You can take moral high ground with things like cannibalism or rape or burglary, but sexual orientation isn't the same thing.
As such, if you claim to disapprove of a gay person's right to live as they wish, even if you yourself wouldn't interfere with them, then you're arguably part of the problem, at least to a small extent. There's a chance you'll pass your twisted ideals onto someone else who's less willing to live and let live. Every time you tell someone they're allowed to disapprove of something like this, you're giving them a chance to persecute those they have no right to persecute.
Thus, bullshit.
This is especially true given how Christianity and some other religions have this thing about how it's their God-given duty to spread the word. And if the word consists, in part, of telling people to disapprove of the quote-unquote gay lifestyle..then there goes your ball game. You're just being cowardly as well as bigoted. You're hiding behind "I won't hurt them" because you're too spineless to admit that even passively pushing an anti-gay agenda is incidentally harmful.
So I guess nothing stops you actually doing this, but I will call a spade a spade, so help me. If you don't like it, re-examine your intolerances.
Now, on a slightly different note, I do agree that the -phobe suffix does get tossed around a lot. What you have to understand, though, is that this word has begun to take on a slightly different meaning. In my view, someone who simply says they don't approve of the gay lifestyle is not being actively homophobic; repellent, yes, but not homophobic. It's when they go and try to do harm that they start crossing that line, however.
If you are unsettled enough by something or someone to actively try and get others to either avoid emulation or interaction, then you're trying to limit potential. And you're not just doing it because you feel like it. At its root, there's something there, and that's where the supposed -phobic things come in. It's been stretched, but I can see where it comes from.
All of which neatly sidesteps the point, of course. We don't really need to be quibbling about the word "homophobic" when thousands upon thousands of cowardly, bigoted people are trying to cry foul when people call them out for their cowardly, bigoted behaviour against groups or lifestyles they have arbitrarily decided they won't tolerate. The real necessity here isn't in getting rid of the word "homophobe" because it may have been stretched partially out of context. The necessity is in getting rid of the mindset labelled "homophobic" in the first place.
If these articles are true, which I do wonder about, from being on something like My Tellespace or that Philmore voicemail system, but if they really are true, the vengeful part of me can't help but smile. Isn't it great that at least now, straight people get to experience the same discrimination that the gay people have experienced for years? But mainly, it's just sad that anyone has to experience it at all. It's totally unnecessary.
BEHAVIOR, IN GENERAL, is to either be APPROVED or DISAPPROVED, which IS, in ITSELF, a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT, which goes for ALL BEHAVIORS, INCLUDING SEXUAL; PERSECUTION, which is, of course, a BEHAVIOR, no doubt, of ANYONE, BECAUSE of WHATEVER DISAPPROVED BEHAVIOR, ISN'T DISAPPROVAL, at ALL; it's Out-and-out HATRED. For EXAMPLE, it would've been MORALLY APPROPRIATE for the WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH to DISAPPROVE SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR, while at the VERY SAME TIME, with OPEN ARMS to UNCONDITIONAL-LOVINGLY EMBRACING those who SAME-SEX-BEHAVE, by sharing the GOOD NEWS of the GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST with them, which WOULD INCLUDE what ONLY the BIBLE has to say about SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR, NOT what THEIR SELF-RIGHTEOUS, HATEFUL, VENOMOUS "GOD HATES FAGS" website, which is ABSOLUTELY DOWNWRONG-DISGUSTINGLY BLASPHEMOUS, says, and if there's ANYONE that HAS been told that GOD hates them because of their same-sexuality behavior, I wanna PERSONALLY ASSURE YOU that NOT ONLY will GOD hold THAT PERSON, or THAT GROUP, SEVERELY ACCOUNTABLE for EVER telling you that SATANICLY-INVENTED LIE, STRAIGHT from the VERY SESPOOL of HELL, ITSELF, if they DON'T NOT ONLY FALL FLAT on THEIR FACE before ALMIGHTY GOD, HIMSELF, and REPENT of such ATTROCITY, but ALSO BEG, PROFUSELY, YOUR FORGIVENESS, HE'S MADLY IN LOVE with you, which is why HE DIED for you, in the FIRST place, and EVEN THOUGH HE doesn't EVER CONDONE SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR, HE NEVER CONDEMNS the SAME-SEX "BEHAVER," if you will, ANY MORE than HE'LL condemn ANY OTHER "BEHAVER" of ANY OTHER "BEHAVIOR" that HE'S against. I'll say AGAIN: the WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH is a COMPLETE FRAUD--they DEFINITELY MISREPRESENT the ONE, ONLY TRUE GOD of the UNIVERSE.
Terrance, people will call anyone a "bigot" "homophobe" or whatever else have you, when a person's views don't fit with their worldview of how things should be. They are the ones who truly need to be saved. It's sad that there are so many godless people in the world.
That's JUST WHY we need to show them the LOVE of JESUS, by loving them as HE does, and NEVER JUDGE them, SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY, and I find it ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING that so-called churches, like WESTBORO, don't even CARE WHO gets hurt by their vicious attacks.
With all due respect, but could you please check your sources before you start posting?
Neither of these stories exist, but I suppose that's not really important.
First of all, the first fairy tale you posted is absolutely shameful, that would be a thing we in the bizz like to call reverse discrimination, this would not be something I would applaud by anyone.
The 2nd fairytale is ridiculous, I don't care if you are a male and a female, 2 males, 2 females, or 1 male, 1 female, and 1 transgendered monkey, PDA should not be happening in an establishment that doesn't allow it, if the same sex couple was holding hands and were allowed to stay, but the straight couple got the boot, then that's just shameful.
I do agree, if someone chooses to believe that something is wrong, it is their right. For example, I find it insane that people who preach against homosexuality based on what they think is in the bible, are the same ones who ignore other blaitently obvious passages, for example, women not being allowed to preach.
But who am I? I just believe in people loving each other.
You have a wonderful day
Ala, Buddha, and Jesus loves you.
When did I ever say where these articles originated from? If even the ORIGINAL READER that was in the group that I was in, hadn't given the origin of such, EITHER, whether or not they were made up is TOTALLY IRRELEVENT, ONLY BECAUSE the VERY PICTURE that's painted is EXACTLY where WE are, ESPECIALLY HERE in the US, so that if any of such WERE to take place, I wouldn't be surprised. ALSO, as I said in my LAST-PREVIOUS TOPIC, MY BELIEF is ONLY IN ACCORDANCE to the ONLY INFALLIBLE SOURCE; SUCH SOURCE is NOT in accordance to MY BELIEF.
haha, so whether the articles are true or not, it doesn't matter? You'll never believe what a friend saw this morning with her very own eyes. She was pulling out of the McDonalds parking lot and this big dog came up, raised his paw and knocked on the door. They wouldn't let him in, even though he clearly told them he wanted to place an order, so this here dog? He pulled out his cellphone and called first the health department and then the police. He got the McDonalds shut down. He said he could tell by the smell that someone had spit in the deep frier. Then, his work done, he bounded off in to the jungle. Wonder what happened to him.
I'm not on board with Terrance on this one, but lost respect for people here who
think the idea of reverse discrimination is sweet revenge. After all, it's the same
thing feminism does. Just pick some low hanging fruit -- not an actual criminal
who has done something wrong, but belongs to the target demographic, then
take out whatever frustration you have on that person, and call it justice. Know
who else did things like that? White supremacists in the South who felt they'd
been slighted by blacks, a white woman pointing at a black man shouting rape
and getting him hanged or burned alive.
Sorry, this sweet revenge deal and reverse discrimination, stuff some of us have
lived with for 40 plus years, makes me no longer wish to live on this planet
anymore. No different from the religious folks. Because when you enact that
sweet revenge, you're not going to be doing so on someone who actually
committed a crime against you or someone else in your minority.
Terrance is a born fool, and destined to die a fool. The stories are no doubt
fictional, and there are enough challenges to something like that becoming
commonplace in the U.S. that I am profoundly disappointed in the education
system of whoever believes these tales, clearly Civics 101 wasn't part of it. So
no, I'll never find Terrance's position the least bit tenable.
But make no mistake: The sweet revenge of something happening to a random
straight couple, or a young child? That isn't revenge. Revenge is taken out on
the actual perpetrator of the crime. We are an incredibly sad fucked up place
where all some people have to do is be born into a demographic and
immediately be tarred as perpetrators because some people who bear some
resemblance to us have committed atrocities.
No, I would not consider it sweet revenge if a sighted person was unjustifiably
prevented from getting a job because they were sighted. You know why not?
Because I understand that wouldn't solve anything, and it's extremely likely
that that particular sighted person didn't refuse a job or medical services or
anything else to someone on account of their disability.
Today, the Right and the Left are one, flesh of each other's flesh, bone of each
other's bones.
*Salutes Leo*
Anthony, I personally find this story to have been completely blown out of proportion. I believe the dog was just trying to get attention and money. I think that damn dog is a lazy bitch who should just get a damn job.
Hear hear, leo. Honestly, I find any form of blatent descrimination pretty apawling. One of the most frustrating things for me after 911 was how, after the attacks, a lot of people were figuratively howling for islamic blood - really any islamic blood. I remember being on a couple forums the day after, and though I was as floored as anyone, I tried to get people to see the big picture. Not all of islam was to blame for the actions of a small minority. Needless to say, with blood running hot, that went very badly. What we're dealing with here isn't the same thing perhaps, but it's still descrimination for its own sake - and fictional descrimination at that. Terence, like so many of your posts, I'm uncertain what your ultimate goal is here in posting this - for a second time at that. I can say one thing for certain, a good - or not - debate appears to be a lot more exciting for people than posts which are more creative in nature.:)
WELL, LEO, AS ALWAYS, YOU, along with OTHERS, are ONLY CLASSIC EXAMPLES of THOSE that are SAVAGELY VICTIMIZED by their OWN PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEMS that are in EXTREME DIRE NEED of a COMPLETELY THOROUGH REALITY-ADJUSTMENT, TOTALLY AGAINST your OWN WILL, if such be the case, ONLY BECAUSE, although I'm DEFINITELY NOT OFFENDED, ONE BIT, by the way, since it's ALWAYS FUN for ME to challenge ALL of your rebuttals to my BOARD-TOPICS, of course, it's UNMISTAKABLY AMAZING how YOUR STATEMENTS about SOMEONE ELSE, such as "Terrance is a born fool, and destined to die a fool," ONLY REFLECT YOU, INSTEAD, and the ONLY SELF-PROOVEN REASON for THAT is it's ONLY ACCORDING to what YOU believe; WHAT YOU BELIEVE could NEVER be according to your OWN, or ANYONE ELSE'S STATEMENT of either EQUIVALENT or SIMILAR NATURE, SIMPLY BECAUSE SUCH STATEMENT is NOT INFALLIBLE, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING'S INFALLIBLE if it isn't ETERNAL. Anthony, YOUR "DOG STORY," as HIGHLY INTELLIGENT as you MIGHT be, AT LEAST, should've been BELIEVABLE, in comparison. In my LAST-PREVIOUS POST, in case you paid either little or no ATTENTION, I DID INDICATE that WHETHER OR NOT the reader ONLY IMAGINED these events, which they VERY-WELL COULD'VE, is CERTAINLY NEVER what MATTERS, because the ONLY THING that makes these circumstances BELIEVABLE, if ANYTHING, IS because there CERTAINLY HAVE been SIMILAR instances: KIM DAVIS, from OKLAHOMA and the baker (or BAKERS, if they were a married couple that owned a business--I have to re-check) from OREGON, and THEIR ABSOLUTELY GOD-GIVEN, HEROIC DEFIANCE against fulfilling what these same-sex couples REQUESTED, are only TWO out of GROWING COUNTLESS OTHER examples.
HEAD'S-UP: GODLY DISCRIMINATION (THAT'S RIGHT: that's EXACTLY WHAT I SAID) is a GIVEN RIGHT, and since ALL RIGHTS are ONLY from GOD, that ONLY MEANS that ANYTHING that GOD, HIMSELF, ALONE, DISCRIMINATES AGAINST, by PRONOUNCING SUCH as UNGODLY, SIN, TRANSGRESSION, CORRUPT, INIQUITY, ETC., MANKIND is ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE to COMMIT, CERTAINLY, but SUCH is NEVER a RIGHT, EVEN IF ANY GOVERNMENT RE-DEFINES it as such. RE-DEFINITION is ONLY, like I've been saying, ACCORDING to FALLIBLE, PERSONAL BELIEF, which ANY of us are at TOTAL LIBERTY to live, ACCORDINGLY, that ONLY IF LIVED until DEATH, carries a REGRETTABLE CONSEQUENCE that's ETERNAL. To ALSO RE-ITTERATE, GODLY DISCRIMINATION is NOT PREJUDICE, ONLY BECAUSE PREJUDICE is HATRED, and ALL HATRED is from the EVIL ONE, Satan. GODLY DISCRIMINATION ONLY JUDGES the BEHAVIOR, NEVER the "BEHAVER" of the BEHAVIOR. THEREFORE, when KIM DAVIS and the baker, or bakers, REGARDLESS of LEGAL CONSEQUENCES, HEROICLY CHALLENGED the LAW, THEIR BEHAVIOR was ONLY ACCORDING to what GOD says against the SAME-SEX LIFESTYLE. Are KIM DAVIS and the baker or bakers PREJUDICED against those that live the same-sex lifestyle? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
I feel like putting your nonsense through the metaphoric equivalent of a wood-chipper. I'll enjoy doing it too, so here goes.
To clear up one really striking misconception you have, let's start with prejudice.
Prejudice is bias. It is a favouring of one thing over another thing in behaviour, thought or intent. It does not require hatred to exist, though sometimes it does.
If a company refuses to hire women just because they're women, and not for some more realistic reason, then it's acting out of prejudice against women. Ditto a person who would refuse to hire a black man for a job purely because he's black. There's discrimination and prejudice at work, but not necessarily hatred. The person doing these things may be misguided, but they need not hate. That's a dangerous simplification, and a really weak attempt to claim your own version of the same sort of discrimination as righteous.
You suggest that homosexuals are fair game to be discriminated against? Because it comes from God, it's okay to discriminate against them, to bend and break laws in order to inconvenience or deny them, or to block the updating of laws which give them equal rights? Okay, fine, then you are supporting prejudice against homosexuals. You can't claim "godly discrimination" is permissible simply because it comes from God, because as a Christian you must accept that your understanding, and the understanding of any one person, is imperfect by its nature. Put another way, you think you know what God wants because you've been told as much, or have read it somewhere. Can you prove to anyone who asks that God spoke to you personally, Terrance, and told you how he felt about gays? Because until you can do that, you're just a discriminating, prejudice-supporting bigot too intent on spouting drivel to realize that he's just like all the other tyrants and idiots of history...many of whom acted out of religious zeal, I might add.
So okay. Discrimination and prejudice are basically in the same basket. If you do one you are likely doing the other. Godly discrimination is included. Thanks for that label, by the way. Wraps things up very nicely.
So now, an example. Let's say for the sake of argument that I am irrationally against the name Terrance. I couldn't really give you a reason why, but I believe that all people named Terrance should be ridiculed, hurt, limited, ostracized and generally trodden on. I don't -hate anyone named Terrance, I just find the name offensive in some sort of nebulous way I can't figure out. Maybe it's the way my screenreader doesn't pronounce it properly without modification. Maybe it's the fact that it starts with t, or rhymes with Clarence, or has too few vowels. Hell, maybe I knew a really big asshole named Terrance who beat me up on the playground ehen I was six, and it's caused me to have a problem with the name ever since. Either way, there's my naked prejudice. It's right there for you to see.
Now, let's take a step further and assume I actually had the power to make your life miserable because of that. I had the ability to hector you in a way that might hurt you. I had the ability to screw with laws that would make your future more difficult. I had the ability to drive wedges into your life in all the places which might hurt the most. And to cover your last bolt-hole, let's also say that it is it illegal, on punishment of death, to change your name; in other words, there's no getting away...once a Terrance, always a Terrance.
Now how would you feel?
I suppose all my examples look pretty ridiculous. My reason for prejudice seems pretty shaky, and arbitrary. What, after all, are the numerous Terrances of the world actually demonstrably doing to hurt me, or the world I live in? Probably not much, right? Yet, I still make their lives hell. I still act harshly toward them. I don't hate them, but I strongly object to their name.
That, my friends, is about what every Christian is passively or actively doing to gays if they are willing to state they "do not agree" with homosexuality. It might look ridiculous, but please remember that all your supposed godliness lacks proof. Until it has proof, it should be treated like the unfounded, egocentric belief system it is. I will give it no greater credit than that until it's earned. I would give someone hurting random Terrances just as much scorn as I give the concept of so-called godly discrimination. Both platforms are equally nonsensical, so stop trying to stand on them.
Kim Davis had multiple opportunities to do differently. She went to jail because
she violated some laws as a public official, including but not limited to
preventing even her deputies from signing marriage licenses for gay people.
On the case in Oregon: The couple did register a complaint, but the State of
Oregon fined the bakery with the condition that they remove their anti-gay-
couples policy for their business. And the couple was not going to benefit from
the state's fine, the state did. The couple in fact came out in the black, not by
baking more cakes, but by going on Faux News and getting all kinds of little
special snowflake attention.
You keep right on doing that, keep making religious exemptions for everyone,
and you just see how far it gets you or a friend who uses a service dog, and a
Muslim cab driver won't take you on religious grounds.
Again, I appeal to the U.S. Marshall's of the 1960s who were tasked with
protecting black kids going to recently-integrated schools. In those days, many
Christians opposed racial mixing and racial integration. People who act as
Christians do now, supporting racial integration, were seen as inconceivably
liberal and hell-bound.
Unlike the modern dishonorable religious types, the honorable men of the U.S.
Marshals put their own beliefs aside and protected the black kids and their
families. Yes, some of them had serious questions about integration at the time.
Unlike the dishonorable religious fools of today who think they're so special for
discriminating against gay and lesbian people in public places, the Marshals
behaved honorably and stood up for those kids. Only the dishonorable are so
weak as to hold on to their beliefs like some little security blanket, instead of
doing the honorable thing. It's not like the Oregon couple was asked to be
pastors. It's not like Kim Davis was asked to bless the wedding. In both cases
they are functioning in a service or civic capacity, in Davis's case. It's a way for
weak and dishonorable people to gain attention because they're so special they
can stand up for their beliefs.
There is a great gulf between these and the U.S. Marshals of the 1960s who,
understandably, had religious and other objections to racial integration. But had
the honor to put their personal beliefs aside and do what was right for their
society around them. These new ones would never stand against the Visigoths
of old. These new ones don't even belong to the same tribe, or shouldn't.
Shepherd, perhaps I'm just trying to push my prejudice under the rug, But I honestly don't think disagreement necessarily breeds discrimination and even prejudice. My belief, one which I have held well before I became a Christian, is that I want nothing to do with homosexuality. What I mean here is that I could never, ever be gay. On the not few instances I have been blatently hit on by a man, I have been polite, but firm in my refusal. I'm just not wired that way; it's not in the cards. I also believe that men and women fundimentally need one another. That's my personal belief, and by rights I should discriminate and hold prejudice against people who "swing that way". The thing is, I don't. At least I don't think I do. My views are personal, yes, but to my knowledge they do not interfere with my treatment of those of a gay persuasion. I understand this isn't necessarily a choice this person is making. I whole-heartedly believe gay people should have every opportunity for happiness and a fullfilling marriage that a straight person should have. I don't have a problem with gay parents raising children. It's not going to turn the child gay to be raised in that environment, especially if the parents are open-minded in the raising of their children. Two guys or girls want to share a kiss in front of me? Go for it. I have no trouble being friends with someone who is gay, inviting them into my home, seeing them in my church. They're people like any other, and I don't differentiate between gay and straight when choosing my associations. Were I to encounter someone who feels uncomfortable with, or wishes to understand my views, and those of my church, I would try my best to explain it to them in a way that makes them realize - hopefully - that neither I, nor my church is condemning them. Admitedly, if it came to a point where LDS temples had to be closed or hurches shut down because we don't merry gay people, I'd have a problem with that, but not with the gay people themselves. No doubt the truly nitpicky would still say this is a form of discrimination, all be it a buried one. But I disagree. If my personal beliefs do not interfere with my association with, or my treatment and the personal lives of others, then how can it be discriminatory? Furthermore, if I come off discriminatory to a person who is gay, and so far as I know, I never have, then I'm not living the Christian principles as I and my church understand them. I won't get into all the ins and outs of our belief system about that unless people are honestly curious, but suffice it to say that in theory, we are meant to put a much grater emphasis on acceptance, understanding, fellowship and love than any sort of condemnation. of course, that does not always mean people follow those principles perfectly. We're all only human after all. And all that isn't to say I don't have some prejudice myself that I'm trying to work on. Smokers for instance immediately frustrate me whenever I encounter the stench wafting in my direction. Though I generally suffer in silence, I feel I am, to a point justified, since their choices do in fact have an adverse affect on me.
There's a fundamental difference to be highlighted here.
If you're a man, and men don't do it for you sexually, that's totally 100% okay. Feeling that way isn't discriminatory, not in a way that matters. Technically your tastes are discriminatory, in the sense that they're excluding people, but insofar as I think homosexual is by and large not a choice, heterosexuality goes the same way. You're obeying the heteronormative standard, which makes sense for a race that wants to continue to flourish. In other words, if you're excluding people, you're not doing it badly on these terms. It's akin to disliking mushrooms or Britney Spears or some such. Your personal preference, as it relates to you alone and what you're going to do with it, is something I won't challenge openly.
However, I hit a roadblock. In one breath you're saying that you don't think gays should be discriminated against, you think what's going on against them is fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, you have this personal belief that men and women need each other. How strong is that in the face of homosexual couples who are healthy? How much dooes it matter? I mean, I could believe that black males are likely to own guns and join gangs, but if the stats don't actually bear out my feelings, it's time for me to analyze them. They aren't sacrosanct simply because I believed them, or thought I did, once upon a time.
So I feel like there's a conflict here, unless I'm badly misunderstanding you, so I'll put a point on it:
If you think gay is wrong, for anyone besides you, under any circumstances, by itself, I personally have an issue with that.
If, however, you're only saying that it's not a choice you could ever personally make, then that's perfectly normal. I couldn't either. I'm wired straight.
Really it comes down to this:
Either you think it's okay, but just not for you,
...or you think it's not for you, and it's abnormal enough that you wish in some fashion that others would feel more the way you do.
Most Christians have some sort of problem with it because the Bible reinforces it, or because the "ugh, not for me" angle gets (often unconsciously) spread to other people. You don't like it, and you want other people to commiserate, even if they don't do anything openly hateful.
I just feel it's a very gray area with a double standard buried in it. That isn't to say you're guilty of said standard, but if you're objecting to it on anything more than a personal level, then you're probably heading that way.
FIRST, in response to POST 19, PREJUDICE, whether HATRED, BUYUST, WHATEVER, is STILL a FORM of MALICE, REGARDLESS its level. For EXAMPLE, if any same-sex-behaving individual's refused housing, because they noted on the application that they were either "LGBTQ," ONLY BECAUSE the owner SIMPLY couldn't stand ANYONE who BEHAVED that way, and would rather that they'd rot on the street or in a homeless shelter, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY WRONG, and CERTAINLY, that owner should be SEVERELY PENALIZED for their ATTITUDE, ALONE, because EVEN IF the applicant was told "we're not taking anymore people, because there's no more room," and it was found out to be an out-and-out LIE, like I SAID, that's DEFINITELY WRONG. On the OTHER hand, if a same-sex couple walks into the office of a pastor and requests to "GET MARRIED" in his/her church, under his/her performance of their "WEDDING," and the pastor refuses, explaining that the refusal would ONLY be according to what GOD'S WORD, ALONE, says against it, EVEN IF the couple becomes angry and threatens a lawsuit, the pastor's COMPLETELY in the TOTAL RIGHT, because even though he/she demonstrated "GODLY DISCRIMINATION," he/she wouldn't be PREJUDICED, VERY UNLIKE the HOUSING situation, where the owner BLATANTLY LIED, due to HIS/HER OWN PERSONAL CONTEMPT.
NEXT, from www.equip.org: "Same-Sex Marriage: Stealing Rights from God
Article ID: JAV375 | By: Frank Turek This article first appeared in the Viewpoints column of the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 37, number 05 (2014). The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by (visit site) clicking here. For further information or to subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/
Is same-sex marriage really a “right”? If so, by what standard is it a right? Who said so and by what authority?
A right is something that a person has even if the majority of people disagree with it. In other words, rights are not based on human opinion but on an unchangeable authoritative standard beyond human opinion. That’s why human rights cannot exist unless God exists. Without God, everything is simply a matter of personal preference.
Some say, “Our laws are the basis for rights!” No, they are not. Human laws can only recognize God-given rights—they are not their ultimate justification. To claim otherwise would be to admit that your “rights” would vanish if a majority of humans or a dictator changed the law. No advocate of same-sex marriage would agree with that. In fact, those advocates are arguing that in states where the majority is against same-sex marriage, they still have a right to it. They are correct if same-sex marriage is actually a right. But since when does God consider same-sex marriage a right?
Forget about the “separation of church and state” objection. It doesn’t apply here. We are not establishing a religion through our laws. But we are protecting moral rights through our laws, which is what good laws are supposed to do (all laws legislate a moral position). Our founders didn’t demand adherence to any particular religious denomination, but they recognized that our moral rights come from the Creator and founded the country on “Nature’s Law” consistent with Christianity. Nature’s Law (which Jefferson said is “self-evident”) says that the natural design of the human body and the natural procreative abilities of the man and the woman serve to perpetuate and stabilize society, which same- sex behavior cannot achieve. Therefore, there is a right to “natural” marriage, but no right to same-sex marriage. That’s not bigotry, that’s biology.1
The Religious “Right.” Homosexual activists say we’re wrong. But we can’t be “wrong” unless there is a real standard of “right” from which we deviate. So we should ask same-sex marriage advocates, “What’s your standard? Who said same-sex marriage is a ‘right’? You and your friends? That’s not a right. That’s an opinion. You’re calling it a right, but you’re stealing the grounding of rights from God and then misapplying it to your own personal preferences.” There is no grounding in the God of Nature’s Law for same-sex marriage.
Of course, without God there is no right to natural marriage either! In other words, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on—no matter how passionate you believe in certain causes or rights—without God, they aren’t really rights at all. Human rights amount to no more than your subjective preferences. So liberals can believe in and fight for same-sex marriage, but they can’t justify it as truly being a right without reference to the Creator. If they do reference the Creator, then they have the rationally dubious task of arguing that God affirms same-sex marriage.
“But what about equality?” they say. Absent God, they have no grounding for “equality” either. What objective standard justifies “equality” or anything else as a right if there is no God? Yet even if you grant a right to “equality,” all people—whether they have homosexual or heterosexual desires—already have equal rights under the law. Every human being has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexual activists want the additional right to marry someone of the same sex, but even they limit the definition of marriage. Many homosexual activists want to limit the definition of marriage in such a way so groups cannot marry. Why are they so “bigoted” to rule out groups and other arrangements they disapprove of? The same logic that seeks to justify same-sex marriage—“I should be able to marry whomever I love”—can be used to justify any preferred arrangement.
The truth is, everyone puts limits on marriage. If marriage had no limits, it wouldn’t mean anything. Unlike liberals, conservatives have more than a mere preference for their limits. The long-held view that marriage is limited to one man and one woman is rooted in Nature’s Law in accord with the facts of nature. Again, that’s not bigotry—that’s biology.
Genderless Marriage. Since same-sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors that result in different outcomes, they should not be treated equally. The law must treat people equally (which it already does) but not their behaviors. When the law treats these different behaviors equally, the cultural understanding of marriage changes and everyone, especially children, gets hurt.
The law is a great teacher. It shapes opinions and behaviors for generations to come. Wherever same-sex marriage becomes law, the public doesn’t come to see two types of marriage—natural and same-sex. It comes to understand that marriage is gender- less. In other words, by dropping the gender requirement, the law helps teach society that marriage is a genderless institution merely about the romantic desires of adults and nothing about the needs of children. Well, if marriage isn’t about the needs of children, then what institution is about children? Do we really think we can divorce children from marriage and avoid negative consequences?
We can’t. In fact, we’ve been experiencing negative consequences since no-fault divorce laws passed in the 1970s. Those laws make dissolving a family too easy and should be repealed. They also help teach people that marriage is only about the desires of adults, not the needs of children. If marriage is all about my happiness and not the needs of children, then I should get divorced if I’m not “happy.” The law is teaching me that if the romance is gone, I should move on. No wonder families break up at alarming rates, and children are damaged in the process. Making marriage genderless through same-sex marriage will further hurt children by annihilating their connection to marriage completely.
True, not all marriages result in children. But only those between a man and a woman can have children and then provide a mother and father for them. Unfortunately, same-sex couples always deny children in their care either a mother or a father.
The Intolerance of “Tolerance.” But it’s not just children who are getting hurt. So are those who think marriage should not be changed. As liberal TV personality Bill Maher put it, there is a “gay mafia” out there who “whacks” anyone who disagrees with them. And if you fail to celebrate this new invented right (which is now being imposed through activist judges), you will be punished as a heretic. Florists, bakers, photographers, real estate agents, Internet CEOs,2 and speakers like myself3 have all discovered personally that the people who say they are fighting for “tolerance” are often the most intolerant. In the name of “inclusion and diversity,” those of us who have a diverse view are being excluded because we don’t exhibit lock-step conformity to their intolerant agenda. We are being fired for our political views—views that are firmly rooted in the biological facts of nature. Is this still America?
As headlines nearly every day affirm, there’s a growing clash between real rights and the new, invented right of same-sex marriage. Can anyone see any middle ground between (1) you must celebrate my same-sex marriage, and (2) God or my conscience prevents me from doing so? There is none. So which “right” will take precedence: the real right or the invented right?
According to those fighting for “tolerance,” your real right must give way to those who demand that you affirm their lifestyle. That isn’t tolerance. That’s totalitarianism. Conform or else.
Jesus loved sinners, which is why He wouldn’t affirm their sin. Neither can Christians. If we celebrate harmful behavior, despite any good intentions, we are actually being unloving. Love requires we tell people the truth, even if they don’t like it.
In fact, if you are upset with me for the thoughts I’ve expressed here, it means that, in an important sense, you agree with me. If you don’t like the behaviors and ideas I am advocating here, you are admitting that all behaviors and ideas are not equal—that some are closer to the real objective moral truth than others. But what is the source of that objective moral truth? It can’t be you or me. It can only be God—the ground of Nature’s Law.
Since no one can show that same-sex marriage is a right according to Nature’s Law (the only objective standard), the “gay mafia” resorts to the tactics of intimidation to silence and punish dissenters. They can’t win using sustained reason and arguments. Therefore, they chant fallacious slogans and charge people with heresy by labeling them “bigots” and “homophobes.”4
Did you think heresy was only a concern of traditional religion? The religion of liberals is no more liberal than that of the most rabid fundamentalist church, which is why liberals have not only stolen rights from God but also heresy.
Now the real heresy Christians must avoid is abandoning the truth and the gospel in the face of social pressure. The ignorance and apathy of the church has allowed society to destroy its most foundational institution. Only a courageous and obedient church can rebuild it for the good of everyone.
Frank Turek is an author, speaker, and founder of www.CrossExamined.org. He hosts “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” on Wednesday and Saturday nights on the NRB Network (DirecTV channel 378). His forthcoming book is Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case (NavPress, 2015)."
This article is slimy, fallacious and quite humorous at its core.
1. It fails to actually prove anything about God. Because it presupposes that God is an unchallengeable part of the equation, then proceeds to challenge all other variables, its bias is too large to be considered in logical forum. That kills it on its own, but...
2. It is, I believe, possible scientifically for two women to conceive a child. It requires the help of specialists, and utilizes bone-marrow cells and such...I'm not clear on details. The child will always be female, mind you. It's not perfect, but it puts a different spin on things.
3. I'm going to be married in a year and a half or so, but I don't want kids. Neither does Meglet. Even if we were true Christians, we wouldn't be marrying for the children we aren't going to have. This is true of many people...not the majority, of course, but a large enough minority that statements about marriage being all about the children look kind of stupid when thought about. A marital union, at its core, really is about two adults and what they plan to do with their life. If children are part of that equation, that's fine. If not, also fine.
4. There's nothing actually proving that homosexuals are unhealthy for children. This is another automatic assumption the article tries to enforce, right up there with how God is the basis for all morals and laws. The only thing a homosexual couple doesn't do as well as a heterosexual couple, statistically speaking, is have children, but the only way this would become a problem is if the human species became more homosexual than heterosexual, and the number of children dropped drastically. There are something like nine billion people in the world, and families where there are too many children and not enough resources are so commonplace that I think my point speaks for itself. We're in no danger of homosexuality ending the human species, so I'm not going to entertain that angle until or unless it statistically becomes a threat. Next!
5. At one point the article essentially says "If you don't like what you're reading, it's because you recognize that I'm right". That's insulting and erroneous. If you say something offensive and you're wrong, I'll still get upset. Of course, I'll get just as upset if you're actually right. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't really enter into it. However, I'm not so upset that I won't be rational. I'm just outraged enough to speak up, and to hopefully stop gullible people from swallowing this unthinking tripe wholesale.
There's more. Lots more. But what I've written is more than enough, I should think.
Equality is going to win the day whether you like it or not, Terrance. People who refuse to obey the law because God would object are going to lose their job or be put in jail. People who exhibit what you call "godly discrimination" are hopefully going to face so much mounting pressure that they snap.
For a religion that claims to love, fundamentalist Christianity has one hell of a way of showing it.
One thing I'll get out of the way before destroying Terrance and similar people's
arguments:
All right, what gives re: being turned down by a lesbian if you're a straight
man? I mean, that's the simplest, most straightforward rejection to take, and it
isn't personal. Nobody has ever explained this to me. Feminists tried but nobody
else has. I have been turned down, and told by her that she was Lesbian. As a
straight man, all that meant was she bats for the same team I do. It's not my
lack of resources, short stature, lack of broad shoulders, playing a nerdy
instrument (keyboards) or anything else that in the young dating game got me
rejected over and over again. I simply cannot fathom how being offended over
being rejected by a Lesbian even works. I mean, you're not being measured the
same way you are in a hehetero situation, and the rejection has nothing at all to
do with you. It makes no sense whatsoever to be offended as a straight man
when rejected by a Lesbian. I just don't get that. I'm not even entirely sure it
exists en masse, even if feminist theorists claim that it does. They've yet to
demonstrate how that would actually work.
Ok once again let's debunk this church situation. Terrance, Chelsea, anyone
else, you know what? A pastor can already decide not to marry a Christian and
an atheist. Unequally yoked and all that. A Baptist pastor can already decide not
to marry a Baptist to a Pentecostal.
And this part you may not like: A pastor who still holds to 1960s segregation
racial separatist thinking can refuse to marry an interracial couple. You may not
like that, and I may not like that, but it is entirely the pastor's right. The reason
is the special exemption, welfare state provision if you will, that we give to
religion. They can for any reason refuse to marry a couple, anything from
perceived incompatibility to actually finding out some legal reason why the pair
cannot have their mating activities sanctioned by the Church.
Now, if a business wants the same types of exceptions? There is actually a way
for them to do this too. It's called being a private club. There are quite a few,
and they're lucrative. As an atheist, I have absolutely no problem with
Christians having a Christians-only club if some of them want it. Ironically I
know Christians who do have a problem with such an arrangement. But here's
the deal. I've gone by invitation only to private club affairs in Portland here
where we do nothing but smoke cigars and maybe drink Scotch. Know why?
Because the greater Portland population doesn't appreciate cigar smoking in
public anymore, and they have legislated against any sort of tobacco use in
bars. Marijuana use too, unless it's a vaporizer, but that's another issue. At any
rate, private clubs exist for all sorts of things.
So if a set of Christians want to have a members-only or invitation-only one-
mean-one-woman club where spouses to be can buy cakes, dresses, etc. for
their weddings, there's nothing wrong with that. People who go there know
exactly what they're getting into. That club, just like the cigar places I've been
to, can have the proverbial gatekeeper to make sure someone isn't trying to get
in just to get offended, kind of a popular thing for modern millennials to do.
The difference is, once you open your doors to the public, you by definition take
on a certain amount of responsibility. I'm not talking out of my ass here, I've
run stores personally. It's just how the cookie crumbles. And private clubs exist
for a variety of reasons. So if you are evangelical and don't want to serve gay
couples in a marriage capacity? Put it on the market as a private club. Part of
being evangelical fundamentalist is after all, an unswerving support of free
markets, is it not? So: the market exists, use it.
I'm not going into any open public bar and expecting to be allowed to smoke
cigars on their patio, not in Portland. Because I know the climate these days.
But if I go to an invitation-only situation and smoke there, I know I'll get to
have a stogie in relative peace, free from those who are offended and policing
us.
If your bakeries and dress makers and photographers don't want to serve gay
couples, easy. Just be a private club, where you are invitation only and can do a
hell of a lot more "discriminating" if you will, than people can who are serving
the public at large.
For a religion dedicated to the Free Markets and Reaganomics, you're damned
dolts about how that system actually works.
If I wanted to have a business that served atheist only, and of that only the
subset that aren't globalists and are natural rationalists, people like myself, I
would make it a private club. So would anyone else who wanted to target a
specific demographic and exclude all others, anyone else with more intelligence
than the average mosquito.
Free markets was the one thing you evanjellies had going for you. That and the
second amendment. You're losing it. Seriously losing it. You'd have proven
yourselves respectable if you'd have went with the way of the U.S. Marshals in
the case of Kim Davis, and a private club in the case of the bakery and other
wedding services who wish to be heterosexuals-only. Private clubs are
extremely lucrative. Are your leaders blind?
You guys have fun wasting your time on Turdence, uh I mean Terrence.
Usually when I respond in order to debunk stuff it's because I find some of the things he posts threatening. Not to me, but to others. Many of the things he reposts are prepackaged in such a way that they look solid, and may convince the unwary. I'd rather take them apart and show people how fallible they are than further the problem I'm fighting against. This is one tiny way I can strike back, so I do it. As a human being, I have absolutely no qualms against people like Terrance or Chelsea or whatnot. I argue with the things they say and I object to the conclusions they make, rather than objecting to the people they are. Hope that makes sense.
Incidentally, I'm in favour of private clubs if you want to go that route, and otherwise agree with Leo about public responsibility once you're running a public business. Kind of open and shut, really. I also think anyone who joins a club or organization purely to throw sand in the gears is counterproductive. As an atheist, I would never ever go on a Christian forum purely to start throwing mud. I speak out here because this is a forum that, sometimes to the detriment of users' feelings, encourages the sharing of opinions...and quite frankly, sometimes I almost can't help myself. It's like being a baseball player and seeing a pitch come floating in right down the middle; you're simply not going to let it pass you by. At least I'm not. ha.
While I supprt greg in his assault against man with stupidly long user name, I
think its a bit misguided, the person who is really the risk here is BG. If you
want someone who is threatening, you'll find it there.
How you ask? Well, BG, in his last post, said that the LDS church doesn't
discriminate. If that is true, why did the LDS church just have a mass exodus
from the church because of its new discriminatory practices of not giving
blessings or rights to the children of homosexual couples? Thousands of people
turned in resignation letters from BG's church. This isn't because of some weird
misunderstanding, this is because the leadership of the church, the ones the
church claims are incapable of being wrong, the ones who speak directly to God,
the actual prophet of the church, has said that the LDS church will no longer
give blessings or rights to children of same sex couples. Now, can anyone
explain to me how the church isn't being discriminatory?
Yes, I agree that revenge is waisted when it's not pointed straight at the actual targets, but if these stories that terdance made up are true, at least now, the people who have been considered quote normal for centuries are finding out what it's really like. So my hopes are that since this sort of thing is now being experienced by the majority instead of the freak minority, people will take more notice of how ludicress the whole discrimination thing really is. Now take the sighted people who would never date a blind person, but then they themselves start losing their sight so they look for another blind person? These are the people that this stuff comes home to the most. When they're actually discriminated against for the same discriminations that they dished out in the past. I also agree that innocent children are the ones who really suffer in the whole battle. I've been told that I don't deserve to find anyone, since I'm not straight, but I don't wish for that person to remain hopelessly single and lonely in return. If I did, that would say more about me than about the other person.
I echo Shepherdwolf; I'm here for the questioning, those on the fence, people
who can be swayed by arguments. You can't convince anyone who is steeped in
any ideology to see things differently, because that ideology is a security
blanket for lazy thinking.
But you can post rebuttals to the most absurd of the claims, as a way to
stimulate thought among the thinking. I'd rather make people think, than to
make people agree with my point of view. Fundamentalist Christianity is not the
only target of mine on this stuff, far from it.
Interesting, Cody. I did not know LDS had decided to go ahead and do that. I wonder if absolutely all LDS churches are forced to take this up, or if it's something individual churches can pick and choose on the sly?
I'm not trying to change Terrance's mind, or Chelsea's (since she might do it on her own anyway, and frankly we haven't a clue what she's actually thinking). But I often question things precisely for people like BG, who are Christian but who don't just swallow everything they're told to believe. I can respect that, in fact.
So I'm gonna disagree with you just a bit, Cody. The fundamentalists and their silly rhetoric are the real threat, because there are still people out there gulping it down. If and when it stops, then we're left with the rest. It also might be a mistake to equate the LDS policy you cited with BG directly, since he did clearly state he doesn't want homosexuals to be discriminated against, and by extension that would very likely mean their children.
Greg, there are no individual LDS churches. Its the LDS church. Just like its
the catholic church. They have a pope, the LDS has a prophet. He lives in Salt
Lake City, and he speaks to God. He conveniently speaks to god whenever it
helps the church. Like, it happens that God told him black people were real
people, right after the federal government said that the LDS church would lose
its tax exempt status if they didn't stop treating black people as not real people.
God also conveniently spoke to the prophet of the church and told him that
polygamy was wrong, right after the united states congress told them that Utah
couldn't be a state if they didn't end polygamy.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But there are individual churches within the greater organization of the church itself, as I understand it. Not every single Catholic church you visit will do things in exactly the same way, nor will every Catholic priest give you precisely the same answers. The church's official stance, as an organization, may not match the stance taken by one or more of the actual groups of people which make it up. That's what I'm saying. Of course, I'm sure that going against your church is probably going to get you into trouble, but perhaps some groups do it anyway. I'm not sure.
I’ve been lurking here a while, and I have a small confession to make. Which I dunno what it says about me. But I’ve been skipping over all the OP’s postings. Every single one of them. So, I have no clue what he’s said about anything. Because I saw the topic and I was somewhat curious to see what other people’s reactions to them have been. I, however, have basically taken it for granted that his postings are either rants that don’t lead anywhere, or they’re cut-and-paste stupidity taken from other people’s stuff, and that’s the only way he can write eloquently. Actually, I have to say it’s pretty pathetic. I mean, from what I’ve seen, the majority of people who have responded to his posts think pretty much like rational people. Why then respond to them at all? You won’t teach him anything. You won’t convince him of anything. To him,, gay is anti-god. Gay is dirty, icky,, abnormal. Every gay person or person who supports us is going to hell. Okay. I get it. Oh the fuck well. So what? What are you gunna do about it? He’s convinced. He has the right answer in his mind. Never mind that when he tries to say anything, he can’t write for shit, and the only time he can put a reasonable sentence together,, if you can call it that, is when he’s copying other people’s words from other people’s articles. At our worst possible moments, each one of us can do ten times better than he can. So, I have to honestly ask this question: What’s all the fuss about, actually? Leave it alone and let it die on the vine. Or maybe it’s just me. I just don’t see the point at this juncture. But then, maybe I’m tired of dealing with some people’s bullshit. Sorry if this sounds a bit truculent or pissy or whatever,, but it’s how I am right now.
Thus I have said in many other topics, John. The voice of mediation and reason rarely breeds finality. Case and point ...
Though I question his intentions, and though it doesn't really pertain too much to the topic at hand, Cody raises a good point about the issue surrounding homosexual children and baptism that has gotten so much contravercy in the LDS church of late. I don't yet know enough about this to comment at this time, but I intend to rectify that presently Because when I first heard of this, like many people in the church, I was quite apawled. Then I went on vacation and sort of forgot about it. So thank you Cody for bringing it back to my rememberance. As I understand it at this time, children of homosexual couples are not able to be baptised until the age of 18, rather than the age of 8 which is what we consider the age of accountability. I'm not yet certain what the reasons surrounding this issue are. But I do know that, Like with so many of the contravercial issues in our church, the few decades of polygamy, African American priesthood holders, nature of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith himself, there's a lot of misinformation circulating. I always find it wierd that for such a small portion of Christianity, we get so much flack. Thus it has always been. I think that the manner in which this issue was brought to light is what makes it most mysterious. My faith is, perhaps for good or ill, very knowledge based. I believe in my church, and I believe in God. When issues arise which Seem inharmonious with the gospel, or with what I personally believe, I tend to get a bit obsessed with research until I find an official answer. Occasionally I'm left scratching my head, but most times I find that by delving deeper, I do find answers which actually make sense. I was debating whether or not it would be worth my while - and anyone else's on here - for me to post some of the things I've discovered about some of these issues on this board. There's some facinating stuff, but as this isn't really a sight geared - or friendly even - towards things of a religious persuasion, I've so far refrained. When I learn more about this particular issue, and if it's still relevant on this topic, perhaps I can share what I find. One thing I can say now though. media loves a story. Much of the truth surrounding some of these contravercies is usually not what it seems on the surface. I also say that, as this is, on the surface a bit of a damning issue, the church needs to officially explain itself to clear up any misconceptions. Maybe they've already done so. I'm going to look into this. If it turns out that this is true, and if it is as bad as the sensation makes it sound, then I will definetly have a problem with it. That probably won't shake my faith in Christ; I've had too much personal experience for that to be easy, but it might make me question the inspiration of the church leadership. But all that's concern for another day. For now, there's discovery.
I have created a separate topic about this. Check it out if you're interested in a little clarification and context surrounding this issue. I'll add more on that topic if I find it.
ALL REBUTTALS, just as I EXPECTED, to my LAST-PREVIOUS POST, have ONLY SHOWN that the MORE "DEBUNKING" ATTEMPTS to OVERRIDE BIBLICLE FACTS is DEFINITELY EQUIVALENT to reading a comic strip--ESPECIALLY about the part of WOMEN, CONCEIVING (LOL)!
I'm bringing this one back up, so I can get some misconceptions about my earlier post out of the way. People have asked me about it, and to their credit, I can truly appreciate that they took the time to make sure they understood what I meant, rather than simply judging and dismissing, as some have done.
With that out of the way: Yes, I do stand by what I said. When I see or hear about a straight couple being discriminated against for making out and the likes, the first thing that flashes across my mind is something like, Well well. Isn't it great? Here's a straight couple that gets the same treatment that the gays have endured for years, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, people are seeing it differently, aren't they?" Notice the quotes.
Then my rational side kicks in with something like, "Just because something got done to you years ago, it doesn't mean innocent people should pay for it. There's no evidence that this particular couple have discriminated against gays."
Nowhere have I ever said that my first mental flash was honorable, correct or deserving of reaction. I was simply giving an honest and unfiltered flash. It's stuff like this which makes me understand why people are not totally honest in all situations. I really can't say I blame them.
To put my mental flash in perspective, think of a very happily married man. He would never dream of cheating on his wife. He's extremely happy with his family. But while out at a restaurant, he hears this really hot sounding lady. His first thought might well be, "Wow, she sounds super hot! Wonder what she'd be like in bed?" Then his rational side would kick in very quickly and say,"But what you've got at home is even better and closer to you." However, if he admitted this to some of his friends, he runs the risk of them saying something like, "You're a married man, and you're saying that another chick is hot? I've lost respect for you, man!"
Yes, I think discrimination is wrong. I've been done that way, and I don't like the whole, "Now it's my turn, mentality. When thoughts of revenge cross my mind, it's something that I do fight back against, very hard, especially in cases like this, where it wouldn't really be revenge, but only continuing a harmful and vicious cycle that benefits no one. I'm human though, so I do acknowledge that I do have a dark side, (animalistic or barbaric,) and even though I do my best to keep it in check, I have to know that it's there. I admit that it's a part of me. It's said that being aware of your patterns and thought processes is a key element in changing them. How can you change something of which you are totally unaware? In the same way, I fight to break the cycles of family abuse. I don't like the idea of "Well, mother did this to me, so this is what I'll do to my kids in return, so they can see what it felt like." To me, this is all kinds of wrong. Innocent people are made to pay for something that someone else did. That's not to say though that a flashback of what my mother did would not come back in to my mind. But I would also remember how it made me feel when she treated me that way, and I wouldn't want to pass that feeling on to my own kids in return.
I hope this clears it up. I've explained it about as well as I can. For those who took the time to ask me about it, I thank you. It showed me how my wording could be misconstrued.
Anthony thanks for a well-formed and thought-out post. I, for one, appreciate
your response.
That's very honest. And I honestly believe if people on this board said they'd never felt something like that they would be lying.
I definitely don't wish bad things upon people, but that doesn't mean a horrible part of me hasn't felt secretly happy when it's happened. And yeah, I know it is wrong.
I'm glad that some kind of inteligent discussion has arisen from this board, without any help from the op of course.
I think most people have had the sort of thoughts you've had, Anthony. And the harm isn't in having the thought, it's in acting on it. I definitely wasn't condemning you, because even without your explanation I figured you weren't actually condoning reverse discrimination in order to vindicate yourself or any group you belong to. That's just silly, and you don't strike me as a silly person.
Thing is, everyone has a dark side; a so-called evil twin, so I can understand what you’re saying also. It’s sorta like when I watch the news sometimes and hear all the stuff going on in the Mideast. My evil twin says turn the place into glass, and we won’t have all the problems we have right now. Except that hundreds of millions of people would die for nothing they ever did to anyone.
Now, here’s another thing. This topic is called the homophobe delusion revisited. What’s often overlooked, and what I believe is very dangerous even now, is that the so-called delusion is not in fact a delusion at all. There really is blatant homophobia. Anyone know who Kevin Swanson is? I’ll give you all a hint: He’s a moron. He’s an idiot. But he’s dangerous. And recently three presidential candidates were at his so-called religious liberties conference, which Rachel Maddow of MSNBC featured in one of her commentaries one night. And what do you think one of the topics at this religious liberties conference was? Whether or not the United States should impose the death penalty on gay people. And there apparently were really earnest discussions about whether stoning or throwing us off a cliff was the best way to go about it. This guy Swanson made this impassioned speech about how he didn’t yet think that gay people should be put to death. Oh no! He believed that we should be given one last time to repent of our sin before being put to death. You can find this on Youtube, or if any of you watch Maddow, you know this is for real. There really is homophobia in this country, and in other countries throughout the world, and it’s far from a delusion.
Yeah. That's simply disgusting, and it makes me glad I don't live in the United States. Even not being gay, this sort of thinking scares me silly.
QUESTION: REGARDLESS, WHAT FEAR is SUPPOSED to be DEMONSTRATED on the part of ANYONE, ATTACKING THOSE who SAME-SEX-BEHAVE? HATRED derives from BEYOND-INTENSE ANGER, NOT FEAR. If YOU'RE a GUY that's into the SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR, and you should happen to sit next to me on a bus or train, and I KNEW this about you, and I was (KEY WORD) AFRAID OF YOU, because I'M thinking, even if it's not true that you WOULD, or that if you TRIED, that it's CERTAINLY NOT like I couldn't OVERPOWERINGLY RESIST you, that you COULD FORCE me to be YOUR SEX OBJECT, TOTALLY AGAINST MY WILL, so I IMMEDIATELY GET UP and GET AWAY from you, NOT because I HATE you, because of your behavior, but ONLY BECAUSE I'm LEERY, SCARED (WHATEVER, THAT'S the TRUE DEMONSTRATION of "HOMOPHOBIA." Of COURSE, I'm NOT "HOMOPHOBIC," but I DEFINITELY am "HOMOREJECTANT," if there could ever be such a word, and if THAT'S an offense, OH, WELL. I neither HATE nor FEAR other guys that same-sex-behave, but I DO SET CLEAR BOUNDARIES that WILL BE RESPECTED, which is EXACTLY what I'm NOT REQUESTING, but it IS what I'm DEMANDING, RESPECTFULLY.
Don't worry, fella. I don't think even the men will be making passes at ya.
Terrance, I'm sorry that people on this topic continue to judge you harshly; that's the irony of it all, isn't it? That they continue name-calling, and wining when a point of view that differs from theirs is presented. However, as God's people, we're told to love those who are difficult to love, and that's what you and I have been doing in various topics of this and similar subject matters. Oh, and for the record, I'm aware that most of the world is godless. I'm aware that most of the world believes that homosexuals have the right to marry. However, that doesn't make either of those things right--what was right was Kim Davis being willing to stay in jail for standing up for her beliefs. What's right is Christians spreading the word about God to others, and also living by example. What's right is to not name-call when people disagree with something, but to present one's case like an adult would. What's right is right because it's God's law, not because it's man's.
What was right was Kim Davis being -put in jail because she broke the law and decided that she wouldn't marry homosexuals.
What's right is calling people out who claim that discrimination and prejudicial behaviour is okay as long as God condones it.
What's right is weighing an opinion, a law or anything else on its standalone logical/practical merit, not on some arcane book and an unprovable religion to which it's tied.
Kim Davis isn't a hero. She's a criminal and a bigot.
People who thoughtlessly trumpet the "God's law" defense aren't champions. They're sheep.
If I call you a bigot, and you're a bigot, I'm not name-calling. I'm telling the truth. For someone who delights in telling it like it is, Chelsea, you of all people should be sympathetic.
But wait. You're not, because the supposed "name-calling" makes you uncomfortable. It highlights the inescapable facts about your religion...most notably that it's looking more and more dated and flimsy as years pass and people start thinking for themselves. People don't like the truth when it makes them look bad, and that's what's happening here. Christianity seems to require people to believe that engaging in homosexual behaviour is wrong, when there's no good reason -why it's wrong. It also tries to control the way laws are made and enforced when (and you said this yourself) most of the world is godless. Why should laws be made, remade or unmade to support a religion which actually caters to a statistical minority?
Learn to live with the harsh criticisms, or do your very best to change your insufferable ways.
Put bluntly, I have logic on my side, and logic at least proves itself. This makes logic greater than God. You can say any damning thing, throw any insult, make any generalization you want, and as soon as you bring religion into it, your attack loses all of its steam and credibility. So go on, if you wish, but you're biting on granite.
Oh boy I do hate to agree with Terrance` .. it pains me to do so ... but phobic is
not what the haters are. They're haters, sure. But phobic? Nah more like picking
on a very small minority of people, easily picked on, a crowd that doesn't often
carry a weapon. It's not phobic to assault a gay person or bomb an abortion
clinic, it's criminal behavior. Phobic is being scared to death of heights or
something.
The term "homophobic" has lately begun to stretch so that it's not just fear. Technically it's correct to object to the word, but as time passes it will matter less and less. I mean, just look at the word "enervate" for proof. That word has, over time, been used to mean two different things, nearly polar opposites of each other. In the case of the word "homophobia", the two meanings aren't too far removed.
CULTRAL RE-DEFINITIONS of WORDS, such as "PHOBIA," to fit the LGBT-DEFENSE AGENDA, for example, DEFINITELY BLENDS PERFECTLY with what CHELSEA said in her last-previous post--such derives from a group of RIDICULOUSLY-DISGRUNTLED PEOPLE that are told that NOT ONLY is SAME-SEXUAL BEHAVIOR WRONG, ONLY ACCORDING to GOD'S WORD, but WHY it's wrong, and how it's DEVASTATINGLY HARMFUL to NOT ONLY the PARTICIPANTS of such behavior, but to an ENTIRE NATION, and EVEN the ENTIRE WORLD, and EVEN THOUGH they're CONSTANTLY REMINDED that they're ABSOLUTELY FREE, WHATSOEVER, to STILL CHOOSE to LIVE at their OWN risk, REALIZING that they could be putting ANY/ALL OTHERS that are NON-PARTICIPANTS at risk, as WELL, that's SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH for them, so of COURSE, they'll RANT, RAVE, throw TANTRUMS, by passing laws that are SUPPOSED to be INTIMMIDATING, but KIM DAVIS, REGARDLESS of the LGBT OPINION, REGARDLESS of the PROVOKED REACTION from the CORRUPT US GOVERNMENT, REGARDLESS of her INCARSARATION, REGARDLESS of losing her job, REGARDLESS of any FINANCIAL DELIMMA that she MIGHT be in, BECAUSE of her ABSOLUTELY HEROIC DEFIANCE against the VERY LAW from HELL, REGARDLESS of HOW LONG, IF she STILL IS, she might REMAIN INCARSARATED, EVEN IF for LIFE, EVEN if she COULD be sentenced to DEATH, AFTER WHICH, she'll've ULTIMATELY WON, ANYWAY, because THEN, she'd ETERNALLY be in the VERY PRESENCE of her HEAVENLY FATHER, FOREVER in ENDLESS BLISS, she STILL IS, and will ALWAYS BE, in GOD'S EYES, a VICTORIOUS HERO that the very ENEMY of HER SOUL will NEVER be able to touch.
In response to Shepherdwof's " People who thoughtlessly trumpet the "God's law" defense aren't champions. They're sheep," and "I have logic on my side, and logic at least proves itself. This makes logic greater than God," you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, that WE, who HAVE FREE-WILL-CHOSEN to LIVE, ONLY ACCORDING to GOD'S LAWS, are NOT ONLY SHEEP, but HIS SHEEP, because it's ONLY HIS VOICE that we HEAR, LISTEN TO, and EVER-SO-REJOICINGLY OBEY, which is EXACTLY what KIM DAVIS did, and doesn't EVER REGRET it, as much as YOU WANT her to, I'm sure. She CERTAINLY won't have "LOGIC" on HER side, nor would she NEED, nor even WANT it to be, on that VERY DAY that SHE'LL DEFINITELY RECEIVE HER GLORIOUS CROWN of TRULY-DIVINE HEROISM against the VERY FORCES of EVIL that she BRAVELY CONQUERED, through the ABSOLUTELY/ETERNALLY, INCONQUERABLE POWER of ALMIGHTY GOD! HOW MUCH MORE INFALLIBLE, IN COMPARISON, if at ALL, is such "LOGIC" that YOU'RE talking about, to such GLORIOUS VICTORY, as above-described? While JESUS REPRESENTS KIM as TOTALLY FAULTLESS, on THAT VERY DAY, to HER HEAVENLY FATHER, REGARDLESS of how she's PRESENTED/REPRESENTED in the BABYLONIALLY-CORRUPT US COURT of LAW, HOW, and to WHOM, will "LOGIC" represent YOU, on the VERY DAY that YOU, TOO, will stand before the VERY SAME ALMIGHTY ETERNAL GOD of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE? What will HIS PRONUNCIATION of YOUR ETERNAL DESTINATION be, REGARDLESS of WHATEVER your OPINION determines?
I happen to believe that if there really is some sort of god, he will view my individual merits as a person instead of my unwillingness to be a sheep, if indeed he has to judge me at all. I'm sorry, but I just can't get any comfort from a god that's essentially a dictator and a sadist wrapped up into one. I have no proof that such a monster exists, and can't find it in myself to care what this nonexistent monster thinks of me. Or of the world at large, for that matter.
I have this funny notion which constantly clouds my thinking, makes me believe things (or not believe them, as the situation may be). That funny little notion is called reality. Reality is mostly logical, and reality demands practicality. When a question is raised for which there is no satisfactory answer, I am honest enough to admit that my knowledge is lacking. Reality demands that I deal with the world around me as I perceive it. It also suggests very strongly that I dismiss those suppositions that can't be proven, and all but demands that I weigh things with both my mind and my heart. So doing, I find religion, for my worldview at least, seriously lacking.
Put a simpler way: I'm not afraid of what god thinks, because I don't believe your god exists. I prefer to live my life by real standards, not the dictates of an organization which somehow thinks it knows more about faith than everybody else knows. And if a person living by those aforementioned dictates happens to break a law, hurt someone, show prejudicial or discriminatory treatment to someone's detriment, or otherwise demonstrate themselves as a narrow-minded sheep, then they deserve whatever legal and social repercussions they get as a result of their blind stupidity.
Believe whatever the hell you want. Just don't expect clemency if you hurt someone or break the law. You're just a person like everybody else. Nothing you believe makes you any better, and no system of belief you can possibly fabricate grants you the licenses you claim to enjoy.
If you break a law because of your god, you're still just a criminal in a jail cell.
If you show discriminatory treatment against women or homosexuals or basically anyone else because of your religious beliefs, you're not a martyr or a champion. You're just another fool with a chip on their shoulder too heavy to bear.
Any attempt to render nobility from these people and their actions is delusional. Pure and simple.
The "FUNNY, LITTLE NOTION" that YOU call "REALITY," of course, is ONLY ACCORDING to what YOU believe it to be, SIMPLY BECAUSE of your LOGICALLY-INDOCTRINATED INTELLECT, correct?
Yes, that's right. My viewpoint is limited by both my intellect and my experience, I recognize this.
But the same applies to you. The only difference is, you've slapped a bunch of dogma into your worldview. And that dogma requires you to not only suspend disbelief outright, but it also necessitates blatant disregard of facts without having first disproved those facts. This would be all right, sort of, if it applied only to how you, and you alone, live your life. But it isn't. It doesn't stop there. Not only does your dogma tell you to infect others with it, but it does harm to people because it can be taken about ninety-seven different ways, and most of them have two things in common: they all say "mine is better than yours", and they're all unable to prove why.
If your worldview was essentially egalitarian, it might be tolerable, no matter what silly trappings it held. But it's not. So it belongs on the scrap-heap.
I also object to the idea of indoctrination in this case, as it refers my worldview and intellect. Intellect alone is not something that is indoctrinated. You can be trained to think well, but you are not, by and large, trained to ignore certain thoughts while supporting others. You're not told to think a certain way because so-and-so says that's how you do it. You're not indoctrinated to think that your thoughts are better than someone else's thoughts. You are, in fact, taught to consider all arguments and points of view based on their own merits in relation to one another. That's not what I'd call indoctrination. That's wisdom.
Foollowing, being a sheep, doing things because a book said so? That's mindless, heedless lock-step toward some sort of made-up, desperate ideals you can't prove and can't support, and which you have absolutely no business thrusting on other people.
WELL, I DEFINITELY CONGRADULATE you for CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATING the UNMISTAKABLE FALLIBILITY of this SUPPOSED REALITY, by which you've chosen to LIVE, just like I knew you would, ALL ALONG. OBVIOUSLY, as EARLIER HIGHLIGHTED in this topic, what DOES DEMONSTRATIVELY PROOVE, WITHOUT ONE BIT of a FIGHT, WHATSOEVER, that YES, the VERY WAY that I'VE CHOSEN for MY life as CERTAINLY BETTER than what YOU'VE chosen for YOURS, NEVER because of MY standards, or ANYTHING ELSE about ME, but ONLY BECAUSE of MY BELIEF, as according to the ONLY INFALLIBLE SOURCE that there WAS, IS, and will ALWAYS ETERNALLY BE, which CERTAINLY isn't MY human logic, or ANYONE ELSE'S, but GOD'S NEVER-CHANGING, ETERNAL WORD, POINT BLANK.
Only because of your belief? That right there is the killer phrase.
Of COURSE it is--THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE of what MY BELIEF is in accordance TO. In OTHER words, MY FALLIBLE BELIEF, which is just as EQUALLY FALLIBLE as YOURS, as well as the REST of ALL of MANKIND, is in COMPLETE ACCORDANCE to the ONLY SOURCE of PERFECT INFALLIBILITY; THAT'S why it's the "KILLER PHRASE," as YOU call it.
Makes no fuckin' sense to me, you want my opinion. And even if you don't want it, it still makes no fuckin' sense. And I lean more toward the spiritual than a lot of people, and still it makes no fuckin' sense. I'm slightly buzzed right now and I bet I make more sense than you do. Why don't you grow up and start writing coherently? Because even at my worst I'm ten times better than you'll ever be.
Johndy, it's RIDICULOUSLY VERY SIMPLE: all POST 56 says is that you could either CONTINUE to WORSHIP at the altar of YOUR false god, HUMAN LOGIC, ACCEPT the "CONFOUNDATION," if there's such a word, that the ONE, ONLY TRUE GOD of the UNIVERSE'S INFALLIBILITY causes you, and just GET OVER it and STOP WHINING, or while the INVITATION still stands, DENOUNCE the "HUMAN LOGIC" god in exchange for the ONLY TRUE GOD, and HE, NOT ONLY PROMISES to ETERNALLY FULFILL, with PERFECT CLARITY, your VERY UNDERSTANDING of ALL that CURRENTLY makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, but HE ALSO PROMISES to ALWAYS HELP you to ALWAYS UNDERSTAND these things, NOT as YOU, through your OWN LIMITED understanding, but ALWAYS as HE, and HE, ONLY, understands. YOUR CHOICE of EITHER OR. MEANWHILE, it ALWAYS IS what HE says that it is, in HIS FOREVER NON-CHANGING, INFALLIBLE WORD.
Terrance, and anyone else who's trumpeting this more-or-less transparent zealotry, I'll make this really, really simple.
Prove to me how your god is superior to human logic. You may not use the Bible or any indoctrination buzz-phrases in your explanation.
Remember that proving your god superior will first necessitate proving your god's existence in the first place. After all, I could say that mumbleducks are better than carrots, but until or unless I prove what a mumbleduck is and empirically demonstrate that it exists, there's no basis for comparison.
If you can do this, I'll treat your arguments rationally. If you can't, then onto the bonfire your insanity goes, metaphorically speaking.
OK, SHEPHERDWOLF, I'll GLADLY take on your challenge, ONLY if you can do ONE, SIMPLE LITTLE THING--I mean, AFTER ALL, since YOU oughta know the BOUNDLESS LEVEL of the so-called SUPERIORITY of YOUR HUMAN LOGIC to self-claim as GREATER than the ONLY CREATOR of ALL INTELLIGENCE, YOU, or ANY OTHER of your SAME FOLLOWING, shouldn't have ANY PROBLEM, WHATSOEVER, with solving this MATH CHALLENGE; ONLY if you can SUCCESSFULLY SOLVE what I'm about to ask you, CLEARLY WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONABLE FLAW, WHATSOEVER, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will I FOREVER CEASE my "TRUMPETTING," as YOU call it. ULTIMATE CHALLENGE: what number that's HIGHER THAN zero, does zero TIMES zero equal?
I have been instructed by my friend, the mumbleduck, that the answer to your question is -6. I thought long and hard, and eventually she provided me an answer which, although it doesn't make too much logical sense, must be right. It came from her, after all.
I know that -6 is less than zero, I know that when you multiply it by itself it doesn't equal 0, but the mumbleduck can't be wrong. There must be some sort of explanation beyond my feeble little mortal mind, and probably beyond yours as well.
So that's my answer. -6. I'm sorry if it upsets you, but there's really nothing else I can do.
Now, on with the show. Let's see your logic-crushing proof for not only the existence of your god, but also for his apparent superiority.
I answered your question. And if you're not satisfied by it, tough luck. The mumbleduck has told me to use your own brand of rationality in order to make a case, and I've done it fairly successfully, I think. You, on the other hand, now face the opposite challenge...to use logic to try and justify faith. Good luck. You're gonna need it.
NO. 1: "FAIRLY SUCCESSFULLY, I THINK" AUTOMATICLY DISQUALIFIES you, UNQUESTIONABLY--you're either SOLIDLY SUCCESSFUL, or you're NOT; NO. 2: WHAT EVIDENTIAL PROOF can either YOU, or your SO-CALLED DEMONIC GOD/GODDESS "MUMBLEDUCK," or WHATEVER you call THAT THING, or even BETTER YET, the BOTH of you, PRODUCE that INFALLIBLY EXPLAINS how ZERO, MULTIPLIED, NOT DIVIDED, by ITSELF, ONLY, equals any MINUS number (LOL); NO. 3: YOU, in your VERY OWN POST, ACTUALLY SAID: "beyond my feeble little mortal mind," which is a PERFECTLY-CLEAR, INFALLIBLE ADMISSION of YOUR HUMAN LOGIC as UNMISTAKABLY FALLIBLE; FINALLY, NO. 4: YOUR ADMISSION of SERVITUDE is ALSO PERFECTLY CLEAR, which is yet ANOTHER DESTRUCTIVE BULLET, RIGHT through the VERY HEART of YOUR SELF-PRIDE, ESPECIALLY if you're supposed to "use your own brand of rationality in order to make a case," which OBVIOUSLY, you DIDN'T, thanks to YOUR father, the DEVIL'S intervention, by way of this "MUMBLE-JUMBLE" thing of yours, so with THAT:
From www.letusreason.org: "The futility and fatality of Atheism
"From the beginning of time man has believed in a creator, as we can see many religions have been upon this ancient belief. The fact that many religions have pagan beliefs and practices does not negate the point that man has been a religious being and that atheism has only grown to what it is in the last few centuries.
So why is Atheism philosophically bankrupt? The problem with the philosophy of atheism is that it does not go back far enough to arrive at a logical conclusion
If there was a time when nothing existed what made it change. Some claim two gases collided - but they cannot explain where did the gases from? How did they collide, why are there two gases and not one. Where were they before they combined. How long did they exist before they caused a big bang What did they exist in before a universe was there?
Can this be proven by reality today or in anytime in history? To the atheists there is always a substance there to create another, such as a self existing universe. Thus they themselves are creating the reasons for a beginning. Much has to be assumed to come to the conclusions they hold. The majority of scientists today are of the opinion that the universe actually began to exist at a certain time, so this theory can be discarded.
The late Carl Sagan said, “If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos (Random House, 1980), p.243.) Does it make sense to worship another created thing? Out of necessity they have manufactured something with the power of existence beside what is created, as a replacement for God the creator.
For example, I have a book, but the book needed a pen to be used to first write its contents (or computer program) but you still needed an intelligence to use the pen to write the book. No intelligence no pen and no book. But atheists want us to believe the pen and book came into being from nothing. This does seem to stretch ones credulity.
Reality teaches us that all things that exist have their existence depend upon other things. If there was nothing; what did not exist, then it cannot be the cause of its own existence, nor of anything else. How could it bring itself into being if it does not exist? Therefore, our reality of life teaches that all things great and small depend upon something else for their existence.
The universe, our earth is filled with natural laws, which means that something orchestrated these laws for the things to exist.
Science cannot explain how life began or what life is. What are the chances of life coming from non life? Has anyone seen anything come from nothing?
Even the bible does not teach something came from nothing but that God is the creator, He initiated all that is seen and unseen to exist. As incomprehensible this is to the human mind that a being exists with such power to draw out the cosmos galaxy to galaxy that it is nearly incomprehensible to measure the vastness, that is what we are confronted with.
Only with a crises of faith in Christianity has it opened the door for young people to be corralled in with a philosophy of no hope. No doubt the failings of certain Christian ministers have given a boost to those who take “there is no God” position. But if we were to use this same standard then those who failed in sports taking drugs for enhancement or those who cheat in marriage would negate these as well. In fact you cannot find anything of man that is pristine without flaw.
Atheist insist that a miracle is simply a natural occurrence which science has not found an explanation for yet. Reminds me of their argument of the beginning of the universe… we don’t really know what began it but we are sure it can’t be God. With intelligent arguments like these its no wonder everyone has not converted. While they use arguments to blame religions for all the wars committed we should not forget that Karl Marx once a professed Christianity and turned to atheism. Calling it “scientific materialism,” his communism believed nothing existed except the physical world. Which would only be what the eye could. But everything that is seen is made of things unseen. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse...” (Romans 1:20). Was this a estimated guess, or imagination for the apostle Paul to write such an exact observation of our modern science nearly 2,000 years ago?
The “mathematics, upon which all other science rests, irrefutably disproves both Atheism and evolution. We need a brief review of math in order to proceed. For example, ten to the second power is expressed as 102. It means 10 squared, which is 100. Ten to the 4th power (104) is not twice as much as 102, it is actually 100 times larger. So 104 means one with 4 zeroes after it. The “2” and “4” are called exponents. Thus 108 means one with 8 zeros after it. It is not twice 104 but 10,000 times greater (i.e., add four more zeroes). This is what is known as increasing “exponentially.” The numbers quickly become too large to comprehend.
This is why huge numbers must be expressed by exponents. It is much easier to write 1010 than to write 10,000,000,000; easier to write 1050 than to write a one with 50 zeroes after it. Imagine trying to multiply such numbers! But expressed exponentially, it is easy to multiply. One simply adds the exponents. Thus 103 (1,000) multiplied by 106 (1,000,000) equals 109 (1,000,000,000).
To show how things increase exponentially, suppose you tear in half a piece of paper, put one piece on top of the other and tear the two in half, then keep doing this 50 times. Think this could be done by hand? No! The number of resulting pieces is expressed mathematically as 250. If the paper was 1/500th of an inch thick, multiplying that thickness times 250 tells how tall the stack of paper would be. Any guesses? It would be nearly 35,539,770 miles high!
When it comes to life, the mathematics become even more impossible to imagine.”
(Faith Is Strengthened by Challenge Hunt, Dave May 1, 2008)
Atheists are so offended by the word God they are bent on removing all manger scenes and crosses from public places, anything that would refer to God or the Bible. Yet they seem to ignore all the OTHER religions i.e Islam. But Christianity is the focus of their belligerence.
There are some atheists that are leading the charge that are ingenious dimwits Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Militant Musers that have invented schemes to convince the naïve and uneducated the possibility of the impossible. Preaching to their own choir, which cannot recognize how out of tune they are with reality.
A-theism (atheism) is an absence of a belief in God but people deny many things in life that do not suit their worldview but this does not make them right. Atheists ask how can we know that God exists? How do I know that atheists exist? Because they have proven their existence, how? By writing, by communicating to certain people. This is the same we can see for God, he put order in nature, down to the minutest particles, the DNA. He had communicated to certain people and gave them a consistent revelation of himself.
The Creator made man gave him the ability to think and make decisions. This ability makes him morally responsible to the one He depends on - God. Atheism tries to escape this responsibility
The atheists deny there is any purpose or meaning to life except what we assign to it.
Richard Dawkins says, “Faith is one of the world’s great evils....[It is] belief that isn’t based on evidence [and] the principal vice of any religion.”
Yet atheists use a type of "faith" each day. They must trust the pilot whose plane they get on – the doctor if they are on a operating table. Even while driving their car on the road they must trust traffic signals and other drivers. What evidence do they have that all these things will function without a problem when they do not 100% of the time. So it is really about trusting what they cannot see and not rely only on their own senses.
When you look at a building you do not see the builders but you know there had to be someone who built and someone designed it.
Look into the sky at night: how far it extends, far beyond what can be seen by the eye or a telescope.
Ps 19:1-4 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun."
Seeing is believing to an atheist. Even Charles Darwin was perplexed over the eye… “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable [matchless] contrivances [plans] for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree” (Charles Darwin, 1859, The Origin of Species p. 217)
What of our DNA, the building blocks of life. One cell contains approximately the same amount as1,000 500 page books. DNA is so small that if it was like a thin wire, it would stretch out around the circumference of the earth over 30 times. And all this contains information for the make up of life.
Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, “Just one living cell in the human body is, more complex than New York City”(Dave Hunt, In Defense of the Faith, p.22)
Psalm 94:8-9: “Understand, you senseless among the people; And you fools, when will you be wise? He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see?”
David Hume a skeptic of Christianity said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” All things have a cause except those things that are uncaused, which would be the originator and would be of necessity eternally existing.
Can an inanimate, unintelligent, something produce an intelligent unique living creature[s]? Can this it, plus chance, plus time actually bring forth something so complex, so unique and so intelligent to have the ability to also create.
Or is it the way the Bible states:
Gen. 1:27: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
I will leave that for you to decide."
So many words, so little sense.
Keep trying. You have yet to actually answer my challenge. All you've attempted to do is dismiss things you can't explain.
Also, who the hell are you to dismiss my mumbleduck-inspired answer of -6, to the question you posed? Your feeble little mortal mind is just like mine, fallible, so what gives you the right to assert that you're right and I'm wrong?
See, I'll tell you a little secret that's gonna blow your mind. My last post is chock-full of something called sarcasm. It deftly highlighted the absurdity of all of your arguments while conveniently answering your question in a way you'd have to rely on logic to refute. And the funny part? You didn't even do that!
But then, you did present a logically unwinnable scenario and then tried to make me work out of it. That's why I decided that a less-than-direct approach was called for. Worked like a charm, too.
So let's try the direct approach, since the other one sailed right over your head:
There's no rational number greater than 1 which, when multiplied by itself, equals zero. This is a mathematical impossibility. Ergo, asking me to solve it with logic is a fool's errand.
It was, I'm quite sure, utilized so that you'd have an easy way to avoid my challenge when I failed. I wouldn't be able to correctly solve, and thus you would somehow consider yourself off the hook.
News flash: you're not off the hook. You still haven't proven that God exists, much less that yours is superior. You're only stating as fact what cannot be proven. You act as if God's existence and superiority are essentially fooregone conclusions, on a level with such simplicity as "the earth revolves around the sun" and "fire is hot". Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Those two facts I just cited are provable; Christianity, as yet, isn't. Prove it and I'll take you seriously. Keep dodging, and all I can do is shake my head and stop feeding you.
I also want to finish by saying that I think I gave you too much credit. I thought you were trying to present me with an unwinnable scenario to highlight that my own challenge was equally unwinnable. In my opinion at present, it -is unwinnable. If people could prove that god existed, and could prove he was superior, then it wouldn't be such a hot topic. So yes, I gave you what looks to be an unwinnable scenario, but I did it for a reason. You're trying to judge people with your unprovable ideas, whereas quite frankly most people aren't going to care about either my fabricated mumbleduck or about a number greater than 0 which equals zero when multiplied by itself.
TL.DR: You have nothing meaningful to say on this topic until you can win the scenario I posed you. Until then, I'm just going to call you out for being hypocritical, judgmental, bigoted, narrow-minded, irrational and a troll to boot. Have a nice day.
Pretty boring troll. Worst thing is that I expect irrationality from that troll, so I skip over his postings while going right to yours. I just can't read them most of the time without wanting to hammer a spike through the middle of my forehead and overdosing on Demerol. See, even my pretty devout Christian friend will up and admit that in the long run, we don't actually know, and that for him, his faith is the answer because he believes it to be so based on his life's experience. So, if he can even admit that he has doubts and that he doesn't fully know, it's a pretty hard thing for me to believe that the OP is not also prone to doubt as well. Doesn't make sense.
Every time these topics devolve to this point it begets pointlessness. And yes, I include my own participation. Snide remarks, arguements, counter-arguements, arrogant self-righteousness, none of it can prove anything. Reality is absolute. God - and I use the term to denote all supreme entities which fall under that label - either created man, or man created God. Which is the reality? That burdin of proof does not rest with any but they to whom proof is required. This is a cliche, and a cop-out, but you tell me if I'm wrong. I can not prove to another that God exists. That proof comes from one's personal experience. They will either see the proof of God's hand and presence, or they will not. All any missionary can do is assist others to seek after that proof. I don't know what makes one person more subject to belief than another. Certainly the scriptures and science have attempted to answer this. I have had my claims challenged time and time again by people who simply do not see that proof as I do.; And that's completely fair. After all, their personal experience, in which religion often plays a vial and abhorent role often sways them to deny God's existence as a simple fiction. And in the case where a religious experience or background has left a festering wound on our psychies, why would we not want to rail against it and spare others from enduring similar wounds? In the case of antitheism, angelic visitations and likewise other "signs" and "wonders", couldn't prove it. People will always find an explanation for what they wish to be true, and yes, I'm including myself here too. Who knows? Perhaps athists are right, and the whole of the scriptures are just some abnormally elaborate hoax, a coping mechanism at best, and a means of controlling the masses at worst. But, and you knew this cliche was coming, no naysayer can prove the absense of God, either. Certainly they can reason that God's a jealous murdering tyrant by quoting passages from scripture, but even that proof is subjective, based on one's understanding of context. But to actually prove that God is a man-made creation? It can't be done, anymore than one can prove that God is real. No amount of philisophical fensing, mathmatic riddles, or prayer "experiments" can prove either case. Science can not answer all the questions, neither can faith. No discussion of the big bang theory, or genetics can disprove that something somewhere created everything. The intricacies of everything and how it all functions as a whole is far too vast. Nor is blind faith sufficient to explain the wonders of the universe. We need science to make sense of that which can be explained, but often people, when they here something is scientific, take it as an absolute. Science too though is forever evolving. But while the scientific method and the research are all wonderful and sound, the full picture is still shrowded in mystery. Take for instance the conflicts which arise in science and psychology. I'm not going to say there are as many contradictary messages in science as in the scriptures, but there are certainly a whole huge lot of them. Still, - and I've said this many times - science and spirituality are two sides of the same coin. They're like squabbling siblings; often at odds but still capable of working towards the same end. We each seek to be right, to prove to others our way is the absolute truth. I often wonder why. y strive so hard to one-up the other. perhaps we simply want our way of life, and our beliefs validated. But that validation can only come from within, not from others. There is only one thing which can prove which is the absolute truth, and that is death. When you awaken in whatever state lies beyond, you will come to understand truth. And if nothing lies beyond, then ... well, I suppose that too is a kind of proof. Though if we cease to exist, I suppose we won't have any actual knowledge of it. "Why take the chance?" is a statement most of us, including myself, hate. What reason is that to believe? Should fear be our sole reason to follow God? No! I hate that defense of faith, because it isn't a defense. All any of us can do before our path of life comes to an end is live according to the dictates of our own consciences and experiences. Jesus Christ either is, or he is not what the scriptures say he is. I'm not going to go so far as to say I've gained absolute certainty, but to me, I see the proof in the world. The intricacies of life, the human body and mind, the world on which we dwell all speak to me of organized creation. That raises a very important question. If God's truly real, why does he make his existence such a challenge to prove? Why not reveal himself and have us all live under the pure certainty that we have a clear destination, and a means by which to reach it? I don't have an answer. Maybe another religious person, Christian or otherwise does. Perhaps it is simply because, if he were to prove his existence beyond a shadow of a doubt, the weakest among us, those who would find reasons to disobey his commandments and live below his standards, would be held so much more accountable for their actions when they inevitably fall short. For whom it is granted to know beyond any doubt, much would be required. I'm sure somewhere in the scriptures lies the answer, but I haven't had it revealed to me. It is said in the scriptures, that one who would seek, will find, who will knock, it shall be opened, who shall listen, will hear. When one comes to the lord with "real intent", sincerely believing he shall recieve an answer, he shall recieve. One could take that to mean what I said earlier. If you seek after something, wanting to believe it, believing in it whole-heartedly, the answers you recieve will prove what you want them to prove. Or, it could be for those who truly seek God, they shall truly find him. And to those who only do so half-heartedly, or to disprove him, they will find his face hidden away. I don't come here to prove God's reality. I can't. I come to discuss my beliefs - my "beliefs - how I view God. I don't set out to prove I'm right; I don't have to be right. Certainly I hope I'm right, I feel I'm right, but I'm not out to prove I'm right. Because I can't. Terence, Cody, Greg, Leo, Chelsea, anyone here who invests time and effort to prove their point, we can't. And when we attack each other, and when we squabble, it only serves to demene us, and our credibility.
All praise the mighty mighty mumbleduck. May her feathers ever flutter in our
favor.
BG, I hear ya. Please bear in mind that I, at least, am tolerant of faith itself. I'm not saying that anyone who isn't an atheist is an idiot. At worst, I'm essentially saying "I don't get it, and it logically doesn't make sense". But I don't have to get it. The only time I strenuously object is when some aspect of that faith or belief system hurts other people. When that starts happening, I feel it is almost my duty to speak up and push against it. Until it happens, however, I try and leave well enough alone. I have Christian friends, and I don't badger them, not ever, just because they're Christians.
We'll have to agree to disagree on one big point though.
You say that the burden of proof rests with both sides to validate or invalidate each other. Not as far as I'm concerned. Science has been wrong, it's not perfect, but it's a system of organized, rational thought which seeks greater knowledge and is willing to admit, eventually if not instantly, when it's wrong. It is willing and able to say "we don't know yet" or "we just don't understand". Religion, by contrast, changes little, proves little and is not, by its nature, rational.
We live in a world of laws, rules, concepts that make sense, be they moral, natural, social, etc. It strikes me that in such a world that makes sense, the default position when trying to understand whether there is or is not a god ought to come from rationality. We have hundreds upon hundreds of rational bits and pieces already quite well-established in the world, while religion requires faith. Essentially, I believe that the burden of proof rests largely with religion to prove itself, not in rationality to prove itself. Rationality proves itself every day, without having to try. That's the nature of rational thought in the first place.
Yo, SHEP! GOTTA ask you THIS, though: HOW do you SUPPOSE that you're challenging ME, by REPEATEDLY, through your VERY OWN ADMISSION, with ABSOLUTELY NO HELP, WHATSOEVER, FROM me, of having AS EQUALLY a "feeble little mortal mind" as I do, that's JUST AS FALLIBLE, to LITTERALLY PROOVE GOD'S INFALLIBLE SUPERIORITY against OUR FALLIBLE INFERIORITY, when YOU'VE ALREADY DONE so, YOURSELF? This ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS HILARITY reminds me of the early '70's, when my twin aunts that are younger than me had a "FLIP WILSON" doll, with a PULL-STRING, that with EACH PULL, the late FLIP WILSON, in his OWN VOICE, would have recorded COMEDY messages, and ONE of them was (I'm not sure of the ACTUAL Word-for-word LINE, so in my OWN words): "OH, SHUT UP, before I PUNCH you in the FIST with MY FACE!" ALL of YOUR ATTEMPTS, by using your "MUMBLEDUCK" sarcasm was ONLY ANOTHER SYMBOLIC EXAMPLE of what J-WALKERS across CENTRAL PARK WEST, for instance, are at risk of HAPPENING to THEM, which is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED to YOU, ONCE AGAIN, without EVER INVOLVING MY participation. HOW BRILLIANT!
ANOTHER HILARIOUS EXAMPLE of what the RESULT/RESULTS of FALLIBILITY against INFALLIBILITY is: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126FC84AA7438000.
Terrance...first of all, you have some work to do with your writing style. It's needlessly convoluted, and coming from me, that's saying something. Second, I'm dismissing you out of hand at this point. You failed to answer my challenge; ergo, you're outmatched. Try a different tack.
And BG, I feel I ought to clear something up from my last post, since it got a little confusing. Hopefully this one is better.
We take certain truths to be self-evident pretty much across the board. If you throw something in the air, it's going to fall if it's heavier than air. If you rub two sticks together, they'll heat up and eventually produce sparks and fire via friction. If you inhale water, you will choke and eventually drown if you can't breathe air soon afterword. These are cases that have been proven over and over again. They are the effects of natural laws made manifest. They don't require any faith, and barring a cataclysm, we can expect that they'll go on being true indefinitely.
The world, being made up of rational laws, is essentially a rational place. It doesn't rain scrambled eggs on every nineteenth Wednesday in Denmark; people named Joey don't have hunchbacks by default; you are never, ever at risk of being eviscerated by a newborn squirrel. As such, it would be reasonable to say that you will go through your life mostly adhering to the laws of the world in which you live, largely without even thinking about it. If you do stop to think, however, you will base your observations on logic. The world has been constructed that way.
So okay, here's where my burden-of-proof thing comes in.
A logical world still has many many questions it can't answer, that should go without saying. One of those questions is "how did it all start? Where did it all come from?". And that's a very damned good question.
Logically, we can't say that we know the answer, because that's dishonest. We do not know. We have an idea of what happened, but not exactly why...and past a certain point, we know nothing. It would, therefore, be logical to say that we are ignorant, and further logical to say that we should, insofar as it is possible, continue trying to understand.
Religion, however, sidesteps the logic of the natural world by saying "God did it". It doesn't do this with logic. It does it with faith. And in many ways, organized religion attempts to -counter logical systems which have been proven over and over again. They aren't willing to admit they're wrong, either, even if many within them (like yourself, for instance) are. put another way, no matter who you are, the origin of the known universe is still an unknown...because even if you say "God did it", I can ask "How did he do it?" or, going even a step further, "if something always comes from nothing, then what preceded God?", and religious types are bound and tied just like the rest of us, because there's no suitable provable answer.
So here's what I'm saying:
You have two systems at work. One is rational and has already proven itself time and time again. Another is faith-based, largely irrational, and often asks you to suspend your belief in that aforementioned logical system. Thus, I do not feel the two are truly equal, not in a court of philosophical/logical debate at least. And, by extension, the burden of proof rests with the system which deviates from provable norms.
Or, here's a really different angle, and much much shorter.
Let's say for simplicity's sake that all apples are red, green or yellow. You believe this. A lot of the world believes this.
Then someone comes along and, without any proof, starts telling you that no, apples are in fact blue and purple. It doesn't matter if you've never seen a blue and purple apple. It doesn't matter if no one else has seen one. According to this guy, apples are blue and purple.
And the rational response to such a claim is simply this: "Okay. So prove it."
We don't have to prove that apples are only red, green and yellow. That guy, who is coming to disrupt the logical system in place, has to prove to us that apples are blue and purple.
See the distinction? Religion, in essence, is the claim that apples are blue and purple, uttered by necessity without proof. The burden rests on religion, then, to prove its claims, which run counter to things we know and can demonstrate as true.
I disagree with BG. These are not pointless because those of us with counter responses are communicating with the curious and the questioning, or those who have increasing cognitive dissonance with their formly-solid beliefs.
And Cody, the mighty mumbleduck loves you, and bears you up on her mighty wings, even though you cannot see or feel her. In fact, precisely because you can't see or feel her, you know she's there, proving herself to you by her conspicuous absence otherwise known as a spiritually dry time for testing.
... ... .... except as an engineer I test and prove all the time, and this isn't how we test things at all. And as a father I've never tested my daughter using conspicuous absence as a means.
Okay, fair enough, Greg. You're quite right. Religion is only rational to those who consider it as such. For instance, I'm generally a very fact based person. I rarely take anything I read at face value in the media unless it comes from what I consider a trust-worthy source. And then I usually like to have several sources to draw from to negate any bias or agenda. I generally see both sides of a debate or an arguement, even when I should perhaps by default choose a side. But to me, the idea that there is nothing beyond these few decades of life, the idea that upon death, all consciousness ceases? To me, that is irrational. Unprovable, certainly, but irrational. We take so long to accumulate knowledge, to develop as fully as we can. And then to have it end in blood or sickness or old age? Maybe it all boils down to wishful thinking, a fear of utter oblivion, nay, an absense of even that, but I can't fathom that everything I am, everything I've learned, everything that defines me will wink out. That, to me, is irrational. But I can't prove it. I can tell you stories of my experiences, experiences which guide me to the belief in God. I can give you countless acounts of near-death experiences. I can regail you with fascinating stories of what I would consider miraculous occurrences, some I have only read about, and others I or those close to me have experienced first hand. But none of that is proof. Much of it can even be explained away using a little science and some convincing arguements. But just because something has a scientific explanation doesn't mean it may not have a spiritual component to it. And that seems to be the assumption, that science, provable, logical science fully strips away anything spiritual. Leo, Greg, you are right that it is up to we religious types to prove to you that God exists. But until God does or doesn't choose to manifest himself until the world as a whole - and we Christians do believe that day will come, though, conveniently, we haven't more than a vague clue about when - there can be no ultimate proof. Given that free will will still exist, and given my knowledge of the scriptures and human skeptisism, I'm of the personal belief that there would be some even then who would try to explain God away. Only God can manifest the truth of his existence unto us, and then only if we seek him., and do so diligently, with real intent, a broken heart and a contrite spirit. That sounds like religious preacher nonsense, and I get that. And it begs the question too, why do so many people of so many differing faiths - some of which are, beyond a shadow of a doubt wholely man-made - come to the same conclusion that I have about my own God? Why, under the right circumstances, could there actually be people who could get it into their heads that the great mumbleduck could be a reality? It's a far fetched fiction perhaps, but there have probably been people who have worshiped less. So, is it all just psychology? A hope of the beyond mixed with a need to believe in something, anything, that could help us make sense of the world around us? And to that fabulous question, I have no answer, save perhaps the unconvincing notion that, as there is a third of the host of heaven who fell with luciver to become demons, and as Luciver is the father of crafty deceit, he strives to make many things seem real and godly, in order to lead others away from God himself. And since people will believe things without much forethought, either out of fear or hope, it could be possible. But maybe that's all convenient bollucks. of one thing I know for sure. There are many in this world who profess to speak for God, or to know God, or to act in his name who either in error or on purpose live and act in direct opposition to the teachings of his son. These are the ones who turn away the sick and the needy, who drive their sons and daughters from their homes, or abuse them. These are they of the spanish inquisition, residential schools and other travesties that should never have happened. These are the people who revel in slaughter, and all manner of boundless iniquity. And these are they who drive others away from God, and it is no wonder. Who would want to follow a God whose people act in such vile manner? With people like that, it's no wonder that there are those who will villify the entirety for the acts of the few.
Leo, when I said all of this was pointless, I didn't mean the debates so much as the little jabs and insults that inevitably surface on both sides. There is a lot to be said for civil discussion, and there are times where it begins to slip. Like you, I participate on boards like this in the hopes that I might make people lurking in the shadows to consider an alternate viewpoint. But it becomes tiresome in a hurry to when it inevitably turns into an is or is not.
BG, thanks for some fresh air on this. You're right, jabs unfortunately do occur even with the best of us after awhile of tiresome back-and-forth that doesn't go anywhere. I'm as guilty as the next person in line.
I'm one of those atheists who accepts that there's a lot we just don't know. I don't pretend that science knows everything. I'm also the sort of person who adjusts my worldview when things change...so if some sort of divine presence proved itself in some demonstrable way to me, I might argue and attempt to validate that proof - as I would for anything else - but if I couldn't do that, then I would be forced to rethink, and I'd do so without rancour. I don't think I'm wrong about God, but I might be, and if it turns out that I am, I'll accept that. I've been wrong before. I'm going to be wrong again. That's the nature of existence, really, when you aren't perfect.
It would be nice to believe that our relatively short lives mean something to us after we die...that we get to go on to someplace new or, at the very least, it would be nice to think we don't just...end. Mortality is very difficult to grasp. Who among the living knows exactly how it will feel in the second they die, after all?
But personally, I think that any structured belief in what happens after death is irrational, for that very reason. We can't know.
I think any belief in an afterlife at this point is at least a little fanciful. I don't outright discount the idea of some sort of soul or personal energy greater than the sum of our biological makeup, nor the existence of things like ghosts; I've never seen one, but heaven knoows the accounts are widespread enough that tens of millions of people can't be -entirely wrong. I'm basically withholding any sort of judgment, with the understanding that the burden of proof rests on the unlikely. Until that proof appears, I remain a skeptic.
You say that you, personally, believe it's irrational to think that we just...end. I'm not quite sure why this would be. Senseless termination is a part of the natural world. Lightning strikes a tree, starts a forest fire, and thousands of creatures die. A drunk driver hits a five-year-old with his pickup and crushes her to pulp. A puppy gets caught in a bear-trap and dies from blood loss and shock when his rear leg is nearly amputated. All senseless deaths. Not every creature dies a peaceful death of old age, and many deaths are violent, painful and very, very premature.
and my point here is that if a life being snuffed out so casually happens so commonly, if tragedy happens with such frequency and apparently without cause, to maim and wound those left behind (as well as some of those victims who don't happen to die)...well, if that sort of senselessness is woven into existence, then what stops death itself from being senseless, an abrupt end to life and nothing more? Working from a supposedlyl rational base, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to say "the way you die, or the happenstance of your death, can be senseless, but your death itself is not an end". I personally think people are so flummoxed by death, by contemplating it and coming up with nothing provable, that they've invented ideas, rules and rewards for living according to a set of goals and precepts that seem at least theoretically attainable. That way, even if they end up being wrong, they won't know it until that very final, terminal moment where everything just...ends.
Slight correction BG, what you described is not irrationality, its just
unfathomability. You can't fathom it, and you're using it to call it irrational.
That's not what the word rational means. I can't picture what the gold in fort
knox looks like. I can't imagine that much gold in once place, what does it look
like, does it have a smell? I don't know, I can't imagine it. That makes it
unfathomable, it doesn't make it irrational.
Religion is irrational because it breaks the laws of physics. Donkeys don't talk,
nor do snakes. Jewish carpenters do not, by the laws of our world, come back
from the dead. But in religion, that can happen. Now, the way to make religion
rational again, is to prove that God does exist and all those things happened.
Then we would amend the laws of our world to include acts of god. Until then,
religion is, by definition irrational. Not because I don't like it, or because I
disagree with it, or because I find it incredibly stupid, which I do, but simply
because it breaks the laws of rationality.
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"
"Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ukOTW-pxuL0?rel=0
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.
Recommended Resources: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek and Logos Bible Software."
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Is there a God?"
"Answer: Is there a God? This is among the most fundamental questions asked by mankind. For the majority of human history, the overwhelming answer to this question has been, “yes,” though there have been strong disagreements about what kind of god, God, or gods exist. Certainly, here at GotQuestions.org, we would argue that God exists and that there is plenty of evidence for the fact.
The Bible says there is a God, that nature demonstrates a Creator (Psalm 19:1), and that God reveals enough of Himself in the world for people to know of Him (Romans 1:20). The early Christian church was founded on the use of eyewitnesses, evidence, and good reasoning (Luke 1:1–2; 2 Peter 1:16; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 14:20). Even Jesus Himself appealed to evidence when defending His claims (John 5:31–47).
Beyond the Bible, we also have the support of archaeology, science, history, literature, and human experience that there is a God. Naturally, some point to evidence from those fields to attack the idea of God’s existence. And yet the balance of human experience, science, and philosophy seems to indicate that there is a God. Much of what we assume as part of daily life, including reason, morality, and human rights, are nonsensical unless God exists.
There are ample reasons to believe in God; the real question is whether or not a person is open to this evidence. Geniuses of history have been believers, and geniuses of history have been atheists. There is more to the question “is there a God?” than purely intellectual concerns. Ultimately, how a person attempts to answer the question “is there a God?” strongly reflects the answer he or she prefers. There are reasonable and unreasonable approaches, open-minded and closed-minded ways to look at the same information. If a person is committed to rejecting God, evidence and reason aren’t going to make much difference. Of course, this is also true for those who believe in God and wouldn’t disbelieve under any circumstances.
Historical, scientific, and personal evidence are meaningless to the person with a deliberate intent to disbelieve. Yet most people don’t want to seem unreasonable, so those who refuse to believe often insert other objections. This results in the common error of demanding direct, miraculous, personal revelation. This is the “if God would show me a miracle, I would believe” approach. Or the “if God would write John 3:16 on the moon” approach. Jesus warned against such unbelief in Matthew 12:39, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign!”
Imagine a person refusing to believe in Abraham Lincoln unless Lincoln posted a YouTube video calling them by name. Or a girl refusing to believe that someone loves her, despite letters, gifts, and conversations to that effect; what she demands is that the person burn her house down to prove his love. Those aren’t reasonable requests, and the person making them is really saying, “I don’t want to believe that.” Such people aren’t going believe the mundane evidence, so they’re just as liable to reject the miraculous evidence (see Luke 16:31).
Those unsure about whether or not God exists are encouraged to seek Him (Matthew 7:7), examine the evidence (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21), and be open-minded. Christianity has nothing to fear from the truth (John 10:10), and we have ample reasons to be confident in our answer to the question “is there a God?”
Recommended Resources: Is There a God? by Richard Swinburne and Logos Bible Software."
In OTHER words, Shepherdwolf, the VERY WORTH VALUE of YOUR CHALLENGE ONLY PROOVED as the PERFECT DEMONSTRATIVE EXAMPLE of WHAT HAPPENS to you, should you decide to have the "BRIGHT IDEA" to go onto the BATTLEFIELD to FIGHT with either SOLIDLY WIMPY WEAPONRY, or ABSOLUTELY NO ARMOR, at ALL.
Except...that doesn't work. It didn't work the last time you tried, and it doesn't now. And the fact that this article you copied and pasted attempts to use rhetoric and fails at it...well, that's even more demonstrative.
First it says that God cannot be proved. then it tries to use no less than four different arguments to prove god. This, my friends, is called a fallacy. It's also highly dubious.
If in one breath you say "god can't be proven", and in the next few breaths attempt to use logic to justify God, you're undermining your first point, because no matter how hard you try, God cannot be proven to exist.
And the "you only argue because you know we're right" silliness is just a sad try at justifying something that doesn't hold otherwise.
I'll give a little credit where it's due, however. This article does highlight some tough questions. It misrepresents them, that's all.
For instance:
The sheer unlikelihood of life coming into being is pretty damn staggering. It's not impossible, but it's very, very statistically slim. That's logical. But it's -illogical to finish up with "therefore God". That constitutes a leap.
The sheer number of people who believe in some sort of afterlife or religion argues that the religion must be right.
Wrong. The sheer number of people who believed the earth was flat were all, every one of them, proven wrong. Numbers do not make a good argument.
What hasn't been considered here is that humankind is sentient to the point of almost being crippled by it. We are a race that is intelligent enough to ask questions and terrified by lack of answers, especially where our end is concerned. Animals don't have this fear, mostly, but people do, because they can't understand mortality (see my previous post on the subject).
So this argument misrepresents the facts. We're not largely focused on religion because religion is valid; we're largely focused on religion - which is essentially a manmade construct, by the way - because as a species we can't bear not knowing. The argument fails to acknowledge this, and is soundly demolished as a result.
Most people know right from wrong, and know how to treat one another. ...Therefore God?
Wrong again. Most people know right from wrong because of both intelligence and sociology. We know that if we treat others badly, we are likely to be treated badly. We know that doing well by someone might make them happy or pleased with us, might help them live longer, might make their life better. Since we want those things for ourselves, it makes logical sense to do those things for others if we can. This speaks nothing whatsoever of religion, and especially nothing of the Christian God. in fact, rather than saying that God's morals were passed to people, I'd say people injected their morals into the Bible. Let us remember that the Bible has only been in existence for fewer than two thousand years, and people have been committing morals acts for tens of thousands of years before this. I suppose you could say that man has been consciously following God's plan for all that time, but again...where's the proof?
The argument is busted for lack of evidence. It makes a claim, then makes a leap to satisfy that claim.
This is the problem with religious arguments. Every one of them requires a leap. And if your article had stopped when it said that God cannot be proven, it would've had a point. But it had to try thereafter to prove God, and thus it neatly undid itself.
Shepherdwolf, WITHOUT FAIL, AS ALWAYS, you COMPLETELY RUINED YOURSELF again: although PART of the OPENING LINE of the FIRST ARTICLE DID read: "GOD CANNOT be PROOVED," the LAST part that YOU CONVENIENTLY, much to your OWN discredit, ignored, ALSO read: "or DISPROOVED." As I PREVIOUSLY told you: "the VERY WORTH VALUE of YOUR CHALLENGE ONLY PROOVED as the PERFECT DEMONSTRATIVE EXAMPLE of WHAT HAPPENS to you, should you decide to have the "BRIGHT IDEA" to go onto the BATTLEFIELD to FIGHT with either SOLIDLY WIMPY WEAPONRY, or ABSOLUTELY NO ARMOR, at ALL."
I respect Christians like the Wife and Daughter who admit they can't prove their religion to me, and talk about experiences.
The problem with evangelical apologists is, they want to talk as though they were being rational, only to retreat to the realm of faith as soon as their argument doesn't square up. You can't do that and remain credible.
If someone asks me a question about something in my field, I don't have the right to answer and then when they present a rational argument, retreat into some nebulous talk that doesn't make sense.
People like Craig start off very rational and come to some sort of deistic conclusion, only to immediately leap into a western Americentric evangelical god concept with no obvious pathway from deism to this god concept.
At least C. S. Lewis, a specialist in ancient English literature and mythology, had an excuse and rarely if ever really resorted to the hard sciences. He was humanities through and through, and most of us in the hard sciences tend to give humanities people the proverbial hall pass when it comes to rational proofs.
It's not the religion peddling I object to so much as the misuse of attempted proofs and rational arguments.
Interestingly enough, Karen Strong, a former nun, argues that this attempted blend of faith and rationality has done more damage than good to faith itself. It's hard to tell if she sees that as a good or a bad thing, as she's still got some sort of spirituality.
I have the same problems with evangelical apologists that I do with many in the soft so-called sciences.
Terrence, I actually liked these two last articles, though I have to agree with Greg. They don't prove. They don't give evidence. What they do is present arguements. Whether those arguements seem credible depends on one's experience, willingness and disposition. They do quote some profound biblical verses which pertain to the issue at hand. What is certainly true are the paragraphs which start "There are ample reasons to believe in god," and "Historical, scientific and personal evidence...". This article states it with more in-depth language than I, but it essentially says the same thing. If we get it into our head to believe, or disbelieve, then we will do so regardless of any supposed evidence or rational arguement. Personally I think there is almost always a personal and psychological reason for this. I will say though that it's fascinating to behold for one's self some of the locations and little landmarks mentioned in the bible. Not proof or evidence but certainly quite fascinating.
Rationalists don't like the F word, and no wonder. it flies in the face of both their experience, and rationality, appealing only to those who have experienced the blessings *pauses for the eyeroll* that excersizing it brings. That's what people who have not experienced it can't fathom. For people who have actually experienced god in some tangible way, whatever way that might be, that is "evidence" and "proof" enough to at least build a foundation. But that's a tall order for anyone who has never had that experience. People who have not find a multitude of biological, circumstantial and scientific explanations to explain things. Maybe they're even right. But to those of us who have truly experienced that sort of thing, it's hard to go back to skeptisism afterwards.
A little off topic, but since it was brought up in passing, I will say that while the bible as it exists today - and in far, far too many iderations I'd say - is much less than two thousand years old, the scriptures and writings within have actually been around for much longer. Who wrote each book, when, How much has been changed and how much has been lost though is up for a whole other discussion.
Greg, the structure of belief in the mortal beyond may be unprovable. Certainly I can't think of any "solid" evidence in its favor. But as you say, there's a lot - and I do mean a lot - of claims, both about those who have seen and sensed the supernatural or the departed, - of which I am one - or of those who have believed they experienced near death. There's deviation in these accounts, but there's a lot of consistancy too. So while that may not be proof, I'm not so sure it's all that irrational to question a complete cessation of our being beyond this life either. Though as Cody so graciously pointed out, I may not have a full grasp on what "rational" actually means. You are right about something else though. There is a great deal of "senseless" death. I don't know how senseless it is, because I don't see the big eternal picture. But it is undeniably tragic much of the time. Death is almost never a happy occasion. it might be a relief at times, but most likely not happy. And thus it could be that we just make up this stuff as a way to cope with our inevitable end, because self preservation is hard coded into our DNA. But if we want to talk evidence, I'd say there's more "evidence" - notice the quotes here - pointing to the possibility than not. Of course by default, there can't really be evidence to the contrary, since if death is the end of our being, there really is no way to prove it.
Just a side-note to a previous objection:
Yes, I did leave out the fact that there's no way to disprove God. This is because I'm actually not seeking to disprove. I don't have to.
If it can't be proven, then I will have trouble embracing it. It might actually be right, or partially right at any rate, and if there ever comes more evidence that works for me, I'll hear it. I'm not set on denying God. I'm set on being rational. The two need not be the same.
The questions raised by the articles most recently pasted are good ones. I think the article would have been far better served to bring up the questions, and then either to leave it in the hands of the reader, or to attack from both a theological and a scientific viewpoint.
Example, which I'll paraphrase and shorten to make my point more speedily:
This is a wonderful, vibrant, complex world we live in. There are many aspects of it we cannot understand yet, and many more at which we grasp. How can such a detailed world exist, given the supreme statistical unlikelihood of it coming to pass in the first place?
From a theological standpoint, it's obvious that some sort of divine hand formed, or at least guided, the world into what it is now.
On the other hand, the enormity of the odds being beaten has a different look scientifically. The universe is enormous, possessed of billions of planets and stars. We can only see an infinitessimal part of that universe, so it's presumptuous to say that we're beating the odds when there might be pockets of life out there which are as ignorant of us as we are of them. Put another way, our success only looks incredible because it happened to us, because we're observing it firsthand.
Regardless of your viewpoint, the fact remains that there is no solid answer for the origin of creation and the universe. Theories, beliefs and guesses abound on all sides.
An article which did something like that wouldn't offend me in the slightest, even if it played up the generally theistic angle a bit more.
I think one of the reasons I find myself coming back to this again and again is conceit. Conceit, conscious or unconscious, is something I try to avoid, and it's something I abhore in others.
If you believe that there must have been some sort of divinity at work on the universe because of how perfect our world is for us, that's fine. When you say that it had to be your specific god, but really can't bring up reasons as to why, I feel this is arrrogant and self-serving. It oes from "therefore, god" to "therefore, my god", and the second leap is even bigger than the first. On the more rational side of the fence, the same attack falls short, because you never have people saying "therefore, my science" in quite the same zealous way. Science doesn't feel the need to separate itself into groups which prey upon one another and damn one another. It might wrestle, but that's as far as it goes. And when facts prove that one side has won, in whatever arena currently the venue, the defeated viewpoint concedes and regroups in order to learn more.
Greg, that's interesting that you bring up conceit. In a way we all do it. Even theism versus atheism is a kind of conceit. perhaps it's as simple as thinking we are or wanting to be right. It's a form of validation. I can't speak for others, but generally, when I speak of god in discussions of whether he exists, I do so in that general, all-encumpassing manner, meaning that supreme force responsible for creating, governing and maintaining the universe. When speaking of my religion is usually when I speak of the Christian God. I tend to gravitate towards him because it is he of which I am most familiar. What raises Elohim and Jesus Christ above other gods is a question I do not feel qualified to answer. To me, God is an eternal principle, a supreme governing, creating force. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all hail from the same origin. All three have similar beliefs, even aspects of the same creation story. Christianity is just an evolution of what we consider judaism, as Christians believe the Messiah has come in the form of Jesus Christ, who fullfilled the laws of the old testament and gave us the "higher laws". Not to mention atoning for our sins and providing a way back to God. The many sacrificial rites performed in the old testament were done away with because Christ is the ultimate sacrifice. I don't know enough about Islam to explain its deviations or even beliefs, but I do know that while Christians believe Isac was Abraham's first son, Islam believe it was in fact Ishmael. I think it is at that point where the two began to diverge. That sort of thing happens a lot in religion. Maybe it was Lucifer cunningly making Mohamed think he was talking to God, maybe God did try to be in contact with Mohamed and he misinterpreted what he heard, or maybe Mohamed got it right and Christians are wrong. Or maybe it's all some huuuuge elaborate, multi-layered hoax. As for things like Zoroastreanism, the multitudes of religions that fall under the "pagan" label, elaborate roman and greek pantheons, and the eastern Shinto and Budhist and Hindu practices being the truth ... that's a fantastic question. I've learned enough about all of these to find them all incredibly fascinating, and personally I think they all have aspects of God's truth within them. I will harken back to the convincing deceptions of Lucifer, or perhaps simply that beliefs and stories learned of and passed on from culture to culture have a way of metamorphing into things much different than their origin. For me, Christianity, and by way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, stands supreme because of Jesus Christ, what he represents, what he has done. This religion resonates deep within me in a way no other religion ever has. I can't tell you why, except that to me, the idea of Jesus Christ, the multitudes of life in the universe - or maybe omniverse? - pre-existence, the degrees of afterlife, everything about God and our existence and place in the grand scheme of things, and my divine potential just seems to make sense. The idea of eternal marriage certainly doesn't hurt either. If it's all real, It renders death powerless, gives me a sense of purpose and explains a great many things about the nature of human existence. If it's all wrong, then either it won't matter in the end because I'll cease to exist and thus won't know, or because one's religion won't determine anything. Or, if a diferent religion ends up being the case, my mind and heart will hopefully be in the right enough place that it won't matter. But to me, it feels right. Yep, another F word everyone hates. It Feels right on some subliminal level I can't explain, and it keeps me focused on living a peaceful, kind and fulfilling life. Simply put, wrong or not, joining the church has made me a better person. Now, that isn't to say Idon't have questions, for that matter, that I don't question. But like I said many times, rarely has study and pondering not led me to an answer with which I can make peace.
I say all this, not to prove anything - because I never could, or to change your mind - because your mind isn't mine to change, but to explain to you why I do it, and why I believe Jesus Christ and what he stands for stands apart from other religions and is the one I chose. I don't need anyone, especially Cody or Terrence who seem to be so bent on it, to give me reasons wy my church is wrong or stupid. And yes, I realize that, from a rational, analitical perspective, this probably won't make either much of an impression, or much logical sense. That's the thing about God, logic is in the eye of the beholder. And I don't think, if you seek only after logic and scientific evidence, you can find God. That's the bugger of it all.
I'd love to hear other people's rational for their beliefs. We all believe something different. Perhaps instead of trying to one up one another, we could all explain what and why we believe. I'd especially like to hear from people of other faiths who might be lingering in the shadows. It's really not hard to find common ground if we seek to do so.
See, I am totally down with the way you feel right up till you start mentioning Lucifer's whispers as a potential but very real possibility of why your religion is right...or how others might be wrong, more accurately. Such trapdoors are built into the big three religions to assure their adherents stick to them and push them above all else. You don't push, but you still suggest that it's a possibility. This has always, always bugged me about organized religion. If it's really about feelings which resonate deeply for you personally, if it's really about feeling like you yourself are a better person, then why worry about everyone else? Either they'll find some way of their own to reach that feeling, or they won't. Surely that's their concern?
That aside, however, I'm not rational to the exclusion of everything. I'm just rational to the extent that I'm willing to take "I don't know for an answer", and to a point where, if an irrational answer or action hurts someone, I'm going to speak up against it (thus my speaking up against the treatment of homosexuals, which hits aslant at this topic's original thrust).
I understand that rationality, Greg. I'm much the same. Only difference is I've taken another path - I do believe. I've been where you are though. Not meaning that I'm above, or more experienced, or better than you. Far from it. I don't generally worry about other people. I'm not persuasive. I'm not good at dispensing advice, religious or otherwise, or really even getting people to see my point of view. I used to try, and it just got tiresome for me, and whoever was on the recieving end. As for lucifer, that was only a potential possibility based on my understanding of how he operates - if he does. It isn't my intention to put other religions down. Indeed, others could claim the same with me, considering the differences between my own, and other Christian churches. heck, Terrence, using his own sources, has claimed that very thing, as well as others. But it stands to reason that if the Christian God is real, like I personaly think he is, then so to is Lucifer, considering how deeply he is woven into the scriptures. And to that end, it would be just like him to mislead those wishing to believe. Doesn't mean that's what happened in the cases I mentioned above, which is why I'd love some other oppinions from people of other faiths. But the thing with Lucifer is he hides truth in every lie. Else he would not be so persuasive.
It’s interesting to me how this topic has evolved rather than devolved, unlike some other topics here on these boards. By that, I mean that it’s interesting how it has actually resulted in an extremely interesting debate all on its own despite the OP, and I think some really interesting and good philosophical points have been raised by both sides lately without any of us even having to consider the OP and/or whatever he believes. Quite honestly, speaking of fathomable versus unfathomable, I honestly don’t really understand him most of the time, and I don’t think he’s trying to make himself overly accessible. If he’s attempting to persuade one way or the other, he’s missed the mark. I make it a point to skip over everything he has to say and I won’t even condescend to push the ignore button because there are others with whom I can find common ground. I understand what they have to say, and to a greater or lesser extent, I think they can understand me.
As for theism versus atheism, which admittedly is a bit ffar afield from the original thrust of this topic, I think it’s clear we ultimately have to find our own paths in this whole debate. I confess I lean more toward the spiritual because to me, stark atheism, to use a term out of the days of yore, really kinda messes up my mind. Because I go back down the same path I frequently traverse lately, especially considering the troubles that afflict this world right now today. If this is all there is, then what’s the point? I’m gunna go constantly old-school music in parts of this, but what’s it all about, Alphie? Of course, Peggy Lee said it in an old song: If that’s all there is, then that’s all there is, so let’s keep dancing. But regardless, the questions remain. What is it really all about, Alphie? Is it Christianity? I dunno. Is it reincarnation? I dunno. Is it ultimately a combination of both? Dunno that either. Is it that we’re born, we live, we fuck and procreate (or not) and die, and then there’s nothing? Dunno. All at this point are possible without any real definitive proof. I honestly hope there’s something more after this. But again, I dunno. My faith, to whatever extent I can possess it in these unhappy mmixed-up times, is that there probably is something more. But I don’t know whether I’m whistling past the graveyard or whether the priests, rabbis or mullahs are right after all. And none of us really knows definitively. At this point, religion can’t explain everything, but neither can science. I call it a draw because while science has explained a lot of the hows for things happening the way they do, the trump card, perhaps, that faith can play is that science cannot at present explain why. For that matter, science can only go so far, at this time, in explaining all the hows. Near death experiences? Science can only explain them theoretically, and it seems to me that faith has the winning hand, at least up to this point. What troubles me about stark atheism is the thing that others have alluded to in the past on this topic. There is so mmuch senseless death, and there is still a lot of misery in this world. Why? My mind cannot fathom why some human beings have to be so hateful toward their own kind. War is such a waste of resources, treasure and blood, and yet it still seems necessary if we are to protect ourselves from harm by those who would wage it in the first instance. I wish I could be a pacifist, and yet I am not that big a fool. I can’t afford to be if myself and mine are at risk. But I grow weary of it. Little children, helpless old people, people minding their own business are killed for no apparent purpose, and for what? My mmind, my heart, my soul rages at the injustices we commit against each other. My mind, my heart, my soul demands justice and sometimes revenge. My deepest inner core proclaims that there must be a reason. Is this a conceit of the human species? Would it have been better for us not to have been born with the capacity to love and be loved, but just to have the same mental capacity as your slightly above-average fish? I have to say in all honesty, I sometimes wonder. Your slightly above-average fish hasn’t perpetrated nearly as mmuch damage, injustice and hurt on the world as some of the supposedly smartest human beings have. If we’re born, we live and we die and there’s nothing afterwards, then what is the ultimate point? Why continue the species? If you can definitely and indisputedly prove to me that this is all there is and there ain’t no more, then why bring another generation into this world? It seems a cruel, useless thing to do, really. Especially when some are mmurdered at an early age, some die of cancer, some are killed in wars, car accidents, commit suicide or what have you. If you’re talking about the irrational versus the rational, then my mind says that if this is all there is and that’s all there is, then it’s irrational to continue to procreate because there really is no hope. And I think that’s another ttrump card that faith has that strict materialism doesn’t have. Materialism says that this is it. Nothing else exists. Faith, whether it’s Judaism, Christianity, Islam or a whole host of other religions that either don’t exist or have not yet come into being, always holds out the hope of something better. Which is rational and which is irrational? What is fathomable and what is not? We can’t currently answer this question. Believe it or not, I think it takes a degree of faith to proclaim that faith is useless. And so, I guess the rational part of my being says that there has to be something more, else none of this makes any sense. Right now, that’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
From www.letusreason.org: "Why the Mormon Church is not the TRUE church Jesus Christ started?
"Robert Millet is part of the Church Public Affairs (Manager of Outreach and Interfaith Relations)
Millet is the Mormon churches spokesman to try and make peace with Christians, he currently does public tours called dialogues between an Evangelical and Mormon. Millet states, “much of the misunderstanding in modern Christendom stems from a “vocabulary issue” -- the need to educate ourselves as to what our friends mean.” I agree, the meaning of what is said can be different than the words. The meaning can also be more important then the words said. We will consider the LDS church own words and statements; the meaning becomes obvious.
In this article the main differences between true Christianity and what the religion of Mormonism proposes as the truth will be laid out for anyone to understand. The choice of which is true will be their own.
I want to make it clear for both Mormons and Christians how divided we are on the essentials of the Christian faith, that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. My intent is not to make Mormons angry (it may be unavoidable) but to have them understand the basic differences and why we do not accept their religion as authentic Christianity. I will only quote from their officials; their president’s, prophet's and apostles.
We will concentrate on only three things: 1) The nature of God. 2) Jesus Christ, and 3) the way of Salvation. With their own quotes next to the Bible and the explanations of the text it will be proven they have a very different message than the Christian church does from the Bible. A message that is not compatible at all with Jesus Christ, nor with the apostles.
1) The Nature of God
Mormons teach there are many Gods and that man himself can become a god. Mormon teaching- “Question- Are there more Gods than one? Answer- Yes, many. 1 Cor 8:5” (Catechism, by Elder John Jaques, chapter 4, page 13.)
The Bible teaches there is only ONE true God who eternally exists before anything was made and that all other gods are false.
MORMONISM -“You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you” (Founder and Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith, The Journal of Discourses, Vol. VI, page 4)
Their own prophet taught that men who are created by God can become God. Of course their concept of God is not the same as the bible because the Bible teaches God always existed as God, does not change, so no creature created by him can become Him.
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens ( Founder and Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844, The Journal of Discourses, Vol. VI, page 3
“...He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did...” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305-306).
The Bible- “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man (Romans 1:22-23)
They are teaching that God was a man “as we are now” and then achieved his exalted rank. So God the Father was not always the Father, but became the Father (see John 17)
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. (Second President and Prophet Brigham Young, April 9, 1852, recorded in The Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50).
“As man is, god once was; as God is, man may become.”(Lorenzo Snow the fifth President of the Church, LDS Church News, Jan. 16, 1983, p. 14)
“In the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state” (TheSeer, by Apostle Orson Pratt, Vol. 1, March 1853, No. 3, page 37)
“The Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (“Book of Abraham,”4:1, in The Pearl of Great Price, by the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 38.
“The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world.”
“I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of deity, it has been on the plurality of Gods…the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine.” (founder J. Smith History of the church Vol.6 pp.308,474)
The founder Smith was so convinced of his Godhood that he declared “My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will TAKE HIS PLACE, and thereby become EXALTED MYSELF.” (LDS “Founder” and “Prophet”Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 4, 1844, emphasis added)
“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it” (sermon by Founder and Prophet Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844, recorded in The Journal of Discourses, Vol. VI, page 5)
Joseph Smith said “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man.” “…I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form- like yourselves, in all the person, image and very form as a man…” (founder Joseph Smith history of the Church vol.6 p.305 also teachings of the prophet J.Smith p.345)
“It [Mormonism] is the only system of religion known in heaven or on earth that can EXALT A MAN TO THE GODHEAD, and this it will do to all those who embrace its laws and faithfully observe its precepts.” (LDS “Prophet” and second president Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 251, 1863)
Spencer W. Kimball, the twelfth president of the church stated: “Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. 1 suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. 1 think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000” (The Ensign, p. 80, Nov. 1975).
Brigham Young the second president of the church, “How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were no Gods and worlds…”(Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, vol. 7 p.333).
What Mormon can believe in only one God? If they did, they would go against their founder, the prophets, presidents, apostles and all the teachings in their church.They would not have the testimony of their founder Joseph Smith being a prophet.
The Bible- Isaiah 44:6“Beside Me there is no God”
Psalm 90:2 “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God”
Deuteronomy 33:27“The eternal God”
Deuteronomy 6:4“our God is one LORD”
Deuteronomy 4:35,39“Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. v.39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.”
Isaiah 44:6, 8“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
Isaiah 45:5 “Iam the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside Me”
Isaiah 45:18 “For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is no other.”
Isaiah 45:21“and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.
God says that he alone is God, not just over this world but in all things He alone created. He is the Eternal One (“I AM”, Exodus 3:14). No one could or ever will be able to become deity or God.
Psalm 86:10“For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.
I Chronicles 17:26 “Thou alone art God”
2 Samuel 7:22 “O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee”
1 Kings 8:60“the LORD is God, and that there is none else.
ISAIAH 46:9“For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.”
This means that none become God like the gods before them
John 17:3“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”
1 Timothy 2:5“ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
2) Jesus
This brings us to the next Mormon distinctive that differs from orthodox Christianity – the Jesus of Mormonism. Mormon theology widely differs from Christianity on this subject, they teach that a “Heavenly Father” and “Heavenly Mother” begat spirits, Jesus was born in heaven with many other spirit brothers-including Lucifer. The Bible does not teach of a mother (or Father and son as a family) but the Mormon church does.
“This doctrine that there is a Mother in Heaven wasaffirmed in plainness by the First Presidency of theChurch (MormonDoctrine, Apostle McConkie 1979, page 516)
Milton R. Hunter, who served in the First Council of the Seventy, confirms: “The stupendous truth of the existence of a Heavenly Mother, as well as a Heavenly Father, became established facts in Mormon theology” (The Gospel Through the Ages, 1958, p.98).
Their own president should settle the matter-Hinckley was asked on a prime-time Australian TV broadcast if his church taught that God the Father has a wife, he replied, “I don't know, but I suppose so. As we have a Father I assume we have a mother.” Pressed by interviewer David Ransom, Hinckley acknowledged: “Yes. Well we...Yes, we have a mother in heaven” (From a transcript of the 9 November 1997 Compass TV program, Australian Broadcast Company president Hinckley)
“In the pre-mortal spirit life Jesus, Lucifer, and all of us were the spirit children of God and His wives” (Gospel Through the Ages, pp. 15, 93-99; Journal of Discourses, Vol. XI, p. 122). Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote, “The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129.) This agrees with Joseph F. Smith, sixth president of the LDS Church, “Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors” (Gospel Doctrine, p. 70).
According to Joseph F. Smith, sixth president of the LDS Church, “Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors,” (Gospel Doctrine, p. 70). Joseph F. Smith, Jr., made this plain in his book,: “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit”(Religious Truths Defined, page 44)
In the book of Mormon, Alma 7:10 Jesus was born at Jerusalem. In Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4 the Bible states it was Bethlehem. The Mormon’s argument is that “Jerusalem” refers to the general vicinity, but in I Nephi 1:3 it is called a “city.” Bethlehem and Jerusalem are two different cities according to the Bible. So they have a Jesus also born in a different city.
Doctrine and Covenants 93:21-23 teaches that, “Christ, the Firstborn, was the mightiest of all the spirit children of the Father.” Joseph F. Smith the sixth prophet of the LDS Church said this of Jesus, “Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors,” (Gospel Doctrine, p. 70).
The Mormons Jesus is created, the Bibles Jesus is the creator. Jesus cannot be both created and non- created, the brother of the devil and the creator of the Devil. He is either one or the other.
The Bible- Tells all those from the time of Jesus onward to our day who Jesus ACTUALLY is- 1 Timothy 3:16 tells us “God was manifested in the flesh.” This goes along with various other passages such as Romans 9:5“According to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen
In Hebrews 1:10 The Father speaking of the Son, “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands... and they shall be changed: but thou art the same” (quoting Psalm 102:25).
John 1:3“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
Colossians 1:16-17 “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth,
Revelation 1:7-8“Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
In conclusion on this topic. What kind of God became flesh? For the Mormons- none. Jesus is an angel that became a man, and was exalted to become a God.
The Bible- “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines.”(Hebrews 13:8-9)
The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible. They cannot be both created and non- created.
3) The Gospel
Now we come the most important part of this article. I’m speaking the truth in love, there is nothing more that I would desire than to see Mormons understand the gospel that is the Bible.
Galatians 1:8-9: ”But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”
Paul states in 2 Corinthians11:3-4 “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus (that’s what Mormons have) whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit (that’s what Mormons have) which you have not received, or a different gospel (that’s what Mormons have) which you have not accepted-- you may well put up with it!”
Mormonism
“The Sectarian Dogma of justification by Faith alone has exercised an influence for evil since the early days of Christianity” (The Articles of Faith, by Apostle James E. Talmage, 1899 edition, page 120. In his 1925 edition of The Articles of Faith, on page 479, he calls “justification by faith alone” “this pernicious doctrine.”)
“As with the proposal of Lucifer in the preexistence to save all mankind, so with the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, without works, as it is taught in modern Christendom -- both concepts are false. There is no salvation in either of them. They both come from the same source; they are not of God” (What Think Ye of Salvation by Grace p. 49; Robert Millet, p. 73)
Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth prophet, explained “Our Eternal Father would have every soul saved if that were feasible. Salvation, however, is based on merit and obedience to divine law and therefore is only obtained through compliance with divine commandments” (Nov. 1965, p. 962).
George Q. Cannonspeaking of Joseph Smith“If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him, if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him” (George Q. Cannon, 1988 Melchezedik guide, p.142)
2 Nephi 25:23 by grace we are saved, after all we can do.”
“Therefore, acting alone, the grace of Christ is not sufficient for salvation. The works of man -- the ordinances of salvation, the deeds of service and acts of charity and mercy -- are necessary for salvation...” (By Grace Are We Saved: The necessity of God's grace in addition to man's good works, 1989 ed., p. 70)
Robert. Millet is the one who is going around in discussion with Greg Johnson telling people that we can get along and that believe the same thing. Here he calls being saved by faith through grace a doctrine of the Devil. “As with the proposal of Lucifer in the preexistence to save all mankind, so with the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, without works, as it is taught in modern Christendom -- both concepts are false. There is no salvation in either of them. They both come from the same source; they are not of God’ (What Think Ye of Salvation by Grace p. 49; cf. Robert Millet, p. 73).
Marion Romney (LDS First Presidency) said, “This Church is the ensign on the mountain spoken of by the Old Testament prophets. It is the way, the truth, and the life”(Conference Report, April, 1961, pg. 119).
“So hear it all ye ends of the earth; if you ever enter into the kingdom of God, it is because Joseph Smith let you go there. This will apply to Jews and Gentiles, to the bond and free; to friends and foes; no man or woman in this generation will get a resurrection and be crowned without Joseph saying so. (Second president Brigham Young, Conference held on October 8, 1854)
The Bible -
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:4–9).
“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”(Rom. 3:24). V.28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law”
“But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Philippians 3:7–9).
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5–7).
The Bible speaks of the grace of God through faith to be saved- there is no OTHER way.
As Robert Millet stated “...if everything we teach and believe is in the Bible, we wouldn't have needed a Joseph Smith, a Book of Mormon, a Doctrines and Covenants or a restoration!” (43 minute video, Source: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49068/6036%20)
Their spokesman for Church Public Affairs believes that the Bible is insufficient, and they defend this position today- nothing has changed.
The Bible-Jesus said in Jn.17:8 “I have given them your words you have given me.”
Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice, they will flee from the voice of stranger.”
John 8:47: “He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”
The whole Old Testament testifies that there is only one God who made everything that exists. The whole New Testament testifies that Jesus Christ is that God who came in human flesh. No matter how one tries to reform or adjust Mormon doctrine it does not make it Christian doctrine. Softening the Mormon position on these 3 points does not make it authentic and can only bring into question anyone’s honesty in their motives. If the concept of many gods is not abandoned, if the belief that Jesus is a spirit creature is not abandoned then the gospel that centers on Jesus Christ cannot be the true gospel. And if it is not the true authentic one, then it cannot save no matter how sincere a person is.
For further understanding of the Mormon propaganda to the Christian church and the public go to Can two walk together unless they Agree?"
From www.letusreason.org: "Mormonism's Teaching on pre-existence
Did everyone pre-exist in heaven?
Because of Joseph Smith's background in the occult he made a new religion which synthesized the marriage of the occult with elements of Christianity. What is taught today is what Smith and his predecessors gave; that we would become gods, that Lucifer and Christ were spirit brothers. Mormonism teaches that everyone on earth pre-existed as spirits by heavenly parents.
Did We Exist as Spirits in Heaven Before Earth?
“We were first begotten as spirit babies in heaven and then born naturally on earth”(Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, p. 218).
The plan of the parent gods in Mormonism goes like this: “Life for you did not begin here on earth. You lived before you were born you will live on in the spirit world after your mortal life is ended.” “We all once lived in the presence of God the eternal father. In the world before your were a spirit child of his. With this divine parentage, your destiny, through righteous living, is to become like your Father in Heaven and return to his presence”(The Purpose of Life Pamphlet handed out at the Temple on BYU campus).
“In your life before birth, before the earth was created God presented a plan to his children for their advancement. You were free to accept or reject this plan of salvation. Those spirit children who accepted his plan were given the opportunity to live on earth; those who rejected his plan were not privileged to enter mortality” (The Purpose of Life Pamphlet handed out at the Temple on BYU campus).
Where does this teaching of preexistence come from? “Before time began the soul was without a body, an archetype, the heavenly man pure in spirit in paradise, yet longing after the archetype, God. Some of the pure spirits descended into bodies and lost their purity” (Plato and the Stoics philosophy).
Greek philosophy is the origin of this type of philosophy, not the Bible. The Bible teaches in1 Cor. 15:46-47: “However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second is man is from heaven.” On this main point Mormonism disagrees with all of Christian teaching founded in the Bible. Gen. 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
A verse that is commonly used is Jer.1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you...” This verse is not talking about pre-existence. It is talking about God’s ordination and appointment of Jeremiah to be a prophet to his nation. Let’s look at the whole verse: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” This was God’s plan for Jeremiah, in the same way Eph. 2:10: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
The Mormons teach that we are all spirit offspring produced by God the Father and his wife in heaven. We are all pre-existing spirits with God which then come down to inhabit human bodies on earth. This is a purely a Mormon doctrine and not found in the Bible. They cannot find any support for this teaching in the Bible. They may call it plain and precious, Christian teaching calls this false.
Mormonism does hold:“This doctrine that there is a Mother in Heaven wasaffirmed in plainness by the First Presidency of theChurch... they said that 'man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father,' that man is the 'offspring of celestial parentage, 'and that 'all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity”(McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p. 516).
Milton R. Hunter, who served in the First Council of the Seventy stated “The stupendous truth of the existence of a Heavenly Mother, as well as a Heavenly Father, became established facts in Mormon theology” (The Gospel Through the Ages, 1958, p.98).
“Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a god who had not a Father; and 1 do not know that he would if he had not a mother, the one would be as absurd as the other.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 286)
Orson Pratt:“But if we have a heavenly Mother as well as a heavenly Father, is it not right that we should worship the Mother of our spirits as well as the Father? No; for the Father of our spirits is at the head of His household, and his wives and children are required to yield the most perfect obedience to their great Head. It is lawful for the children to worship the King of Heaven, but not the 'Queen of heaven.'... we are nowhere taught that Jesus prayed to His heavenly Mother...” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159) [Emp. Mine]
The Bible says that when Israel recognized the Queen of heaven it was idolatry.
Mormons even believe that Jesus Christ, Lucifer, and all of us were spirit children of God in the pre-mortal world (Mormon Doctrine, p. 278). Jesus is “the First Spirit Child born to God the Father in Preexistence” (Ibid. p.28)
Apostle McConkie wrote, “The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129.) This agrees with Joseph F. Smith, sixth prophet of the LDS Church, “Among the spirit children of Elohim, the first-born was and is Jehovah, or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors” (Gospel Doctrine, p. 70).
So he is God’s first spirit child in heaven and then we are spirit children born afterwards. So, according to Mormon teaching, the Father is his daddy and yours, we are all in the same family.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism Vol.4, Appendix 4 states, “Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons and daughters of Elohim.”
So here in their own words is the Jesus of Mormonism, a spirit born in heaven from spirit parents. A spirit among other spirit children the only difference is that he was the firstborn in the family.
Wilford Woodruff, the fourth president of the church, said that “God himself is increasing and progressingin knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end”(Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.120). [Emp. Mine]
“God the eternal father did of his own will ordain and established the plan of salvation whereby christ and all his spirit childrenmight have power to advance and progress and become like him.” (Promised Messiah by B. McConkie, p.48) [Emp. Mine]
This idea of God[s] progressing and changing is very different from the concept of God taught in the Bible for thousands of years. The Bible teaches in Malachi 3:6 we read: “For I am the Lord, I change not ...” “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hast formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psalm 90:2). “Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, today and forever.” If you have a god that changes then that “thing” is NOT GOD.
Mormonism has an internal problem; they contradict the Bible describing the nature of God. This is very serious because if you do not have this correct, everything else about God is affected. As we will examine that is exactly what has taken place.
Apostle McConkie said of Christ, “He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked Him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent while yet in His preexistent state” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129). [Emp. Mine]
Jesus progressed and this is what made him God. This gives us insight into what Mormonism defines as God.
The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God, p.94 “However, scripture describes Jesus as the Firstborn of the Father, not only in terms of the human family, but in [p.95] terms of every world and every form of life organized under the Father's direction. Paul wrote: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible [seen and unseen].…And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Coloss. 1:16-17; emphasis added; cf. Rev. 3:14). In other words, our God's first creative act as a Father was to sire his Firstborn and Only Begotten Son.”
One of the more misunderstood words is firstborn and only begotten. Some things are hard to understand and some twist to their own destruction as Peter said. Christians will hold the LDS Church and others accountable for misrepresenting what the words actually mean according to the authors of the Bible. When Jesus is called the “only begotten Son” it means He is the unique one of a kind, no other is like Him, He alone has that nature and position. The Greek word for “only begotten” is monogenes;it is formed by two separate words: Mono meaning single, one, sole and lone. when the two words are combined it means “unique” one of a kind, no other like Him, it means the only one generated. As he is the unique son uncreated but generated, he is the only example of his category the only representative as the only God/ man. What it does not mean is a literal offspring having a beginning, but that he is eternally existent as the Son along with the Father. W.E. Vine states: “The word “begotten” does not imply a beginning of his sonship. It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.” Vine makes it clear it does not connote the same meaning as it does to creatures.
The Greek word for firstborn is Prototokos, it is found seven times in the New Testament. It means first in rank, an heir, to have preeminence in position not in His origin. Both Col.1:15 and Rev.1:5 both clarify the meaning of firstborn to mean risen from the dead eternally. Rev.1:5: “and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead.” Not firstborn spirit of the Father and mother as Mormonism teaches. In Ex.4:22 the nation Israel is called God’s firstborn Son. God did not literally beget a nation in a literal sense as we do people. Also we need to note the Greek word for Son that is used exclusively for Jesus is huios, which refers to his nature not referring to a begotten son. There is a different word for son for mankind. All this points to making Jesus unique and separate from the reasoning of Mormonism’s non-Christian theologians.
“The First Presidency of the Church has written, 'God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race” (Messages from the First Presidency 5:26).
“If none but gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children, it follows that each God must have one or more wives. God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 158) [Emp. Mine]
Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., said: “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit” (Religious Truths Defined, p.44). [Emp. Mine]
So in other words Jesus was sired by God the Father with his wife in heaven and when it came time for him to come to earth the Father has copulation with Mary who was a virgin to sire his body. Remember these are their own words and interpretation of the Bibles events transcribed in their own books as revelation.
“He [God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be” (Journal of Discourses 11:122). [Emp. Mine]
So God cannot make anything without procreation? Then how did he make the heavens and the earth and all the things in it? (By speaking) Yet their teaching is that God created man in the same way we create children.
“The Father begets; the Son is begotten; they are Parent and Child” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.3, p.138) Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote, “For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being ... He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” (The Promised Messiah, pp. 466, 468). [Emp. Mine]
No, it is not that simple, it’s not even correct.
So how does this spiritual fantasy work? “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, . . . we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten” (The Seer, p.132).
Heber C. Kimball, who was a member of the First Presidency explained: “. . .then we shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still further back, and so on . . .” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p.19).
So we have a lot spirit grandfathers and grandmas according to Mormonism. The progression of gods is connected to man becoming a God as all other gods before him (according to their founder Joseph Smith).
Orson Hyde explains: “Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.123). [Emp. Mine] God grew up and progressed. Of course this is not the portrayal of the God found in the Bible, who has all knowledge and all power forevermore. There is absolutely no proof of their teaching from the Bible or from the Book of Mormon but they all seem to adhere to this presupposition without explaining it, much less proving it. It is inherited from their prophets who they believe are equal and in line with the Bibles prophets even though they contradict them immensely.
We can understand what Mormonism is, from their own teachers explaining their faith. “Therefore if the law of progression be accepted, God must have been engaged from the beginning, and must now be engaged in progressive development, and infinite as God is, he must have been less powerful in the past than he is today.”(LDS Apostle John Widtsoe, A Rational Theology, p.24).
Brigham Young stated: “We are now, or may be, as perfect in our sphere as God and Angels are in theirs, but the greatest intelligence in existence can continually ascend to greater heights of perfection” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.93). To Ascend is a teaching found in the occult.
So How Does a spirit get born?
Orson Pratt further explains “In the heaven where are spirits were born, there are many Gods, each of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him…while yet in this mortal state ”(Orson Pratt, the Seer p.37).
The Bible tells us that spirits do not have offspring, they were created together and there are no newly created spirits (angels) in heaven. Pratt presents a foreign teaching from the Bible in that there is a Father and mother, God and goddess making babies. “In the heaven where are spirits were born, there are many Gods, each of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him…while yet in this mortal state.” (Orson Pratt the Seer p.37)
Orson Pratt said,” that before men and women are born on earth as babies, their spirits are adult size in heaven. When they are born, their Spirits are compressed, which causes a loss in memory”(Journal of Discourses vol.16 pp.333-334) The Mormon Church teaches that our spirits forget what happened to them when placed into a body (Gospel Principles, p. 11). They teach that there was training previously in heaven before one comes to earth.
Do you know anyone (Mormon and non-Mormon) who remembers his/her pre-mortal life lessons and training? That is why you do not remember anything from your pre earth existence, your spirit was compressed. Like Hinduism, one chooses to forget each time they incarnate. Even Adam and Eve forgot their premortal instruction. (March 1996 Ensign, page 31)
Wilford Woodruff quoting Brigham Young. “Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body & brought one of his wives with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with. …The world don't know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please, it will either seal the damnation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father & not by the Holy Ghost” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff; April 9 1852) [Emp. Mine].
Wilford Woodruff: “President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and that Joseph taught this principle” (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 16, 1867) [Emp. Mine].
Here their president refers to Joseph Smith the founder for this teaching. This is not some obscure statement, but is repeated early on by the presidency.
How does he know Adam was Michael, if Adam could not remember? In Mormonism one can make the most outrageous statements on the Bible and have no need to present any proof. From its inception, Mormonism taught that Adam was actually Michael, who is actually God. The enigma of where we came from is solved by Smith’s revelation to Brigham Young and others. An angel (Michael) who is Adam (and God) listened to another angel (Lucifer) who offered the gospel of progression, they obeyed him.This they call true Christianity.
Mormonism has another form of evolution from spirit to man to God. Your beginning was not slime from a pond as secular evolutionists teach but from your daddy and mommy who are Gods in heaven. Does this sound more rational? Does this sound like Christian teaching? Here is how they explain how it began: “In the first stage, man was an eternally existent being termed an intelligence ... The next realm where man dwelt was the spirit world. According to Mormon concept eternally-existing intelligences were clothed with spirit bodies in the mansion of their Eternal Father... numerous sons and daughters were begotten and born of heavenly parents into that eternal family in the spirit world ... There in the spirit world they were reared to maturity, becoming grown spirit men and women prior to coming upon this earth ... Following his stay in the spirit world, man comes on earth ... Here he receives a physical body and undergoes the experiences of mortality... Eventually, however, mortal death comes upon man. The eternal spirit goes to the spirit world to await resurrection and judgment” (Gospel through the Ages, pp, 127-129).
According to Mormonism in heaven “The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer. ...this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind” (The Gospel Through The Ages, byM. R. Hunter).
So although Jesus won the bid for salvation it was Lucifer who really taught them progression (according to Mormonism). So he actually becomes their instructor because they are following what he said more than what the real Jesus said in the Bible! The Bible teaches God did not want Adam or Eve to disobey, Lucifer said God was keeping from them from their Godhood. To a Mormon this was a good thing to learn of this. It gave the ability to progress, and be exalted on another planet, as all other God’s who came before them.
As we have seen, the Mormon Church does not believe what Jesus said of Himself in the Bible: about who He is nor about his death on the cross being the ONLY way to have your sins forgiven. They have another way to be exalted and become a god on another planet just as Jesus did on ours. Orson Pratt explains:“The celestial beings who dwell in the Heaven from which we came, having been raised from the grave, in a former world, and having been filled with all the fulness of these eternal attributes,are called Gods, because the fulness of God dwells in each. Both the males and the females enjoy this fullness” (The Seer, Orson Pratt, The Pre-Existence of Man, p. 37) [Emp. Mine]
Today the Mormon Church teaches one must obey the laws and ordinances which are based on Adams disobedience that brought the fall. Go figure. Why do they claim it is Christ's plan they teach; God told them not to eat of the tree, the fact is that it was Lucifer who offered man to become a god. It was Lucifer who tempted Adam and Eve to eat which resulted in their fall. But to a Mormon this was good and beneficial, Apostle Orson Pratt stated: “Well might Adam and Eve bless god for their transgression; for all the sufferings that they endured in consequence of it were not worthy to be compared with the KNOWLEDGE gained, and the joys which flowed through that KNOWLEDGE. ...[B]y his transgression, he obtained KNOWLEDGE INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO HIS EXALTATION....” (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 87, 1853) [emp. mine]
The act of disobedience which introduced death and mortality to mankind is the Mormon plan of salvation, and is called a great blessing. “We can hardly look upon anything resulting in such benefits as being a sin, in the sense in which we consider sin” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 115). “Properly understood, it becomes apparent that the fall of Adam is one of the greatest blessings ever given of God to mankind” (McConkie, NWAF, p. 87). [Emp. Mine]
If this was a blessing, then when Adam and Eve heard God walking in the Garden, why did they not go running to Him, instead of hiding with guilt and shame. They should have been happy with the knowledge fulfilling His plan. The Bible has another story; it resulted in losing their pure state and becoming mortal?
Sterling W. Sill. who served as an Assistant to the Council of the Twelve had this to say about Adams transgression: 'Adam fell, but he fell in the right direction. He fell toward the goal ... Adam fell, but he fell upward "(July 31, 1965 Deseret News, Church Section)
I guess the Bible does not mean what it says, after all people have been reading this story for 2,000 years and Christ teachings are considered wrong, and the Mormons with their new revelation are right.
President Brigham Young stated: “We are the sons and daughters of celestial Beings, and the germ of the Deity dwells within us. When our spirits took possession of these tabernacles, they were as pure as the angels of God, wherefore total depravity cannot be a true doctrine” (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp.50-51). Brigham Young denied the very essential teaching of Christ and because of this denial it was replaced with Lucifer’s exaltation doctrine “I will be like the most high.” Young replaced Christ’s teaching of man needing forgiveness because of his sin to say we were once pure in our preexistence, and deity dwells in us.
The Bible records God saying, “Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” (Gen. 3:11). “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Gen. 3:13). The Bible states by the apostle Paul: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:14).
Joseph Fielding Smith said that he did not “accuse Adam of a sin.... is not always a sin to transgress a law” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1. p.114).
2 Cor. 11:3-4: “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-- you may well put up with it!”
The Mormon Church speaks judgment to their people by denying the essentials of the Bible. It saddens me to see them willfully do this to themselves. To deny Scripture and then use it to turn it on Christianity shows exactly what their prophet Smith meant from the beginning in his visitation.
The Bible states the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), if Adam's and Eve's action was not sin, then why did it introduce death and a curse into the world (Romans 5:12). Then to Adam God said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, (who listened to the serpent) and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Gen 3:17). How can this be such a “wonderful blessing” making man mortal and sinful. If it was not actually sin that Adam and Eve committed why do we still die and have a fallen world? We can only wonder why God punished Adam for his sin, and his descendants and the earth was placed under a curse if this was truly God’s plan for man. The fact is, the Mormon gospel is not good news, but keeps one from hearing the good news (the Gospel) of God's grace found in the Bible."
In COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE, TRUE ESSENCE, what ALWAYS gives THOSE OF YOU AWAY as "DELIBERATELY IGNORANT," instead of as "INNOCENTLY NOT KNOWING," is what's proven EVERY TIME that there's a rebuttal to whatever I and/or CHELSEA posts--for INSTANCE, I DEFINITELY KNOW, for a SOLID FACT, that we TRULY DON'T know ALL of what EVERYTHING that GOD'S ETERNALLY-INFALLIBLE WORD SAYS, and NATURALLY, NOT ALL of what HE says DOES make sense to us, but ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE CHOSEN to NO LONGER ALLOW our NATURAL, FALLIBLE MINDS do our thinking for us, but INSTEAD, allow the INFALLIBLE MIND of CHRIST do ALL of our thinking, by RENEWING our minds, through HIS SPIRIT, to think ONLY as HE thinks. Does this mean that we're ROBOTICLY-CONTROLED to NEVER use our OWN minds to make our OWN decisions, that ALL DECISIONS that WE make, from THAT POINT, are ALWAYS ONLY going to be GODLY PERFECT? Of COURSE not! What it DOES mean is that with OUR FREE WILL to either DECIDE to SEEK, DILLIGENTLY, after ALL that HIS INERRENT WORD HAS for us, or to BLATANTLY IGNORE HIM, by CONTINUING to ONLY remain "in the DARK," WHAT OTHER EXCUSE IS there, OTHER THAN the ONE, ONLY FACT of NOT WANTING to know? In OTHER words, it's CERTAINLY NOT that you DON'T know, as you're ALWAYS claiming, but it's that you WON'T, PERIOD. It's ONLY THEN that you're INFALLIBLY JUDGED, NOT by ME, NOR is it by CHELSEA, ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE EQUALLY as FLAWED as YOU are.
Ah. But no one's actually doing that, Terrance. We're saying "I don't know", not "I won't listen". And there's your difference.
Johndy, I come back to the fanciful stance regarding what you've said, at least to an extent. I feel for you, and sometimes I empathize with your rage and your questions. I really do. It makes me sick, some of the things happening in the world today. But I don't really think that the concept of a "winning hand" in that specific scenario exists, on either side.
We're intelligent, we're sympathetic, we're fallible. It makes sense that we want to put all the apparent senselessness and cruelty of existence into some greater framework that either justifies it, or at least renders its horrific impact somehow smaller. It's nice to think "Well, that five-year-old hit by a drunk driver is in a better place", because the alternative is something like "her body was crushed, her life is over, and she's never going to go to a dance, raise a family, become a doctor and die of old age with her loved ones". We shrink from the brutality because we're training ourselves, by our very empathy, to not be brutal.
And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with wishing for something more than what we have. There's nothing wrong with believing there is more to life than this. I guess you could say that my gripes are not with faith itself, but with organized religion.
And that's where Terrance's silly little attacks keep falling flat. He (and other religious types I've seen here, though by no means all) seem to think that I'm deliberately denying God, or supporting Lucifer, or denying even the possibility of any faith. They seem to think that an atheist is also anti-faith in all areas. Well, I'm not. Faith is not necessarily a bad thing if judiciously applied. The only things I really object to are the trappings that get attached to said faith. Sometimes they tell us that we're right and everyone else is wrong. Sometimes they tell us that a certain behaviour is wrong, for no other established reason than that "god says so". Sometimes they tell us that anyone who disagrees with us will be punished because they're deliberately throwing sand in the gears (either out of fear or sheer petty spite). And these, my friends, are the arguments I get tired of, the arguments I'll mount the ramparts to destroy every time I see them. They aren't fair. They aren't helpful. And they run very much against any concept of a god's love that would make any sort of sense to me.
So have your faith, if it helps you. Even if you're wrong, that faith alone does not hurt anyone, and it may very well help you...even if only because you believe it helps, and often in spiritual/personal matters, that's enough. Have it, as I have mine in some things. I'm not trying to take it away from you or impugn your right to possess or even express that faith.
But for the love of god, let it stop there.
I've been reading this board with interest. I am not religious, and I personally don't believe in a god. Mostly because I struggle to believe in something where I can't see the proof.
But I do find these discussions interesting, what draws some people to religion and not others? How do we coexist in a world with such varying belief systems. It can be done, clearly between some individuals there is no animosity, and yet between others there is so much.
I suppose for me it all comes down to the ability to admit you might be wrong. I might be wrong, perhaps there is a god out there. And if I find the evidence of that then I will gladly admit that I lacked proof before and so now with it can change my mind.
I have a problem with people on both sides who refuse to admit that they might not be the one with the answer. It's ok to debate about religion and to disagree. For me I find it really interesting because I get to learn so much. I think you can discuss a topic, and do it well without wishing to change somebody's mind.
Was just dropping in to say I have been reading, and do find the discussion useful.
But AGAIN, Shepherdwolf, the "KNOW" I'M referring to, that you've chosen to COMPLETELY AVOID, is the GROSSLY-DREADED "O" word, "OBEDIENCE." INCLUDING MYSELF, WE ALL are GUILTY of "DISOBEDIENCE" to GOD'S WILL, which HIS WILL is ONLY for our OWN PROTECTION, but WE would RATHER GOVERN OURSELVES, as what's been STATED in SO MANY WORDS of YOUR REBUTTALS, that CLEARLY SAYS why you WON'T "KNOW," EVEN IF you're ONLY WILLING to PASSIVELY LISTEN, if ANYTHING, while HOLDING FAST to your OWN AGENDA, VERY MUCH to your OWN PERIL. "KNOWING" is "DOING," ESPECIALLY if/when we don't WANT to. AGAIN, this ISN'T AT ALL SAYING that we're FORCED AGAINST OUR OWN WILL to OBEY GOD, ROBOTICLY; what it IS saying is that the VERY MOMENT that WE DECIDE to UNINHIBITTEDLY, UNCONDITIONALLY, FULLY TRUST in HIS LEADERSHIP, TOTALLY REGARDLESS of what APPEALS to US, since HIS WAY'S ETERNALLY INFALLIBLE, and OURS ISN'T, HIS ETERNAL PROMISE is that DESPITE ANY/ALL of what we'll experience that's either GOOD, BAD, or ALL-IN-BETWEEN, we'll ALWAYS REMAIN in HIS PERFECT PEACE, ESPECIALLY during times when WE, OURSELVES, are experiencing PHYSICAL/EMOTIONAL TERMOIL. PHYSICAL/EMOTIONAL TERMOIL, for those of us that HAVE chosen to OBEDIENTLY be an ACTIVELY-WILLING PART of GOD'S DIVINE PLAN for OUR LIVES, is ONLY TEMPORARY.
Terrance, you've lost me, and I have no further desire to mince words with you. I'm just going to limit myself to the more productive avenues of this discussion from here on in, since engaging you will necessitate that I dismantle the same tired pseudo-logic over and over...and you won't listen anyway. That's your failing. I wash my hands of it.
Holly, you basically just hit on the reason why I bother engaging in discussions like this at all. I like knowing what other people think even if I can't personally agree all the way down. I love to understand. Understanding is the first step on many worthwhile paths in life, I've always thought. And you don't understand by insisting that you're right, that you're infallible. If I've been overly firm or have seemed overly sharp at times, it is probably because I'm sick of the same old rhetoric being trotted out again and again, when I don't think it stands up. I'm referring more to the evangelical stuff predicated on the Bible, as opposed to personal faith (which, as I said, I have no quarrel with and no desire to attack out of hand).
See, again, there are a lot of ironies where this topic is concerned. First and foremost, I think what the OP set out to do was to explore the topic of whether there was homophobia in the world, or whether such is an illusion. Hasn’t really been a whole lot of talk here about that, right? And one of the ironies is that I’m not really sure whether there’s any point in discussing it. We gay people and our supporters know there is homophobia. Kevin Swanson is a homophobe. Kim Davis is a homophobe. And the three presidential candidates who were present at Mr. Swanson’s religious liberties conference some weeks back are either homophobes or aren’t afraid to associate with them. But we’ve had no discussion about that probably because I don’t think the OP has a clue about what I’m talking about. But I no longer care because I’ve long since given up on the OP. I don’t read what he has to say anymore because, and this is another irony here, I find that when we have discussed things amongst ourselves, the majority of us who have contributed to this topic have, I think, sought to engage in productive discussion even if all we’ve managed to do is ponder the unknowable and state our cases. I guess the OP has stated a case, but I find that trying to figure out just exactly what that case might be has long since become too tedious for me. I suppose it has something to do with warning all us wicked heathens that we’re all doomed. Okay,, I guess I’ve been warned. I suppose we’ve all been warned. Maybe those of us who are not homophobes should become homophobes in order to reach the Christian god’s kingdom, or the OP’s version of it? Maybe bashing some queers is enough to keep you out of the deepest pits of hell? Because that’s personally what I get from a lot of people who believe as the OP does. But I’ll ask something again that I’ve asked on other postings similar to this one. The four gospels are supposed to have been the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These are the four books in which Jesus was said to have preached his message. Now, again, as I stated in other postings, I’m not a biblical scholar. But I don’t believe Jesus said anything definitive one way or the other about homosexuality or homosexuals. So, again I throw down the gauntlet: Find me a verse in only those four books where Jesus said anything whatsoever on this topic. And I don’t want implicit language; I’m asking you to be explicit if you can. I don’t think you’re gunna find it.
What I really find pathetic is all the people who beg and plead, and in some cases demand that we respect their beliefs. It's insecurity. They're unsure of what they believe, and so they're scared of challenge to that belief. They're afraid that science, or medicine, or whatever will discover something that disproves what they've believed all their lives.
Terrance's original point is that the word "homophobe" is a misnomer, that fear need not be a part of discrimination against gays as long as that discrimination is godly...or something. He'd object to me putting it that way, but that's the short of it. And I would agree that the word does get thrown around. But it's also changed meanings. These days a homophobe is someone willing to (or guilty of) prejudice against gays to the extent that they are hurt or seriously discriminated against. I'm not sure how accurate that is, or justified, but that's the size of it.
The topic is called "the homophobe delusion" when it should maybe have been called "the homophobe misnomer" or something like that. I suspect the word "delusion" was used to suggest that the more extreme forms of prejudice are themselves an illusion of some kind...or, more accurately, the furor they've created is delusional because as long as God supports it, discrimination's all right.
...Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either.
But hasn't that point, if it is indeed the point, been lost? We're not even talking about that anymore.
In RESPONSE to YOUR POST 89, Shepherdwolf, you've CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED the EXACT MEANING of the PERFECT DEFINITION of the BLATANT UNWILLINGNESS to "NOT KNOW." You MAY as well say, STRAIGHT OUT: "I'D rather trust in my OWN fallibility, than in ALMIGHTY GOD'S INFALLIBILITY, to FULLY GOVERN my life," because REGARDLESS of ALL of your "INTILLECTUAL BABBLE," that's EXACTLY what your NOT-SO-HIDDEN MESSAGE says, ANYWAY, which THAT is SURELY YOUR CHOICE--it's a choice that I refuse to make for my OWN life, but HEY! What's gonna be DONE is gonna be DONE, THAT'S all!
To repeat what I said EARLIER in this topic, the "PHOBE" outcry, used to boost the agenda of ANY group that's in BLATANT REBELLION against GOD, whether it's the outcry of the LGBTQ, ISLAMIC, WHATEVER, is the BEST SYMBOLIC EXAMPLE of the PHILLISTINE GIANT, daring to challenge little shepherd boy, DAVID and his SLINGSHOT.
IN response to Holly, I think there is something else to be taken into
consideration about your point Holly. There are degrees of wrong. So, while you
can admit that you might be wrong, it is possible to still be sure that someone
else is definitely wrong. I'll explain.
Lets say that you, Greg, and I are arguing over the dates of the American
Civil War. Greg says that the dates are april 1861 to april 1865. I say its april
1861 to october 1865. You say its june 4022 to mectrobra 9034. Now, two of us
are wrong, but you are clearly really really really wrong.
It is possible, as an atheist, to say that I could be wrong, but I know for a fact
that the God of the bible does not exist. I don't know if all Gods don't exist, but
I know that that one doesn't exist becuase he's impossible to exist. He doesn't
even conform to basic logic in his own creation. I could be wrong about what
caused the universe to come into being, while knowing for a fact that it wasn't
created six thousand years ago in six days by an all powerful Hebrew God. I can
be wrong about things in history, while knowing for a fact that Jews were not
slaves in Egypt, did not wander the desert for forty years and settle in Israel.
We know those are factually untrue. Knowing that, it is illogical, and I would
argue stupid, to continue to believe them.
So, we can know that it is impossible for us to be sure that a god doesn't
exist. However, it is entirely reasonable to say that christianity is a very very
long way from correct. A lot farther away from it than atheism is.
Spot on. Thank you for hitting on that distinction.
Imprecator, regarding the respecting of beliefs...I see what you're saying. I'll take it an extra step though. When people say "respect my beliefs" what they're often saying is "admit that they're equal to your own". And that's where trouble starts, particularly if your beliefs say it's okay to discriminate against people...because it's clearly not okay to do that.
When I say "respect my beliefs", I mean only that I don't want you shoving your own down my throat. I'll indulge the same courtesy for you. If I believe something outlandish, I'm not asking you to treat it equally to a rational opinion. If nothing else, leave me alone unless I'm hurting someone.
So yeah. For clarification's sake, I'm not saying I'm guaranteed to be right about this whole god thing. At worst, I'm saying that I'm quite sure a few things just don't make sense, that's all. The rest of it - and there's a lot - is completely unprovable one way or the other. Live and let live.
Yes Cody, I would agree on that one. Many of the things in the bible we know didn't happen. Some, we can't prove either way. And it's about those that I'm not going to say someone is wrong and I am right. Just that I believe one way, they believe another and neither of us truly know which is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9tptcEyypw
NOW, in COMPLETE RESPONSE to SILVERLIGHTNING'S post, as well as the YOUTUBE video that I posted, it's VERY OBVIOUS, as it's CERTAINLY PROOVEN, without EVER having to prove it, OURSELVES, that the VERY KNOWLEDGE of the ONE, ONLY ETERNAL TRUE GOD, which BESIDES WHOM, there NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER IS NOW, nor will there EVER BE, NO OTHER, is OBVIOUSLY INESCAPABLE, as you've UNTHINKINGLY/SELF-CONTRADICTIONALLY STATED, when YOU said: "It is possible, as an atheist, to say that I could be wrong, but I know for a fact
that the God of the bible does not exist." Since ALL FACTS are INFALLIBLE and HUMAN OPINION ISN'T, and that ATHEISM is ONLY a state of the DEFINITELY FALLIBLE DENIAL, NEVER the INFALLIBLE (which NONE SUCH EXISTS) DISPROOVAL, of GOD'S EXISTANCE, what THIS SAYS about YOU is EXACTLY what the ONLY INFALLIBLE BIBLE calls you: "a FOOL."
Just a little nugget for Cody (And others perhaps). In the bible, when it says they wandered for 40 years, or something happened for 40 days and 40 nights, it doesn't necessarily mean it was that long. The number 40 was often used to denote a significant amount of time. I'm mincing words perhaps, but just thought I'd p oint that out. Also, I don't know which Christians still believe that the earth was created only six thousand years ago. I know I for sure do not. Also, it was six days, but there agin, a day denotes a length of time, not necessarily six actual day cycles on earth. God's time is not our time. Also, what evidence do you have that Jews were never slaves in Ejypt at some point in history? I'm honestly curious about your sources on that one. As, for that matter, where you got the notion that Abraham married his sister. I've read the old testament quite a bit and never stumbled upon that bit. There was a time where he had to pretend that Sariah was his sister, but that's a bit different.
In the genealogies Sarai was daughter of Terah, Abram's father, they were half
siblings.
As to the Israeli enslavement in Egypt? Egyptologists everywhere know that the
Egyptian dynasties were meticulous documenters, including number of slaves,
cattle, sheep, even bricks! The plague situation described in Exodus would have
caused such incredible economic damage that taxation records would have
clearly shown this. Remember the Egyptian population taxed their citizens a full
fifth of crop and animal yields.
So while it's not provable to say there couldn't have been an occupation ... one
cannot prove a negative after all, ... the scenario as outlined in Exodus is
extremely unlikely to total implausible.
I know there are a lot of different kinds of Christians. Lol a phrase I hear from
my daughter frequently is "Not all Christians are like that." Many famous
counter apologists like Dan Barker generally argue against the fundamentalist
kind, because those are the ones who, like it or not, own the Christian side of
the arguments. What needs to happen is moderate Christians need to take back
what is theirs from the fundamentalists, and thereby be represented. Of course
Christians like many of them have different goals than the fundamentalists:
they just want to practice their faith in peace unmolested by either
fundamentalists or, yes, skeptics.
See, that raises another kinda-germain question:
On the one hand, we're supposed to take words from the Bible figuratively, as you just said. Forty days and forty nights might not have actually meant that exact time frame.
Okay, I can sorta get behind that, I guess.
But if that part of the Bible is up to interpretation, can be tweaked out of its literal meaning, then how much of the rest of it stands? Because surely there are a lot of things you could say "Well, we don't have to take that literally"...yet, if you fail to do so, you might be called a bad Christian by Christians and non-Christians alike.
To me at least, either the Bible is an infallible record of God's word, or it is man's fallible interpretation of God's word. If it's the former, we shouldn't be hand-picking bits to take straight on and bits to take figuratively. If it's the latter, then most of the assertions made therein can be called into question, especially the ones that talk of such things as slavery, discrimination against women and discrimination against homosexuals, just for a start.
That's something else that kinda drives me nuts, to be honest. You (general you) argue point for point, then suddenly you're told that some things have to be taken figuratively, or interpreted a different way. One request begets two more, and the cycle continues until you're essentially being asked to take many many things on sheer faith purely in order to grant the platform against which you're arguing a semblance of equality. If I have to make that many concessions just to give someone's point equal ground, I daresay their argument's got problems bigger than either they or I can solve.
I can speak a little bit about the people who claim the earth is literally six thousand years old. I have past associations with such people because for a time my ex and I were friends with a couple that was deeply involved in that kind of thing. Those were the people who home-schooled their children. The way I understand it, they believe that man and dinosaurs once existed concurrently with each other. The flood, you know the one where Noah built the ark and la la la? Well, that killed the dinosaurs. Presumably it also killed a lot of other now-extinct species as well, I suppose,, but one can only guess at this sort of thing. Anyway, man once was able to live for hundreds of years (Methuselah, anyone)? Because there was a lot more oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere due to the presence of an orbital waterband surrounding the entire globe. Um, not kidding, either. This was once explained to me in all seriousness. Dunno how I managed to politely listen to such klaptrap without laughing or sneering, but I did it. Maybe I’m a lot better diplomat than I give myself credit for. But the flood was supposedly caused by God, who got pissed off at the way things were going, so he caused this orbital waterband to rain down on everything and everyone, so that’s how we got the flood. I’m not shitting anyone here either. And the whole thing about fossils? Those were put here by God for whatever unknown reason, and the scientists who use carbon dating to tell how old these fosills are are of course wrong, because there are problems with carbon dating. Umm, we dunno what kind of problems there are with carbon dating, but there are,, kay? So, deal with it. Now, for a history lesson.. You’ve all heard of the Roman Empire, right? Well, all those reasons why it fell? You know the ones. Incompetent leadership, overtaxation, barbarian invasions, plagues, constant civil wars, and generally depopulation caused by plagues which made it more difficult to control the borders and stunted the ability of the native Italian populace to defend itself from barbarians? Not to mention a whole host of other elements I haven’t mentioned because right now I don’t remember and don’t care to make this any longer than it has to be? All supernatural because God was pissed that the Romans rejected Christ. Never mind that Constantine and Theodosius imposed Christianity on the empire in the fourth century; the Romans still nneeded to be taught a lesson. And did I mention that there’s a museum somewhere in this country; probably Kentucky or Mississippi, dedicated to intelligent design? Evvidently it has exhibits where pictures of cowboys riding dinosaurs are shown. I’m really, really, really not making this stuff up!
From www.letusreason.org: "Who wrote the Bible?
"Men penned the words but they were inspired words that came from God’s Sspirit to man. The Bible teaches us all Scripture is inspired of God, both the old and New Testament.
The key explanation is that it is God breathed (Theopnuestos). God moved the men; prophets or scribes to write the words down. So it is not by their own initiative, they were not dictation machines either. Inspiration refers to the writings, not the writers. God instructed them and it is God’s communication to mankind, in other words the origin is found in God. 2 Pet 1:20-21, “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Prophecy as well as the writings are all From God as the source. God watched his word to make sure we would receive it accurately.
The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by men under God's control through his Holy spirit that spans over 1500 years through different authors. Written in three different languages by more than 40 authors from a variety of backgrounds and cultures (1400 BC Moses - 90 AD John the apostle).
The Old Testament deals consists of 39 inspired books written by Kings, prophets, leaders and even
shepherds that covers Israel's history and prophecy on the coming promise of the Messiah in nearly every book.
There were 400 Years of silence between the Old Testament and the New Testament period (Jesus birth). God did not speak, nor send prophets until Zacharias, John the baptizers father was contacted by an angel and God began to work again, John the baptizer was the last of the Old Testament prophets who would announce the coming of the new dispensation of the new covenant by the Messiah.
The New Testament consists of 27 documents written by his appointed apostles and those under their leadership in the known language of the day; Koine, common Greek. The New Testament makes known the person of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant, the church and the age to come. We can know Christ is the prophesied messiah because Old Testament prophesies place his coming before the destruction of the temple.
The New Testament is grouped into four categories.
1) 4 Gospels (biographical narratives)
2) The Acts of the Apostles (what the apostles did in mission work and in the church)
3) Epistles (instruction and correction to the church)
4) Revelation of Jesus Christ (prophecy)
1) Gospels - The 4 gospels give record of Jesus’ birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension. Matt, Mk and Lk. Are referred to as the synoptic (similar) Gospels. The gospel of John is the complimenting gospel. John years later gave more information on who Christ was.
2) Acts - Chronicled by Luke a physician, historian and a companion of Paul. Luke documents the birth of the church and its establishment in Judea, Samaria and Roman Empire. Based on acts of the apostles actions from the Holy Spirit.
3) 21 Epistles – letters written to churches established on the apostles missionary journeys and individuals giving instruction on the doctrine of Jesus Christ and living by the Spirit.
4) Revelation of Jesus Christ - Reveals Jesus Christ in His glory. The Revelation in this book shows Jesus as
the coming lion, King of kings and judge over all the earth, with victory.
The Bible is consistent and forms a cohesive unified message of God's dealings with mankind. Its message is without contradiction it is the most historically accurate ancient text known to man. The Bible speaks on the subjects of origins of man, evil, fall, redemption. Nature and mans purpose. Satan who introduces evil, his war
against God and believers and his final judgment. Jesus Christ who is the focus of the written revelation. Salvation given by the divine plan of God. The eternal being God who lives forever never changes, his sovereignty, describing his attributes, his omnipotence, his omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, righteousness, and love.
Israel selected by God, idolatry, preservation through history and final destiny. The church history from the start to her glorification.
The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God, inerrant and infallible in all its teachings. it contains no errors on teaching and instruction. It is proven by the manuscripts prophecy and archeology. No archaeological discovery has ever disproved the accuracy of the Bible, each discovery continues to verify the Bible as being accurate in its content.
.The constant theme throughout the Scripture: God, for His own glory has offered mankind whom He made in his image and likeness to be heirs to His eternal kingdom. To redeem His people from sin and death; the Bible
reveals this plan of redemption from our beginning to its completion. The Bible is the story of God having grace upon man, redeeming people for the praise of His glory."
From www.letusreason.org: "How inspired is the Bible, and how accurate is the Old Testament?
"Jesus taught that every part of the Old Testament is inspired and authoritative: the law, the writings, and the Psalms (Lk. 24:44). He taught the men spoken of in the books. The Old Testament writers were inspired by God to write the Scriptures. According to the Son of God, Moses wrote the books of the law (Lk. 24:44; Jn. 5:45-47); David wrote the Psalms bearing his name (Lk. 20:42); Daniel wrote the book bearing his name (Mt. 24:15).
The Bible inspired by God’s Spirit moving men who were obedient and worshipped him to write. Inspiration does not mean all the words or actions that are recorded in the Bible are inspired-- as if by God made them happen. For example it is recorded in Scripture Peter denied the Lord three times, but God did not inspire his actions or words of denial. Solomon as he was backslidden was musing and caught in worldly philosophy yet he knew the truth and struggled with it. We see a contrast in his statements from his own human reasoning and the wisdom that was from God that was accurate knowledge.
If one does not accept the Old Testament then they cannot believe the words of Jesus, because he referred to it consistently during his ministry. The Apostle Paul wrote, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God…. Not just the red ink portions and not what one feels comfortable with. ALL of it. Jesus said, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Jesus quoted the Old Testament(Deut.8:3) in Matt 4:4, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"
Jesus taught that the Old Testament is perfect to the letter (Mt. 5:17-18). It cannot be broken (Jn. 10:35). It is authoritative to every detail. The Greek word translated "broken" in Jn. 10:35 is elsewhere translated "put off" (Acts 7:33) and "loose" (Jn. 11:44). No statement in the Bible can be put off or escaped. All will be proven true. This is the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility.
Jesus taught that the Old Testament is a book written in advance on the coming of Christ (Lk. 24:44). That the Old Testament characters, events, and miracles are true and historical. Some of the Old Testament people and events Christ referred to are as follows: the creation (Mk. 13:19), Adam and Eve (Mt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7), Cain and Abel (Mt. 23:35; Lk. 11:50-51), Noah and the flood (Mt. 24:37-39), Abraham (Jn. 8:39-40), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Lk. 17:28-29), Lot's wife turning to salt (Lk. 17:32), Moses and the burning bush (Mk. 12:26), Jonah and the whale (Mt. 12:39-41; Lk. 11:29-32), Nineveh repenting at Jonah's preaching (Lk. 11:32), The queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (Lk. 11:31).
The New Testament was written within 20-30 years (except Johns epistles and Revelation) of the Jesus death and was written by eyewitness. They prove this by the statement, and authors themselves. There is internal
evidence - Matthew refers to himself as a "tax collector" (Matthew 10:3); John refers to himself indirectly as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and his rivalries with Peter (John 20:4, 21:20-22). Luke in the second writing (Acts) alludes to the first epistle, his Gospel; Mark makes an reference to himself (Mark 14:51-52);
Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists who ever lived wrote of Luke the author of the gospel and the book of Acts stating, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, this author should, be placed along with the very greatest of historians. Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 to ask the eyewitnesses about the resurrection as some of 500 witnesses that saw him all together were still living when he wrote this.
The Bible is called “the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15), Daniel called it “the Scripture of Truth” (Dan.10:21), Prov.30:5 “Every word of God is pure.”
If one does not believe the word, called the Bible then they do not believe the one who is “ the word” nor the one who inspired the word (the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth)."
From www.letusreason.org: "*Were the 6 days of creation in Genesis literal 24 hours days?
"The word day, yom in Hebrew can mean a period of time (both sort or long). Such as in Genesis 2:4: “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. ” And also the Day of the Lord is used to signify the tribulation period. It should be obvious that the word day in this manner is a summation of a period of time and not a 24 hour period.
However, when we read the narrative of the six days of creation, there is mentioned were evening and morning and the number of days in succession. This means they were normal 24-hour days (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). When the word “day” is prefaced with a numeral next to it, it always refers to a normal day, just as we have today. “Day one” (“first day,” Gen. 1:5), “day two” (“second day,” Gen. 1:8), “day three” (“third day,” Gen. 1:13), “day four” (“fourth day,” Gen. 1:19), “day five” (“fifth day,” Gen. 1:23), “day six” (“sixth day,” Gen. 1:31), “day seven” (“seventh day,” Gen. 2:3).
Nearly two thousand times the word yom is in the Old Testament, rarely is it used to refer to a time period longer than twenty-four hours, it is mostly used for a specific day. However, when a numerical adjective is attached to the word ‘day’ it mean exactly what the number states, the context demands it to be interpreted in this manner for it to be consistent with the rest of the Scripture..
The “days” of creation are associated to “years” in Gen. 1:14. Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years.” The word ‘Days’ in Genesis 1:14 is put alongside ‘years,’ their duration cannot be arrived at by any subjective interpretation. Both of these are fixed movements of the earth in reference to the earths orbit around the sun. Days and years- These are the same units of time we work with today, nothing has changed. If days are to be determined as longer than 24 hours than we must do the same for the term ‘years.’They are for signs and seasons, which we also have throughout history and today. so there is no getting around the literal terms to describe our world.
If we do not go by the standard God set then the Bible becomes arbitrary and one can reinterpret any passage top mean whatever they want. Gen 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark. The bible is very specific in its recording o dates and times
The six days of creation are the same type of days as the Sabbath day (Ex. 20:8-11) that is one of the days of creation that God rested on, and is the seventh day that God gave Israel to rest. Literally the same amount of time. God instructed Israel:
Exodus 20:8-9: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
Exodus 31:14-15: “Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD.” This is because God worked on 6 days and Israel is remember their god is the creator of heaven and earth.
The first five chapters of the Bible is written as history; there is nothing in the record to indicate that it is not to be interpreted literally, but allegorically or symbolically.
Adam and Eve are spoken of in the rest of the Bible (34 times in the Bible) as real people in a real garden. They are mentioned in at least four books of the Old Testament (Genesis 2-5; Deuteronomy 32:8; 1 Chronicles 1:1; and Job 31:33) and in eight books of the New Testament (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8; Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; and Jude 14). To believe that the Bible is both the inerrant and infallible Word of God one cannot reject historicity of the account of Adam and Eve and all that surrounds them. Even Jesus Christ spoke of Adam and Eve as historic figures (Mark 10:6-8). The Bible traces His genealogy is from Adam (Luke 3:23-38). If Adam and Eve were not historical figures, then their fall is a myth, Christ did not tell the truth and the cross of Christ would not be necessary (Romans 5:12-19). But the Bible has a consistent message written through its numerous authors over 1500 years- that is a redeemer for sinful man would come."
ANOTHER "PUNK-SLAP" in the FACE of ATHEISM is the DEFINITE FACT that ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, WHATSOEVER, were there any DINOSAURS that lived and died before the CREATION of MAN, because ONLY UNTIL ADAM and EVE DISOBEYED GOD'S COMMAND to NOT EAT of the TREE of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL, THERE WAS NO DEATH, AT ALL, BECAUSE THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO SIN, PERIOD, which is yet ANOTHER "PUNK-SLAP" against ATHEISM for ITS claim of the EARTH, as being MULTI-BILLIONS of YEARS OLD.
Thank you, Terrance. I needed that. After your last two posts I'm actually laughing.
At first I just took you for an evangelist lacking the ability to reason. Now I take you as a deluded evangelist without the ability to reason.
Prove that carbon dating is flawed - prove it scientifically, I mean - and you'll have an argument. till then, you're just wrong. Sorry. Dinosaurs existed up to approximately sixty-seven million years ago. Man didn't. Fossil records prove this. And if you're going to say that God for some reason gave man both the falsified fossils and the fallacious means to figure out how old they are...why, that god is a liar, a deceitful and arrogant conniver no better than the Satan you choose to oppose. I reject outright the claim that an all-knowing, all-loving God would deliberately try and mislead his children, then punish them for believing in their senses. We'd say any parent who did this was pretty friggin' twisted.
I think you're pretty good and cornered. Either dinosaurs existed and died long before man (invalidating the argument about there being no death until Adam and Eve ate of the fruit), or carbon dating, which is scientifically and rationally sound, was engineered by God (or permitted by God, either is just as bad) to confound those seeking truth. Or, I suppose you might be able to prove that carbon dating is untrustworthy...but if you can, I think there are a few hundred thousand scientists ready to debate it with you. Go oon though. I'll keep my eyes peeled for any huge scientific breakthroughs about carbon dating. I'm not exactly expecting miracles here, but strange things have happened, so I guess you're not truly trapped after all. You have this one tiny ray of hope to lighten the corner you've put yourself in. Use it well.
I love when other people do my work for me. The questions asked of me have
been wonderfully answered by Greg and Leo and others, thanks guys. So this
just leaves me with one thing to add. Stop, atheists and christians alike, stop
saying carbon dating. Its not carbon dating. We don't use carbon dating to date
anything that isn't a few hundred or maybe a thousand or so years old. For
things like how old the world is, we use potasium argon dating, not carbon
dating. Potasium argon dating is much much much more accurate because of
the rate of decay. Just a little correction.
Appreciate the clarification, Cody. But,, um, really? The OP has apparently read my posting and attempted to dispute it? When I, for one, haven't bothered to read probably the past 20 of his? I'm flattered, I guess.
Potassium-argon dating. Check. I didn't know that. It's nice to know that there's an even more accurate way of figuring this stuff out.
Yep, science is an awesome thing. But even that little fact is kinda pointless,
because we have human artifacts that are more than six thousand years old,
and we can see by just looking at archeology that there was never a flood, and
evolution is self-evidence for anyone with a working and honest brain, so pretty
much everything in Genesis is proven wrong by just observable evidence.
Aren't the cave paintings somewhere in the neighborhood of ten thousand and more years old? That would seem to set sail to the notion that the earth is a little more than half that old. But the intriguing thing for me about the intelligent design thing is how that band of water stayed up in orbit all that time. Umm, without raining down in the first place? Most normal halfway intelligent Christians don't swallow that stuff.
But see, God made science in order to shield himself from our scrutiny. He has deliberately hamstrung our ability to understand things, and has even thrown sand in the works, purely so that we will come to trust in this false wisdom of science. He made those cave paintings look older to confuse us, helped us recognize the various dating methods on objects so that we could gain contradictory evidence. He did all this so that he can demonstrate just how in control of our perceptions he is. Oh, and he did it to be sadistic, let's not forget. We're supposed to think and reason, but we're also supposed to be sheep. We're supposed to find our way to God, to use the wisdom we gain even when it appears to contradict God's word...but only up until that supposed wisdom goes into grey areas. We're supposed to believe all things which come from God, even these convincing-looking nuggets of scientific knowledge that run counter to God's word...but we're going to be punished with eternal torture if we do.
I dunno about you guys, but it's as clear as day to me. Boil it down this way, attempt to use these arguments as a means of deflecting science, and it's clear that the Christian god is not only mean, but stark raving mad.
This is why most reasonable Christians I know seem to accept that yes, indeed, some of the Bible does have to be taken literally in order to logically support the rest of the religion. Yet some of these self-same Christians, who demand that one part of our interpretation or more must bend to suit their agenda, are absolutely unwilling to bend in pursuit of their own anti-gay anti-women anti-atheist agenda. That's not what I call a fair deal.
Johndy, the answer to your question from a biblical standpoint is that the
waters were on top of a dome called the fermament. This word means a dome,
so the world, according to the biblical writers, was a flat plate, supported by
four pillars at each corner, covered with a glass dome. When the flood came,
God opened the windows of the heavens, literal bible verse, and the rain came
down. So see, it makes total sense.
Um, oh! I, uh, get it. My head hurts.
I've found this all fascinating, and it's gotten me to do a bit of research myself.
For information, entertainment and education, The link below will take you to a hub which links to several artickles which touch on why the earth was created, how it was created, the purpose of Adam and Eve and why their fall was necessary and why God allows opposition in all things - bad things to happen. They give reasons why those bad things are transatory in the grand scheme of things, and the significance of Jesus Christ as the sole redeamer of humanity, and why he needed to suffer "voluntarily". It also touches on the organized process of creation, not from nothing, but from unorganized universal matter, how the "days" were not in fact days, but periods of time, ages even. It's important to understand that, in one part, where it talks about "gods" forming man in their own image, it is in fact referring to Jesus Christ - Jahova, the son, and God, Elohim, the father, not some pantheon of gods. Despite what some think about us, the LDS do in fact believe that that we were created and governed by only one God.
There's a lot of info here, but if you're interested in another perspective, and a bit of in-depth information from a theological perspective, and if you have a bit of time, I hope you will Give some of these a read. Think of it as another perspective; perhaps ammunition for both sides. Though they're all fantastic, one I would point to is an article simply titled" the creation." Sinve we've been talking about that.
Terrence, as you seem to be taking opportunity to send links as to why my church is so wrong, these articles might actually interest you. Perhaps you may realize that, while we may have a different outlook on some things, Jesus is still very much the center of our religion, as it is yours.
The creation - Gospel doctrine/a>
The problem is that you use the term need. None of that needed to happen.
FIRST, JESUS is the CENTER of my LIFE, NOT my "RELIGION," which "RELIGION" is what I neither HAVE nor WANT. SECOND, back to this TOTAL FALLACY of DINOSAURS, living and dying BEFORE MANKIND was EVER CREATED, in order to DIE, DEATH, ITSELF has to EXIST; PRIOR to DEATH is BIRTH; PRIOR to ADAM and EVE'S COMMITTED VIOLATION of GOD'S COMMAND to not eat of the FORBIDDEN TREE, which the BIBLE NEVER SAID that it was of any FRUIT, VEGETABLE, or ANY OTHER KIND, than the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL, NEITHER BIRTH NOR DEATH EXISTED; HOW, THEN, TOTALLY WITHOUT the EXISTANCE of EITHER/OR, is there ANY PLAUSABLE EXPLANATION for death to have occurred, in what WAS ONCE the PERFECTLY-INERRENT PERFECT WORLD?
Because frankly, Terrance, the word of the Bible here is blatantly mistaken.
It says there was no death before the fall of Adam and Eve. Yet Adam and Eve were man and woman. Dinosaurs lived and died before Adam and Eve - assuming they really were the first man and woman archetype, respectively - were ever created. This can be proven scientifically. Ergo, either fossil records have been deliberately falsified to mislead, or else death happened before humans were created. If you want to invalidate the second, you have to prove the first beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Until you can do that, your arguments and protestations are groundless. Sorry.
Cody's right.
What corresponds with the physical dating technique he describes is what amounts to forensics. We have far more forensic evidence for the scientific explanations of things than we often have when we try, convict and execute people.
Forensic evidence in the geological and fossil records include but not limited to: Stratification and location of fossils within that stratification of rocks, copralyte (fossilized pooh) and of course bones, amber, teeth, petrified plant matter and all kinds of other things.
The problem is that creationists talk about a museum, where you see just a set of bone fragments. As opposed to a by-location representation where you see the actual fragment in the strata -- on site -- which when you understand this, renders the whole thing more believable.
Johndy, I grew up with similar Creationist types. I understand how to dismantle their arguments piece by piece. But Christians like my daughter and some of her friends? I'm frankly out of my element there, as I don't actually understand the priniples and arguments behind liberal Christianity at all. I'm afraid it probably eludes us hard sciences types and is best left for those with a humanities education. What is supposed to be symbol and what is supposed to be metaphor? Who knows, and how would one prove it?
Frankly I think that's partly why as atheists we are left with mainly fundamentalists. Liberals don't seem to mind us so long as they're left in peace to do their thing, but also we can't deconstruct claims we have absolutely no way of rationally proving or disproving. This pretense at rationalism is what will ultimately undo the evangelical fundamentalists, but I take it the liberals will probably carry on doing whatever it is they do indefinitely.
As an aside, some of them make pretty nice music at Christmas time.
There are Christians who are old earth Creationists, basically creation by
evolution. Francis Collins is one such type, and he's evangelical Lutheran if I'm
not mistaken. He is the person responsible for having headed up the Human
Genome project. I have profound respect for his efforts in genetics and
quantum mechanics. However, when you read his Christian book A Case For
Belief, he basically interprets and reinterprets C. S. Lewis. Since I don't have a
philosophy education, I kind of glossed over that stuff in my Christian days, and
took him at face value on account of his more scientific works. But one can be
fantastically well credible in some areas and not others.
Here's one example of this falling down:
Lewis, a total humanities educated person, what they now would call soft
sciences I suppose, does a lot of conjecture about scientific laws and a lawgiver
in his works. Humanities and soft sciences people don't understand that
scientific "laws" are actually descriptions. Meaning, the "laws" of
thermodynamics describe what we know about matter / energy exchange. It's
not a law. There isn't something out there sitting stating, 'If I don't hold this
together, a closed system will undergo entropy and lose all its radioactive
energy." From a scientific standpoint, that's just plain silly. If I explain to some
sociology person, for instance, the difference between base 10 and base 16, I
will explain the methods behind it. Especially if I did so explaining how we
technical types use base 16 to create fields of data we call bits. But the data
doesn't "know" it is bits, nor is there something out there holding things
together keeping the number 32 from turning into 0x23 instead of 0x20 in base
16.
Laws and rules in the scientific sense are just descriptions.
Christians aren't the only ones guilty of this: I've seen the new social sciences
crowd try and explain away hierarchies among objects in programming, because
they have a pre-constituted idea about hierarchy and its relative merit or lack
thereof. And it makes no difference in implementation.
To be fair, Lewis does defer to the science and technical types when it comes to
our relative areas of expertise, and I'll even say I agree with his assertion that
being expert in one area doesn't grant one expertise in another. But if you read
Lewis carefully, he gives place to evolutionary theory. Even in his famous work
Mere Christianity. He gets a lot wrong re: the historical record but his education
is in ancient English literature, and he was highly instrumental in bringing back
the concepts of Midle Earth into 20th-century English literature.
All this to say, not all evangelicals are completely young earth. For anyone is
curious, I'd suggest you google "Of Pandas and People," and look into the
resultant political connections there. It's not as simple as Terrance would have
you believe. And although I'm atheist, I eschew the opinion of many that people
of faith by definition check their brain at the door, or are necessarily less
intelligent.
I have to credit the former theologian John W. Loftus for my recent education on
many of the humanities-centric issues around Christianity. I probably stayed in
as long as I did, not just for the family, but because of Collins, a respected
scientist. Humanities just hasn't really been my field.
Anyhow, for the curious and the questioning, I can't recommend Loftus enough,
and many of his books are on Bookshare. Unlike Hitchens and others, he is
respected among the Christians, even studied at their schools. He was once the
protege of Dr. William Lane Craig.
Terrance is admittedly low-hanging fruit, as are many young earthers. Craig
takes a lot more effort, but Loftus has done a great job exposing all the
challenges there.
Again, this is all counter-apologetic to the evangelical narrative. I have no idea
about the liberals, who their spokespeople are, or what their arguments are.
They don't play pretend hard science like the young earthers do, and so I
suspect the humanities and soft sciences people are probably strongest in
understanding and deconstructing their particular arguments. I also don't bother
with that because they're not interfering with the sciences, and basically seem
to want little more than to be left to themselves, not intruding or trying to
legislate their way on the rest of us.
From www.letusreason.org: "THERE ARE NO ATHEISTS
Someone one day found the comedian W.C. Fields, reading the Bible and asked what he was doing. His reply was "just looking for loopholes, just looking for loopholes." There are a lot of people who read with the same intention of disregarding any evidence. After all we are so much more advance than they were 1,950 years ago when this ancient book was written.
There are only three options to explain our existence, one is to believe in God, another is agnosticism which states their may be a God but I haven't found proof. The last is atheism where one will state they know God does not exist. This is not just a non- belief in God but a willful denial of his existence. Agnosticism is where one admits that they do not know if God exists, not having the proof or that there is a personal God who has always existed.
No one is born an atheist, they learn NOT to believe, just as one learns to believe. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians, unfortunately they usually disbelieve by default. Hopefully one become s Christian because of evidence.
Atheism is natural to man, it is the most comfortable position. It is a reflection of his depraved state being engulfed in sin. The Bible states: the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Why, because there is so much evidence to the contrary? No, it is more of a hopeful out look so that they will not be accountable to anyone or for anything they have done.
God is aware of the atheist while the atheist is not aware of God. In response he says Psalm 14:1-2 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God.”
No matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires just as much faith (believing) to embrace that God does not exist, even more belief than a Christian would need to believe he does exist. Atheism has made a secular belief system (religion/philosophy) of having no God and their focus is usually nature. God's creation has replaced the one who made it. An atheist must assume that personal unique intricate living organisms arose from impersonal disorderly chaos. Something had to come from nothing. They have no explanation for a beginning of when or why. There is no purpose in what we see and call creation. Atheism assumes that the potential gives rise to the actual. Reality shows that something actualized the potential itself. All Potentials have an actualizer. Scrap iron from a junk yard does not form itself into an airplane or a building without some thing that is able to put it to order. All designs have a designer, and the universe has proven to be incredibly designed. Even the minutest organism is more complex than the space shuttle.
"Can you prove for certain that Christianity, the Bible is true?"
The answer to this question is, "Yes, Christianity can be absolutely be proven true." This, does not mean that everyone will accept the evidence, no matter how much there is or convincing it is.
In our courts of law when a judge employs a jury, he or she tells them to decide based on probability, based on the evidence presented. It cannot be certainty since none have viewed the crime. If jury decisions were delayed until 100% certainty existed, no verdict could be rendered. Decisions are based on a combination of faith related to fact.
Anything we buy we trust the manufacturer in what he says for the guarantee. But God who is the creator of all some seem to trust less than man. But he has proven his record through prophecy unlike any other person or book written.
If one investigates nature with an open mind and heart it will lead them to know there is a God and if they go further it will lead them to the one true God. Of course one can stop pursuing it and then would then have to admit nature is the greater than themselves. Since it holds mysteries which they cannot intellectually fathom. Yet the Bible declares in Rom. 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." From Adam to to Moses to Abraham to Isaiah and the prophets, to the apostles to the early church pastors, to Luther, Calvin to Charles Spurgeon to D. L. Moody and Billy Sunday; they would all agree on the same thing: that man disregards what the Word of God says. Every atheist has this in common, they do not believe there is a God, therefore the word of God cannot be what it claims to be. Man lives for himself and makes himself to be the authority - therefore he is his own god. Mankind promotes an eat, drink and be merry philosophy. After all tomorrow we all die and that's it, there is no afterlife- or so they hope.
There are numerous logical problems inherent in the atheists belief system. Consider these examples.
Their declaration "There is no God." Some atheists explicitly state that there is no God, and all atheists believe it. This rumor is ancient and the naïve continue to believe it. Yet this assertion is bankrupt and cannot be logically defended by any from their position. To be a Atheist one would have to be omniscient, knowing all things, having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen. Things of matter or things invisible, to say unequivocally God does not exist. Can any atheist seriously hold to his position of no God with the logical inconsistency challenging his position?
He then would have to have a perfect knowledge of all things past present and future. Theirs is not a statement made on facts, since one would actually have to be God to claim this. So such a statement is based only on assumption not on the facts. A person would have to be God in order to say there is no God, therefore God would exist. It would be them. That’s not too comforting a thought.
There are a numerous reasons why atheism is inadequate as a rational world view. This can quickly be exposed for the charade it is. By asking the atheist the question, are there some things that he knows that you do not? Most will admit to this. Can there also be some things that I know that you may not? He would logically have to admit this also. After all we all have different education and life experiences. So isn’t it possible that millions of people who claim to know God may in fact know him by experience and knowledge while you do not? After all, when you went to school you studied different subjects than me and I studied different ones than you! you would be more knowledgeable on some that I may not. So we see this reasoning already at work in our society and culture.
The point is clearly made and the only response he can take is to try to avoid seeming just as narrow minded and dogmatic as you are, is to admit it is possible. After all, things are supposed to make sense!
Atheism cannot adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all things, the world in which we live cries out for an explanation. Why is it here? The whole existence of the universe argues for a designer, an architect that is creative and into different shapes, sizes, colors, details, and fashioning everything as unique. There is order and design, much like an artist paints a picture. This takes not only intelligence, but a superior supernatural intelligence for the size, quantity and functioning of the known universe. Even non believers like Julian Huxley have calculated the odds of a pure chance of life evolving are to 1,000 to the millionth power. That is a 1 followed by 3 million zeros. There are not many options either the universe itself is eternal or that the universe had a beginning. To go the latter means he must have an explanation for what caused it.
The atheist cannot adequately explain the world even to another atheist, but they certainly have no problem agreeing among themselves there is no God. Misery loves company.
An atheist needs to prove their is no God just as they demand proof from those who believe their is a God. While we may not have a physical being to point to and say there he is, you can see him. He has left his fingerprint on all creation that He was and still is involved.
Is it reasonable or just for God to condemn atheists. Since they claim he has not given ample evidence of his existence they are left with no choice but to not believe in him.
Actually he has given more than enough evidence, it is stated in Rom.1 The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork day by day they utter speech. No one can say there is not enough evidence. They can only say I don't accept it or I don't understand it. For the evidence is overwhelming.
Many through history studied nature because they saw order and complexity in it, thinking that what they see was God controlling things not knowing it was affected by God who controls it.
Rom.1:20 explains Atoms. tells us that things are made from the invisible things Heb.11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed (made to fit put in order) by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. "The things which are seen are made of things not seen. This was not known until modern science discovered the invisible atoms, Invisible microscopic structures.
An atom is a unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire structure has an approximate diameter of 10-8 centimeter and characteristically remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, or exchange of certain electrons. Atoms cannot be seen using optical microscopes, they are much smaller than the wavelengths of visible light. Seen by imaging techniques such as electron microscopes, scanning tunneling microscopes, and atomic force microscopes.
There is absolutely no way man could have such accurate knowledge in the past. As Romans 1 describes- they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
AGNOSTICS & OTHEREXCUSES
There are agnostics who claim there may be a God but they are not willing to acknowledge him so that they may live by his precepts. So He has no bearing on their lives. Instead of God keeping us out of the garden, man keeps him out of their own lives. There are those who claim atheism and walk in life as if there is no God, there are others who deny God but walk in life as if there is one. Man looks to be set free to do his own will, only this is not freedom but becomes a bondage, because one then lives in a false standard of what is right. Rom.1:28 states man does not want to retain God in their knowledge. Mans natural inclination is to distance themselves from God even if they think He may exist. Just as Adam and Eve did when they had guilt for their disobedience. We are quick to raise an objection against his precepts if they prohibit our so called freedoms. As Paul quotes the Old Testament in Rom.3:10-12 As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one. No one is born with the intent to seek God as his ruler, nor for the betterment of himself. There is no desire to commune and is desirable for all that less than the creator. His eyes are toward earth and all that he can see. There is no inclination for faith, to perceive what is not seen.
As Steven Charnock said, "men do evil with both hands earnestly, but do good with one hand faintly."
Ps 36:1 "An oracle within my heart concerning the transgression of the wicked: there is no fear of God before his eyes."
The fear of God is a built in natural instinct to man. This is not a fear of offending him but one of being punished by him. To be justly dealt with is mans main complaint, it is not fair to be sent to hell the practicing wicked claim. Yet it is this fear that can awaken ones conscience to an eternity that lies beyond what they now see.
Prov. 16:6: "In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; and by the fear of the LORD one departs from evil." By ignoring God man rushes to do his own evil desires, we are excited to be in control of our circumstances, only to find we have very little.
Job 21:15: "Who is the Almighty, that we should serve Him? And what profit do we have if we pray to Him?"
What purpose do we look to obey God. An agnostic does not serve out of his conscience but for the flesh to profit. There is no spiritual inclination or motivation it is for self only. Unfortunately we find the same attitude in the church today.
There are those that look in the Bible and see some value in its counsel and use its ethics and moral codes for a lifestyle of humanism. Their intent is not to please the creator or do His will but for it is for their own human benefits. It is agreeable to their philosophy of doing good because they want only good to be done to them. They live by what they call the golden rule. This is what is called a form of religion but denying its power. We are more than willing to practice in the outward than have the inward change that would really affect our nature. We don't want to give up our hidden secret things of the heart. Yet the Bible says all is laid bare before him, he knows, Heb 4:13 " And there is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." Luke 8:17: "For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light." And we thought we got away with it!
1 Cor. 4:5: " Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts." So whether one likes or not, believes it or not, accountability is to take place.
Mans quest is to be his own God, we want to rule our own lives and answer only to our self. The age old cliché has God said, is still alive and well. Essentially we have no real and lasting solutions since they are only from mans wisdom and his perspective, which does not have eternity in mind. We are in rebellion trying to force our way back into the garden. There is only one entrance back and it is to humble oneself admit we are sinful and then we will be allowed to partake of the tree of life (Christ's cross). Until this occurs we will continue to bear fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
wpe26.jpg (961 bytes)"
From www.letusreason.org: "Apologetics for our age
BIBLICAL EVIDENCES OF SCIENCE
What is now known by science today was always known by the creator. He revealed some his knowledge to us through the Bible.
1 Chronicles 16:8-9 " Oh, give thanks to the LORD! Call upon His name; make known His deeds among the peoples! Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him; talk of all His wondrous works! God is an awesome creator of things seen and unseen.
Today Science tells us the speed of light is decaying, the magnetic field is collapsing, the earth is slowly beginning to wobble on its axis, the protective ozone layer is thinning. In Psalm 102:25-26 -- God predicted the earth would wear out. These were unknown until the last century.
Science is only beginning to catch up on what God had man record in the Bible from ancient times. The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature or physics it is absolutely accurate. God speaking to Abraham who is the one he would begin to give his teachings to Gen. 13:16 “And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered.” Genesis 15:5 says the stars cannot be numbered by man. Jeremiah 33:32 explains the stars are beyond numbering. Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. Hipparchus said in 150 B.C. there are exactly 1,026 stars. 150 years later a Roman named Ptolemy said there are 1,056, Kepler counted 1,006. Since Galileo invented the telescope in 1608, we continued to discover more stars. Up until the last few hundred years until the discovery of the telescope there were only 6,000 stars seen by the naked eye. A modern telescope of 200 inches estimates 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. And there are not millions but billions of such galaxies. The Biblical scientific insights were far in advance of four modern day science. Today, with our technology and high powered telescopes in space and astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy with an additional 20-100 billion galaxies in the universe! Henry Morris says there are at least 10 million, billion, billion stars! See Gen.15:5, Job 22:12; Isaiah 55:9; 1 Corinthians 15:41 and 2 Peter 3:10.
Gen. 15:5 “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Now we know there are at least 1 hundred million, billion, billion. This would be like your counting 10 numbers per second. It would then take you a thousand, million, billion years. God's point is that we can’t count with the naked eye that high.
Gen. 22:17 “ I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; Another example of the amount of stars that cannot be counted.
Isaiah 40:22 tells us the earth is not flat but a round sphere. The prophet states God “sits above the circle on the face of the earth.” From God’s perspective he could look straight down on a sphere (a ball) describes as a circle? Obviously a circle meant 3d because that is what the earth actually is. The word for circle is about a sphere or with roundness. The Hebrew word is chuwg a primitive root [compare 2287]; to describe a circle: Brown, Drivers, Briggs explains to encircle, to encompass, to describe a circle, to draw round, to make a circle; (Qal) to encircle, to encompass.
The Bible had refuted the flat earth theory long before scientists actually disproved it. The atmosphere is a terrestrial blanket making the earth inhabitable -- retaining heat, spreading light, providing air (Job.26:10). Only someone who could see it from off the planet would be able to know this.
As Job went though his physical trial he was also having a spiritual one. God began to enter into conversation with him "Listen to this, O Job; stand still and consider the wondrous works of God" (Job 37:14)
Job 22:14 says the earth is round. “And He walks above the circle of heaven.” The word meaning circle, circuit, compass that is our atmosphere around the earth. For centuries, man believed that the earth was flat. Christopher Columbus was criticized for setting sail to the other side of the earth, they expected Columbus to sail off the edge of the earth. Columbus had received his insight that motivated him from the Bible. When people thought it was flat God told us it was round. If they only read the Bible they wouldn't have been afraid to fall off.
Job 26:7 says the earth is suspended on nothing. Early man thought Atlas, a huge turtle or elephants held up the earth. In the North sky within the millions of stars is a vast expanse of blackness. The Bible was there before the telescope so only God could describe it. Today we know it is gravity that holds the planets and stars in their orbits making them appear to be hung on nothing.
Job 28:25 says air has weight. Science confirms air is about 50 miles thick, exactly the right composition to support life. It's perfect for our lungs. The air filters deadly rays. If the earth was 10% larger or smaller all would die. We are in a fragile balance before the sun between frying and freezing.
Job 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; Isaiah 40:12 and 55:10 explains the hydrological cycle. The condensation and hydrology maintain life, provide evaporation, transportation, precipitation and run-off . This describe the repeated cycle of precipitation, its evaporation, and condensation in the clouds.
In recent history science taught that most clouds are formed by evaporation of water from the ocean, but the Bible recorded this centuries ago. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, “The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. Here King Solomon, writing 3,000 years ago explains how the oceans are the origin of rain. tells us the wind has currents. This was unknown to man, today science has documented the direction of wind currents and wind paths. Meteorology or the circulation of winds move by fixed laws, speaks of global wind currents and the earth's water cycle. “The phrase, 'the wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course' is an accurate and astonishing description of the circular flow of air around the earth, called the 'jet stream,' well known to anyone who watches the evening news weather reports”( also in Isaiah 40:12.) This is only a recent understanding of scientists. Is Scripture human supposition or divine revelation?
Job 38:12,17 and Luke 17 show the earth rotates. Ancient science taught a geocentric view of the universe. The change of night and day were thought to be caused by the sun revolving around the earth. We know today that it is the earth's rotation on its axis that gives us the affect of the sun's rising and setting. Job about 4,000 years ago, wrote Job 38:12: “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
v.14 “ It takes on form like clay under a seal.”Job paints the picture here is of clay being turned or rotated on the potter's wheel.
Job 38:16 tells us there are springs in the sea (this was not known until 1913 when they found underground rivers). Solomon mentions about the movement of water in Eccl.1:7 “All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.” Matthew Maury who lived in the middle 1800's had a career with the U.S. Navy. He was the founder of modern oceanography and hydrography. Maury was inspired by Psalm 8:8, dedicated his life to find and document these paths God had mentioned in Scripture. “Whatever passes along the paths of the sea.”These paths were unknown before he charted the winds and currents of the Atlantic. Maury draw accurate maps of ocean currents that are still used today.
Job 38:22 mentions the treasures of the snow. Each flake is of perfect dimensions and all are different. The snow is beneficial for nitrogen for fertilizer.
Water is heavier than air, and is transported in clouds. Some see this process suggested as God continued in his conversation with Job “Dost thou know the balancing of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?” (Job 37:16).
In Job 36:27 and 28 is the statement, He draws up the drops' of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour Down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.” Here we find an accurate description of the earth's hydrologic, cycle. Even during the Middle Ages, the source of rain water was something of a mystery. But in approximately 2,000 B.C.we find Job accurately describing the rain cycle.
Job 38:30 describes ice. Frozen water expands and rises. To sink would kill water life.
Job 38:31 explains the solar system. The Hebrew speaks of a pivot or hinge. In the South-Southwest is the Pleiades, 7 stars making up the center of the solar system. Amos 5:8 states the Pleiades consists of 7 stars but it was only discovered in this last century because with the naked eye one can see only 6.
Job 40:15-24 speaks of the Bohemoth and Leviathan, are what we would know as dinosaurs living in the same time as man. In fact there are many cave drawings of spears being thrown at creatures that we know as dinosaurs today.
Psalm 8:8 mentions the paths of the sea. We read about “the birds of the air, and the fish of' the sea, all that swim the paths of the sea.” But it wasn't until the mid nineteenth century when Matthew Fontaine Maury, the “father of oceanography,” published his discovery that the ocean possesses predictable paths or currents. When Psalm 8 was written, the only seas known to the Hebrews were the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea.' These bodies of water did not possess “paths” or significant observable currents. It took Matthew Maury a great deal of time to collect the crude observational data that existed from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century to make his own discovery. And yet the Psalmist wrote of “the paths of the seas.”
Psalm 102:25,26 reveals the earth is wearing down, the magnetic field is collapsing the earth is slowly beginning to wobble on its axis, the protective ozone layer is thinning, the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves everything is wearing down.
Psalm 139:13-16 poetically describes the value of the DNA molecule in the formation of the unborn child.
Proverbs 8:26 explains the dust particles and the air which makes light.
Proverbs 16:24 and 17:22 explains psychotherapy.
Daniel 12:4 told us knowledge would increase. Only in the last 100 YEARS of time have we developed the common match, ink pen or safety pin. From candles to lanterns to light bulbs to new forms of energy (combustible engine etc.). The last period of time (a little over 100 years) has brought us from the ox cart of the old west like the olden times of Egypt to modern planes and spacecraft. Today knowledge doubles nearly every two weeks.
Rom.1:20 explains Atoms. Tells us that things seen are made from the invisible things. Heb.11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed (made to fit put in order) by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. The things which are seen are made of things not seen. This was not known until modern science discovered the invisible atoms. Invisible to the eye microscopic structures, The Encyclopedia describes it as a unit of matter, the smallest unit of an element, having all the characteristics of that element and consisting of a dense, central, positively charged nucleus surrounded by a system of electrons. The entire structure has an approximate diameter of 10-8 centimeter and characteristically remains undivided in chemical reactions except for limited removal, transfer, or exchange of certain electrons. Atoms cannot be seen using optical microscopes, they are much smaller than the wavelengths of visible light. Seen by imaging techniques such as electron microscopes, scanning tunneling microscopes, and atomic force microscopes,
Joseph John Thomson in 1897 to involve a stream of negatively charged particles with individual masses much smaller than that of any atom. These particles were called electrons, and they were soon recognized to be a constituent of all atoms. That is, atoms are not indivisible but contain parts.
In other sciences we find similar scientific prevision. In medicine, God had directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males specifically on the eighth day (Genesis 17:12). It wasn't until the twentieth century we discovered that only after eight days of life does vitamin K in the infant's diet permit prothrombin, an important blood clotting factor, to reach its peak. To circumcise on an earlier day, when the clotting mechanism is immature, could result in excessive bleeding. Further, there are many other cultures that circumcise their males on the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, or twentieth days of life. If the Jews had discovered the eighth day merely by trial and error, why didn't other cultures do so? Clearly Jewish practice was based on obedience to divine revelation. Deut.23:12-14, Lev. 17:11, and many other Scriptures reflect hygienic or medical knowledge far in advance of its time. The life is in the blood.
Leviticus 17:11 shows us the life of flesh is in the blood. Something only recently discovered by science. There are 75,000 miles of veins and arteries in the body to carry the blood.
Many of the great scientific discoveries were inspired through the Word of God. As men who trusted God as the creator discovered an intelligent designer for the universe and pursued what he inspired others to write thousands of years before.
While the Bible is not written as a science textbook when it speaks on nature and science it is accurate. Only the creator could communicate this.
A good portion of our modern science was founded by creationists.
Francis and Roger Bacon.
Galileo=Heliocentricity
Sir Issac Newton= Calculas and gravity, particle theory of light
Joseph Lister= Antiseptic surgery
Matthew Maury- Discovery of oceanography from Psalms 8:8
Louis Pastuer = sterilization, bacteriology he is one of the greatest biologists.
Johann Kepler =celestial mechanics astronomy
Robert Boyle= founder of chemistry ( a Christian ).
William Harvey= circulation of the blood.
Modern discoveries by Christians= Michael faraday -made the generator and electro magnetic induction
Samuel Morris made the telegraph and his first words Numbers 23:23 "what God has wrought."
James Simpson was the founder of ginecology founded chloroform on Adams deep sleep (he said his greatest discovery was that he had a savior.)
Charles Barage= Computer, speedometer, opthamaloscope ( a Christian)
Carolus Lineaus= Gave us the family of species the Genesis kind (believer in the Bible) Taxonomy.
Nicolas Steno= Father of the science of stratography
wpe26.jpg (961 bytes)"
From www.letusreason.org: "Adam and Eve our beginnings
The beginning of the earth and mankind is certainly a story for us to know today for it counters all the philosophies and religions of our day. It is essential to know, because it is the foundation of all Christian teaching. If one does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, a literal garden or a literal devil, they certainly cannot accept the fact of our being sinners in need of redemption. It is all based on what happened to the progenitors of the human race.
Those who do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch disregard the evidence which influences their own view of the world and archaeology. Those who promote the idea that Moses could not be the author usually refuse to believe that there is a supernatural work of God in the world. That God cannot be the beginner or cause of all things. Thus, it would be foolish to believe all the historical information written about the creation of the world, the crossing of the Red Sea, God speaking to Moses, or even the historical evidence that Moses, a prophet of God, wrote the account in the first place is true. The whole idea is more of a story, a myth for a culture.
The evidence within the Pentateuch points to Mosaic authorship, since it clearly portrays Moses as the author of certain portions. “And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exodus 24:4)
“And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel’” (Exodus 34:27, RSV). To these references many others could be added.
Not only does the internal evidence of the Scriptures make it clear that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but other Old Testament books make Mosaic authorship clear. Joshua 8:32 refers to “the law of Moses, which he wrote.” Additional Old Testament references include I Kings 2:3, II Kings 14:6, and Joshua 23:6, which attribute to Moses the authorship of the Pentateuch.
Then we have testimony of the New Testament. The apostles said that “Moses wrote unto us” (Mark 12:19) as did the apostle Paul, who when speaking of a passage in the Pentateuch said, “Moses describeth” (Romans 10:5).
However, the issue as to the authorship of the first five books is once-and-for-all solved by the testimony of the God-man Jesus Christ. Jesus made it clear that Moses wrote these books (Mark 7:10; 10:3–5; 12:26; Luke 5:14; 16:29–31; 24:27, 44; John 7:19, 23).
In John 5:45–47, Jesus states, “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” If Jesus is wrong then so is Moses wrong and there is no truth to be found in the Bible. If Moses is authentic as Jesus and the other inspired writers say, then so is the Genesis account. Then we are not dealing with a myth as evolutionists, humanists and skeptics say, but an accurate account of the history of earth.
Sin first originated in the heaven, it occurred before the fall of man as taught in Ez.28 and Isa.14. The once cherub over God’s throne became a fallen angel-prince. We don’t know exactly when this happened, he may have rebelled against God shortly after his creation, or it could have been millennia. This event in the world of the spirits/angels does not pinpoint the exact timing of the fall of Satan although it is readily accepted it occurred before the six days' of creation (though some put it in between the 6 days). The Genesis account by Moses does not give us the timing of when Satan came to man after his creation.We don’t know how long Adam and eve were in the Garden before Satan proceeded to tempt Eve. It could have been as short as days or maybe years, although the shorter seems more feasible for Satan’s advantage to have the couple transgress the divine command, but we just don’t know. We do know that God pronounced it all good after He completed the 6 days of creating, it is was a perfect environment of harmony and peace. That is until Satan shows up in the garden as a serpent and delivers a message challenging what God has said.
Satan watched as God spoke the 10 commandments of creation, as he said, “let there be” which was repeated 10 times in the creation account. As God began to move over a planet that had no physical life he brought light to separate the darkness (possibly the judgment he brought previously on Satan.) this light most believe was His own glory that would be able to sustain the life he was to make next until he put the sun moon and stars in place. Then dry land was separated out of the waters that were already present and there was water below and above covering our atmosphere. The trees and flowers were made in abundance on the third day, then sun the moon were then made to give light to sustain the life and it was immediately present. He then made all the creatures, birds animals, and gave them the ability to reproduce just as they were made. But there was nothing that could have authority over what was already made, so God created man in His own image. A creation of a higher intelligence than the creatures He already made at the end of the 6th day.
Here was a rival to Satan as God gave man dominion over the earth (Gen.1:28). The angels both good and evil were able to see how they were brought into existence. When God gave man dominion over the earth (specifically the Garden (Gen.2:15-16), it moved Satan to jealousy and his intention was to frustrate the will of God. It moved Satan to usurp the authority given to new and lesser creatures than himself.
God says he made man in His image and likeness. In Gen.1:26 we find both words image and likeness, In Gen.5:1 the word likeness is found. What does in his image mean. The words image and likeness are used interchangeably in the Scriptures. In Gen.9:6 the word image is used in reference to a person, someone unique and having value, the penalty for murder in Gen.9:6 was on the basis that the victim was made in the image of God. By destroying ones life it was an assault upon God’s creation and what he put in charge of the other creations on earth.
Before we can understand how man was made we need to understand the creator of man to know what we were made to be like. Man is not in the exact physical image of God, because God does not have a body God is Spirit (Jn.4:24) he is invisible. When it states we were created in His image it does not mean that God is a physical being and that we are like Him in that manner. In Deut.4:12 the Israelites saw no form of God, and they were prohibited to make any image of Him because God is incorporeal, He has no body He exists as eternal spirit. The image and likeness man is made in is a moral spiritual likeness with limited qualities like our creator. We are able to think, create, communicate etc.
This is why evolution is such an attack on God, not just because it denies His existence and influence on the universe but because it denies that mankind has an intrinsic value, it reduces us to be no more valuable than any other creature. We are just products of chance.
Both man and woman were made in the image of God.If this meant God’s image is physical, God would be both male and female since man and women were both made in the image of God.God does not have a literal body as we do, with reproductive organs and bodily functions as weTaking terms in their solid literal sense can sometimes make no sense at all, especially when they are not intended to be interpreted that way. It means we have a spiritual nature like God in a finite way. Man was given an eternal Spirit which can live on after the physical body dies, in this way we are created in the spiritual likeness of God.
Being made in someone’s image does not make them an exact duplicate. Paul preached the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:4), it is Christ alone who “is the express image of God (his person) (Heb.1) No prophet ever thought of themself as the express image of the invisible God, or that if you have seen them you have seen the father, they knew better.There are too many today who are exalting mans nature to be something the Scripture says it is not.
The intent of making man from the ground and from the life of God was to reveal the qualities of the Giver of life, his creator. The physical functions of man are to express the spiritual nature the invisible functions given by God. So we are created in God’s moral likeness. We were given in some manner limited capabilities compared to God’s unlimited capabilities. As we can see with the eye, it is like God seeing all things. As we are able to hear in a certain sound range God is able to hear all things. As we are aware of our surroundings, God is aware of all that happens. We are able to think ahead and plan before we do anything. We have rational reasoning. As we had arms made it was liken to God who by his might stretches out his hand metaphorically speaking and forms things he desires. Throughout the Old Testament there is used what are called anthropomorphism to describe God in some function or characteristic. This is figurative language describing a certain characteristic of God, it is describing his divine actions from a human viewpoint. For example there are the Scriptures such as the eyes of the Lord go to and through upon the earth. There are mention of his ears, feet, mouth, fingers, arms, and hands (Ps.8:3). None of these should be taken in the solid literal sense that God has a physical form as a human creature, these are meant to communicate something of his being in His activity.
God is a person, (a person meaning not human but having an identity, He is a being in his own category.) Therefore when man was created we too are a person; A person is identified as a self-conscious being, cognizant of its own existence, and the existence of others who also have a self-identity. The quality of being personal is that one has life and is aware of it.
God spoke His created things into existence but not man, being the last of his creatures made he personally fashioned him from the ground and breathed life into him. All the other creatures he made in abundance but He made only one human creature. Everything was prepared for man on earth before he arrived into existence. When God decided to make man He used no previous creation for an example, no animal or angel was used for an archetype. Man was not given the powers of the angels nor the freedom to move through the atmosphere as they can. He was created a little lower than the angels and as a creature was limited to earth and the natural laws such as the law of gravity. He was limited in his intelligence and power, though he had far greater capabilities than the other creatures. When Adam was created he was perfect creature of his species having no flaws.
God created the natural process that fashions our bones, veins, ligaments; knitting us together in the womb. We are dependent on God for both the physical and spiritual. Ps. 100:3 “It is he that made us not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” Just like Adam who slept God made Eve from him, so ever since Adam every man (and woman) is dependent on his mother. So was set into place the creation order. 1 Cor. 11:8-9 “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” This describes an ontological order, a creation ordinance of man over women. In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve was taken from his side to be his helper. Eve was made after Adam, not from the ground but from Adam himself.“She shall be called woman, Isha, a she-man, differing from man in sex and certain qualities the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man being neither inferior no superior, she was made with the same nature as he was. She was made from a small part of Adam that he once had authority over: it cost Adam a part of his own body to have Eve. In Genesis 2:22,23, where we find reference to Adam calling the female 'woman'.He says,”This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”,or the same substance, a blood relation, of the same body. “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
It was a woman that was taken from the side of Adam to be a suitable mate, as Adam was made first. Women are called a “helper” to man, this is more than being an assistant, a “helper” (`ezer-help) meaning a co-worker. When it comes to women and the concept of submission in the Bible, it does not imply that she is inferior to man in any way, but she is ordained to have a different position in relation to man, each having distinct roles. Adam received her as his wife, and said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” So because she was “taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23), the man has the preeminence as he was the source of the helper, therefore we have both the principle and the position that “The head of the woman is the man.” In the same manner the head of man is Christ the Son of God who was the creator of Adam first, then woman.
He was created mature in mind and body and he was made with age, as was all of creation.
How did Adam become a human being. Gen.2:7 The Hebrew is nephesh chayah meaning living being. Nephesh does not mean a soul, as in a separate entity. The man that was formed from the ground became a breathing creature, having life. Because of the spirit breathed into him, he became alive. He had a unique personality all his own. Man then was made of two distinct parts physical and non- material, substantially made a tri-part being spirit, soul and body. Adam became a creature of two worlds, of earth by his natural body, of heaven by his spiritual nature. The image of God was directly given to man by the breathe of God that gave him life. Gen. 2:7 “And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”-literally, lives. Adam was endowed with the property of continuing life and nature to his offspring.
After the fall Adam begot his first son Cain and other sons and daughters in his own image and likeness. All those who preceded from Adam afterwards received a deformed, marred image of God along with a preserved image of Adam in our nature. In a like manner Jesus had resurrected from death is the first resurrected glorified man and is able to be the giver of new life to man to restore the image of God in man. Being the last Adam, He succeeded where the first one failed.
We have intrinsic value. We are valuable to God no matter what we do because unlike any other creature we retain the image of God in us, though it is corrupted. This is why He can still love us and does not eliminate us.
Every person no matter what ethnicity or religion is to be respected in this manner because they are made in God's image and Christ died for them; but we don't have to agree with their religion but we can respect them and care for them as human beings.
The Holy Spirit was given again so that the true image that man was made in would be restored to its original spiritual intent. But we are still not like Adam, as we have a fallen nature along with the new nature, and our bodies have yet to be redeemed and they are not like the original state that Adam had without sins affect. We do not live over 900 years old. God made all humanity in the image of God and everyone has the potential to be redeemed through Jesus Christ and be restored. The process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ is bythe Holy Spirit changes each of us into the image of Christ yet keeps our personalities and individuality.
1 Cor.15:45-49 “And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.” This is why man must be born again to live forever in God’s kingdom. That there will be a resurrection and the body that is put in the earth will be made alive again and transformed to be suitable for heaven. Our new body will be like the saviors in His resurrection. Those who are living when He comes will not die but be transformed immediately into new bodies that will have sin eliminated and all the consequences from sin will have no affect on them.
In God’s divine strategy who knows all things before they happen, man who became the lowest will be exalted the highest of all creatures even he angels. God had a contingency plan installed before the fall took place. That man who fell from his original estate will be exalted higher than the greatest angel there ever was (Satan) and will even be judge of the angels (fallen angels). This would be done by God Himself who descended into the world of man became like the original Adam before the fall and redeemed fallen mankind by his obedience. By keeping the law perfect and consequently dying on the cross for our sin God was able to redeem man back to his unfallen position, and even to a place that will be above from where Adam fell.
The test
In the garden Adam and Eve possessed what is called unconfirmed creature holiness, but it was not his possession for an eternal state yet.Man was made in the image and likeness of God he was unmarred and had original righteousness. Man being the ruler over the earth and the other creatures was higher in intelligence and he alone had a relationship to his creator that no other creature enjoyed. But there was a need to be tested. So mankind was given the ability in our nature to choose. To sin or not to sin. God gave Adam specific instructions what he was and was not to do. So a simple test was given to see whether man will obey God or not.
He was also given dominion over the earth, specifically the garden (Gen.1:26; Ps.8:58; Heb.2:5-8) His responsibility was to cultivate (have dominion) to dress and keep the garden in the order it was made in (Gen.2:15). In this period before the fall the labor was easy the land yielded its crops easily. At this time he had in his state perfect fellowship with his creator, in the cool of the day, each afternoon God would come to the garden and speak with Adam. (Gen.3:8)
Man was first created alone, as one of a kind in his species, while the animals and creatures were created in numerous numbers of both male and female. In Gen. 2:18-22 by God bringing the beasts to Adam He gave him an opportunity to develop his intrinsic intellectual capacity, which constitutes a humans mind making him superior to the animal world. “Adam sees the animals, and thinks of what they are and how they look; and these thoughts formed into words. He is a creature gifted with the faculties both of reason and speech, able to give expression in the names that he gave them. Language is merely thoughts cast into articulate sounds or words for communication.Job 35:11Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, And makes us wiser than the birds of heaven?” (Adam didn’t call the stars by name God did. He was limited to the rule over the garden section God gave him).
When Adam named all the animals and saw what they were none there for him. God saw there was none suitable for him (Gen.2:18). So God put him to sleep and did an operation on him taking from his side bone and flesh, making another like him. Adam was made from the ground formed into a body and God gave him life by breathing into him His spirit. Eve was taken from Adam and he called her (Isha) woman, at first as they were one. So having a wife is a natural thing in the order of God. After the fall the woman is then called Eve as she became the mother of all living. As we inherit our physical features from our line, our sinful nature is to be passed on too, this is attributed to the man not the woman. Gen 2:18-22 The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man.
God put man in the garden to tend to it. “This was like a park (Gen 2:8) paradise, by which it is rendered in the Septuagint, gives the more precise idea of a spacious enclosure-an extensive park, like those in which Eastern monarchs enclosed their palaces, and which abound with every species of trees, flowers, and garden culture, enlivened besides by numbers of choice animals, which are kept there for pleasure.” (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
God had pointed to one tree in the garden to present a test for man and woman. He did allow them the freedom to choose as was done in heaven by Satan before.God gave two commands to Adam and Eve to obey to prevent this from occurring. The commands God gave Adam were to be fruitful and multiply and keep the garden Gen. 1:28 and a do not command of not eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge Gen. 2:17. Two do’s, and one don’t commandment.
Eve is made after Adam and she too is instructed by God not to eat of the tree. The Bible makes it clear that she is aware of the commands instruction (Gen. 3:3). They can eat from all the different trees but one. There was no special property in this tree except that it was named as a test to train them to become mature in their obedience.
Man was on probation he needed to obey God, this centered mostly around the command thou shalt not eat of the tree of good and evil because when he eats it he will definitely die. This prohibition was given to Adam before Eve was taken from his side(Gen.2:16-17).
If Adam and Eve had passed the test it would have confirmed them in creature holiness, and his offspring would inherit a nature of holiness. (The angels had this occur in Lucifer’s rebellion. After one third rebelled they were confirmed in their decision never able to change back.) If Adam passed he would then have access to the tree of life and live forever as eternal life would have been given to him.But a temptation to disobedience came from an outside influence. From one who already fell the same way in heaven, by disobedience, pride. This particular fallen angel comes and delivers information contrary to what God has already spoken.
When Adam failed the temptation from the source of the Devil through Eve, it confirmed him in his change of nature,unholiness. Sin entered into his nature and spread to the offspring of all people. Now disobedience comes from our nature that is fallen from its original state. The first man was potentially the race of all people, our natural headship. Being the natural headship of humanity his actions did not only affect him as the individual, but of the race. If he was the last of the race and fell, he would not involve any other in his descent. But being the first of a race when he fell before he had any offspring, the whole race has fallen. As Paul says “in Adam all sinned”, because of his choice it changed the whole character and condition of mankind throughout all time. Just as Paul said a little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Gen 2:25) Only one sin made us all sinners but only Adam became a sinner by sinning.The sin nature affects the immaterial part of man, which consequently affects our outward actions.Death is the consequence of sin.This is the very reason why we need to be born again.Our dead spirit needs to be regenerated (Rom. 8:1, Gal. 5:24) by the Spirit of God.One is made alive spiritually to God and is able to have a vital relationship through Jesus Christ.We need a new nature.
Satan’s attack was on God himself as the kingdom of the earth was taken from Adams hand and Satan’s. Satan’s attack against man was fueled by his hatred toward God, not only by the hatred of the new human creatures that were placed in the garden, like a park and given dominion. His purpose was to divorce man from being in the will of God through disobedience to one command. Just as Satan had led the other angels to believe him and rebel, he would do the same for man.
God made the tree of life to grow in the midst of the garden, among all the other trees; by eating the fruit of this tree the immortality of Adam would had been secured. When Adam transgressed, he was expelled from this garden, and not permitted to eat of the tree of life; he became necessarily mortal, death came to him and all his offspring. He is then forbidden to eat of this tree he once enjoyed. This tree is secured and restored to man again in the true garden in heaven by the gospel -- the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. In Rev.2:7 we see a parallel to this tree.
The tree of life is representative of immortality, and a final state of blessedness. Whatever it is it was to make the life of man perpetual. We find the tree of life is in the ultimate paradise, heaven, where those who obeyed the gospel on earth will live.
What are the trees? “The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”(Gen. 2:9). Both were smack dap in the middle of this Edenic paradise. These were two literal fruit trees that did not have any inherent special properties but were used by God for examples, so they are named.
Some think the fruit of the trees in the garden had certain healthful qualities, rich in vitamins and minerals that caused the effects spoken of. The tree of life would have excelled all the others, containing all the nutrients of such high quality and quantity. The tree of knowledge contained poison that was immediately intoxicating. While this concept seems to fit for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that eating its fruit may have had a reverse effect by some poison as some surmise, it does not make sense that it would bring death spiritually, and from one time only. Also I imagine there was no tree (tree of life) that improves life so much that one can live eternally just by eating it. The curse began by disobedience and eating the forbidden trees fruit and it brought death; of course Christ changed it at the tree of death he died on. This is the reason Adam was kept from the tree of life after his test being completed, he would have been confirmed in his fallen sinful state forever.
These trees were emblematic, symbols used for man's loyalty and obedience or disobedience.One of knowledge representing the law(do not touch or you will die) the tree of life represented Christ and eternal life Hegives.If they obeyed they would have had the privilege to continue to eat from it.This one tree represented the rule of do not touch. Through breaking God’s law they learned the knowledge of good and evil.
The law-- forbidding to eat of the tree was now violated, it was still possible that Adam might partake of the other tree that he was already eating from; but now the sentence of death had been passed upon him it would bring him in a permanent condition, so he was forbidden to eat of the other tree
Gen 3:23-24 “Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”
Well, what is the meaning of this mysterious phrase, “the knowledge of good and evil”? It's talking about is experiential knowledge of good and evil in the sense of “good and evil consequences.”When Adam and Eve fell, they didn't receive the knowledge Satan promised. They did know that there was right and wrong by experience.
In other words, this was a tree of testing. As long as they obeyed the commandment they would continue to “know good” (i.e., no death,thepresence of God, no hardships things would continue as they were intended.). But the day they disobeyed, they would “know evil” (in the sense of death, the loss of the presence of God, expulsion from the Garden, curses on them and on the earth, etc.)
Some say the fruit was sex that brought on the original sin. This came mostly through some Catholic theologians centuries past. If these are not interpreted as a literal trees or fruit, this would propose a big problem. Than neither every herb that yields seed any other tree or fruit can be taken literally. God gave the trees fruit as food for man. There is no need to interpret it in an allegorical manner, or find some hidden meaning in all this, they were used in a simple test. The tree of knowledge was a representation to impose a restraint on man, it was there to keep him dependent on God.What kind of fruit was it? It doesn’t matter, since the Bible makes no mention of it. So it must not have any real consequence for us today, this fruit may or may not still exist. What mattered was the consequence of disobeying and eating from the one tree God said not to eat from. While we are allowed to find the species of creature Satan used to cause the disobedience we are not allowed to find the fruit that God put a prohibition on.
(Gen 3:1-8) Satan did not approach them in the appearance of his true form of a celestial being, he came through a creature inferior to man. Adam and Eve had no concept of a foreign creature entering the garden to use another as a pawn so they were unguarded in this. But they could have no excuse for allowing a mere animal they were appointed to rule over to persuade them to break the command God gave.
What do we know of this creature? We do know that this creature was made by God and was pronounced good along with the rest of God’s creatures as they were made on the same day as Adam. It originally moved erect, because his punishment was to crawl on its belly (some think on all fours). Was the serpent endued with speech, and the gift of reason since he was carrying on a conversation disputing with Eve? Scripture states Adam had not found one animal comparable to himself or resembling himself, not one endowed with reason and speech like himself.
One alternative explanation is that some or all the animals had the capability to speak. We do know that certain creatures are intelligent and can be taught to speak such as parrots. But snakes (if it was a snake and not some other type reptile) have no organs for speech, although they hiss. So this is a supernatural event from Satan that would be like channeling today. Satan could certainly speak through the serpent in the Garden, as he spoke through Peter to try and keep Jesus from the cross (Mt.16). Satan entered Judas and did his betrayal directly to Jesus as he faced him off in his arrest.
Some believe the serpent is not a literal creature, but a figurative serpent; not an animal, but a spiritual being. This would make no sense since God cursed this creature to crawl on the ground. The great dragon, is identified with “the ancient serpent called the devil and Satan.” The word for dragon is Leviathan in Hebrew, it is used in the Greek Septuagint and in Rev.12. This makes it intriguing since the word dragon is what we now call dinosaurs. We know from the text that a spirit being was present and active, not just a mere animal that was a beast of the field. Satan was not permitted to have direct contact with man; he was limited in his deception. His way to deception was through the senses and in the way of speech. Just as God limited his attack on Job he did the same with Adam. For if he could he would have killed him, as Jesus said he was a lair and a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44), as he later instigated the death of Abel through his brother Cain.
Gen 3:1 “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.” The Hebrew word for subtil is `aram; it is translated prudent and twice crafty. It has the idea of smoothness to be cunning (usually in a bad sense): crafty [counsel], be prudent. He was more cunning than anything on the ground because there was spiritual counterpart to all this.
The common word for Serpent is Nachash means upright serpent; a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate: divine, enchanter, (use) enchantment, learn by experience. This is where we get the saying the hiss of the serpent. It is the same word nechoshet which means bronze in Hebrew in Numbers 21:9 nahash nehoshet 2 Kings 18:4)
It means shiny as brass upright creature, he had glory, and the word has a connection to divination. The creature had a mesmerizing effect on Eve. The Hebrew nachash has been traced to its root word, one means to whisper or hiss as in soothsayers, the other translation means to shine related to brass. In other words the real serpent within this earthly creature that approached Eve was the shining one, his beauty awed her and she listened to his whisperings. In Isa. 8:19 “And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” These people gave themselves over to spirits that were supposedly deceased who would communicate through them sometimes speaking strange sounds. As snakes hiss, so were the sounds of these ancient channelers. It is no wonder that Paul states in 2 Cor.11:3: “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” What the simplicity Paul refers to goes back to the original state of man on the earth. Paul then warns of another Jesus, another spirit and another gospel. If you have a Jesus that is not about forgiving your sins, you have another Jesus. Scripture teaches that all of us like sheep have gone our own way. Jesus said He is the only way. It is God’s way. We are to be devoted God alone and allow His rule to be our only way of life, not pursuing our own will or ways or another way. Another spirit that is received that is not the Holy Spirit can lead one into false interpretations of the Bible. Another Gospel that they did not hear from him but if received they will entertain it.
(This is a literal event- literal tree literal people an a literal serpent. It is mentioned several times in the New Testament Rom. 5:21, 16:20; 1 Cor.15:21; 2 Cor.11:3-4; 1 Tim. 2:14). There is no way to know today exactly which creature this was, anymore than to know what the fruit of the forbidden tree was. There are various Serpents the asp, cobra
You really need to find better-written, better-researched and less fallible sources, Terrance. Your last post is just claptrap. It ignores arguments, twists reason and generally makes a mockery of honest religious debate. If I tried to deconstruct it I'd be here for half an hour, and I simply don't have the time.
Consider, in the meantime, that almost every so-called argument is backed up by the Bible, which itself is not above reproach. If these thrusts can't go forward without a flawed book to give them strength, then metaphorically speaking the tree is rotting before it can grow.
Our boy Terrance here would be better served at ReasonablleFaith.org -- William Lane Craig's site, if he wants to present actual arguments.
I'll spell this out for the curious:
If you don't think a book I have is credible, it won't do me any good to cite that book.
Let us say you're evangelical, and by extension most probably have heard your pastor rail against Dawkins. Maybe even looked at RichardDawkins.net in a private browser window on your computer, concealing it more carefully than you would porn.
Now, you already don't find Dawkins to be credible, either by default via your environment, or you found some of his old-British-crotchety statements too cranky for your liking. If I come along and try and convince that he's credible, I could not do so by quoting his own work, could I? After all, you already don't find him credible.
Wouldn't it be reasonable for me to point you to another source that corroborates his credibility? Then, and only then, if you already found that other source credible, would you consider it.
If you, like some evangelicals, thought Darwin was a fraud, I couldn't convince you by citing "On the Origin of Species" or "The Descent of Man".
That's the best way I know how to describe what we're saying when we tell Terrance use of his religious text isn't going to convince us. Just as you're not going to convince a Christian to become a Jehovah's Witness by using the JW texts, not without first establishing those texts' credibility.
I'm very curious about who actually read Terence's last post, both because of his history, but mainly because of its gigantic girth. Cutting and pasting often gives us the ability to impart what we want to show better than we feel we can say it, but it sure doesn't do any favors for those reading it.:)
Terrence, it's interesting that you rail against us LDS so much. I wonder if you have read anything from us that wasn't cast in an anti-propoganda light? Because a skilled wrighter can take anyone's belief and make them sound rediculous, which is what we see on these very topics from time to time.
When you get right down to it, what I believe, and what you've posted in these three articles are actually very compatible. The main differences are
our expanded understanding - or belief if you prefer - of the eternal nature of God and Man, and the purpose of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
If you'd care to read some of what I linked to above, you might find it interesting. Perhaps not convincing, as it might not resonate with you as it does me,
but certainly interesting.
I actually quite enjoyed these articles. They aren't proof of course, because as we've been saying all along, proof in these matters is subjective. But it
certainly is interesting that the bible, an incredibly ancient collection of even more ancient wrightings alludes to so much about the inner workings of
the world and the sciences with which we put so much stock. Could it have been poetry only? Mere coincidences which someone "thought" referred to the
sciences we take for granted? Certainly possible. But that's a whole lot of coincidences. And if you take into consideration the "word of Wisdom" which we
LDS follow - that's a whole lot of coincidences about the human body, too. There's a lot of "coincidences" in the scriptures about all manner of things, all, naturally and conveniently open to interpretation. It's true the scriptures only stand as a testament for those who believe they do,
but it's certainly interesting to see things - open to interpretation as they are - be highlighted in this manner. There's a whole heck of a lot about the
old testament - and the scriptures in general - that the common Christian just doesn't understand. They aren't easy to understand, particularly the old testament. Some of it was literal, some is symbolic, and some is
parable. Which is where there is so much uncertainty a lot of the time. For instance, the story of Job is a facinating tale in its entirety, though most
people, when they think about it just think it's some game between Satan and God. But was Job a real person? Hard telling. We know that Jesus taught
primarily in parables that the people of the time would understand. It's why some of them seem a little archaic to us now, even if we still understand the
spirit of what they're saying. But in many ways, this is a huge parable, an alagory of sorts in that it explains the value of true faith, even in troubled
times, and the eternal increase given to us when we keep to the straight and narrow path. It's a hard story to read at times, because Job really does go
through some terrible things, but the innevitable outcome is positive, yes, even - from an eternal perspective - for those whom God allowed to be affected.
The old testament is full of stories like this. It is full of wisdom and prophecies that speak plainly - and not so plainly at times - of Christ. But a lot
of it needs to be studied - and studied a lot - to be understood. One need only try to read the writings of Isaiah to realize that. And that's where true
belief and motivation comes in. If you don't believe, or can't believe in the scriptures, you're probably not going to take the time and effort to delve deep
into the scriptures, using all the other resources available to make sense of them. Likewise if you're a Christian, but don't really concern yourself with
developing your understanding of the scriptures. A lot of people read passages or even whole books of the scriptures and take them at face value. But there
are many times where face value isn't enough. You need to understand the context of the time in which these books were written. You need to know what's
really being said, and that what's being said is the right translation. And yes, atheists will bock at this, but there are times when one needs the holy
spirit of God to help us learn. The scriptures can not be comprehended by knowledge alone. That's a really alien concept for people who don't believe in - or
who have never experienced the holy Ghost before. And not to mention, that opens up the unfortunate issue of "the holy ghost told me this is what this
means." Well, how do any of us know that? That's just one of the reasons the Christian faith is so broad in its "factions - and yes, I'm not so arrogant that I don't include my own here. As to whether God exists, plagues destroyed cities, an enslaved culture was freed, a young boy truly saw a vision of God, all I know for sure is subjective history doesn't have all the answers, as records can be lost, doctored, or misleading. Science, as provable as much of it is, can't explain conclusively all the inner workings of existence and of all it contains. Rationality and logic are valuable assets, helping us make sense of things, but they are still dependant on the provable understandings of the times and circumstances in which they are employed. Where religion makes things difficult is its seeming contridictions, its lack of clarity to the unscripturally minded, and, of course, its lack of 100% provability. Faith, hope and willingness are, for many people, poor substitutes for clear-cut evidence. It takes faith to have faith, and it takes personal experience that, in some way, faith is warrented, to keep it.
I'm curious about something.
I've heard someplace that there's stuff in the Old Testament about how it's okay to sentence the owner of oxen to death if the oxen injure someone. Or to kill someone who has sex with an animal. Or who kindles a fire or engages in physical labour on the Sabbath. Am I taking this out of context, or did the Bible actually condone this?
And if it did, or does, condone such things, why do most Christians think that's barbaric, while still upholding, however gently, unjust accusations against homosexuals?
Also, I recently read that the oft-quoted "suffer not a witch to live" line was in all likelihood inserted into the Bbible by King James, and I think the King James version is the one most people use today. Hebrew, and the culture of the time, made a distinction between someone who uses dark magic, and someone who uses good magic. I think the original Hebrew script said something like "suffer not a user of black magic to live", but as views on magic changed, the word "witch" was substituted, since it came to cover -all would-be practitioners of magic.
...and, again, if this is true, it looks like the start of a landslide. Because if this happens once, and gets something twisted out of context, then how often has it happened on other things? How valid is one's interpretation of such a book apt to be after all the fiddling and translating it's had to endure?
I mention this to highlight Leo's point. If I don't believe in the validity of the Bible in the first place - and I pretty well don't - then you will gain absolutely no headway in a logical argument by quoting it. You'd first have to prove that it's admissible.
Greg the standard evangelical answer goes something like this:
The Old Testament did state all the things you mentioned, including having the
animal victim of bestiality stoned to death.
Where many secular people fall down and lose credibility with Christians is just
the question you asked. Not your question but their interpretation of things.
The Old Testament is said to be the Old Law, before Jesus came. After the
substitutionary atonement as described in the New Testament, the specific
Jewish laws are done away with. They are broken into three parts: Ceremonial
law -- for priests, civil law -- property rights (including slaves, animals, women
and children), and moral law.
So then the trick is to figure out which is which. So Christians typically apply
laws from the old testament that are reiterated in the new testament. So since
Paul clearly has claims against homosexuality in Romans 1 (a rather funny
passage that reads like us apostates are supposed to go gay, actually reads
rather like a primitive flow chat), they apply the old testament anti-
homosexuality edicts onto modern Christianity. Since Peter allegedly had a
vision where all animals were deemed clean, so he could go forth and convert
non-Jewish people, then the old hygiene laws / prohibitions against pork and
shellfish don't technically apply according to Christians.
It's not as simple as "That was the old testament", but there is a method to
their madness.
Note, I'm not at all a theologian, was just raised in it and am damn near
obsessive when it comes to figuring out how systems work lol. I'm not making
the case here that the claims are credible, only that is what Christians claim.
Leaving aside all the historical anomalies which I've written about elsewhere
and will happily answer anyone who's curious, Greg has asked a valid question.
And many secular people who debate with Christians would do well to afford
them the courtesy of understanding where they're coming from.
So Greg, even though I'm not a Christian myself, I admire your intent on being
intellectually honest.
For the curious, I have an evangelical preacher friend of mine, a guy I went to
high school with, who wrote an article on some of this -- actually a series. Look
up:
"Beards, seeds, seafood and sex"
where he breaks down the various prohibitions and why they are and aren't
allowed. He's unashamedly Christian, and pretty blunt at times although unlike
Terrance here he is very well read. I mention him because he actually welcomes
comments from us atheist types. I admit it really upset him to find out about
me and another friend of ours. But while some would have blocked me on
Fakebook or gotten angry, he has been a very gracious person towards the lot
of us.
Actually I did some digging and found Eric's post. Here it is:
Seeds, Seafood, Beards and Sex
The link I point to is Part 3 and it's on SpokaneFavs.com where he writes as a
religion author for the Spokane Favs newspaper.
Now my friend Eric here is clearly evangelical Christian, but supports the civil
rights of gay people and also uses those words the Wife and Daughter use, stuff
about community and all of that. Because he's my friend, I read what he writes.
But I don't present him for that reason here; he sets out to answer just the
questions that Greg asked. And he does so as a Christian, which is probably
what most people want, not what my daughter calls a mechanical description of
something spiritual.
I imagine some Christians will enjoy his posts but I know he gets push-back
from others who think he's not hard-line enough, and ones like my daughter
might find him too literalist on some things. But fellow skeptics I invite you to
read his post there because he really does describe this situation, and we do
well when talking to religious people to not use the shrimp and stoning
arguments, because Christians themselves don't see it that way. Make no
mistake I find the old testament deity to be just a sand-dweller warlord, one
among many. I'm not here to defend the Christian position, any more than I
would defend WalMart's decision to put half the necessary RAM into the
computers they sold in the mid 2000s ... just to explain to the best of my
abilities how their system works. Even if those like my daughter balk at it when
I refer to religions as systems.
Now my daughter and similar Christians say something like this re: the
homosexuals bisexuals and all those other ones I can't remember or keep track
of:
The sexual stuff talked about in the Bible is cult practices where same sex and
opposite sex prostitution were practiced. It doesn't mention "loving
relationships", and so presumably hookup culture is still an out for them. But
anyhow there's more to it than that but this is the basic stuff she told me and I
did some digging to see what they were saying.
She many are still puzzling this out, but she was unimpressed when I made the
casual suggestion of skipping the middle man and embrace skepticism. Probably
wasn't one of my finer moments, but ah well.
FIRST, to those of you that REGULARLY POST, who PROBABLY ASSUME that you're the ONLY ONES that READ THIS, as well as ANY of the OTHER topics that I've created, who ACTUALLY THINK that I'm FEVERISHLY/DESPERATELY PERSISTANT with MY SUPPOSED CONTENTION to ALWAYS be RIGHT, have YET AGAIN revealed ANOTHER dilusion, which is the CORE RESULT of YOUR SERVICE to the "SELF" god, if you will, which ADVERTENTLY BLOCKS ALL RECOGNITION of OTHERS that ONLY READ, who either HAVE YET to, or even CHOOSE NOT to, post, who JUST MIGHT be the VERY ONES that ONLY GOD, HIMSELF, NOT ME, intends for ANY, if not ALL, of these topics to reach ONLY THOSE that DO want HIM, NOT ME, to "CONVERT," which AGAIN TOTALLY DISQUALIFIES HUMAN BELIEF as the VERY SOURCE to ACCORD with, as such as being FALLIBLE. SECOND, being that the BIBLE, which is the ONLY ABSOLUTELY INERRENT FINAL AUTHORITY that's ETERNALLY MANDATORY for US as CHRISTIANS to be GOVERNED by, it's CERTAINLY NO WONDER that WHATEVER SOURCE that I copy/paste from is PERFECTLY LINED UP with it.
The following is from www.letusreason.org.
The New Priests of Atheism
“Only two things are certain: the Universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the Universe”-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
I’m certain about the stupidity of man because the Bible tells us we are all under sin, Furthermore the Bible teaches there are fools- when a person has said in his heart there is no God (cited twice Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1). That’s God’s position on the so called intellectuals of scientism. Einstein is considered one of the smartest humans to have lived- he believed there is something beyond us, that we would call God, he didn’t accept a personal god but one more in line with theosophy.
Sin not only affects our moral aptitude of our mind and reasoning, we are unable to think correctly and make accurate judgments until we have the mind of Christ. No matter how intellectually smart one can only consider his works and not the one behind His works. for that they need revelation, input beyond a human source.
“I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)
We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 208)
If he had read his own Hebrew Bible he may have started on a journey that was not limited to science but reached his heart, the spirit within man that would have given him an understanding of man and his purpose. But Einstein recognized God in Judaism as a religion concerned with life having no need of “faith,” Einstein was a humanist at heart.
Humanist Manifesto H affirms: "We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. ... No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." ('Humanist Manifiestos I and II, Paul Kurtz, ed., (Prometheus Books, 1973, p. 16.)
So humanists consider themselves masters of their own destiny who have no purpose from a creator so they create there own.
In our day, Atheism also known as secular Humanism has become an aggressive challenge to the church. The success of the New Atheists influence reflects something significant – that the church has done a poor job in defending truth publicly and there is a void which they have rushed to fill.
An atheist is one that is sure in an absolute sense that no God exists. They do not arrive at their conclusion from evidence (which is not on their side) but from a hope. Which often relates to not wanting to be responsible to a greater authority because they do not like what the authority has to say about them and how they need to live. An agnostic is one who accepts the fact that he has not (yet) found proof of God. A dishonest agnostic says, "I don't know and I don't want to know." An honest agnostic says, "I don't know but I want to know." One cannot be an “atheist” if they are being honest with their pursuit of the facts and science.
Atheists do not use the mind or logic to arrive at their conclusion, they use didactic reasoning that eliminates certain facts and evidence to stack the deck in their favor to satisfy their own ego’s pride of being right?
What they do is like someone building a two story house and after the first story they stop building to state there is no second story. They purposely forfeit there pursuit of where facts lead because it will change their conclusion. They are willing to believe the record of history in nearly everything else except when it supports the Bible; then they ignore it, unwilling to continue their pursuit of knowledge of the “Holy One.” Again this proves the sinful condition of man and his severed relationship to his maker.
God began to solve the human dilemma by a baby. The atheists are threatened by him today as much as Herod was back when He was born. On Fox News Dec.8, 2008 an atheists statement was played- “this time of year is the winter solstice it is a natural season the Christians basically stole this season from us human beings by using the hate speech of the nativity scene which, which damns all of us to hell if we don’t bow down before that little baby that became the dictator. What a horrible insult to what it means to be a human being.”
Are Christians – non human beings! Have the atheists made a new category for those who believe in God?
This is what is called bigotry. This would fall in the category of religious hate speech but because it is about Christianity it will be ignored --The little baby that became a dictator? Is Jesus Mussolini, or Mao? Jesus has not forced anyone to bow before him to serve. One day they will bow and admit the gospel was true, that he is indeed Lord as they are face to face with him, but in the meantime they have the choice to reject him. They are what the book of Romans states “haters of God, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, … without understanding, … who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1:28-32). The book of Galatians calls this the work of the flesh, fallen man at his worst. How can they hate God so much? “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 1:25)
I have underlined the applicable descriptions. 2 Timothy 3:1-4: “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, … unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, .. brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God”
This brings us to the most prominent argument of the atheists--portraying religion as unreasonable, a "blind faith," that leads to fanaticism and even violence. They claim that religion particularly Christianity) has killed more people than any other thing on this planet. Their old argument that there are more killed by religion than anything else is completely false, and without merit.
They use the Catholic crusades, the Salem Witch trials or in some (rare) instances the Islamists jihad as proof of what religion does to people.
The Salem Witch Trials killed eighteen, not thousands. Can atheists claim the same from Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot,.. The majority of dictators were atheists, (excluding Hitler who believed in a very different god). So their arguments of this type become moot when the facts are known.
The answer to their incendiary accusations are the facts: It is Atheism, not religion, that is responsible for the majority of mass murders. In the twentieth century alone, as a result of Communist ideology, more people were killed than in all wars in the previous nineteen centuries put together. Far more than killing in the name of any religion, were those killed in the name of government and an ideology.
They use doublespeak- when religious people do evil things, they are acting on their beliefs, but when atheists do the same it has nothing to do with their atheism. Under Stalin much of the Orthodox priesthood was exterminated solely for being religious leaders, as were the clergy of other religions, hundreds of thousands of Baptists. One cannot claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his extermination. Altogether the numbers range from 120 million upwards to 200 million slaughtered. These do not come close to anything the Catholic church did in the crusades or throughout its history.
The crusades were actually a retaliation against the Islamic Jihad that took Europe. The religious wars were not done by obedient Christians but Roman Catholics fighting to recover the "Holy Land for the church.” A church that blended religion with a state government. The crusaders were not following the commands of the Bible or Jesus. No Bible passage was used to promote this, but a churches mandate- they took orders from the Pope. They could not validate their actions from the Bible or by the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.
Not all religions are equal. To say Christians use violence just like Muslims is Sophistry. Jihad is the normal state of relationship between the non-Muslim and the Muslim. It is a perpetual conflict. The concept of Jihad preceded the Crusades by five centuries.
The Christian Crusades were an abnormality in Christian history based upon Catholic teaching not the bible. In contrast, the intolerance and violence that have characterized Islam throughout its history are firmly rooted in the Koran. Not all religions are equal.
Muslims have a record of killing innocent civilians for centuries before the crusades ever took place, and long after they stopped they continue this today. Christianity teaches to love your enemies to care for your fellowman, love your neighbor as yourself.
Islam that practices terrorism finds its instructions in their Koran. The fact is the true Church started by Jesus was martyred throughout the centuries by Islam and even by some who called themselves the Church.
The Muhammad cannot be compared to the words of love Jesus told his followers known as Christians:
“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).
However you want people to treat you, so treat them” (Matthew 7:12).
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39).
“This is my commandment that you love one another” (John 15:12, 17).
You cannot find anything of equal value in Islam or any philosophy on earth. In fact as Muhammad was dying, he asked Allah, to curse the Jews and Christians (Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427)
Many atheists were brought up in Christian homes and went to church. They asked questions that were not adequately answered or were dissatisfied with what they saw and it repelled them. Some claim that they did research and found none of the story or history to be true, as in the case of a now famous atheist Dan Barker who was a minister and now has the Freedom from Religion Foundation. He has written a book called “Godless” about him being an evangelical preacher that turned to one of Americas leading atheists. Barker claims that Christians took secular songs and melodies and made them into religious songs so he has returned the favor and has taken little town of Bethlehem and set it to words for a celebration of the winter solstice (which is really a pagan celebration). (audio posted on our website www.letusreason.org/Apolo30.htm)
Take note Pastors/teachers/evangelists, it is so important to respond correctly to a youth’s questions on the Bibles accuracy. Don’t take it for granted that all will be well with them, their beliefs are continually under attack in the schools; from grade school all the way up to college. If you do not have a sufficient answers for their questions they will find someone who does, even if it is untrue. And unfortunately there are more untrue answers offered than there are true ones from our secular educators.
If we compare the Old Testament manuscripts to that of ancient Rome or Greek history the evidence for its accuracy is incomparable. If the Bible is rejected for its inaccuracy in recording history than all ancient history is suspect.
Homer's “Iliad” written in 900 BC has 643 copies; the first copy was found 500 years later (400 BC). Caesar's “Gallic Wars” written in 65 BC has 10 copies; the first copy found 835 years later (900 AD).
Plato's “Tetralogies” written in 400 BC has 7 copies; the first copy found 1,300 years later (900 AD). The volcanic eruption of Pompeii is accepted as history but it has only one manuscript.
When we look at the New Testament manuscripts there are nearly 25,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. The New Testament fragments are within one generation from the original, we have whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph. We have the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion. No other ancient piece of literature comes close to the Bibles substantiation for its accuracy.
There are 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers (up to the 4th century) found in several thousand Lectionaries (sermons). All but 11 verses are found of the New Testament, proving the Bible we have today is the same as what was written then. We have whole copies of the Old Testament from 900 AD. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found they put the imprimatur on it accuracy, preceding the Old Testament text from 900 Ad by 1,000 years, it was nearly word for word.
If the Bible is to be rejected for its inaccuracy in recording history and events, than all ancient history is suspect. Bible history is not found only in the Bible, secular Historians like Josephus, the Roman Tacitus, the Roman Suetonius, the Roman Governor Pliny the Younger, confirm the people and their customs, the many places and events that are recorded in the New Testament.
Archaeology affirms the reliability of the Bible with over 2,500 sites discovered. Each time a dig is found it brings more confirmation to the Bibles record as being accurate. William F. Albright was a man very well respected in his field. He published over 800 books and articles. He was known as America’s foremost Orientalist, a leader in biblical archaeology, a linguist and an expert on ceramics (pottery artifacts), was able to endorse many archeological sites as contained in the Bible record (he dated the dead sea scrolls). The skeptic, much less the atheist must ignore the evidence to come to their conclusions. Many an atheist have taken up the challenge to look at the evidence of the Bible and disprove it. Sir William Ramsey, set out to disprove the gospel of Luke and Acts, but through his investigative archaeological trips, he became converted. Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, set out to disprove the Bibles testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ and ended up converted from the EVIDENCE. His book, The Testimony of the Evangelists attests in detail to the accuracy of the witnesses from a lawyers perspective. In our modern time Josh McDowell did the same and ended up becoming a believer and writing the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” which every skeptic, critic or atheist should take time to read
This is why those who follow the Bible are the target of ridicule.
Atheists acknowledge the theory of evolution strips Christianity of any meaning. Atheist G. Richard Bozarth sums up their position by writing: “Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god . . . If Jesus is not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing” (G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," The American Atheist, Vol. 20, No. 2, February, 1978, p. 30).
Some of the more famous atheists believe there is more evidence that aliens visited earth to begin mankind (panspermea) than a God who created us.
What do you think is the most important question you can ask in life. Not who am I or what is my purpose, but is there a God and who is He? What am I and what is my purpose means little is the more important question is not answered.
Often one will hear the words “there isn't enough evidence to believe in God.” An theist would be hardpressed to believe in any modern day achievements man has done applying this same attitude they have toward the Bible. Can they actually prove man went to the moon or do they have to take others testimonies by “faith.” Can they prove that invisible particles are what everything we see is made of?
Proving there is no god is upon the atheists shoulders. It is only fair that if a theist has to give evidence, so do atheists.
This new atheism can be called scientism for it exalts science as the epitome of knowledge. The atheists claim you can’t prove god[s] exists- they can’t prove evolution and their theory of the beginning of the universe are correct. But this does not stop them from their scientific fantasy that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.
What we agree with an atheist is that the universe had a beginning, everything after this ensue the debate. And each of us go to the opposite end, as dark and light. After the beginning we have to answer the how questions.
The beginning was either: caused or uncaused. If the universe had a cause, the cause was either:
1) By a personal being or 2) not a personal being.
Life was either directly created by a living being or spontaneously arose from a nonliving material.
The fact is- Science has proven the universe is neither eternal, uncaused, indestructible or incorruptible. Logic and common sense has to be the first plank to discovering what took place.
At least five books by the New Atheists have made the bestseller lists for the past two years. Sam Harris's The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and now Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great.
The God Delusion was #8 on the New YorkTimes bestseller list, #10 on Publishers Weekly, and #2 on the Amazon best-seller rankings in November 2006.
"The God Who Wasn't There" DVD asks the youth to take the blasphemy challenge. They offer a free DVD of a movie called "The God Who Wasn't There." All you need to do is send a video of yourself blaspheming the Holy Spirit. http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/Brian Flemming shows his unparalleled ignorance on the subject unable to distinguish between the teachings of the Bible and the many cult and aberrant groups who have used Christ’s name to promote their own flawed views.
In June 2005, Brian Flemming released a documentary DVD on the Jesus Myth. http://www.thegodmovie.com/
The atheists established internet discussion forums--Internet Infidels,”The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”. [unless one is grounded in what they believe I do not recommend visiting these sites].
Then there is “The God Who Wasn't There,” a DVD that asks the youth to take the blasphemy challenge offering the a free DVD of “The God Who Wasn't There,” to any who will send a video of yourself blaspheming the Holy Spirit (http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/). Stating “You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: “I deny the Holy Spirit.”
Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.”
It was reported that even John Gibson of FOX News joined in support of the Blasphemy Challenge.
They are ignorant. As much as they would like to, they are not really participating in the unforgivable sin, they have misread and misunderstood what Jesus said, so they are doubly ignorant (this is not the unforgiveable sin.)
There is also the “rational response squad” that wants people to “declare your independence of religion”- specifically Christianity. Despite this nationwide campaign run by antagonists bitter toward Christ and his followers, there is a growing movement of teenagers responding on the web to them, which we stand behind in their efforts.
There are atheists who want to see the use of the term “God” erased out of public life (off our currency). It is immoral to make a law for it to be illegal to worship God or practice ones religion. Just as it would be immoral to force people to worship God when they do not want to.
The Harris polled 2,010 adults Oct. 4, 2006 on is there a God?
42% say they are not absolutely certain
15% somewhat certain
11% probably no God
16% not sure
Whatever surveys are worth in their great fluxuations, (one can always find a group agreeing with them to a certain extent.)
The majority of Americans are not atheist or agnostic. A recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll from earlier this year found 92 percent of Americans believe in God. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, which interviewed more than 50,000 people (not just 2,000), more than 29 million adults--one in seven Americans--declare themselves to be without religion. Which does not necessarily mean they are atheists but only not affiliated with any specific religious persuasion. However, it does not matter if 99.9% of the world are atheists, THEY ARE STILL WRONG (they were in Noah’s day and we are told it will be like that at the end of the age). A majority may carry weight in elections but it is not the final answer on matters of truth in religion.
1994 there were an estimated 240 million atheists around the world comprising slightly more than 4 percent of the world’s population, including those who profess atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion. The estimate of nonbelievers increases significantly, to about 21 percent of the world’s population, if negative atheists are included. (Encarta Encyclopedia )
Apart from Muslim countries where nearly everyone believes in the God Allah.
Countries like Vietnam and Japan lead.
Vietnam 66,978,900 out of a population of 82,690,000; 81%.
Japan 81,493,120 - 82,766,450 out of a population of 127,333,000; 64 - 65%
The numbers may be larger but not proportionate to the population, USA 8,790,840 - 26,822,520 out of a population of 293,028,000; 3- 9%.
Russia 34,507,680 - 69,015,360 out of a population of 143,782,000; 24 - 48%.
China 103,907,840 - 181,838,720 out of a population of 103,907,840 - 181,838,720; 8 - 14%
Denmark and Norway are high as well.
top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics (Zuckerman, 2005)
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
Highest Proportion of Atheists (Greeley/Jagodzinski, 1991)
East Germany 88.20% Slovenia 29.80 Russia 27.30 Israel 25.60 Netherlands 24.10 Hungary 23.30 Norway 14.90 Britain 14.00 West Germany 12.10 New Zealand 11.50
The New atheist movement presents themselves as vocally “hostile to ALL religions,” but it is always Christianity that is the focus of their attacks; some calling Christianity the most “dangerous thing in the world.”
Oxford scientist, evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins says: “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing on religion.” It is “absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). Richard Dawkins insists that Christians have no right to indoctrinate their children in religious “nonsense.” He believes children being brought up in Christian homes are being exposed to an “infection.” Dawkins is not just angry, he is engaged in the public arena to change people’s minds.
On the Answers in Genesis website they reported- Richard Dawkins’ spoke to a packed church (the First Parish church in Cambridge, Massachusetts)! A news reported: “At first his [Dawkins] words are greeted with laughter, and then with resounding applause … ” The words he preached were from his book:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
If they had their way this would be their dictionary definition of Christianity. As stated in Proverbs 10:11: “The mouth of the righteous is a well of life, but violence covers the mouth of the wicked.”
There are also those in Hollywood that are not into new age spirituality but Angered agnostics. Bill Mahr, is an equal mocker of all religions, (and other things) though his favorite is Christianity. His religious slasher movie “Religulous” was classified as a documentary, a category that elicits more laughs than he does on a funny day. While some things are funny because they are not true Mahr makes no distinction and says it is all not true. Mahr is one of those antagonistic agnostics that want to get even with those who believe in God because he is angry at people saying they know when he does not. But at the same time he is saying he does know because to him- everyone is wrong. Statements like these gems seem to usher easily from his mouth.
“The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs”
“I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder.”
We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies”
Plato in his Laws X (c. 352-350 B.C.) defined two basic kinds of atheists: those who are sincerely convinced God (or gods) do not exist; and those who assert that there is no place for God (or gods) in this world. The first kind of atheist is considered moral and upright while the second kind is seen as an anarchistic (without law) threat to society. (Handbook on World Religions)
pt.2 Why
Why believe in Atheism when they offer no proof (they have no proof because they cannot obtain proof). If Atheists would be honest with their position they can only admit they are agnostic, a non-theist who is still seeking proof of God’s existence. But an atheist can only be categorized as a dishonest agnostic who gave up his search. A true agnostic would hold a view of there being insufficient evidence but is still open to the possibility of obtaining evidence to be self convinced. An authentic agnostic will find himself in the middle, able to criticize both the views of the theist and the atheist equally for their fixed position. There are agnostics that have already convinced themselves that neither he nor anyone else can obtain evidence of the existence or the non-existence of God. The difference of an atheist from an agnostic is that an atheist takes the position that he has obtained full knowledge (even though he is not), he is ABSOLUELY certain by the evidence (at least in his own mind) there is no God.
An atheist is unable to give any logical or factual proof of God's non-existence. He cannot prove with any history or facts what caused the universe or life to begin, therefore he has no explanation why it exists.
Their position stays in an unproven state. An atheist cannot prove he knows or not know that there is no God, it is a matter of opinion driven by his own darkened sinful state of animosity toward God whom he is accountable to for his life.
The consequence of being an atheist:
There is no God; The Bible is not true; Life began by chance; there is no sin, so there is no need for a Savior; man invents the basis of right or wrong.
Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation," says he is amazed that hundreds of millions of people worldwide profess religious beliefs when there is no rational evidence for any of those beliefs.
Let’s consider their position in reference to an intellectual pursuit. True science is about a pursuit of a hypothesis- a theory, using a method[s] to obtain knowledge that is subjected to continual testing that will produce the same outcome, so one can say that reality, science and logic prove this. To be an honest skeptic one has to pursue an open and complete examination of all possibilities to conclude a sufficient answer to the seemingly conflicting data. To do this they must gather all the data they can from both sides to increase their knowledge on the subject. They must also hold off on any immediate conclusion until ALL the evidence has been acquired and examined carefully. Otherwise they may not arrive at the correct conclusion. This approach demands that they take a starting position of zero-zero or fifty-fifty for either position, to be open to the evidence, wherever it may lead. With this being the criteria we can see that there are very few who have this open and honest approach. Few are skeptics, they already have their mind made up. They are critics that are like a mountain that cannot be moved. That is why no one can really be an atheist, but a positive agnostic.
Approaching this scientifically is difficult but it is more difficult to present evidence to men of this mindset because of their resistance. They are more determined to disprove than to prove to themselves and others the reality of God’s existence. They will ALWAYS arrive at a natural explanation for this world, the universe, what is both seen and unseen. Since they have made up their mind, it is impossible for all of existence to be explained supernaturally. They believe they hold indisputable proof there is no spirit in man, no afterlife and there is no reason for man to have any communion or contact with their creator. Their position is that man seeking God should be as natural as an ant wanting to communicate with man.
Without a supernatural event from an omni - intelligent; omni - powerful, omniscient being that creates, the evolutionists can only assume that the universe is eternal or a matter of self creation. Because they have ruled out a creator that has complete intelligence, that is all knowing and powerful, this is the only real option left for them. The “Big Bang” supposedly occurred about 15 billion years ago and then expanded into the present universe. If you ask what was there before, there is no answer, because there was no “before.”
Evolution’s position is that you don't need a pre-existing intelligence to make intelligent life and have design and order. Consider their position. Or better yet don’t think on it and understand what your conclusion is.Common sense requires existence of something before it can bring existence – because, nothing cannot create something. As the saying goes- “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” One of the basic laws of physics is expressed by the Latin phrase ex nihilo, nihil fit “from nothing, nothing comes.”
Neither can one take a position that the universe created itself. For something to create itself, it would have to exist before its own existence is created. To be self-created it would have to be existent and not existent at the same time. This is illogical to our reality and breaks the law of non contradiction.
All matter has energy, and for there to be energy it had to have a beginning. There must be something that is uncaused or eternal that caused matter or energy to exist, and it would require this something to have more energy/power than what it created. The fact is: it takes more faith to believe the world emerged from nothing, with no purpose to its existence. The atheist is not supposed to have any faith, which is exactly what he is using when he believes this, because it cannot be proven scientifically, nor reproduced or argued as a “matter of fact,” it is blind faith.
The well known scientist, the late Carl Sagan stated, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.” An eternal universe directly contradicts the current view of the science that the universe had a specific beginning (they call the Big Bang), in a measurable period of time it began to exist. The universe thus contains a certain amount of energy. The 2nd law of thermal dynamics shows everything is winding down, from order to disorder which refutes evolution that teaches the opposite. The law of entropy shows that everything is wearing out. Given enough time whatever lives will die. Scientific facts prove that the world is gradually running out of available energy. If it had a beginning it has an end. Mathematical calculations show if the universe were as old as evolutionary scientists say it is (6-8 plus billion years or more), it would have died from heat loss long ago (if everything stayed nearly as constant as it is today. If it had more energy in its beginning it makes it even more difficult to prove its age). It cannot be as old as they claim. If energy can’t last and it had a beginning, it had to had a start, be created. Which means there was something (or someone) that created it all, a something that has more energy than the energy that was created.
Mortimer Adler has said, “IF the existence of the cosmos as a whole needs to be explained, and IF it cannot be explained by natural causes, THEN we must look to the existence and action of a supernatural cause for its explanation” (Adler, How to Think about God, p.131).
Richard Dawkins, an atheist: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” Yet Dawkins finds any “other” explanation except a creator to be an answer for life’s puzzle.
Richard Dawkins in the video “No intelligence allowed” (a documentary by Ben Stein) believes in the theory of panspermea, he would rather believe life came from somewhere else in space and created man here than to believe God at His Word. But Dawkins has not thought this through because he is still left with the same unanswered question- where did life come from. For one must go further back prior to the event.
In 1982 Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, stated on the origin of life:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
Francis Crick is one of the most respected molecular biologists in the world understands life could not have arisen by chance, so he proposed that the first life forms on earth were single-celled “spores” that came from interstellar space! His theory, called “Directed Panspermia” proposes that these “interstellar spores” later evolved into all the life forms on earth. Hoyle in his book Evolution From Space came to a similar conclusion.
The universe has highly complex design in both the seen and unseen. The simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working harmoniously together for the organism to function. To accept that these came into being over millions of years to sustain the organism is not rational, these parts were needed for its life and function and had to be produced at the same time which could not be produced by chance.
Earth is finely tuned to sustain life. The oldest tree on earth is the Methuselah tree in California. It is 4,300 years old. If the earth is billions of years old, why are there no trees older than 4,300 years (or approximately this date), certainly this is not the limit of their lifespan? The oldest living coral reef is less than 4,200 years old. Both of these bring them to the time of the flood of Noah’s day, coincidence or history?
This new atheism can be called scientism for it exalts science as the epitome of all knowledge. But science is unflinching; to have proof it must turn out the same every time one does an experiment. In reality, one does not have to have absolute evidence in order for there to be absolute proof. Neither can the absence of evidence be used as the proof of God’s non- existence, but shows one does not presently possess complete knowledge.
The atheists claim you can’t prove God exists- well they can’t prove the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe. But this does not stop them from their scientific postulations that can be considered fantasies.
We learn by knowledge and experience. The atheist rejects evidence he has not experienced and knowledge he has yet to gain. This eliminates numerous facts. Has he personally experienced the earth revolving around the sun so that he would know its moving thousands of miles an hour. How about going to the moon, how does he know there is not an atmosphere and there and only a few inches of dust? Because he believes the reports of others. How does he know what they say is true? Because it is written in a modern book and not an ancient one called the Bible.Why believe others? Why not “question them” as they do the Bible? Could his trust in these men be considered like the faith of those who trust the Bibles word? For the word “faith” means -believing and trusting.
Certainly they exercise the concept of faith to believe facts they take for granted are true. The history assures us that what science believes today will likely change just as it has numerous times before, so they have no absolutes on nearly anything they call scientific and cannot make any claims about being absolutely right, for tomorrow they will be wrong.
They are devoted to their own minds and opinions. Their reasoning is far more narrow than they accuse Christianity of. They do not believe in absolutes yet they claim to be absolutely sure their is no God! Their view of the world may not even be the same of another atheist but they are willing to accept his, so they are inconsistent in their own reasoning.
What an atheist does to satisfy the moral image of God he is made in is becomes a humanist. A morally inclined creature without any basis for it except that it makes more sense to be good rather than evil. What makes this all the more inconsistent is that the morals of humanists contain many principles that are the same as Judeo-Christian traditions. Yet there are those atheists that are willing to lower man to on an equal status with the animals.
Richard Dawkins states, “There is no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another.Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by a process known as natural selection (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Foreword to the first edition.)
This is what all evolutionists believe to one degree or another.
Do animals or a fungus have morals? Do they create things to make life easier? Do animals show mercy or compassion? Man is unique, yet we are supposed to have come from the same lineage. Man having an ability to increase in knowledge and communicate it to others does not make us equal status with a fungus but elevates us above it?
These are the kind of irrational statements that come out of atheists to prove man is not unique or is of a special creation.
pt.2 Why
Why believe in Atheism when they offer no proof (they have no proof because they cannot obtain proof). If Atheists would be honest with their position they can only admit they are agnostic, a non-theist who is still seeking proof of God’s existence. But an atheist can only be categorized as a dishonest agnostic who gave up his search. A true agnostic would hold a view of there being insufficient evidence but is still open to the possibility of obtaining evidence to be self convinced. An authentic agnostic will find himself in the middle, able to criticize both the views of the theist and the atheist equally for their fixed position. There are agnostics that have already convinced themselves that neither he nor anyone else can obtain evidence of the existence or the non-existence of God. The difference of an atheist from an agnostic is that an atheist takes the position that he has obtained full knowledge (even though he is not), he is ABSOLUELY certain by the evidence (at least in his own mind) there is no God.
An atheist is unable to give any logical or factual proof of God's non-existence. He cannot prove with any history or facts what caused the universe or life to begin, therefore he has no explanation why it exists.
Their position stays in an unproven state. An atheist cannot prove he knows or not know that there is no God, it is a matter of opinion driven by his own darkened sinful state of animosity toward God whom he is accountable to for his life.
The consequence of being an atheist:
There is no God; The Bible is not true; Life began by chance; there is no sin, so there is no need for a Savior; man invents the basis of right or wrong.
Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation," says he is amazed that hundreds of millions of people worldwide profess religious beliefs when there is no rational evidence for any of those beliefs.
Let’s consider their position in reference to an intellectual pursuit. True science is about a pursuit of a hypothesis- a theory, using a method[s] to obtain knowledge that is subjected to continual testing that will produce the same outcome, so one can say that reality, science and logic prove this. To be an honest skeptic one has to pursue an open and complete examination of all possibilities to conclude a sufficient answer to the seemingly conflicting data. To do this they must gather all the data they can from both sides to increase their knowledge on the subject. They must also hold off on any immediate conclusion until ALL the evidence has been acquired and examined carefully. Otherwise they may not arrive at the correct conclusion. This approach demands that they take a starting position of zero-zero or fifty-fifty for either position, to be open to the evidence, wherever it may lead. With this being the criteria we can see that there are very few who have this open and honest approach. Few are skeptics, they already have their mind made up. They are critics that are like a mountain that cannot be moved. That is why no one can really be an atheist, but a positive agnostic.
Approaching this scientifically is difficult but it is more difficult to present evidence to men of this mindset because of their resistance. They are more determined to disprove than to prove to themselves and others the reality of God’s existence. They will ALWAYS arrive at a natural explanation for this world, the universe, what is both seen and unseen. Since they have made up their mind, it is impossible for all of existence to be explained supernaturally. They believe they hold indisputable proof there is no spirit in man, no afterlife and there is no reason for man to have any communion or contact with their creator. Their position is that man seeking God should be as natural as an ant wanting to communicate with man.
Without a supernatural event from an omni - intelligent; omni - powerful, omniscient being that creates, the evolutionists can only assume that the universe is eternal or a matter of self creation. Because they have ruled out a creator that has complete intelligence, that is all knowing and powerful, this is the only real option left for them. The “Big Bang” supposedly occurred about 15 billion years ago and then expanded into the present universe. If you ask what was there before, there is no answer, because there was no “before.”
Evolution’s position is that you don't need a pre-existing intelligence to make intelligent life and have design and order. Consider their position. Or better yet don’t think on it and understand what your conclusion is.Common sense requires existence of something before it can bring existence – because, nothing cannot create something. As the saying goes- “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” One of the basic laws of physics is expressed by the Latin phrase ex nihilo, nihil fit “from nothing, nothing comes.”
Neither can one take a position that the universe created itself. For something to create itself, it would have to exist before its own existence is created. To be self-created it would have to be existent and not existent at the same time. This is illogical to our reality and breaks the law of non contradiction.
All matter has energy, and for there to be energy it had to have a beginning. There must be something that is uncaused or eternal that caused matter or energy to exist, and it would require this something to have more energy/power than what it created. The fact is: it takes more faith to believe the world emerged from nothing, with no purpose to its existence. The atheist is not supposed to have any faith, which is exactly what he is using when he believes this, because it cannot be proven scientifically, nor reproduced or argued as a “matter of fact,” it is blind faith.
The well known scientist, the late Carl Sagan stated, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.” An eternal universe directly contradicts the current view of the science that the universe had a specific beginning (they call the Big Bang), in a measurable period of time it began to exist. The universe thus contains a certain amount of energy. The 2nd law of thermal dynamics shows everything is winding down, from order to disorder which refutes evolution that teaches the opposite. The law of entropy shows that everything is wearing out. Given enough time whatever lives will die. Scientific facts prove that the world is gradually running out of available energy. If it had a beginning it has an end. Mathematical calculations show if the universe were as old as evolutionary scientists say it is (6-8 plus billion years or more), it would have died from heat loss long ago (if everything stayed nearly as constant as it is today. If it had more energy in its beginning it makes it even more difficult to prove its age). It cannot be as old as they claim. If energy can’t last and it had a beginning, it had to had a start, be created. Which means there was something (or someone) that created it all, a something that has more energy than the energy that was created.
Mortimer Adler has said, “IF the existence of the cosmos as a whole needs to be explained, and IF it cannot be explained by natural causes, THEN we must look to the existence and action of a supernatural cause for its explanation” (Adler, How to Think about God, p.131).
Richard Dawkins, an atheist: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” Yet Dawkins finds any “other” explanation except a creator to be an answer for life’s puzzle.
Richard Dawkins in the video “No intelligence allowed” (a documentary by Ben Stein) believes in the theory of panspermea, he would rather believe life came from somewhere else in space and created man here than to believe God at His Word. But Dawkins has not thought this through because he is still left with the same unanswered question- where did life come from. For one must go further back prior to the event.
In 1982 Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, stated on the origin of life:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
Francis Crick is one of the most respected molecular biologists in the world understands life could not have arisen by chance, so he proposed that the first life forms on earth were single-celled “spores” that came from interstellar space! His theory, called “Directed Panspermia” proposes that these “interstellar spores” later evolved into all the life forms on earth. Hoyle in his book Evolution From Space came to a similar conclusion.
The universe has highly complex design in both the seen and unseen. The simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working harmoniously together for the organism to function. To accept that these came into being over millions of years to sustain the organism is not rational, these parts were needed for its life and function and had to be produced at the same time which could not be produced by chance.
Earth is finely tuned to sustain life. The oldest tree on earth is the Methuselah tree in California. It is 4,300 years old. If the earth is billions of years old, why are there no trees older than 4,300 years (or approximately this date), certainly this is not the limit of their lifespan? The oldest living coral reef is less than 4,200 years old. Both of these bring them to the time of the flood of Noah’s day, coincidence or history?
This new atheism can be called scientism for it exalts science as the epitome of all knowledge. But science is unflinching; to have proof it must turn out the same every time one does an experiment. In reality, one does not have to have absolute evidence in order for there to be absolute proof. Neither can the absence of evidence be used as the proof of God’s non- existence, but shows one does not presently possess complete knowledge.
The atheists claim you can’t prove God exists- well they can’t prove the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe. But this does not stop them from their scientific postulations that can be considered fantasies.
We learn by knowledge and experience. The atheist rejects evidence he has not experienced and knowledge he has yet to gain. This eliminates numerous facts. Has he personally experienced the earth revolving around the sun so that he would know its moving thousands of miles an hour. How about going to the moon, how does he know there is not an atmosphere and there and only a few inches of dust? Because he believes the reports of others. How does he know what they say is true? Because it is written in a modern book and not an ancient one called the Bible.Why believe others? Why not “question them” as they do the Bible? Could his trust in these men be considered like the faith of those who trust the Bibles word? For the word “faith” means -believing and trusting.
Certainly they exercise the concept of faith to believe facts they take for granted are true. The history assures us that what science believes today will likely change just as it has numerous times before, so they have no absolutes on nearly anything they call scientific and cannot make any claims about being absolutely right, for tomorrow they will be wrong.
They are devoted to their own minds and opinions. Their reasoning is far more narrow than they accuse Christianity of. They do not believe in absolutes yet they claim to be absolutely sure their is no God! Their view of the world may not even be the same of another atheist but they are willing to accept his, so they are inconsistent in their own reasoning.
What an atheist does to satisfy the moral image of God he is made in is becomes a humanist. A morally inclined creature without any basis for it except that it makes more sense to be good rather than evil. What makes this all the more inconsistent is that the morals of humanists contain many principles that are the same as Judeo-Christian traditions. Yet there are those atheists that are willing to lower man to on an equal status with the animals.
Richard Dawkins states, “There is no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another.Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by a process known as natural selection (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Foreword to the first edition.)
This is what all evolutionists believe to one degree or another.
Do animals or a fungus have morals? Do they create things to make life easier? Do animals show mercy or compassion? Man is unique, yet we are supposed to have come from the same lineage. Man having an ability to increase in knowledge and communicate it to others does not make us equal status with a fungus but elevates us above it?
These are the kind of irrational statements that come out of atheists to prove man is not unique or is of a special creation.
pt.3 A Condensed History of Atheism
Evolution did not begin with Aristotle who lived in the 300s bc, referred to a "ladder of nature”—a progression of life forms from lower to higher—but his ladder was a static hierarchy of levels of perfection, not an evolutionary concept. ” ( Encarta Encyclopedia)
"The Greek philosopher Anaximander, who lived in the 500s bc, is generally credited as the earliest evolutionist. Anaximander believed that the Earth first existed in a liquid state. Further, he believed that humans evolved from fishlike aquatic beings who left the water once they had developed sufficiently to survive on land. Greek scientist Empedocles speculated in the 400s bc that plant life arose first on Earth, followed by animals. Empedocles proposed that humans and animals arose not as complete individuals but as various body parts that joined together randomly to form strange, fantastic creatures” (Encarta Encyclopedia)
Early Greek philosophers, particularly the school of Miletus, were evolutionary. Aristotle, the most famous of Greek philosophers, taught of a Prime Mover, or first cause, pure intellect, perfect in unity, immutable, “the thought of thought,” as responsible for nature. The Greek idea of logos was being developed. The Stoics spoke of The Logos as Reason, through which all things came to be, by which all things were ordered. The Stoics borrowed the idea of logos from Heraclitus (neither Plato nor Aristotle gave the term prominence) and used it for the immanent ordering principle of the universe. Nature and logos were often treated as one and the same. The logos philosophy in the minds of later Greek philosophers such as Plato (429-347 B.C.), and Aristotle (384-322) used the word logos in a more complex manner in their writings.
Aristotle, Plato and Socrates all believed that the universe was eternal. In their view it never had a beginning. It was never created. Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation of non-life into life. The Epicurean philosophers were evolutionary atheists, believing in no kind of God. The Stoics were evolutionary pantheists, believing in pantheism, that everything is God. They did not hold to a transcendent creator. This thought dominated the Greek and Roman philosophy.
To the chagrin of an atheist, Christians were considered atheists in Jesus’ day because they did not believe in the Roman deities or bow to Caesar as a god. Ancient Greek ideas gave way to Creationism as Christianity became known.
Atheism, a term describing whether God (or gods) not existing comes from the late sixteenth century. Niccolo Machiavelli gave his solution to the church-state debate going on by promoting a social ethic which was not dependent on the existence of a supreme being- God. Machiavelli was one of the first to champion the idea that “the end justifies the means.” Machiavelli was not a staunch atheist as we have today, but invented an alternate system to govern that was not to be dependent on divine instruction.
In the enlightenment era of the eighteenth century philosophers shaped the atheistic philosophy of what we see today. Men like Fredrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Comte, Nie[t z s]che, Feuerbach, and Sartre along with Ideas from philosophers Bayle, Spinoza, and Hume were all active in developing modem atheistic thought. Hume was more agnostic as he held the probability goes beyond our immediate experience.
Hegel (1770-1831) was the man whose writings became an inspiration for the modem atheistic movement. He was one of the first prominent philosophers to advance the idea that God' was dependent upon the world as much as the world was dependent upon God. He said that without the world God is not God. In some way, God needed his creation. This was the first step in saying that, since God was not sufficient in Himself, he was unnecessary and ultimately imaginary. “Hegel's aim was to set forth a philosophical system so comprehensive that it would encompass the ideas of his predecessors and create a conceptual framework in terms of which both the past and future could be philosophically understood. Such an aim would require nothing short of a full account of reality itself. Thus, Hegel conceived the subject matter of philosophy to be reality as a whole. This reality, or the total developmental process of everything that is, he referred to as the Absolute, or Absolute Spirit” (Encarta Encyclopedia).
He published in summary form a systematic statement of his entire philosophy entitled Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline (1817) and more known for the Hegelian dialectic. “Hegel, following the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, argued that “what is rational is real and what is real is rational.” This must be understood in terms of Hegel's further claim that the Absolute must ultimately be regarded as pure Thought, or Spirit, or Mind, in the process of self-development (see Idealism). The logic that governs this developmental process is dialectic. The dialectical method involves the notion that movement, or process, or progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites. Traditionally, this dimension of Hegel's thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.” (Encarta Encyclopedia).
Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) was a German philosopher, an early prominent atheistic philosopher. He substituted religious psychology for orthodox religion and developed one of the first German materialistic philosophies. He denied all supernaturalism and attributed all talk about God to talk about nature. Man, he said, is dependent not on God, but on nature. Feuerbach promoted what is sometimes referred to as the wish fulfillment idea of God. He postulated that the idea of God arose as a result of men desiring to have some sort of supernatural being as an explanation for their own existence and the events they observed around them. This wish, or desire, is the seed from which the God-myth grew. “A person's essential preoccupation is with the self, and the worship of God is actually worship of an idealized self” (Encarta Encyclopedia)
Both Hegel and Feuerbach strongly influenced Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his English collaborator, Frederich Engels (1820-1895). They formulated the theory of historical materialism, which had the emphasis on people and human needs introducing a materialistic interpretation of society.
Marx went to Paris to further his studies in philosophy, history, and political science, and adopted communist beliefs. Marx, an avowed atheist, preached that religion is the opiate of the people and the enemy of all progress. Part of the task of the great proletariat revolution is the destruction of all religion. In 1845 Marx was ordered to leave Paris because of his revolutionary activities.
He went to Brussels and began organizing revolutionary groups, called Communist Correspondence Committees. In 1847 these committees were consolidated to form the Communist League, and Marx and Engels were commissioned to formulate a statement of principles known as the Communist Manifesto (which has hundreds of millions of copies).
Marx had a materialist view of history (known as scientific socialism). He saw society as a history of struggles between exploiting and being exploited, the ruling and oppressed, social classes. Marx drew the conclusion in the Manifesto that the capitalist class would be overthrown and eliminated by a worldwide working-class revolution and replaced by a classless society. His idealism blinded him.
His teachings were revised by most socialists after his death and revived in the 20th century by Vladimir Ilich Lenin, who developed and applied them, these became the core of Bolshevism.
Linnaeus Carolus (1707-1778), devised a system of classification of organisms Systema Naturae (The System of Nature), first published in 1735 that is still in use today. This system places living things within increasingly specific categories based on common attributes—from a general grouping (kingdom) down to the specific individual (species Linnaeus named nearly 10,000 plant and animal species in his lifetime. Linnaeus believed that each species was created by God and was incapable of change but his system of groupings provided a basis for later theorists.
Scottish geologist Charles Lyell, wrote Principles of Geology (1830), presenting the Earth was millions of years old rather than only a few thousand years old, as the biblical story of divine creation records (the Bible does not mention any specific date).
Atheism really got its boost to prominence by resting its facts on Charles Darwin. In 1831 Charles Darwin prepared to become a minister sailed on a five-year, around the world mapmaking voyage on the HMS Beagle. The ship anchored off South America and other areas, Darwin traveled inland and make observations of the natural world. In the Galápagos Islands, he noted how species on the various islands were similar but distinct from one another. Darwin observed and collected thousands of wildlife specimens he had never before encountered. The observations Darwin made on that voyage was the impetus for his theory of evolution.
Returning to England in 1837 Darwin began a notebook of his observations and thoughts on evolution. An unpublished paper his theory of evolution by natural selection was distributed in 1842 among his friends, he waited over 20 more years before his theory of evolution was ready. Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection on November 24, 1859. All 1,250 copies of the first printing were sold on that day.
H. Huxley, a friend of Charles Darwin, used the word agnostic to describe his own view. Bertrand Russell was an agnostic that became more sure of himself as an atheist. “As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the homeric gods. (Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91)
“About two years later, I became convinced that there is no life after death, but I still believed in God, because the "First Cause" argument appeared to be irrefutable. At the age of eighteen, however, shortly before I went to Cambridge, I readMill'sAutobiography, where I found a sentence to the effect that his father taught him the question "Who made me?" cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question "Who made God?" This led me to abandon the "First Cause" argument, and to become an atheist. (Bertrand Russell, Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, p. 36)
If he did understand the first cause argument th
WOOPS! SORRY about THAT! PICKING UP from where my LAST post cut off:
If he did understand the first cause argument then he would know that an all powerful being does not have the necessity to be created as his creation.
In our modern time Madalyn Murray O’Hair popularized atheism and stated “Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.” She was instrumental in removing prayer from the schools in America.
"Richard Dawkins is arguably the most famous living atheist, now that Anthony Flew doubted his doubts and backslid as an atheist," said Comfort. "Flew said that he simply followed the evidence. I would like to see Richard Dawkins follow his example" (“Atheist guru Dawkins snubs $10,000 debate” “Demands $100,000 for hour-long event, rights to release DVD” February 24, 2009 By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily)
For the most part these men tried to invent and put into practice a system that would basically better society and have us co-exist without any belief or instruction from God and the Bible. No doubt there are those all through history who have disbelieved in god. They may have named themselves such honorable terms as "Rationalist," "Humanist," or "Freethinkers" but God has told man he exists and proved it by prophecy. They say he does not exist and willfully refuses to believe, this is God who does exist calls them fools.
The moral argument of allowing evil
Atheist’s main argument against God is the existence of evil. If God is good why does he allow evil to exist?
Since god is good how can allow the suffering of innocents? There are murder and rape victims, natural calamities to affect people, why would a good God allow babies to suffer and die?
If there were an all-powerful God, He would not allow evil to continue. Because the atheists would not. If He were all-good, then He would destroy all evil. Because the atheist would. Since evil exists, God cannot exist, because he has not done away with evil. But neither has the atheists in his own life, so what does any of this prove? Yet they believe man is essentially good and yet man has not rid evil out of his own life. So this is a self conflicting argument that God cannot be good, nor can he exist if evil is present.
But what if God has a greater purpose and is allowing evil temporarily, and one day will remove it? A God who has all power but refrains judgment does mean he is not all powerful or good, it only means he is not exercising this power in a judicial manner- yet. Just because God has not yet done anything to remove the evil in the world it does not mean He never will. The answer can be found in his omniscience, knowing the future, as well as the past (how evil came into mankind's existence). A loving God gave mankind from its beginning free choice. There is no coercing people against their will to achieve (by his power) what is good for all. Yet he is involved in history moving us toward the final outcome of evil being removed permanently. (see our article on the subject of Evil why is there Evil?)
Suffering is not useless, it has purpose. The fact that even atheists realize there is a more optimum life, without evil (which is caused by sin), shows that there is a standard they instinctively know. The Bible explains this by man being made in the image of God.
The God who created and loves mankind made it simple: there's 1 God, who gave 1 book, and made l way, He did this so even a child can understand and come to know Him, and yes even an atheist can change if he allows the evidence and God’s spirit to work on his heart.
Let me end on a hopeful note.
There have been debates by William Lane Craig (I attended one here in Hawaii several years ago) and Dinesh D’souza who wrote the book “What's So Great About Christianity?” (see debate Christopher Hitchens: http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000187_cicero_102207.flv
Whose book demonstrates Why Christianity explains the universe, and our origins, better than atheism does and Why atheism is a demonstrably dangerous creed—and a cowardly one
Ray Comfort released a new book discrediting atheism, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think," on Amazon.com rankings its first day of release, moved from No. 69,572 to No. 38 in 24 hours. The book was No. 1 in both atheism and apologetics categories under religion. It ranked No. 2 in spirituality and No. 6 in Christianity.
The book, released on the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, contends atheists hate God because he does exist.
Recently Comfort has challenged the atheist establishment by challenging Richard Dawkins for an hour-long debate. Dawkins rejected an offer of $10,000.
A spokeswoman for Dawkins' website earlier told WND Dawkins doesn't debate people from "the flat-earth society."
"Ten thousand dollars is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher)," he wrote in response to a WND question about the challenge.
"It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool," he wrote. "You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it's a charitable donation, tax deductible) I'll do it." (“Atheist guru Dawkins snubs $10,000 debate” “Demands $100,000 for hour-long event, rights to release DVD” February 24, 2009 By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89825
I guess courage was not distributed equally to all through the evolutionary process and money is needed to sweeten the pot for such an important topic to be publicly discussed.
Numerousarticles by scientists have appeared in the last 10 to 30 years challenging various key aspects of the Darwinian theory.
700 scientists who dissent from neo-Darwinian evolution and have signed a statement of dissent “There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.” The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others. (DissentFromDarwin.org) “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/links.php
The evolutionists know once creationism is acceptable and taught alongside evolution theories their house of cards crumbles. So they are fighting with all they have to prevent this.
The god that atheists don't believe in, does not exist, as many have noted they are arguing not against Christianity but their wrong view of it. It would be advantageous for atheists actually took the time to know the Christian worldview and what the Bible actually means, not just what it says before they leap into arguments against it. But if they did this they may risk conversion.
The New Priests of Atheism
“Only two things are certain: the Universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the Universe”-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
I’m certain about the stupidity of man because the Bible tells us we are all under sin, Furthermore the Bible teaches there are fools- when a person has said in his heart there is no God (cited twice Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1). That’s God’s position on the so called intellectuals of scientism. Einstein is considered one of the smartest humans to have lived- he believed there is something beyond us, that we would call God, he didn’t accept a personal god but one more in line with theosophy.
Sin not only affects our moral aptitude of our mind and reasoning, we are unable to think correctly and make accurate judgments until we have the mind of Christ. No matter how intellectually smart one can only consider his works and not the one behind His works. for that they need revelation, input beyond a human source.
“I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)
We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 208)
If he had read his own Hebrew Bible he may have started on a journey that was not limited to science but reached his heart, the spirit within man that would have given him an understanding of man and his purpose. But Einstein recognized God in Judaism as a religion concerned with life having no need of “faith,” Einstein was a humanist at heart.
Humanist Manifesto H affirms: "We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. ... No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." ('Humanist Manifiestos I and II, Paul Kurtz, ed., (Prometheus Books, 1973, p. 16.)
So humanists consider themselves masters of their own destiny who have no purpose from a creator so they create there own.
In our day, Atheism also known as secular Humanism has become an aggressive challenge to the church. The success of the New Atheists influence reflects something significant – that the church has done a poor job in defending truth publicly and there is a void which they have rushed to fill.
An atheist is one that is sure in an absolute sense that no God exists. They do not arrive at their conclusion from evidence (which is not on their side) but from a hope. Which often relates to not wanting to be responsible to a greater authority because they do not like what the authority has to say about them and how they need to live. An agnostic is one who accepts the fact that he has not (yet) found proof of God. A dishonest agnostic says, "I don't know and I don't want to know." An honest agnostic says, "I don't know but I want to know." One cannot be an “atheist” if they are being honest with their pursuit of the facts and science.
Atheists do not use the mind or logic to arrive at their conclusion, they use didactic reasoning that eliminates certain facts and evidence to stack the deck in their favor to satisfy their own ego’s pride of being right?
What they do is like someone building a two story house and after the first story they stop building to state there is no second story. They purposely forfeit there pursuit of where facts lead because it will change their conclusion. They are willing to believe the record of history in nearly everything else except when it supports the Bible; then they ignore it, unwilling to continue their pursuit of knowledge of the “Holy One.” Again this proves the sinful condition of man and his severed relationship to his maker.
God began to solve the human dilemma by a baby. The atheists are threatened by him today as much as Herod was back when He was born. On Fox News Dec.8, 2008 an atheists statement was played- “this time of year is the winter solstice it is a natural season the Christians basically stole this season from us human beings by using the hate speech of the nativity scene which, which damns all of us to hell if we don’t bow down before that little baby that became the dictator. What a horrible insult to what it means to be a human being.”
Are Christians – non human beings! Have the atheists made a new category for those who believe in God?
This is what is called bigotry. This would fall in the category of religious hate speech but because it is about Christianity it will be ignored --The little baby that became a dictator? Is Jesus Mussolini, or Mao? Jesus has not forced anyone to bow before him to serve. One day they will bow and admit the gospel was true, that he is indeed Lord as they are face to face with him, but in the meantime they have the choice to reject him. They are what the book of Romans states “haters of God, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, … without understanding, … who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1:28-32). The book of Galatians calls this the work of the flesh, fallen man at his worst. How can they hate God so much? “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 1:25)
I have underlined the applicable descriptions. 2 Timothy 3:1-4: “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, … unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, .. brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God”
This brings us to the most prominent argument of the atheists--portraying religion as unreasonable, a "blind faith," that leads to fanaticism and even violence. They claim that religion particularly Christianity) has killed more people than any other thing on this planet. Their old argument that there are more killed by religion than anything else is completely false, and without merit.
They use the Catholic crusades, the Salem Witch trials or in some (rare) instances the Islamists jihad as proof of what religion does to people.
The Salem Witch Trials killed eighteen, not thousands. Can atheists claim the same from Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot,.. The majority of dictators were atheists, (excluding Hitler who believed in a very different god). So their arguments of this type become moot when the facts are known.
The answer to their incendiary accusations are the facts: It is Atheism, not religion, that is responsible for the majority of mass murders. In the twentieth century alone, as a result of Communist ideology, more people were killed than in all wars in the previous nineteen centuries put together. Far more than killing in the name of any religion, were those killed in the name of government and an ideology.
They use doublespeak- when religious people do evil things, they are acting on their beliefs, but when atheists do the same it has nothing to do with their atheism. Under Stalin much of the Orthodox priesthood was exterminated solely for being religious leaders, as were the clergy of other religions, hundreds of thousands of Baptists. One cannot claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his extermination. Altogether the numbers range from 120 million upwards to 200 million slaughtered. These do not come close to anything the Catholic church did in the crusades or throughout its history.
The crusades were actually a retaliation against the Islamic Jihad that took Europe. The religious wars were not done by obedient Christians but Roman Catholics fighting to recover the "Holy Land for the church.” A church that blended religion with a state government. The crusaders were not following the commands of the Bible or Jesus. No Bible passage was used to promote this, but a churches mandate- they took orders from the Pope. They could not validate their actions from the Bible or by the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.
Not all religions are equal. To say Christians use violence just like Muslims is Sophistry. Jihad is the normal state of relationship between the non-Muslim and the Muslim. It is a perpetual conflict. The concept of Jihad preceded the Crusades by five centuries.
The Christian Crusades were an abnormality in Christian history based upon Catholic teaching not the bible. In contrast, the intolerance and violence that have characterized Islam throughout its history are firmly rooted in the Koran. Not all religions are equal.
Muslims have a record of killing innocent civilians for centuries before the crusades ever took place, and long after they stopped they continue this today. Christianity teaches to love your enemies to care for your fellowman, love your neighbor as yourself.
Islam that practices terrorism finds its instructions in their Koran. The fact is the true Church started by Jesus was martyred throughout the centuries by Islam and even by some who called themselves the Church.
The Muhammad cannot be compared to the words of love Jesus told his followers known as Christians:
“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).
However you want people to treat you, so treat them” (Matthew 7:12).
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39).
“This is my commandment that you love one another” (John 15:12, 17).
You cannot find anything of equal value in Islam or any philosophy on earth. In fact as Muhammad was dying, he asked Allah, to curse the Jews and Christians (Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427)
Many atheists were brought up in Christian homes and went to church. They asked questions that were not adequately answered or were dissatisfied with what they saw and it repelled them. Some claim that they did research and found none of the story or history to be true, as in the case of a now famous atheist Dan Barker who was a minister and now has the Freedom from Religion Foundation. He has written a book called “Godless” about him being an evangelical preacher that turned to one of Americas leading atheists. Barker claims that Christians took secular songs and melodies and made them into religious songs so he has returned the favor and has taken little town of Bethlehem and set it to words for a celebration of the winter solstice (which is really a pagan celebration). (audio posted on our website www.letusreason.org/Apolo30.htm)
Take note Pastors/teachers/evangelists, it is so important to respond correctly to a youth’s questions on the Bibles accuracy. Don’t take it for granted that all will be well with them, their beliefs are continually under attack in the schools; from grade school all the way up to college. If you do not have a sufficient answers for their questions they will find someone who does, even if it is untrue. And unfortunately there are more untrue answers offered than there are true ones from our secular educators.
If we compare the Old Testament manuscripts to that of ancient Rome or Greek history the evidence for its accuracy is incomparable. If the Bible is rejected for its inaccuracy in recording history than all ancient history is suspect.
Homer's “Iliad” written in 900 BC has 643 copies; the first copy was found 500 years later (400 BC). Caesar's “Gallic Wars” written in 65 BC has 10 copies; the first copy found 835 years later (900 AD).
Plato's “Tetralogies” written in 400 BC has 7 copies; the first copy found 1,300 years later (900 AD). The volcanic eruption of Pompeii is accepted as history but it has only one manuscript.
When we look at the New Testament manuscripts there are nearly 25,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. The New Testament fragments are within one generation from the original, we have whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph. We have the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion. No other ancient piece of literature comes close to the Bibles substantiation for its accuracy.
There are 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers (up to the 4th century) found in several thousand Lectionaries (sermons). All but 11 verses are found of the New Testament, proving the Bible we have today is the same as what was written then. We have whole copies of the Old Testament from 900 AD. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found they put the imprimatur on it accuracy, preceding the Old Testament text from 900 Ad by 1,000 years, it was nearly word for word.
If the Bible is to be rejected for its inaccuracy in recording history and events, than all ancient history is suspect. Bible history is not found only in the Bible, secular Historians like Josephus, the Roman Tacitus, the Roman Suetonius, the Roman Governor Pliny the Younger, confirm the people and their customs, the many places and events that are recorded in the New Testament.
Archaeology affirms the reliability of the Bible with over 2,500 sites discovered. Each time a dig is found it brings more confirmation to the Bibles record as being accurate. William F. Albright was a man very well respected in his field. He published over 800 books and articles. He was known as America’s foremost Orientalist, a leader in biblical archaeology, a linguist and an expert on ceramics (pottery artifacts), was able to endorse many archeological sites as contained in the Bible record (he dated the dead sea scrolls). The skeptic, much less the atheist must ignore the evidence to come to their conclusions. Many an atheist have taken up the challenge to look at the evidence of the Bible and disprove it. Sir William Ramsey, set out to disprove the gospel of Luke and Acts, but through his investigative archaeological trips, he became converted. Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, set out to disprove the Bibles testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ and ended up converted from the EVIDENCE. His book, The Testimony of the Evangelists attests in detail to the accuracy of the witnesses from a lawyers perspective. In our modern time Josh McDowell did the same and ended up becoming a believer and writing the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” which every skeptic, critic or atheist should take time to read
This is why those who follow the Bible are the target of ridicule.
Atheists acknowledge the theory of evolution strips Christianity of any meaning. Atheist G. Richard Bozarth sums up their position by writing: “Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god . . . If Jesus is not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing” (G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," The American Atheist, Vol. 20, No. 2, February, 1978, p. 30).
Some of the more famous atheists believe there is more evidence that aliens visited earth to begin mankind (panspermea) than a God who created us.
What do you think is the most important question you can ask in life. Not who am I or what is my purpose, but is there a God and who is He? What am I and what is my purpose means little is the more important question is not answered.
Often one will hear the words “there isn't enough evidence to believe in God.” An theist would be hardpressed to believe in any modern day achievements man has done applying this same attitude they have toward the Bible. Can they actually prove man went to the moon or do they have to take others testimonies by “faith.” Can they prove that invisible particles are what everything we see is made of?
Proving there is no god is upon the atheists shoulders. It is only fair that if a theist has to give evidence, so do atheists.
This new atheism can be called scientism for it exalts science as the epitome of knowledge. The atheists claim you can’t prove god[s] exists- they can’t prove evolution and their theory of the beginning of the universe are correct. But this does not stop them from their scientific fantasy that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.
What we agree with an atheist is that the universe had a beginning, everything after this ensue the debate. And each of us go to the opposite end, as dark and light. After the beginning we have to answer the how questions.
The beginning was either: caused or uncaused. If the universe had a cause, the cause was either:
1) By a personal being or 2) not a personal being.
Life was either directly created by a living being or spontaneously arose from a nonliving material.
The fact is- Science has proven the universe is neither eternal, uncaused, indestructible or incorruptible. Logic and common sense has to be the first plank to discovering what took place.
At least five books by the New Atheists have made the bestseller lists for the past two years. Sam Harris's The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and now Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great.
The God Delusion was #8 on the New YorkTimes bestseller list, #10 on Publishers Weekly, and #2 on the Amazon best-seller rankings in November 2006.
"The God Who Wasn't There" DVD asks the youth to take the blasphemy challenge. They offer a free DVD of a movie called "The God Who Wasn't There." All you need to do is send a video of yourself blaspheming the Holy Spirit. http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/Brian Flemming shows his unparalleled ignorance on the subject unable to distinguish between the teachings of the Bible and the many cult and aberrant groups who have used Christ’s name to promote their own flawed views.
In June 2005, Brian Flemming released a documentary DVD on the Jesus Myth. http://www.thegodmovie.com/
The atheists established internet discussion forums--Internet Infidels,”The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”. [unless one is grounded in what they believe I do not recommend visiting these sites].
Then there is “The God Who Wasn't There,” a DVD that asks the youth to take the blasphemy challenge offering the a free DVD of “The God Who Wasn't There,” to any who will send a video of yourself blaspheming the Holy Spirit (http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/). Stating “You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: “I deny the Holy Spirit.”
Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.”
It was reported that even John Gibson of FOX News joined in support of the Blasphemy Challenge.
They are ignorant. As much as they would like to, they are not really participating in the unforgivable sin, they have misread and misunderstood what Jesus said, so they are doubly ignorant (this is not the unforgiveable sin.)
There is also the “rational response squad” that wants people to “declare your independence of religion”- specifically Christianity. Despite this nationwide campaign run by antagonists bitter toward Christ and his followers, there is a growing movement of teenagers responding on the web to them, which we stand behind in their efforts.
There are atheists who want to see the use of the term “God” erased out of public life (off our currency). It is immoral to make a law for it to be illegal to worship God or practice ones religion. Just as it would be immoral to force people to worship God when they do not want to.
The Harris polled 2,010 adults Oct. 4, 2006 on is there a God?
42% say they are not absolutely certain
15% somewhat certain
11% probably no God
16% not sure
Whatever surveys are worth in their great fluxuations, (one can always find a group agreeing with them to a certain extent.)
The majority of Americans are not atheist or agnostic. A recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll from earlier this year found 92 percent of Americans believe in God. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, which interviewed more than 50,000 people (not just 2,000), more than 29 million adults--one in seven Americans--declare themselves to be without religion. Which does not necessarily mean they are atheists but only not affiliated with any specific religious persuasion. However, it does not matter if 99.9% of the world are atheists, THEY ARE STILL WRONG (they were in Noah’s day and we are told it will be like that at the end of the age). A majority may carry weight in elections but it is not the final answer on matters of truth in religion.
1994 there were an estimated 240 million atheists around the world comprising slightly more than 4 percent of the world’s population, including those who profess atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion. The estimate of nonbelievers increases significantly, to about 21 percent of the world’s population, if negative atheists are included. (Encarta Encyclopedia )
Apart from Muslim countries where nearly everyone believes in the God Allah.
Countries like Vietnam and Japan lead.
Vietnam 66,978,900 out of a population of 82,690,000; 81%.
Japan 81,493,120 - 82,766,450 out of a population of 127,333,000; 64 - 65%
The numbers may be larger but not proportionate to the population, USA 8,790,840 - 26,822,520 out of a population of 293,028,000; 3- 9%.
Russia 34,507,680 - 69,015,360 out of a population of 143,782,000; 24 - 48%.
China 103,907,840 - 181,838,720 out of a population of 103,907,840 - 181,838,720; 8 - 14%
Denmark and Norway are high as well.
top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics (Zuckerman, 2005)
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
Highest Proportion of Atheists (Greeley/Jagodzinski, 1991)
East Germany 88.20% Slovenia 29.80 Russia 27.30 Israel 25.60 Netherlands 24.10 Hungary 23.30 Norway 14.90 Britain 14.00 West Germany 12.10 New Zealand 11.50
The New atheist movement presents themselves as vocally “hostile to ALL religions,” but it is always Christianity that is the focus of their attacks; some calling Christianity the most “dangerous thing in the world.”
Oxford scientist, evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins says: “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing on religion.” It is “absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). Richard Dawkins insists that Christians have no right to indoctrinate their children in religious “nonsense.” He believes children being brought up in Christian homes are being exposed to an “infection.” Dawkins is not just angry, he is engaged in the public arena to change people’s minds.
On the Answers in Genesis website they reported- Richard Dawkins’ spoke to a packed church (the First Parish church in Cambridge, Massachusetts)! A news reported: “At first his [Dawkins] words are greeted with laughter, and then with resounding applause … ” The words he preached were from his book:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
If they had their way this would be their dictionary definition of Christianity. As stated in Proverbs 10:11: “The mouth of the righteous is a well of life, but violence covers the mouth of the wicked.”
There are also those in Hollywood that are not into new age spirituality but Angered agnostics. Bill Mahr, is an equal mocker of all religions, (and other things) though his favorite is Christianity. His religious slasher movie “Religulous” was classified as a documentary, a category that elicits more laughs than he does on a funny day. While some things are funny because they are not true Mahr makes no distinction and says it is all not true. Mahr is one of those antagonistic agnostics that want to get even with those who believe in God because he is angry at people saying they know when he does not. But at the same time he is saying he does know because to him- everyone is wrong. Statements like these gems seem to usher easily from his mouth.
“The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs”
“I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder.”
We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies”
Plato in his Laws X (c. 352-350 B.C.) defined two basic kinds of atheists: those who are sincerely convinced God (or gods) do not exist; and those who assert that there is no place for God (or gods) in this world. The first kind of atheist is considered moral and upright while the second kind is seen as an anarchistic (without law) threat to society. (Handbook on World Religions)
See, if you were willing and able to quote from anything but an obviously evangelical site with an ironic URL called "let us reason", maybe you'd make some more sense.
Once again, your quoted arguments are full of assumptive fallacies and judgment calls. Once again, the argument misses the point entirely.
I take offense to it, and that's why I'm posting here. Not to argue, but to call you (and anyone who thinks like this) out.
Hate-speech and bigotry are wrong no matter who they come from. If you think atheists are okay with bashing Christians as a general rule just because they're Christians, then that says a lot more about you than it does about atheists. Some do, sure, but not all, and not even most.
As such, I don't want to be lumped in with that generalization, thanks.
Furthermore, an honest atheist doesn't say "no god can exist". An honest atheist says "there isn't enough evidence. If there is, I'll think about it". In this way, most honest atheists are a lot like agnostics. They think they're right, or are one way or another unconvinced, but would have an open mind if more things came to light to enforce the idea of some sort of god.
In that light, I agree with you wholeheartedly that anyone who deliberately turns their eyes blind to truth of any kind is selling themselves short. This goes for the religious and the nonreligious alike. Don't put your head in the sand if you don't like the facts.
I also take exception to the idea that the old-testament god, at least, -wasn't a horrible creation.
Leo, I take your point in your last post, but I'm glad you liked the question.
Put it this way: either Jesus is essentially the embodiment of God, or he's not. If he is, and if he is asking you to use the Old Testament where applicable, then anything God said or did in those books relates to Jesus. As such, don't get your knickers in a twist when people find Jesus accountable for all the barbaric stuff said and done in the old Testament. You can't have an exception on one side with an inclusion on the other. It simply doesn't work that way.
Also, I don't know why this is, but posts keep having links in them by default in this topic. I think it has to do with Remy not closing his link tag or something, so now all text in the text fields is being treated like URL text or some such. Or it could just be a bug, too. Either way, it's weird. If anyone thinks I'm deliberately linking to stuff in this thread, I'm not.
Oh I only intended to outline their position Greg, to the best of my abilities. And you actually caught something I missed. The new testament texts actually state Jesus came to complete the old laws, so the alleged kinder gentler Jesus has no problem at all with worldwide genocide of every human population -- the alleged flood, stoning women to death, and many other old testament ideas. In fact, he creates thought crime to boot, something like a modern blue-haired PC SJW. In the sermon on the mount he claims just being angry with someone in your heart, depending on how yu read that, is the same as murder. Try explaining that to a murder victim's family, that their loss is no different from the hurt feels of a SJW deity who is offended by someone thinking violent thoughts.
In that same passage, he also claims that "looking at a woman to lust" is the same as committing adultery. Again, tell that to someone who has lost her family and everything because he walked out with his secretary, that her loss is no different from the butthurt a deity felt because another young man somewhere else saw someone attractive and thought: "Hmm wow, hot chick!" Again serious Orwellian thought police SJW alert here.
Plus he also carries on with the cult leader statements like one must hate family and friends, forsake all and follow him, or they're not worthy of him.
Then it gets even meaner, the Old Testament deity before Zoroastrian and Helenistic influence could snuff out entire populations, but at least they were just naturally dead. "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return," Genesis 3 Yahweh speaking to Adam.
But in the New Testament we get the pagan influences from Zoroastrianism and Greek Mythology ... so we get Hades / Hell, in particular the volcanic version with fire and brimstone. Jesus does, as the evangelicals say, talk about Hell more than anything else.
In short, Jesus was a lot closer in kind to Osamu Bin Laden than he was any of us.
Ohb and repeatedly in the new testament he claims that the way he spoke was so that only the select fewe would understand him.
But yes, Greg, the Jesus character had no problem at all with the way things were in the Old Testament, or the old Testament god he called father. Just as Isis / al Qaeda today have no problem at all with the harshest passages of the Qur'an.
Greg another thing to note that maybe some have touched on here:
Christians do talk a lot about Jesus but mostly when they read their New Testament books they're reading Paul, a convert who -- if he existed -- never met Jesus in the flesh. I think probably one reason people gravitate towards his writings is that he writes with a decidedly western Greek style writing that is easier for us to understand, since whether we know it or not, we've been educated from a western Greek standpoint. His arguments you or I might not buy, but we can see the Socratic method to some extent deployed in his works.
Also Paul unlike Jesus was there to bring the message to the world, and so goes full William Lane Craig on us and makes the case for the belief-centric system evangelicals know today.
There are a couple other authors in the NT too, but Paul is really their main man. Hence some have coined the term Paulianity. And Paul is the one who communicates pretty clearly against homosexuality, including that silly attempt at a flow chart to describe how those who leave the faith all ultimately turn not only gay but brothel gay. He's also responsible for the injunctions against women in leadership in churches, for no other reason than possessing a pair of x chromosomes.
So when Christians quote the new testament they're likely quoting Paul, unless it's Revelation which is an apocalyptic writing that reads like a bad acid trip and was allegedly written by a Palestinian -- after the deportation of Israelis from Jerusalem and renaming the area Palestine.
Of course without names and dates being independently verified, we can't really say for sure if hor how many of these people actually existed, though a linguist might be able to do something that the forensic archeologists can't.
But anyway take it or leave it, that's about what they've got.
Of course a Christian coming on here and rectifying errors of mine or bringing their own perspective would probably flesh thigs out and give you a better answer for how the whole system fits together, but in particular how it relates to homosexuals.
That's strange about the links, Greg. They worked as far as I know, and I'm pretty sure I closed my tag. I haven't seen that particular issue when reading through these posts.
The old testament is a very polarized series of writings. There is true beauty, inspiration, history and doctrine to be had. Fantastic prophecies about Christ, and about the world at large. But there is also cruelty, perpetrated by man at large, but also seemingly in many instances, by God. That's one of the reasons I'm a member of the church I am. We believe Modern-day revelation and our additional testament of
Jesus Christ does not replace the bible. We still use it extensively. What it does is clarify the plain and precious gospel truths that we believe were lost
in the many translations, retranslations and other handlings of the Bible. We we do use the King James Bible also, and I'm curious to know now what that particular passage you refer to about witches means to us. I'm going to look it up if I can find it. Any chance you know where it is? There's a lot of nasty stuff in the old testament like you have described. You could die for lots of things, and atheists are not wrong to question that. A lot of Christians do as well if they think about it. I am absolutely one of them. The only reason I don't take more concern with the old Testament is that I realize I don't understand enough of it to be sure. All I can say - because I'm heading out pretty quick - is that this all took place in a much younger and much different time. You can chalk some of it up to mistranslation, but certainly nowhere near all of it. When you get right down to it, the Old Testament God just doesn't sound like a very loving guy at times. The Old Testament is a point of contention with me for many of the same reasons it is for anyone here. It's hard to equate the loving Jesus with the flaming vengeful lord of the old testament. I'm going to have to find a better worded resource than my own very very fowlable understanding, but as I understand it, this was all done during a much younger, and in many ways more primitive age. There was no savior, and no atonement. People were on their own. I'm not sure why it took so long for the atonement to come to pass, but times were much different then, humanity was much younger. That led to exceedingly great faith, and exceedingly great wickedness. We were essentially children in need of greater diciplin I guess. Much of what god himself actually did, such as the flood, and the destruction of Sodam and Gamora was done to essentially take the bullies out of the playground - not christian doctrine, just my own words. That's how corrupt and iniquitous society got to be that there were almost no righteous people to be found. God even had his servants try! Were those peoples allowed to continue in their wickedness, they and their actions and teachings would have turned even more from God, not to mention endangering children and other places with whom they had direct conttact. You see your children acting up and harming others, you talk to them, warn them, try to reason with them. When that doesn't work, sometimes you need to diciplin them, or remove them from the situation they're in until they can learn better. That's what god did, removing them from situations dangerous to themselves and others. Then Jesus came, and paid for all sin with his blood, acting as a mediator between us, and the father. No more would sacrifices of the firstlings of the flocks be accepted, for Christ's blood suffices. What he askes of us now is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. All the old testament practices were fullfilled in Christ, and done away with. He gave us the higher law by which to live. Commandments were expanded upon, such as instead of "thou shalt not commit adultery, it became "whomever looks at someone and lusts after them has committed adultery already in their heart. Doesn't mean you can't find someone attractive when you're married, but god's saying it is a sin to seriously entertain and dwell on lustful thoughts of another woman or man. I'm not saying the old testament isn't chalk full of seemingly miserable laws and deeds by Man and God alike. I believe laws were so harsh to keep some sort of order, to keep people from damaging their souls by getting too deep into sin, and to keep others around them from harm. I realize there are a ton of holes in what I'm saying. Admitedly I've got a lot of study to do to make peace with the old testament. It's hard to worship a god who may be responsible for such strict cruelty. But I accept I do not have a full understanding of it. I know that an eternal perspective needs to be kept in mind, otherwise it seems like senseless murder. In truth - and this is what my church believes - in the spirit world, beyond death, any who have never had the opportunity to learn of Christ, who would have accepted them had they been able will have a chance to be baptized in his name. This is especially true for those who lived and died before the atonement was made. What loving and compassionate father would damn someone to hell just because they never heard of Christ? Furthermore, though we don't know how time works in the beyond as it relates to our world, they will have had the opportunity to learn of the gospel of Christ, and to choose for themselves whether or not to accept, or reject it. This is why we baptize our dead by proxy in the name of Christ. Because baptism by water and fire - fire meaning the holy spirit - is necessary to partake of the gift of salvation he offers us, our baptisms in our temples on their behalf opens that opportunity to them. Thus, while the acts of the old testament still seem cruel, the sting of death is in essence washed away. This mortality we wear is such a brief moment in the eternity that is our "life". That's sort of how I see the old testament. And yes, I've got a lot of learning to do about it.
As for issues that leo brought up about adultery, murder and anger: These are warnings to guard our thoughts. People feel anger, and they feel lust. Having these thoughts isn't necessarily a sin as far as I understand it, but dwelling on thoughts of anger and lust, letting them fester, possibly leading to actual serious action can be dangerous. If I recall the exact passage, it says who soeever is angry with his brother is in danger of hell. Now, hell's a different conversation entirely, and one we've discussed before. But what I think Jesus is saying here is if you let anger consume you, it could lead to violent action. Again, recall the time this was in, and the people he was speaking to, even though it has baring on us today. The lord frowns on violence, and even more so on killing, save in times where one has no choice in order to preserve their own lives or the lives of their families. When war arises, one can defend one's self rather than laying down and dying. Where the sin would arise there is if someone killed when it was not necessary, or if they began to take pleasure in it. As for adultary, certainly it is not the same as simply having feelings of lust. But again, if you seriously entertain lustful thoughts with another person, your heart may no longer be with your spouce. Furthermore, thoughts can very easily turn to action. So yes, perhaps it is thought police, but it is meant to preempt and prevent action. You're obviously going to have to repent more for murdering someone than you would for just striking out via words or fists in anger. That's how I understand all this anyway.
As for hell, well, that really depends on what you believe "hell" to be. There's a whole lot of debate as to the nature of Hell, who will go there, and why. We've had that discussion too, and I've already shared my thoughts about that, though will again if anyone cares or needs me to.
Leo, with what you're saying about Paul, I don't have the research or philosophy to back me up on this, but as I understand, Paul wrote many letters in order to convert people to Christ, whom he saw in a vision while on the road. He was, until that time, an avid persicuter of Christians. The thing about paul is, while he may have been inspired in his writings, he was writing for the people of a vastly different time and culture. Personally - and again this is just me - I can't help wondering if he put some of his own personal beliefs in there. When I personally quote the New Testament, I generally stick to what Jesus himself says, or his apostles say. Paul I take issue with, for his treatment of women and other people. But again, another time; another place. You have to remember that the bible as it exists today is a compiled collection of writings from many authors. That compilation was settled upon during the Nicean council. They just decided on some things because so many people couldn't agree, such as whether Jesus, the father and the Holy Ghost were one entity, or three. We owe a lot of our religious understanding to that council. That's one of the reasons my church believes that many things were lost, or altered between the time of the 12 apostles and the restoration of the 1800s. I'd rather this not turn into a debate within a debate, but that's another reason I follow the church I do. The scriptures we have are essentially "more of god's dealings with the world". They and modern-day revelation do not answer all the questions, but for me at least, they all answer a lot.
Just an asside, I'm sorry my posts seem to be broken up in odd places. I write them in notepad before pasting them in here, because doing otherwise has led to text I write suddenly disappearing. I don't know why notepad does with it's apparently doing.
Basically Greg, everything in the bible is good and lovely if you turn your head
slightly to the left, close one eye, stand on your head, hop on one foot, rub your
stomach, tap your foot, click your fingers, and look at it through a series of
angular mirrors in a smoky room simultaneously. If you fail to do that, it all
comes out as bullshit.
I'd also like to point out, harsh as it might be, Ramy, it does not take a skilled
writer to make the beliefs of the LDS church sound like the ravings of an
unimaginative lunatic with a tiny vocabulary. Reading the Book of Mormon does
that quite nicely in its original form.
To you, Cody that is true. And that's okay. And heck, with the commentary you've shown me in that podcast, who could blame you.:)
I read the book Ramy. The only amazing part of it is that someone actually
bought into it. Well, ok, in 1830 I can understand, but today? Really?
Also any translation that predates the Dead Sea Scrolls is not going to be as
complete as it can.
Cody's read the Book of Mormon, and to be honest I actually haven't. Mormons
are pretty common out here so I've learned a few things over the years but just
bits and pieces.
Perhaps I'll read it sometime when I have insomnia.
I'll tell you this, Twain was not kidding or exaggerating when he said it was
literary chloroform.
From www.whataboutjesus.com: "Why Does the God of the Old Testament Seem So Wrathful?
For many people it is difficult to achieve that perennial resolution of reading through this book called the Bible. The reader starts at the beginning and gets through Genesis, perhaps into Exodus and part of Leviticus. But wow! And whoa! Look what’s there! Only eight survived while the flood surged and scourged all life from the face of the globe. The first born of Egypt were executed, no matter if the family was royal and rich or peasant and poor. No blood on the doorpost meant no heir in the home. With the exception of a prostitute and her family, Jericho was exterminated down to the last human and animal. A man was stoned to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath. Fire from the LORD consumed two sons of the High Priest who did not do worship as God had prescribed.
Reading through the Old Testament is not for the faint of heart. The Lord God of the Scriptures says this about himself. “For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.” (Deuteronomy 4:24) Who can warm up to such a God? Who can love a God described by the psalmist with the words, “you hate all who do wrong” (Ps. 5:5)? Maybe I don’t want to wade through this whole book.
So sometimes people jump to the New Testament and start to read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They seem so different. Jesus hugged the children and blessed the babies. Jesus filled stomachs with food and filled boats with fish. Jesus raised a dead man to his feet. Jesus ate with the outcasts, forgiving the scandalous of society. Jesus rescued an adulteress from stoning and befriended a despised tax collector. Everyone knows that Jesus proclaimed, “Love your enemies.”
If the God of the Bible is one Lord God, why does there seem to be such a difference in the way the two testaments depict him? Remember that in Old Testament times God intervened on behalf of one nation, a nation graciously chosen to be used by the Lord as a vehicle of his word and promises. That nation was Israel, a nation set apart and guarded by God so that the Lord could keep his promise of sending his anointed one, the Christ. So God did act zealously to defeat Israel’s enemies, because those enemies endangered God’s plan of salvation. We do see specific commands from God to use the swords of his Old Testament people as swords of judgment against unbelievers who stood in the way of the Lord’s plan. But, with the birth of the Savior Jesus and the completion of God’s salvation plan, God no longer needed the nation of Israel to play its special role.
More importantly, careful Bible readers will notice no difference in the character of the Lord God. Both testaments describe God as a God who condemns and a God who forgives. Both testaments describe a God of wrath and a God of love. For example, the God of the Old Testament is the God who lovingly provided water and manna and quail to a nation that did not deserve it. God’s grace was constant in the face of human unfaithfulness. Conversely, the God of the New Testament is also the same Lord who said, “whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
All of Scripture proclaims this Lord God who is constant and does not change. God revealed himself as a holy and just God who punishes all sin. He also reveals himself as a loving God who sent a Substitute to take that punishment in our place. In the Old Testament book of Isaiah, chapter 53, we read: “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. … The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”And in a New Testament book we read: “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:19,21)
The message throughout the Bible is a message of law and gospel. The law shows us our sin. The gospel is good news that shows us our Savior from sin, Jesus the Messiah. So we rejoice in the unchanging message: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23)."
"Why am I here?
You've seen the sign, maybe at a freeway off ramp, or maybe on some street corner. It is usually held by an unshowered man in untidy clothes. It says, "Need food. Will work."
Now imagine the opposite. A sharply dressed gentleman next to a shiny limousine is holding a sign that reads, "Looking for someone to help. Will provide whatever you need."
Can you guess which of them is God, and which is you?
You might say that God has so much love, forgiveness, and peace that he doesn't know what to do with it. (Actually, he does.) He delights in sharing it with those in need.
A long time ago God created people as his companions in a perfect world, but sin spoiled that relationship. Now people, by nature, are afraid of God, confused about God, and no longer as interested in God as he is in them.
God does not want to have a broken relationship with you. God delights in restoring peace and harmony between him and you. He uses your lifetime to accomplish this restoration.
God also gives you the privilege of doing things for him. You can be his hands, assisting the needy. You can be his voice, encouraging a friend. You are never too young or too old to be helpful.
God shares his forgiving love with you, and he looks for you to respond to it. You are here to receive the gift of God's love and to share it.
There is a poster that says it this way:
• Yesterday is history.
• Tomorrow is a mystery.
• Today is a gift.
• That's why they call it the present.
The Bible says it this way, "Always give yourselves fully to the word of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:58)."
"Why do bad things happen to good people?
In this world in which we live, why do bad things happen at all? One would have to agree that bad things do happen to all people. War, poverty, disease, sickness, accidents, pain, sorrow, death occur everyday to people around this globe. The rich, the poor, the intellectual, the illiterate, the strong, the weak, the old, the young can all be stricken and afflicted by that which we might define as bad.
This is not how God envisioned the world he created. When he was done creating the world, God looked over his creation and we read his evaluation in Genesis 1, "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." What happened to this world that was very good? The answer again is found in the Bible, just a few short pages away from Genesis chapter 1. Adam and Eve, the first humans created by God, listened to the temptation of the devil, chose to go against God's command and so sinned. Sin entered this perfect world. The effect of this sin was felt not only by Adam and Eve, but by all of creation. God told Adam, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field."
About 4000 years after Creation, the Bible gives us an evaluation of the status of the world with these words: "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." All of creation is tainted by evil. The ultimate evil that sin brought into the world is death, which awaits all living things on earth.
What good is there in this world that is so steeped in evil? On this side of eternity, the bad things keep happening. Evil will continue to happen until the end of time. God has not left us without hope. God in his love sent his one and only son, Jesus, into this world to live as our brother and to suffer the sorrows of this life, including a horrible death in our place. In exchange he guarantees us a place where we might enjoy goodness and mercy forever. There will be no more sorrow, or crying or pain. As believers in Jesus, the bad things of this life will pass away and we will be able to experience paradise in heaven."
OH--I MUST RE-CAP what I mentioned in a MUCH-EARLIER POST in THIS TOPIC: I said (NOT re-quoting, EXACTLY) that the BIBLE NEVER said ANYTHING about the TREE of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL as being that of either a FRUIT or VEGETABLE tree, WITHOUT REALIZING that I was in ERROR, because in the NKJV (NEW KING JAMES VERSION), GEN.3-2, if I'm NOT MISTAKEN, I THINK that the word "FRUIT" is mentioned MORE THAN ONCE, but I DEFINITELY know that ONE TIME, "FRUIT" was applied to the very tree that both ADAM and EVE disobediently partook of, when EVE replied to the SERPENT in telling him the very command that she and ADAM were given from GOD, as to what would happen if they DID, so for THAT, I wanna HUMBLY APPOLOGIZE to ANYONE reading this topic that MIGHT'VE been MISLEAD by my CERTAINLY-UNINTENDED ERROR, because I NEVER wanna EVER MISREPRESENT MY LORD and SAVIOR, by misquoting HIS ETERNALLY-INERRENT WORD. This is EXACTLY WHY I NEVER wanna put ANY CREDENCE, WHATSOEVER, into ANY of what I say, UNLESS I'm ABSOLUTELY/ACCURATELY QUOTING HIM, ACCORDINGLY.
From a site that I need to get the URL to: "RFID, Technology and THE MARK
Mention the mark of the beast today and instantly the majority of people will think of some sort of RFID Chiptechnological device like the RFID chip, or an ID card, or a 'techno' tattoo. And we are not only talking about professed Christians. Even non-believers instantly think of some device or physical mark that is placed upon us. So the whole world believes that one day soon we are going to have a physical mark enforced upon us which will be the prophesied mark of the beast foretold in the book of Revelation, chapter 13.
So what about us. Do we go along with this 'mainstream' view of the beast's mark? I'm afraid not, and for VERY good reason. Which is why we have compiled a short list of reasons as to why the mark of the beast CANNOT be the RFID chip or any technology device or physical mark. This is a very important issue we are dealing with here, as some of God's most dire warnings are associated with the mark of the beast.
Please carefully consider the following 6 reasons as to why the mark of the beast cannot be the RFID chip or any physical mark.
1 - The Word "Mark" Doesn't HAVE to Mean a Physical Mark
So many people look at that word "mark" in Revelation 13 and say ..."Well, the original greek for the word mark means an actual physical mark." ... And they would be right. The problem is, they forget that they are reading it in the book of Revelation. You know, that book which is FULL of symbolic language. For example. The beasts of Revelation 13 and the whore riding a beast in Revelation 17. If you take a look at these in the original language, they too will be described as ACTUAL beasts and a whore. So if you apply the rule that the mark of the beast HAS to be a physical mark because of the word, then you have to apply that rule to the rest of Revelation.
Mark of the BeastNow if you were to ask those people who support the theory of the mark being this RFID chip, or any other physical mark, if they believed we will be seeing ACTUAL beasts and a whore riding a beast forcing the world to worship them. I am sure that they would respond by saying ... "Don't be silly, that is SYMBOLIC language." ... And the same applies with the mark.
Friend, the mark of the beast does not HAVE to be a physical mark. And with the rest of the following reasons, we will show you why it CANNOT be this RFID chip or any other physical device.
2 - Where's the Deception?
Let me give you a few verses which tells us what Satan is going to do in the end times:
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 ...'Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.'
Revelation 12:9 ...'And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.'
Revelation 13:14 ...'And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.'
Revelation 18:23 ...'for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.'
Revelation 19:20 ...'And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.'
Now have a REALLY good think about this for a moment. Not only does the vast majority of the professed Christian world believe that the mark of the beast will be a physical mark, like the RFID chip, or an ID card, or tattoo. Even the un-believing world has some 'knowledge' about the mark of the beast, which they relate to a physical mark like the RFID chip. So I ask you, and please think carefully about this .... where is the DECEPTION?. Did you read the above verses from the Word of God concerning Satan's tactics? He is ALL about deception, and the final battle in these last days will contain Satan's greatest deceptions of all.
The RFID Chip is not a deception. But I tell you what is ... the WHOLE world is waiting for the RFID chip or some physical mark to be enforced. THAT is the deception!
3 - The Mark is all to do With Worship
The many people who focus on the RFID chip or some other technology device being the mark of the beast tend to forget about the spiritual aspect of being a Christian. Does the Bible say we are warring against physical enemies? No, the Bible is very clear on what we are up against:
Ephesians 6:12 ...'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.'
You see, our battle is not against the physical things of this world. Our battle is a SPIRITUAL one. Satan is not so much looking to gain control of our wallets. He us ultimately looking to gain control of our MINDS. He wants to drive a wedge between us and Christ Jesus. And how does he do that? By stopping us from giving TRUE worship to our Creator God. Look at what the final warning to the world is in Revelation 13 and 14:
Revelation 13: vs 4 ... And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? ... vs 8 ...And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ... vs 11-12 ...And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth ... and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast ... vs 15 ...and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.'
Revelation 14: ...'vs 6-7 ...And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven ... Saying with a loud voice ... worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters ... vs 9-10 ...If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand ... The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God
I think the mark is all to do with worship don't you? This is the final warning to the world, and it is a warning about worshipping the beast system and a call to TRUE WORSHIP. The three angels of Revelation 14 don't just say ... "DON'T TAKE THE MARK" ... They are telling us to remember our Creator and worship Him ONLY who created the heavens and the earth. They are pointing us back to creation and telling us to give our allegiance to the ONE true Creator God, Jehovah!
Now I ask you. How does getting a physical mark STOP us from giving TRUE worship to our Creator? It doesn't! Which is why the mark of the beast CANNOT be a physical mark.
Now some people claim that these RFID chips could be able to alter your mind and thoughts and in some way take control. But God would never allow this to happen on a mass scale, because He wouldn't allow our free choice to be taken away from us. If we are not able to make a free conscious decision with regards to our worship and allegiance, then the judgment of the mark would not be a fair one. The mark of the beast is all about a free conscious decision by each and every person as to who we give our allegiance and worship to.
4 - RFID Chip Can be Forced Upon Us
Let's look at the follow scenarios:
Someone is taken into hospital for an operation and during the operation the doctors insert an RFID chip into the person. Now according to the many people who believe the RFID chip to be the mark of the beast, this person who went to hospital, NOW HAS THE MARK OF THE BEAST, and is going to be lost!
Police ForceAnother scenario: The military take control of a town and force their way into each and every home, injecting (somehow) an RFID chip into every person. There is nothing that the people can do. Some make a run for it, but are captured and forced to have this RFID chip. The same goes for any other physical mark. They can be forced upon us if the governments decided, and there is little we could do about it, because as TRUE Christians, we should not fight back.
So is God going to reject people for having a physical mark forced upon them? No, not a chance! Because we serve a loving God who is fair and just in all His ways. And not only that, any one of us could have a physical mark forced upon us, but then we could continue to worship God in spirit and truth, which is what God is most interested in (John 4:24). Why would God be concerned about us having a physical mark like an RFID chip or ID card forced upon us? As long as we continue to serve God and keep His commandments and worship Him in spirit and truth, then God is happy with us, no matter what kind of "marking" the governments decide to place upon us.
Remember what the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:4? That food offered to idols is nothing to worry about for a strong Christian, because the idol is nothing and we know there is only One God and it is Him we still worship. The same applies to a physical mark. It is NOTHING, and God is only concerned with our true WORSHIP of Him in spirit and truth.
5 - The Mark, OR the Name OR the Number of the Beast
Revelation 13:17 confirms the following: "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, OR the name of the beast, OR the number of his name."
This verse shows us that this issue is FAR deeper than a mere physical mark like an RFID chip or ID card. Many people place all their focus upon this RFID chip or some other technology device. And yet Revelation 13 reveals there is more to this than just the "mark". We are shown here that ANY affiliation with the beast, ANY kind of support or agreement we make with the beast, apart from the "mark" will see us condemned!
Do you see this? There will be many people who don't take the actual mark of the beast and yet they will still be lost. Because they will in some way still be on the wrong side. In the last days, there will be only two groups of people. Those who are for Christ Jesus and those who are for the beast and Satan. Now if you are not on the side of Christ, then you are automatically placed on the side of the beast and Satan, and you will be lost. Even if you don't take the mark of the beast.
For instance, what would you have if you had the 'name of the beast'? Well, let's use the Bible to interpret. In Exodus 34:5-7 we see that God descended down to Moses on the mount and 'proclaimed the NAME of the Lord'. And what did the Lord proclaim?:
Exodus 34:5-7 ...'And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.'
Do you see what 'NAME' God proclaimed to Moses? He proclaimed His CHARACTER! So it will be with the beast. Those in the last days who have the 'name of the beast' will have the CHARACTER of the beast.
6 - Those Who Don't Take the Mark are Keeping God's Commandments
This is a vital point to understand, and one that the majority of people completely miss. Revelation 14 contains the three angels messages (which you can read about here). And those three angels tell us that we need to worship the true God. That Babylon is fallen. And that we should not take the mark of the beast. Now here is the vital point. Right after the third angel warns against receiving the mark, he says ... "Here is the patience of the saints, here are they which keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."
Wow! So who are the one's who do NOT take the beast's mark? The one's who are keeping the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus Christ. So how do you fit a physical mark like the RFID chip into this? You cannot! To not take the mark means to keep God's commandments and follow in the footstep of Christ. Which means the mark of the beast is to do with the BREAKING of commandments of God or not following in Christ's footsteps.
Friend, the mark of the beast cannot be any kind of technology device. The beast's mark is a SPIRITUAL mark, as this is a SPIRITUAL issue, and our war against Satan is a SPIRITUAL war. Don't get me wrong. Technology WILL be used to help enforce the mark of the beast. But in of itself, the RFID, or ID Card or Tattoo, or whatever else CANNOT be the mark. The mark HAS to be a spiritual one. Which is why we receive it in the hand OR the forehead. And do you know where we make our decisions? In the front of our forehead. So those who decide to go along with the beast's mark will receive it (spiritually) in their forehead. And those who don't accept it, but continue to break God's commandments and reject Christ Jesus, will receive the mark (spiritually) in their hand, which represents their ACTIONS against God.
We will have to make a decision one day soon, whether to be on God's side and receive His seal, or to be on Satan's side and receive the mark of the beast. And that decision will decide your eternal destiny!
It's time to find out the truth about the mark.RFID, Technology and THE MARK
Mention the mark of the beast today and instantly the majority of people will think of some sort of RFID Chiptechnological device like the RFID chip, or an ID card, or a 'techno' tattoo. And we are not only talking about professed Christians. Even non-believers instantly think of some device or physical mark that is placed upon us. So the whole world believes that one day soon we are going to have a physical mark enforced upon us which will be the prophesied mark of the beast foretold in the book of Revelation, chapter 13.
So what about us. Do we go along with this 'mainstream' view of the beast's mark? I'm afraid not, and for VERY good reason. Which is why we have compiled a short list of reasons as to why the mark of the beast CANNOT be the RFID chip or any technology device or physical mark. This is a very important issue we are dealing with here, as some of God's most dire warnings are associated with the mark of the beast.
Please carefully consider the following 6 reasons as to why the mark of the beast cannot be the RFID chip or any physical mark.
1 - The Word "Mark" Doesn't HAVE to Mean a Physical Mark
So many people look at that word "mark" in Revelation 13 and say ..."Well, the original greek for the word mark means an actual physical mark." ... And they would be right. The problem is, they forget that they are reading it in the book of Revelation. You know, that book which is FULL of symbolic language. For example. The beasts of Revelation 13 and the whore riding a beast in Revelation 17. If you take a look at these in the original language, they too will be described as ACTUAL beasts and a whore. So if you apply the rule that the mark of the beast HAS to be a physical mark because of the word, then you have to apply that rule to the rest of Revelation.
Mark of the BeastNow if you were to ask those people who support the theory of the mark being this RFID chip, or any other physical mark, if they believed we will be seeing ACTUAL beasts and a whore riding a beast forcing the world to worship them. I am sure that they would respond by saying ... "Don't be silly, that is SYMBOLIC language." ... And the same applies with the mark.
Friend, the mark of the beast does not HAVE to be a physical mark. And with the rest of the following reasons, we will show you why it CANNOT be this RFID chip or any other physical device.
2 - Where's the Deception?
Let me give you a few verses which tells us what Satan is going to do in the end times:
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 ...'Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.'
Revelation 12:9 ...'And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.'
Revelation 13:14 ...'And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.'
Revelation 18:23 ...'for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.'
Revelation 19:20 ...'And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.'
Now have a REALLY good think about this for a moment. Not only does the vast majority of the professed Christian world believe that the mark of the beast will be a physical mark, like the RFID chip, or an ID card, or tattoo. Even the un-believing world has some 'knowledge' about the mark of the beast, which they relate to a physical mark like the RFID chip. So I ask you, and please think carefully about this .... where is the DECEPTION?. Did you read the above verses from the Word of God concerning Satan's tactics? He is ALL about deception, and the final battle in these last days will contain Satan's greatest deceptions of all.
The RFID Chip is not a deception. But I tell you what is ... the WHOLE world is waiting for the RFID chip or some physical mark to be enforced. THAT is the deception!
3 - The Mark is all to do With Worship
The many people who focus on the RFID chip or some other technology device being the mark of the beast tend to forget about the spiritual aspect of being a Christian. Does the Bible say we are warring against physical enemies? No, the Bible is very clear on what we are up against:
Ephesians 6:12 ...'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.'
You see, our battle is not against the physical things of this world. Our battle is a SPIRITUAL one. Satan is not so much looking to gain control of our wallets. He us ultimately looking to gain control of our MINDS. He wants to drive a wedge between us and Christ Jesus. And how does he do that? By stopping us from giving TRUE worship to our Creator God. Look at what the final warning to the world is in Revelation 13 and 14:
Revelation 13: vs 4 ... And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? ... vs 8 ...And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ... vs 11-12 ...And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth ... and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast ... vs 15 ...and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.'
Revelation 14: ...'vs 6-7 ...And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven ... Saying with a loud voice ... worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters ... vs 9-10 ...If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand ... The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God
I think the mark is all to do with worship don't you? This is the final warning to the world, and it is a warning about worshipping the beast system and a call to TRUE WORSHIP. The three angels of Revelation 14 don't just say ... "DON'T TAKE THE MARK" ... They are telling us to remember our Creator and worship Him ONLY who created the heavens and the earth. They are pointing us back to creation and telling us to give our allegiance to the ONE true Creator God, Jehovah!
Now I ask you. How does getting a physical mark STOP us from giving TRUE worship to our Creator? It doesn't! Which is why the mark of the beast CANNOT be a physical mark.
Now some people claim that these RFID chips could be able to alter your mind and thoughts and in some way take control. But God would never allow this to happen on a mass scale, because He wouldn't allow our free choice to be taken away from us. If we are not able to make a free conscious decision with regards to our worship and allegiance, then the judgment of the mark would not be a fair one. The mark of the beast is all about a free conscious decision by each and every person as to who we give our allegiance and worship to.
4 - RFID Chip Can be Forced Upon Us
Let's look at the follow scenarios:
Someone is taken into hospital for an operation and during the operation the doctors insert an RFID chip into the person. Now according to the many people who believe the RFID chip to be the mark of the beast, this person who went to hospital, NOW HAS THE MARK OF THE BEAST, and is going to be lost!
Police ForceAnother scenario: The military take control of a town and force their way into each and every home, injecting (somehow) an RFID chip into every person. There is nothing that the people can do. Some make a run for it, but are captured and forced to have this RFID chip. The same goes for any other physical mark. They can be forced upon us if the governments decided, and there is little we could do about it, because as TRUE Christians, we should not fight back.
So is God going to reject people for having a physical mark forced upon them? No, not a chance! Because we serve a loving God who is fair and just in all His ways. And not only that, any one of us could have a physical mark forced upon us, but then we could continue to worship God in spirit and truth, which is what God is most interested in (John 4:24). Why would God be concerned about us having a physical mark like an RFID chip or ID card forced upon us? As long as we continue to serve God and keep His commandments and worship Him in spirit and truth, then God is happy with us, no matter what kind of "marking" the governments decide to place upon us.
Remember what the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:4? That food offered to idols is nothing to worry about for a strong Christian, because the idol is nothing and we know there is only One God and it is Him we still worship. The same applies to a physical mark. It is NOTHING, and God is only concerned with our true WORSHIP of Him in spirit and truth.
5 - The Mark, OR the Name OR the Number of the Beast
Revelation 13:17 confirms the following: "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, OR the name of the beast, OR the number of his name."
This verse shows us that this issue is FAR deeper than a mere physical mark like an RFID chip or ID card. Many people place all their focus upon this RFID chip or some other technology device. And yet Revelation 13 reveals there is more to this than just the "mark". We are shown here that ANY affiliation with the beast, ANY kind of support or agreement we make with the beast, apart from the "mark" will see us condemned!
Do you see this? There will be many people who don't take the actual mark of the beast and yet they will still be lost. Because they will in some way still be on the wrong side. In the last days, there will be only two groups of people. Those who are for Christ Jesus and those who are for the beast and Satan. Now if you are not on the side of Christ, then you are automatically placed on the side of the beast and Satan, and you will be lost. Even if you don't take the mark of the beast.
For instance, what would you have if you had the 'name of the beast'? Well, let's use the Bible to interpret. In Exodus 34:5-7 we see that God descended down to Moses on the mount and 'proclaimed the NAME of the Lord'. And what did the Lord proclaim?:
Exodus 34:5-7 ...'And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.'
Do you see what 'NAME' God proclaimed to Moses? He proclaimed His CHARACTER! So it will be with the beast. Those in the last days who have the 'name of the beast' will have the CHARACTER of the beast.
6 - Those Who Don't Take the Mark are Keeping God's Commandments
This is a vital point to understand, and one that the majority of people completely miss. Revelation 14 contains the three angels messages (which you can read about here). And those three angels tell us that we need to worship the true God. That Babylon is fallen. And that we should not take the mark of the beast. Now here is the vital point. Right after the third angel warns against receiving the mark, he says ... "Here is the patience of the saints, here are they which keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."
Wow! So who are the one's who do NOT take the beast's mark? The one's who are keeping the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus Christ. So how do you fit a physical mark like the RFID chip into this? You cannot! To not take the mark means to keep God's commandments and follow in the footstep of Christ. Which means the mark of the beast is to do with the BREAKING of commandments of God or not following in Christ's footsteps.
Friend, the mark of the beast cannot be any kind of technology device. The beast's mark is a SPIRITUAL mark, as this is a SPIRITUAL issue, and our war against Satan is a SPIRITUAL war. Don't get me wrong. Technology WILL be used to help enforce the mark of the beast. But in of itself, the RFID, or ID Card or Tattoo, or whatever else CANNOT be the mark. The mark HAS to be a spiritual one. Which is why we receive it in the hand OR the forehead. And do you know where we make our decisions? In the front of our forehead. So those who decide to go along with the beast's mark will receive it (spiritually) in their forehead. And those who don't accept it, but continue to break God's commandments and reject Christ Jesus, will receive the mark (spiritually) in their hand, which represents their ACTIONS against God.
We will have to make a decision one day soon, whether to be on God's side and receive His seal, or to be on Satan's side and receive the mark of the beast. And that decision will decide your eternal destiny!
It's time to find out the truth about the mark."
Cody, I'm afraid I'll stick with Mark Twain, thanks.
Yes, it and the bible both can serve to make one drowsy. I've fallen asleep several times while reading my scriptures in that way. Relaxing, no? It's why I don't do it if I really want to retain what I'm reading.:) Also Cody, you claim to have read the Book of Mormon. Assuming you, who critasizes and belittles it along with the rest of Christianity every chance you get, have managed to work your way through the entirety - and I applaud you if you indeed did with a clear understanding of what you're reading - my question is, why? Why waste your time with a book which you consider such utter rubbish? I mean, the acts of some religious people have scarred you, and you've specifically labeled yourself an antitheist. Am I wrong? Furthermore, you've made it clear you think the bible is utter nonsense and that people are stupid for buying into it. You've clearly spent a great deal of time gathering your ammunition from scriptures, and a whole pile of commentary, some of which I know for sure is very cynical. And you are clearly intelligent, and exceedingly proud of that intelligence, as you have referred to yourself as "your better," to others on these boards if I'm not mistaken. So along comes this "golden bible" as the cynical of the day like to call it, apparently "translated" by some immaginative, Teenage, illiterate boy-turned treasure-seeker with a couple of rocks in the eighteen hundreds, with chloraform-like writing and a whole load of commentary which makes it seem stupid ... and you red it? Nay, you red it and took the time to understand it? Cody the Book of Mormon isn't a short book. And yes, there are parts, such as 2nd nephi and the prophecies of isaiah which tend to drag on, especially if you have no idea what the heck his prophecies are talking about. The book isn't meant to be a bed-time story, but another testament of the lord Jesus Christ, with whom you take great issue and in whom you don't even believe. So my question is, why did you put effort into reading it at all? Why spend your considerable intellect and precious time daning to wade through such nonsense? Hell, why even care what strange people like myself apparently take on this queer concept called faith? I'll probably get a lot of flack from you and others for this next bit, and that's fine. I'm not popular enough to worry about losing friends or have nobody read my topics.
Thank you, Remy; very well said.
To add to what you said Remy, the Bible tells us to love everyone, and regardless of the venom that is constantly spewed by most atheists here, that is exactly what we do--love them, continue to share our perspectives with them, continue to be spat on by them because we have a strong faith in the Lord...but you know what? That is okay by me, because they may learn one day, even though they can't even begin to imagine such a change occurring. It's only been pretty recently that I've learned without a doubt that God has carried me through a lot--I had a near-death experience a few months ago and when I didn't have the strength to do anything, when I couldn't walk, speak, or otherwise care for myself, who was there? No one else but my Heavenly Father.
That's a fair question, so let me see if I can give you an example that can
explain it.
Lets say that congress starts to consider a new ADA. The old one just isn't
working, so they want a new one. Clearly this affects your life, so you want to
know about the ADA. Well it turns out that some congressman from Kansas
decided that he was going to lay out the ADA according to the principles laid out
by a ghost on his bathroom wall. The first thing you would want to do is read
that bathroom wall, right? You wouldn't just take his word for it. You'd think, wel
that's weird, what the hell is on that bathroom wall, and why the hell does he
believe it? You'd then read it and find that it says that blind people have magical
powers, and are training to take over the world. So now you know that not only
is this guy crazy, but he's wrong, and his bathroom wall is wrong.
So, we have government leadrs who are believers in the book of mormon. We
have mormons trying to block laws in several states and on the national level.
Mormonism, like it or not, affects our lives. So why would I not read your
bathroom wall? The fact that your bathroom wall holds incredibly stupid ideas,
is more your fault than mine.
Thank you Chelsea. It's facinating how our perspectives and actions can change so much in such a short time. And thank you Cody. You've answered my first question, though it makes me wonder who wrote on that bathroom wall.:) I'd rather not bog down the topic with this, but I'm curious to know which laws you're referring to. the tennants of our faith are that we do subject ourselves to the laws of the land. Aside from homosexuality - getting back to the source of this topic at last? what other laws do you take issue with? Please PM me, preferably with sources if you're so inclined, because I'm honestly curious. Especially curious if this is church sanctioned, or just some government leaders who happen to be mormon acting on their own.
You say aside from homosexuality like that will just excuse you from it.
"I had a near-death experience a few months ago and when I didn't have the strength to do anything, when I couldn't walk, speak, or otherwise care for myself, who was there? No one else but my Heavenly Father."
Do you mean there was not one single human being around who helped you? If you literally could not take care of your basic needs and no one was around, did God make food and medicine just appear in front of you? Maybe I'm taking what you said way too literally, but your words were "no one else but my heavenly father."
I think Chelsea's probably speaking more emotionally and psychologically. Admitedly I really shouldn't answer on her behalf...
Although we DO venture to OTHER topics, in ALL ACTUALITY, it's ALL DERIVED from the ONE CORE FACTOR that TOTALLY PRONOUNCES EXACTLY WHAT IT IS--SPIRITUAL WARFARE, between JESUS, along with THOSE that've chosen to follow HIM, who are ALREADY ETERNALLY VICTORIOUS over the devil, and SATAN, the DEVIL, HIMSELF, along with HIS followers, who are ALREADY ETERNALLY DEFEATED, UNLESS, of course, anyone that DOES choose to FOREVER DENOUNCE their evil master, ONLY to FOREVER JOIN the VERY FAMILY of OUR GOOD MASTER, BEFORE it's TOO LATE, that such topics as HOMOSEXUALITY, MORMONISM, ISLAM, WHATEVER, are ARGUABLY CHALLENGED, TOTALLY REGARDLESS of HUMAN OPINION, by ABSOLUTE, ETERNAL, FLAWLESS, INCONQUERABLE, INVENSIBLE, INDISPUTABLE, SOLID TRUTH.
From www.bible.ca: "Mormon Faith
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Examined, Refuted, Rejected!
Click to View (VISIT SITE)
Definition of a Mormon:
"Someone who accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book of Mormon (translated from the Nephi Plates) as an inspired message from God."
(Left: Joseph Smith receiving the Nephi Plates from Angel Moroni)
Why we must reject the book of Mormon:
1.The Book of Mormon does not give us any new information regarding salvation. We have all we need in the New Testament.
2.The Book of Mormon teaches many things that contradict the New Testament.
3.The Book of Mormon claims the entire old and New Testaments are essentially worthless being corrupted, lost and altered.
a.LDS do not know what parts are original or which parts have been corrupted, so they use the Bible as a general guide but hold it at distance and suspicion.
b.If there are differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, they reject the Bible.
c.In fact there are MORE "lost, altered and changed" sections in the Book of Mormon when you compare the original 1830 Book of Mormon to the current edition, than the few variant readings in the New Testament.
d.So in spite of claim that the Book of Mormon is superior to the New Testament, such is totally false when you look strictly at the facts.
e.There are fewer variant readings in the Bible than the Book of Mormon!
4.The Book of Mormon claims to be a perfect inspired translation.
a.Unlike the Bible which only claims inspiration in the Original and scholarship in translation, the Book of Mormon claims both the original and the TRANSLATION are inspired and error free.
b.This opens up a wide range of problems including the broken, bad English spelling and grammar (which we call "reformed hillbilly") of the original 1830 AD edition of the Book of Mormon, the hundreds of additions, deletions (including entire chapters) of the Book of Mormon in editions after 1830 as compared to the present edition.
c.There are over 5000 papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament and two almost complete copies (~325 AD) wherein we NEVER find bad grammar, spelling errors etc.
d.The Bible has ZERO grammatical or spelling errors but the first edition of the Book of Mormon looks exactly like what you would expect from someone like the uneducated (but otherwise brilliant) Joseph Smith.
e.Mormons claims these errors were introduced in one or all of the following ways:
i.the Holy Spirit chose to write the Book of Mormon in bad grammar. (if so, then the modern updates violate the wishes of the Holy Spirit who wanted it written that way)
ii.the person whom Joseph Smith dictated the words to from the seer stone in the hat copied it wrong. (but first hand accounts of the translation process say the new text would not appear until the copied text was perfect and Joseph would certainly know errors had occurred when he had finished with the translation and simply read it himself.
iii.The printing shop made all the grammar, spelling and textual additions and deletions corrected in latter editions. (impossible since Smith never EVER claimed such)
5.Archeology has found ZERO confirmation of the book of Mormon. The Bible, on the other hand has clear tangible archeological proof of every Bible city, river, nation, king, ruler, coin, country (and hundreds of confirmed Bible stories) have been confirmed from professional archeological controlled digs. It is well known in professional archeological circles that the Book of Mormon has failed to find any connection with the extinct nations of South America (Nasca, Ica etc) and the Book of Mormon. All of the "star archeological witnesses" of the Book of Mormon are either flat out rejected as forgeries, fakes, frauds and fabrications (the 4 F's of archeology) or highly suspect since NONE of them came from controlled professional archeological excavations and ALL of them are unprovenanced.
a.Book of Mormon COUNTRIESverified from archeology: ZERO
b.Book of Mormon NATIONS verified from archeology: ZERO
c.Book of Mormon CITIES verified from archeology: ZERO
d.Book of Mormon RULERSANDKINGS verified from archeology: ZERO
e.Book of Mormon RIVERS verified from archeology: ZERO
f.Book of Mormon LAKES, SEAS verified from archeology: ZERO
g.Book of Mormon COINS verified from archeology: ZERO
6.We don't need the Book of Mormon… we have the New testament being infinitely superior in every way."
The following is a list of videoes that can ONLY be viewed by visiting www.bible.ca.
Click to ViewThe Bible: Click to View
Click to ViewGod's Light to ManClick to View
Click to ViewAn Inspired "Blueprint"Click to View
Answers to questions about the Bible itself.
Click to ViewWhat does it mean to say the Bible is inspired?
Click to ViewIs the Bible of human or divine origin?
Click to ViewA list of 60 Bible prophecies and their fulfillment
Click to ViewThe New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? By F. F. BRUCE, 1943
Click to ViewWhat does grain seed found in the pyramids have to do with the Bible?
Click to View
The canon of the Bible: over 27 chapters!
Click to ViewAre there pre-discovery scientific facts contained in the Bible
Click to ViewHow do TV talk shows prove the inspiration of the bible?
Click to ViewAre archeologists are digging up Bible stories?
Click to View
Burial Box of James, the Lord's Brother found! The inscription on the top reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
Click to ViewIs The Bible God's Only Inspired Revelation?
Click to ViewHas the Bible been lost, altered or corrupted over time?
Click to ViewWould you die to promote a lies and deception?
Click to View
Encyclopedia of alleged Bible contradictions answered and refuted!Click here
How to learn the Bible Blueprint:
Click to ViewCan you understand the Bible unaided by the Holy Spirit?
Click to View
Click to ViewOverview of Bible history (the Bible Timeline)
Click to ViewThe Chronology of the Bible: Mike Willis
Click to ViewThe Chronology of the Bible: Gerhard F. Hasel
Click to ViewThe Chronology of the Bible: Barry Setterfield
Click to ViewThe Chronology of the Bible: Don Patton
Click to ViewThe Chronology of the Bible: Keil & Deli[t z s]ch
Click to ViewThe Chronology of Genesis 5 & world events
Click to ViewSynoptic parallel of the four gospels!
Click to ViewCan I understand the Bible myself?
Click to ViewDoes the Bible provide practical solutions to 20th century problems?
Click to ViewPlease explain why we have Old And New Testaments?
Click to ViewWhy are there so many versions of the Bible?
Click to ViewIs the King James Version (KJV) the ONLY true Bible being inspired both in the original and the translation process?
Click to ViewWhy is Christianity the only true world Religion?
Click to ViewWhat is your ultimate Authority In Religion?
Bible Tools & Helps!
Click to View
Bible Map Set! High resolution 600x600 laser quality maps. High Quality!
Click to View
Topical Bible Index Pick your own topic!!! Learn what the Bible alone says about it!
Click Your Choice
I think chelseabelle meant that her heavenly farmer wasn't around to milk her.
To flesh out Voyager's point a bit, from the perspective of a father myself:
If an entity is a father and responsible for his children, then sitting by with reassuring words and no actions is tantamount to neglect. It's like the man who says, "You know I love you, baby. I really do!" but fails to take action and assist his children.
Christians usually operate under the argumentum absurdum of C. S. Lewis's "The Problem of Pain," where he asserts our problem is we're looking for a Santa Claus god figure. He takes his argument from there, and proceeds with the notion of building character and discipline, both arguably pre-Christian valuable traits, among others such as honor and fidelity.
They dare not argue the responsibility angle that most atheists do. As a father, I was responsible for my daughter's needs, yes, but also for her development. As a child. So yes, "Get your homework done" was part of the picture. But if the homework was a powerpoint slide presentation on an era of history, I would not have taken away the computer and left her with only a pencil and paper. Those aren't the tools for the job.
And yet, that's more often than not what most Christians get left with during alleged testing.
Am I blaming god? No, rather than "blame go", I'm prepared to say it simply doesn't appear that a god who is a father is technically out there.
The second fallacy of Lewis and many other Christians is this notion that Christians pray for every little thing and are expecting God to get them a new bike, ten bucks or whatever. Now, bear in mind I've known some real hand-waver shouter screamers in my time, so-called "name it and claim it"s.
And while they profess to name and claim things, in stark reality I observed nothing of the kind. Like you might guesss, you never saw them asking for a bike or something frivolous, it was the deep stuff, what they called "restoration" ... economic recovery from job loss, money to pay for a child's operation, and such like.
Now for the record, I don't begrudge Chelsea any of her experience or interpretation of it, though of course I do hope there were boots on the ground to lend real assistance. Such begrudging, in my opinion, would be unnecessarily cruel. But unlike many skeptics, I am in married to a Christian and have a Christian daughter, both of whom, while they don't particularly like the whole apologetics and debate stuff like we're doing here, do talk about similar experiences. And so I say again that I find the idea of begrudging Chelsea's experience unnecessarily cruel, even if I don't see evidence a third-party nonhuman entity was likely to have been involved, certainly not a father with even limited capacity for responsible behavior.
Leo, I talked about this a tiny bit in the topic dealing with Sin, if you're interested. In short though, God does not ignore us. Sometimes he does let us figure things out on our own. Were he to interfere with everything, it wouldn't be free will. It is to build character, and it is sometimes even to test us. But a lot of Christians - and people of any religion - will tell you they have had experiences where God's hand, comfort and or guidance is quite blatantly felt. Yes you can explain some things away at times using some biological knowledge, and you can attribute other things to circumstance. But I've heard a lot of stories, particularly dealing with the warnings and promptings from the entity we Christians call the Holy Ghost that I am quite willing to believe, even if I myself am not sure if I am that good at determining the promptings of that spirit from my own thoughts and feelings. Subjective I know, but to me, it tells me that no, god isn't inactive in our lives. Even Jesus himself experienced the feeling of being foresaken by god while he was on the cross so that he would know how it felt, and thus would be able to sympathize with those of us who felt it. The Holy Ghost is a fickle thing, and it is easily driven away by our thoughts and deeds. By sin in other words. It may still be there at times when we are in need, but to have it as a constant presence with us, we need to turn from sin. And that, personally, I have experienced, though of course one could attribute it biologically as well. Biology might be the what of things, but not always the how or especially the why.
I hate speaking for someone who isn't present. But what Chelsea said is "when I didn't have the strength to do anything, when I couldn't walk, speak, or otherwise care for myself, who was there? No one else but my Heavenly Father." That tells me that she felt - or for all I know, maybe was, abandoned by the people around her. When you feel abandoned, how much stronger the presence of God can feel, because he says he is here to bare us up during troubled times. That, to me doesn't sound like inaction. Maybe it does appear god isn't out there, or doesn't care. Certainly when horrible things happen it's easy to feel that way. But I think a lot of that time we are either upset on someone else's behalf who is dealing with these horrible things, or we want something very specifically to happen, and when it doesn't we feel like God's ignoring us. It's fine to ask "why?" One day I'm confident that all the "whys" will indeed be answered. But we may not always know right away. And sometimes, that really sucks.
Remy is right--and to be quite honest, you all should have known what I meant, given that I've been very honest about my lack of an earthly family for years, all throughout these boards. I was hospitalized from April through July, and of course there were staff members around, but there is nothing like having people around who know you, care for you, and will do their best to see to it that you are well taken care of--I'm learning what that's like now because I have a church family who's supportive and caring...but I've never experienced anything like this in my entire life. The compassion they have for what I've been through, for the things that still majorly affect me and can sometimes show up without warning, the willingness and readiness to physically be there whenever I need them, that is something I was without during this recent life-changing experience. Can you all even imagine it? Probably not, but even though you don't believe in the power of God, and the love he has for us all, I can tell you that it's real. Given that I couldn't walk at all, if not for God, how did I suddenly start walking again? Was it my strength or determination? Absolutely not, because I've never been more depressed in my life. I wanted to die at times, but even so I continued to keep the faith that maybe I did have a purpose in life. Maybe I'd actually come out of this experience, as Remy said, with a stronger character, with more of a fight in me, and bounce back and live better and more fulfilled than I did before I had this experience. That is exactly what happened, and it makes my heart soar to know that even without me telling more of my story, Remy just "got it." I find that's how it is, though, when you reach out to other believers, because they, too, know. They are open, willing and ready to receive just like me, and when that happens for us, we do receive...more than we could ever imagine.
But, the problem with that line of argument is that god is also responsible for
whatever is tesitng us. So he's lighting the house on fire, then expecting us to
beg for him to unlock the door so we can escape. Then expecting us to thank
and worship him both if he unlocks the door, and if he decides to let whoever is
inside die of smoke inhalation. If a parent did that, we'd lock them in prison.
God does it, and we desperately tapdance trying to find some way to justify
continuing to worship him.
Take cheslea's example. So God helped her recover and gave her comfort
while she was seriously injured. God also seriously injured her. So is he really all
that good? Would you thank your surgeon if he stabbed you in the throat and
then stitched it up?
Sound enough question , certainly. But God allows things to happen in that he doesn't interfere. That doesn't mean he makes them happen. In the old testament, God doesn't force Phaero to keep going back on is word about letting the israelites go. Phaero does that. God does however send the plagues in response, but only after phaero refuses. God didn't make someone try to kill me. That mess was brought about by circumstance. Could god have stopped it? Certainly. But instead he let it happen for whatever reason. I do believe he was protecting me through it, though of course I can't "prove" it.
God doesn't force Phaero to keep going back on is word about letting the israelites go. Phaero does that.
Wrong. It says God hardened Pharoah's heart each time.
You're right, Impricator. And that's exactly where translations of the bible get tricky. In some versions it does indeed say that, and it doesn't make sense. It was a translation error. In other versions, such as the version my church follow, what it actually says in translation is "and Phaero hardened his heart." Take from that what you will, but it gave me pause as well.
Ok, what I'm going to say here is going to sound harsh, and maybe it is, but I
apologize nonetheless.
Ramy, you and I and Imp there wouldn't know the first thing about translation
errors. I don't speak agent Greek, you don't speak agent Greek, and Imp
doesn't speak agent greek. Nor do you speak sumerian, egyptian, Hebrew or
Aramaic. Hell, no one speaks aramaic because we don't even know of anything
written in aramaic. We don't even know where the hell aramathia was. The only
reason we think aramathia existed is because the bible says something about a
guy named joseph of aramathia. Besides all of that, you can't say its a
translation error because none of us, and by us I mean anyone for thousands of
years, has ever seen an original copy of it to know what word to translate. wE're
translating a word that was translated from a word that was translated from
another word, which was written down, havig being passed down through
generations of people in the desert sitting around fires trying to remember a
story that was made up. Nevermind the fact that there is absolutely zero
evidence that jews were slaves in egypt at all ever in any way shape or form,
and you get a quagmire of historical impossibilities. You can't know if its a
mistranslation because you are neither smart enough, nor have the tools
necessary to make that claim. And neither do I, and neither does anyone else
on the face of this planet. You've found a bok you like, that seems to validate a
few things you were taught as a child, and you're sticking with it. Please stop
claiming to have any historical basis for it, because you don't, and people who
do that give me allergic reactions.
Now then, you say that god doesn't make bad things happen. First, the bible
says your wrong. God himself says you're wrong. God himself, the guy you
worship even though you believe in a polytheistic religion that claims to be
monotheistic, says you are wrong. He says, very clearly that from him comes
light, and from him comes darkness, from him comes good, and from him
comes evil. He does, creates, causes and orders caused horribl and evil things,
all of them. How do I know its all of them, because he created the world.
Everything in the world was therefore caused by him. If you cliam the devil did
it, I simply point out that he made the frickin' devil.
Please, just do us all a favor and admit that you believe this stuff cuz it makes
you feel all warm and tingly, and we'll go on about our lives. Stop trying to put
your religion up to the test of reason. Reasonably speaking, your religion is so
full of holes you could sue it to make enough spaghetti to feed all the children
your god allows to starve every day.
Ok--although it DOES READ, in WHICHEVER VERSION/VERSIONS, that "GOD (not quoting, EXACTLY) HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART, what it CERTAINLY DOESN'T mean is that HE did it AGAINST PHARAOH'S STUBBORNLY-REBELLIOUS WILL, as he had been hardening his OWN heart, ALL ALONG, DESPITE ALL of the PRIOR PLAGUES that he EXPERIENCED, which he MOCKINGLY RESPONDED to, ULTIMATELY/INCREASINGLY REFUSING to release the CHILDREN of ISRAEL, OBVIOUSLY, to the VERY POINT of FINALLY CROSSING the VERY "LINE of NO RETURN; in OTHER words, re-iterating an EARLIER DISCUSSION of GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL, PHARAOH CERTAINLY COULD'VE chosen to obey the VERY COMMAND of the LORD, when delivered to him by MOSES, IMMEDIATELY, the FIRST time, and CERTAINLY, GOD wouldn't've hardened his heart in favor of doing OTHERWISE, INSTEAD, of course, but as we ALL KNOW, he DIDN'T, NOT JUST ONCE, or even TWICE, but MORE than that, with STEADILY-INCREASING ARROGANCE, to the DEFINITE POINT that GOD had FINALLY HAD ENOUGH, and it was ONLY THEN that HE ACTUALLY HELPED PHARAOH to FURTHER-FOREVER harden his heart, by simply doing it FOR him, DEFINITELY to his OWN peril, which is EXACTLY what he wanted, ANYWAY.
Okay Cody, I'll admit you're right in that I don't know ancient languages. I have to take on faith that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, who saw a vision and got an answer to his prayer about which of the many churches he should join. I have to take on faith that he was shown the plates containing writings of an ancient people, and that he, an illiterate boy, didn’t just dictate its intricacies from his vast imagination. I have to do all that in spite of people like you telling me all the terrible things he, and my church, did, and despite what I’ve found at times to the contrary. There are many sides to the story of our origins. And unfortunately, history is written by human beings. Anti Mormons are going to have their own version, we’re going to have ours. It takes study and research to unravel the truth. SO yes, I take some things on faith. I look at Joseph smith, I see his imperfections, and I see what he made happen, and what it cost him and so many others. I have to take on faith that the translations done are correct. That's why I rely on the scriptures which support the biblical translations, and why I rely on my own study, prayer to gain insight - there's a concept you'll bock at - and all the modern-day revelations which support the scriptural view. I read the scriptures a lot. But I also read all the lessons, talks and other insights that help me make sense of it all. If you’ve read the book of Mormon, and our version of the bible, you’ll notice all the cross-references, sitations and other footnotes, though you, like me, if you’re using JAWS may have a hard time accessing them sometimes. You have to take it all as a whole greater than the sum of its parts, as I said. Maybe that is convenient. Maybe you should be able to just read the scriptures and get an accurate view of God. I find that easier to do in the Book of Mormon, certainly because you don’t have to wonder so much about the translations of things, but even it requires a lot of additional digging to unveil its secrets. You just try reading anything by Isaiah and tell me you have a full understanding of what he’s talking about. Because I don’t, not without really looking into it. I didn’t have conceived notions of God as a child; didn’t really even give him a thought until I was a teenager. And all the churches I went to just seemed … strange to me. It’s true I now have a conceived notion of God, and I've joined a religion that prescribes most to that notion. I think that's what everyone does. Even you have done so, choosing to see God in a light that suits you. Could I be wrong, and could God - the Christian god - really be what the old testament makes him out to be? ... I guess so? If so I'm condemned I guess, and you and I can have long conversations about how nasty it all is in hell. ither that or, since I've actually accepted Jesus - which some say is all you need - I'm saved no matter what I do. How I wish I believed it was that simple.
Now, explain to me how I believe in a polytheistic religion? Because there may, in some vast corner of some universe be worlds with other gods? No. God, our god, the one who created this world, and worlds without number, is the only god as far as we’re concerned. It’s like living in a neighborhood with your parents. There might be other parents of other children, but your parents are the only parents who matter. Heck, we don’t even have any contact with the other children, let alone the other parents. There is, to quote an Islamic creed, no god, but god.
Sure, god made the devil. I won’t deny that. I’ve said as much. But saying he causes every little bad thing to happen is like saying my mom causes me and my brother to fight just because we both came from the same womb. Sure, both Jesus and Lucifer were born of God, as were we all. But Lucifer didn’t “have” to rebel. God didn’t “make” him. And he didn’t “make” jesus come down and atone for us.
Okay, for your benefit I’ll admit that I believe in what I do because that’s what I want. It gives me a good feeling, helps me live a good life. It’s made me a better person than I was before I joined the church. I believe it, even though sometimes yes, I have questions. When I have questions, I seek answers. Most of the time I find answers that fit what I believe. So either I’m right, or I’m just finding the answers convenient. I’m not really going to know unless I get some amazing flash of insight, or until I die. And though that’s unfortunate sometimes, I’m trying my best with what I understand. As, I suppose, are you.
Perhaps Cody, you too have pre-conceived notions of what God is, and you too are striving to find things that justify your hatred and conform to a belief instilled in you by whatever you went through at the hands of religious people with their own – apparently quite unpleasant – notions of what God is. I get atheism, and even anti-organized religion. But antitheism, that I don’t get. Maybe you can enlighten me. Why do you not only disbelieve in any sort of God, but actually strive against that very notion?
I'm not entering into most of this recent discussion except to say the following:
Chelsea, You are right to say we should have known based on what you've
posted on the boards. You have indeed had a very difficult life, and if I say so
myself, you have handled a lot of things with profound courage. Take it or leave
it from this atheist, but while I don't really see a god, I do see courage and a
community coming around you.
Courage roars from fear, and it raises itself during depression. I struggle with
depression most of my life. Not like you, nowhere near the troubles you've
faced, but to a limited extent I will say I can at least empathize.
As to whether a god was involved or not, strictly speaking I have to be honest
and say I don't know, and I'm not even sure I could know. If there is, I think it's
unlikely to be the middle-eastern image of a deity that I've read about in the
Bible and its commentaries.
Is it the god of my Wife an daughter? Perhaps. Is it from yourself or the
community? Again, there's no technical way to verify one way or the other.
So to be perfectly confident and honest, I must admit to you plainly that I don't
know, and at this point I'm not even sure how it is I would know.
Remy and others have said we have our own idea of what a god looks like? No
honest atheist will deny this. I absolutely have a very specific idea of a god. It's
the god of the evangelicals, propped up by the Republican party, the god behind
the petrodollar, the god supporting the House of Saud and at the same time
supporting Saud's Enemies, the Israeli citizens, European expatriates to
Palestine, in order to bring about its apocalypse. In short, it's the god of the
Bible as I have read that particular text numerous times front to back.
That is the god of my youth, the god that opposed the hostage-taking in Iran in
the 70s, Ronald Reagan's god, James Dobson's god. It is a power propped up by
military might, who needs special exceptions for itself in public schools, and who
has a multi-billion-dollar apologetics industry, an industry I have purchased
from in order to understand it better.
No atheist who is honest, if they have been raised around religion at all, will try
and tell you they don't have a god concept.
When my niece talks about find your inner light, or yoga, or Buddhism stuff, I
don't rave like an evangelical. My brain just hears qwerpoiqwer;lkasdjfadjf or
some other gibberish. It makes no rational sense to me because I was never
indoctrinated into it.
Here's an interesting thing though Cody. Christians like my daughter do just
what you wish: they don't try to reason it with us. They talk about it all being
experience. But they're the liberal kind, and so they're not out trying to recruit,
not even recruit evangelicals. It's just them doing whatever it is they do by
themselves with each other.
Even though I personally like the folk tales of our ancestors, for those of us of
European descent, I just can't believe Thor and Odin are actually out there. I'm
afraid I fit the stereotype that Dawkins and Hitchens write about: you go with
what you were indoctrinated into.
No surprise: it really happened. I was at a favorite pub of mine here, an Irish
pub. And I met someone from his home country Ireland. He and I got to
talking over Irish breakfast and Irish coffees, and the topic got down to religion
for some reason. And I experienced what Dawkins says: he asked me, "So are
you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" Yup, we all have a god concept.
My buddy from high school who is now atheist, he still likes the Catholic music,
just as I still very much enjoy Handel's Messiah. We were both musicians when
younger. So we can still talk about the transcendent nature of a lot of very
beautiful music, both of us being fortunate enough to have grown up around
some incredible classical music. We're both atheists now, but we both laugh
about the carry-over from the upbringing. It's true, we both have a god
concept, or god bias if you will.
I wouldn't even know how to begin to deconstruct my niece's spirituality, or
even that of my daughter or her friends, because I don't even know how they
arrived at their conclusions.
I find the same as Cody does, re: the responsibility of the deity. In fact, so
much so that rather than rave against the deity, I actually think a real one
would embrace responsibility way more than we can possibly imagine, a real
one would have done to her as I would have to my own daughter: carried her
out of that situation and to safety, not left her abandoned there in hopes a
community of humans would come and help her. If the deity existed, and had
the properties the Christians say the deity has, omniscience, omnipresence and
omnipotence, not forgetting benevolence.
Of course experience is not argument. But also, I think we forget we can't argue
experience, only postulate its plausibility. People all over the world have said
experiences, and they claim their chosen deity is responsible. Rather, the deity
of their upbringing. That's really hard to admit to if you're either a dyed-in-the-
wool skeptic, or you adhere to a belief system that is strictly based on belief, as
is Protestant Christianity's sola fe foundation.
In other words, if Chelsea had been born and raised in Saudi Arabia, her
experience would have been that the god of the muslims had visited her.. Unlike
my niece, I don't posit that all gods are equal, except tat they seem to me to be
all equally implausible. But we humans certainly are all equally vulnerable to our
upbringing, yes us atheists too, and during crisis, to strongly interpret agency
where there might not be any.
So Remy, you got me: this atheist will totally admit to you that I have a god
bias, if I think god I've got an image of what it looks like even though I don't
think it exists. You know what? Recently my Wife got me to admit to the very
same thing.
Leo, I think you're right in that we all do, and often it will depend on how we were raised. I always find it interesting when people of other faiths and cultures - a jew, or a muslim for instance - decide to embrace Christianity, or any other religion. I always wonder what brings them to that conclusion.
So, several meanderings,, ponderings and speculations occur to me here. I first observe again that we’ve strayed rather far from whether there is a homophobia or homophobe delusion, but in some ways this is a far more interesting discussion.
First, theism versus atheism versus agnosticism. I remember several years ago that cody pointed out that agnosticism is the belief that you can’t really know that a god either does or doesn’t exist. Even the friend that I’m currently assisting in doing Christmas music will say that in the end we really don’t know. Not in the literal sense. It actually sounds, Leo and Cody, that you’re admitting that in the end we can’t really know. So, are you more agnostic than strict atheist if you define atheism as the absolute belief and assurance that there is no god? Just asking the question. And Leo, it’s interesting that you do have a god concept, but it’s the god concept of the far right. I admit that this both makes sense and doesn’t at the same time. It mmakes sense that the most powerful imagery you have of a god is the god of the James Dobsons and other odious human beings because it would seem that they dominate the religious scene as we know it. But it seems to me that where it doesn’t make sense is that you know for a fact that not all Christians have this belief. I know this is so because lately I’ve seen it myself. Doesn’t mean I’m close to calling mmyself a Christian, because my belief is that at their best, all religions are essentially striving toward the same goals. My hope is that they’re striving to get at the truth of the ultimate question, and that they are attempting to prommpte universal peace and understanding along with the deal. So, it seems to me that if you have a negative god concept but you know others have a more positive one, why not strive at least to understand that positive concept and reject the negative one? Begging pardon if I’m seeming a bit preachy; I’m actually not striving to be. But you do have the freedom to choose. Did your daughter and wife not reject the god of the Dobsons of the world and strive to understand what they view as a more loving god? I’m not saying that that god even exists, but to this particular 51-year-old white gay male spiritual agnostic, it mmakes more sense than what I view as the cruel, vindictive god concept that the Dobsons seem to have.
As for faith in general, it has struck me recently that it is a lot like fire. At its best fire can warm you, warm your home, cook your food, do all sorts of wonderful things. It can also burn forests, destroy your home, even kill you. Can we say the same thing about faith, in whatever form it takes? At its best faith can be a tool of unification, reason, explanation, even questioning. It can promote good works according to one’s understanding and interpretation of that faith. It can present an explanation of why we’re here and what all the mystery of life entails. But as we’ve seen recently, it can be used as a tool of devisiveness, for promoting unrest, violence,, war and misery. Take what happened in San Bernardino just recently. Somebody’s interpretation of Islam caused them to kill fourteen innocent human beings. Some other’s interpretation of Christianity mmay have led them to firebomb a mosque. In our current climate, this should not necessarily be viewed as particularly surprising. Tragic? Stupid? Hateful? Yes,, but not surprising. In fact, I’ve been saying that radical interpretations of faith that cause people to do harm to others will inevitably lead to backlash, and that may have happened in California just now. Which can lead possibly to more backlash. Until the fire burns itself out or is contained. That’s the negative side of faith. I think that’s why so many people find more comfort in rejecting faith than in embracing it. I’m very contradictory in that I both embrace and reject faith. I live with hope that there’s something more after this, but any of you who’ve read me for a long time already know this. You also know that I reject the cruelty and stupidity that some forms of faith can provoke in people. I outright reject the tenet in some strains of evangelical Christianity that loudly proclaim that all Jews and others who live by their own faith are going to hell because they have not embraced Christ. My god concept wouldn’t allow that. It doesn’t allow that. My god concept would say that it makes no sense. Maybe it’s easier for me to simply live according to what I think I know than it is to be a sheep and live as the Dobsons and other Christofascists would have us do. I’ve logicked it out, admitted that there are just some things I don’t know and can’t explain, and I reject what makes no sense to me. But then, I really wasn’t raised in an organized faith that says you wwill believe this way and do things this way or you’ll burn for all eternity. Which reminds me. Has anyone noticed that even the current pontiff seems to have rejected the hellfire and brimstone approach to faith? Just sayin’.
For the record, I was not seriously injured; perhaps Cody was just using that as an example to try and get into my head, but I thought I'd clarify that nonetheless. (I had to have emergency brain surgery, if you all must know the truth) because those major health issues I've also been very vocal about throughout these boards, turned out to be a life-or-death situation, rather than the isolated issues I had thought they were. So, I honestly didn't know the seriousness of things till this April.
To address the question some have asked in regards to God letting evil things happen, such as my recent near-death experience: the truth is that we may not always see the light at the end of the tunnel, but there always is one. We don't have to see it; we just have to trust that God has things under control even when we don't--because believe it or not, but God does ultimately turn evil/hardships we have, into good.
An example of that is the fact that even after this recent emergency brain surgery (which this was my first of as an adult, but I've had two as a child) even after the surgery, I had major complications: complications I didn't think I'd make it through. Yet, I prayed and prayed, and I kept the faith--which is something Remy has brought up that I think is very poignant: keeping the faith and being thankful for everything you've been through and are going through, when it makes absolutely no sense. Because I'll be the first to admit, the last thing I felt like doing was being greatful for my life, or appreciating the trauma I had to face. All I wanted was to die, but then I'd think of all those whom I'd leave behind, and--it took a long time--but I eventually realized, once I came out on the other side of this recent experience, I came out much better than I could've imagined in the end.
Anyway, I know we've strayed from what the original discussion was, but I must admit, I feel great about the discussion we're having here. I honestly feel like this is the first time throughout my history of being on this site that we're able to engage in an actual discussion and share our viewpoints without anyone resorting to attacks. We clearly don't agree with one another, but it's nice to see what's panned out and I hope we're able to continue interacting this way.
Well Chelsea I for one am glad you made it through that and are doing better.
I've known people with brain tumors and other situations where they had brain
surgery. It's an awful thing to contend with and for that you deserve no less
than our best.
Johnny, I will speak for myself but I call myself "atheist" for short, but
technically I am an agnostic atheist. The gnostic atheist asserts that there
definitely cannot be a god. The atheist conclusion is we don't see any evidence
of one. So the agnostic and gnostic atheists differ only in that the gnostic
atheist will claim for certain there cannot be a god. I know a few, actually. While
I certain understand from a design perspective -- all the design errors in the
universe lead me to conclude that there cannot be a supreme designer, I'm
pretty heavily agnostic atheist at this point. My daughter is a great example to
me of how things seem to work differently. She struggled on her own to come
clean about being bisexual. She didn't fear that I would reject her, but she
thought I might try hard to prove skepticism to her and she wanted the chance
to work out how being bi and a person of faith works.
Put it this way: You know the evangelicals' pet passage about Sodom and
Gomorrah? Tell a gay or a bi who isn't Christian that there's no evidence of
Sodom and Gomorrah's existence, point to a real fire and brimstone volcanic
case -- the city of Pompeii, and ask them where is the Pompeii-like cities in the
middle east? Where is that destruction? That works for a gay person open to
skepticism. But not my daughter. She kind of shuts down with that sort of
rationalist argument and says "Dad you don't really understand." Now she
would tell you the act was not homosexual love but homosexual rape that God
was angry with.
As to why I didn't adopt her way of seeing Christianity?
I can't really explain this very well, but once the god of the hard-liner
evangelicals was sufficiently disproven in my mind, any notion of duty to a god,
any notion of the proverbial middle man who needs gratitude and praise and
buttering up for the least consequential activity evaporated. Any notion that I an
allegedly worthless thing must now be constantly penitent and supplicant for
any crumbs was simply gone. I did not, as some have, immediately adopt some
opposite view, say from the Sunday Assembly secular humanists out here.
But when that god concept evaporated, I lost all connection to ideology
altogether, and I frankly don't miss the middle man, the constant having to
demonstrate that an act was or wasn't influenced by the god.
I don't begrudge people like my Wife and daughter, or my Wife's mom, whose
god concept seems to be altogether Christian but different. Many will trot out
the tiresome trope of the cranky atheist who suppresses the religious
expression of family members. No, in fact, I have taken a great many steps to
ensure that I don't interfere with that expression and that I'm supportive of
what forms it takes. I will admit my daughter has an easier time with this,
perhaps.
As to comfort?
Well, recently my father-in-law died. Apparently he was methodist although
when he and I talked it was functionally as a pair of atheists, to be honest. Even
before I officially came out. So when he died, it was the first time that someone
died and I had no concept of heaven and hell. What that means is no fear the
guy didn't make it. I don't miss that razor's edge at all.
I guess not all god concepts have a 0/1 hell/heaven paradox, and certainly I
know that Christianity got its version from a combination of Hellenistic thought
and Zoroastrian religion. But to be honest it never occurred to me, even when I
considered myself Christian, to seek the god reflexively like I see my Wife do. I
did do it, but more as a practice, something you were supposed to have done.
I know I can say with clarity that I have been in very dire situations in life.
Sometimes when all by myself, and sometimes when younger, in a physical
altercation with someone. I did not seek a god most times. And when I did I
had to do two things: A. figure stuff out for when the god didn't somehow
manage to do anything constructive, and b. figure out a way to say it had been
the god, in order to satisfy the belief systems of people around me.
As a human, I want to be trusted, which means I want to be found trustworthy,
which means I want my actions to demonstrate more often than not that I am
available to the people around me, in particular to anyone I am responsible for.
If there were a god who was involved in people's lives, I imagine that god would
possess the same need, and seek the same ends, and be demonstrably active.
Not because of some faux santa claus trope but for the simple want of being
trustworthy. One who deserves praise does not demand it. One who deserves
respect earns it, does not demand it the way we see these college protesters
demanding the same respect as someone who has worked in an industry for
decades.
So I imagine a god who wanted to gain praise of its creation would do things
that would elicit praise. If I wanted praise from an artificial intelligence that I
crated, the last thing I'd do is program that in, or demand praise from it. That
would be flattery, not actual praise. I'd do things that would elicit that very
response naturally from that intelligence.
In the end I don't actually know.
I know that I, like Twain am not scared of oblivion. It will probably feel like the
stages of sleep when you're not dreaming, or like when you're unconscious. I've
been punched out, choked unconscious, and passed out due to medical
procedures that went wrong. In all cases, when I was unconscious I apparently
wasn't. It felt like one instant and then the next once I was coming around.
As to choosing belief, I'm not really sure we can do that. I'm very curious about
the belief phenotype, which is a hypothesis that there are genetic and other
factors which cause a greater or lesser tendency towards belief. It's interesting
that in largely nonreligious countries, there is a segment of the population who
adopt some forms of spirituality, probably not religion as recognized by a
follower of one of the more popular faiths like Christianity and Islam. Am I
missing that phenotype? The Christians' own scriptures talk about people who
were prepared beforehand for a state of non belief, what they would call
condemnation. I don't believe in the god but the daughter calls such passages
metaphors ... is that a metaphor for the belief phenotype? Quite a stretch since
they had no scientific education to understand any of this.
A rather long winded response for that I apologize. In the end, I must admit I
do not know. I do tend towards the rationalist, and yes natural materialist
views, because the tools they provide tend toward explanations that actually
function and are provable. But naturally they don't prove experiences of people,
and I will no sooner create a program that prints out a proof of theology than I
could one that prints out a proof of the transcendent nature of music and other
art forms.
Hell Johnny, maybe I'm afflicted with a spiritual tin ear. Ha ha . I'll take that I
guess. I don't miss the hunger games I knew of as religion, and am not really
sure how I would become convinced that another spirituality actually existed.
That's probably not good enough, I can understand that. But it's where I'm at at
this point.
Ok, let me answer john first. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
Atheism is simply the stance that all the evidence for the various gods is not
conclusive enough for me to be convinced. That's why we say bald is not a hair
color. Atheism is not a religion, because all it says is that we're unconvinced.
Antitheism is the belief that there is no god, and I do fit into that category, but
when debating I restrict myself only to atheism simply because atheism is the
only thing I can demonstrate. I don't expect you to take my faith any more
seriously than I take your faith. Hope that clears it up. If not, let me know, I'm
happy to clarify.
Now then, ramy, I really need to look at how that's spelled one of these times,
damned laziness. Anyway, you've said a very important phrase here which I
think needs to be focused on. You said, "I take it on faith". That phrase means
your arguments are finished in a rational discussion because your arguments
aren't based on anything. You believe them because you do, and that's all their
is to it. You can't argue rationally because you're being irrational. Faith is
inherently irrational.
So, do you have evidence for your claims, or do you have faith? One allows
you to keep arguing, one basically says you're taking your ball and going home
because, frankly, you're not equipped enough to play in this game. You're trying
to play baseball with your hands and a magic wand. It ain't gonna work.
So, if you want to hold onto your religion based on faith, that's all fine and
dandy, but then when atheists like me start talking about how your religion is
inherently dumb or unprovable, you have to agree. Because if it was provable,
you wouldn't have to take it on faith. Using faith abandons all claims of proof,
evidence, truth or rationality because faith is believing in something in the
absence of all those things. So, if you want to use faith as your basis, you have
to also accept that you are being illogical, irrational and frankly dumb. So which
do you want? Do you want evidence, or do you want faith?
For the record, Cody, it’s spelled R E M Y. JAWS – which you may or may not be using, says it wrong. It’s pronounced Remmy, or Ramey. I answer to both.:)
Now to answer your question. You’re right. I can’t really “prove” any of my arguments. In that way, I suppose you could say that, technically speaking, they are irrational, in so much as rationality which can be proven. Faith is the belief in something which is not seen, but which is nevertheless true. Now, I can’t prove to you my faith is warranted. Your experiences, with the bible, the Book of Mormon, God - or a lack thereof – and individuals who have helped you come to the conclusions you have differ drastically from mine. For me, I look at the scriptures, and I try to find answers to questions you’ve posed to me that fit with what I believe about God and my church. Most of the time I’m able to do so to my satisfaction. To me, I find evidence which fits with what I believe about God. And when I don’t, I keep searching until I do, because you and others ask very difficult and relevant questions Cody. I’ve had many of them myself. I don’t begrudge you harping on things like the old testament at all, because I get where you’re coming from. Because at face value it looks pretty grim. That’s why I spend so much time looking into things. My faith is based on one part a desire to believe, one part personal experience, one part the experiences of others who have had things happen to them I can’t rationally explain, and one part study and information. I see, if not proof, then certainly evidence. Some of it, such as my own personal experiences, have given me what I consider proof. It’s not impiracle evidence, true; I can’t replicate it and prove it in another person’s life. You once wrote a topic where you asked us to experiment with prayer. The problem is, that experiment was doomed to fail from the start, not necessarily because God isn’t real, but because it was essentially mocking him. God does answer prayers. Bock at that if you will, but for me, I believe I have seen it and felt it happen. But he answers ones of real intent, of sincerity. And sometimes those answers come in ways which aren’t at first evident. Cody, in a fact based- rational argument of philosophy and critical evidence, you will beat me every time. I can give rebuttals to your questions, but none of these will prove anything to you. The proof of God comes from within. That sounds cheezy, but it’s true enough. Some are given the gift of certainty. Others shall believe on the words of others, and others have to work hard to maintain their testamonies. I’m the latter, because when you get right down to it, I don’t “know” for 100%. I’ve never seen an angel, or heard the voice of the holy ghost as a tangible voice. I’ve seen no visions of the beyond or before. And while I’ve known plenty of people who have, I have never experienced a jenuine miracle, or even a holy ghost prompting that saved my life or kept me out of a dangerous situation. That last isn’t fully true actually, because there was a time when intuition told me not to enter a situation, and I ignored it. It was pretty persistant. I ended up glued to a bed, drugged to a point I shouldn’t have been able to function, and with a knife to my throat. And even the fact that I survived that isn’t “proof”. I don’t know with enough certainty that, were it necessary, I would die for my beliefs if called upon to do so. Hopefully I never will, though I believe that time may one day come. But I do believe more than enough to have faith in things which aren’t seen. I have enough faith to want to delve deep beneath the surface of scriptures that, at face value, make me question what God really is. I have faith that Joseph Smith really was a prophet, and that he was visited by Jesus Christ and the Father, and told that, while many of the churches had a portion of truth, none of them embodied what the true gospel was. I believe it for many reasons, bt one is simply that I felt that way too. There are far, far too many interpretations of the Christian God out there, to say nothing of all the other non-christian religions who have their own vastly differing ideas. I have that faith in Joseph Smith and the restoration despite all the stories anti-mormon doctrine would have me believe, because while he was in no ways perfect – far from it in fact, there’s far too much compeling literature on both sides of the argument. This is even moreso since the release of the Joseph Smith Papers website, which has collected hundreds of documents from that time and has actual pictures – and I have enough sight to see them a bit – that certainly “look” like nearly two hundred year old documents. And I can't see how so many people sacrificed so much - their entire livelihoods or lives at times - for some new interpretation of God. And yes, I know other relgions, cults and ideologies do that sort of stuff all the time. And so with all that, I have faith to live my life according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And I have faith that the prophets of our church were – and are to this day - truly inspired, even as I also know they were imperfect tools of god, human beings with faults and weaknesses who had a whole lot of responsibility thrown at them. Do I “know” no. I don’t. But when I consider my own feelings, and everything I’ve learned, to me, there’s far more evidence for, than against. And so I live according to the scriptures as best I can. . And even though I fall short time and time again, I have faith in the repentance process, and believe that, at the last day, I will be alright. Am I doing my best? I’m trying, but there’s people there who are much nicer, more caring and more obedient than I. I don’t do as much as I probably could. I could study more. I could provide more meaningful service to others. I could strive to better keep some of the commandments I have a hard time with. But life is a learning process, and a progression, and for some people it will take longer. I’m trying, and in the end, that’s what a belief in and a testamony of Jesus Christ, his father, and the eternity to come helps me to do. Does my religion sound fictional? Sure! Talking snakes, angels with six wings and flaming swords, men rising from the dead, illiterate farm boys finding buried treasure and creating scripture from a couple of rocks? Look at it all in a negative light and sure, you can come up with absurdities to all of this. But as a writer of fiction, I can easily agree with the old saying that the truth is often far stranger than any fiction we can make up. This all speaks to me on a psychological and emotional level that I suppose you aren’t really able to relate to. And maybe I believe purely out of a hope that everything I am, everything I’ve learned will be for a purpose greater than these few decades of life I’ll be around, and that it won’t just wink out when I take my last breath. Because otherwise every tragedy, every vial snuffing out of life is for nothing. And I’ve never been able to believe in absolute oblivion; even before becoming a member of this church.
The problem with that Remy, see, I got it now, is that you added a phrase
which defeats your entire argument. You said you look for answers which fit
with your beliefs. That's not how looking for answers works. You can't look for
answers which fit with your beliefs, because that's being closed minded. You're
excluding all possibilities which don't fit with your perceptions,a nd not
accepting that your perceptions could be entirely wrong. so I can't take your
claim seriously, because you're self-defeating all your claims of evidence. You're
not collecting evidence, you're collecting ammunition.
Remy, thank you for being the voice of reason on this topic as well as the topic about the meaning of sin. Since I'm posting to this one though, I'll say that, while I'm not educated enough in the Bible yet to quote scripture, I know God exists, not only because I believe it to be so, but because I see the evidence for his existence on a daily basis in everything: nature, people, crappy circumstances that eventually get better unexpectedly, ETC. People who say that we're stupid for believing what we do, following a book, ETC, are just young and/or bitter about ways some Christians have wronged them, or ways in which others in their own lives have wronged them. I know they'd never admit it, but I know what that's like because I've been there myself--I was unhappiest when I didn't have a sense of direction, and now that I've truly dedicated myself and my life to God, I've let go of all the sadness, heartache, resentment and upsets I felt previously, that I didn't even realize I was hanging onto. I find I'm truly happy now, I'm at peace like I've never been before, and I no longer worry about things the way I once did because I know that in the end I'll be OK--God is on my side, and I have faith that he'll continue to carry me through. For how much longer, I have no idea, but that's why I treat every day as if it's my last, whether it's a good or a bad day, I'm just grateful to be alive.
Also Remy, don't let anyone discourage you from quoting scripture; the Bible tells us that we're supposed to follow God's word, and share it with people--unbelievers included. I know you know that, but I just wanted you to know I stand behind you (I'm not Mormon) but I am Christian, and although I won't quote scripture, I do know that telling us not to quote scripture is the equivalent of us Christians telling unbelievers to be quiet--that's never gonna happen. Everyone needs structure in their lives in some form or other, and for most of the world, that structure is Christianity. I'm sorry to know that some people have such hatred in their hearts for God, and will readily and without hesitation deny him, mock him and belittle his children every chance they get, but as much as I'd like to change that, it is not mine to fix. I will be praying, though, that one day you all get saved and enjoy the wonders of His love for humanity.
A few things here:
First and not very importantly (but it has been used a few times now), it's b-a-l-k, not b-o-c-k, which is the word to hesitate or attempt to resist, or double-clutch.
Chelsea, I truly am glad you came through your difficulties, and the very thought of brain surgery frankly scares the hell out of me.
Remy, that sounds like a truly horrific story, but I'm morbidly curious what it was all about.
Just to throw a little wrench here, regarding intervention and all that:
I've known many people who say God helped them in their time of need. This is easy to say because something good happened to them when they needed it. Whatever the reason, I'm pleased when this happens. But are these self-same people equally willing to say of God that he did not come to their aid when they needed him, even when they beseeched him with everything they had? I mean, the whole idea of the unanswered prayer under serious duress is as big a trope in cheesy entertainment as the maricle, in its way, and that's saying something.
Realistically, Chelsea's experience means only that people were good to her. And this is excellent. It doesn't mean God inspired them. It doesn't mean God even heard her praying. It doesn't mean God even exists. It just means this is a method Chelsea used, and continues to use, in order to explain what happened to her. She wants to believe it, it fits with her preconceived notion of God, ergo it checks all the boxes by default and all rational thought can cease.
This is not a personal attack. Hey, if that sort of belief honestly helped you get through a tough time, then power to you, Chelsea. What I believe about your experience need not concern you, but nor will it impact me in any meaningful way if you make claims that God helped you when you needed him. And if you try and use your own personal anecdotes to sway anyone else, the water gets awfully muddy awfully quickly.
And, I'll finish on kind of a double-whammy of an argument, and I'll try to keep it short.
If God created everything, then he is causally if not directly responsible for everything. If he is truly all-powerful then he had the means to not let the devil gain power, but he decided against it. If he's all-powerful, he has the means to frankly be better to his children; sitting by and sometimes letting them be slaughtered wholesale is negligent and cruel...and any sort of "this is too big for mortal minds" arguments are just excuses wielded by people who have no other explanations left to them. The fact is, we don't get it, and that's okay.
On a sorta similar note, why is it that Christians especially are so hell-bent on deferring every god thing they say or do or experience to God? When you study your ass off and ace a final, take a little pride in it for yourself. If you do a nice thing for someone, it's all right if you feel a little warm and fuzzy. Every time I see someone say "...and I owe it all to God", I cringe. No. You owe it all to the fact that you found something - inner strength, a belief system, the perfect mantra, whatever - and then used it. Maybe you also got a little lucky in the bargain. But for heaven's sake don't just pass off the good things in life as God. Too much pride is bad, but a little keeps self-perspective. Since we really don't know what's gonna happen at the end of our lifetime, it's my opinion that we owe it to ourselves and to one another to treat ourselves, and each other, well. You're not arrogant if you think you're good at something. You're not blessed because you have good friends. If you have people in your life that treat you well, turn around and do the same thing to them. They'll appreciate it more than a novel's worth of empty words about Jesus, believe me.
I want to challenge two things.
First, the so-called prayer experiment. If you read the entire paragraph from which that passage comes, Jesus is specifically saying he will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask. There are perfectly rational atheist arguments for deconstructing that. The prayer experiment is entirely flawed, Remy I will grant you that much, albeit for different reasons.
See, as a Christian when they would read a verse here and a verse there I had this nasty habit of reading the entire paragraph around the passage, its context if you will.
Chelsea I will be perfectly honest, I don't know what it's like to be without meaning or without direction. Everywhere I look I see meaning, and my life has always had direction. I have been depressed, hurt, downtrodden if you will, certainly many other common human experiences. But I have rarely been bored in my life, the times I can count on are when I was constrained by my ability to move like on a road trip in a car.
I'm not going to lie; I'm a product of my time, culture and upbringing. However, the years that I spent working through this, I was rather intentionally seeking to solidify what faith I did have at the time. I had been, I believe justifiably, criticized by other Christians for incorrect or lack of belief. What the questions and criticism did was force me to really examine, really look into things. To read the works of C. S. Lewis, William Lane Craig and the classic fathers like Tertullion and Augustine as well as the grandfather of evangelical fundamentalism the late Jonathan Edwards. I was operating under the assumption that a god who designed things would have greater reasoning than I. Unlike many religious people I guess, I assumed reason only leads to more reason, that exploration in good faith would find me more solid and not less so.
Interestingly, I didn't read any of the popular modern atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens until I was already out. Sure, I'm a reader, maybe a bit of a stretch to say an amateur intellectual, so I have read Aristotle and Plato, although not as much of their works as one might have 50 years ago. I even followed up on the Christian objectivist movement, your evangelical politicians subscribe to much of its claims. This is how you get Jesus, the free market capitalist. But I read Ayn Rand, not just what they *said* about Ayn Rand. The Christian objectivists seemed fake to me, like an attempt to pound a square peg into a round hole. And at any rate, Ayn Rand would have openly scorned them had she known of their existence.
I was the only one at our church who read the likes of Francis Collins and didn't have a problem with evolution followed by human exceptionalism.
I had to quit doddling and really escalate things when we were in between churches, for one reason. I knew I was on shaky ground. Not only had I failed those checklists the Wife's ministry group sent home, I now knew I didn't really buy what they were saying, and probably had not done so in any real way for years. In fact, I quit with the defensive "Yes, but I AM a Christian, just a reasonable one!" I knew if She picked out another church and we went, I couldn't fake it. I was unwilling to do so; that would be patently unfair to real Christians, and beforehand I had not faked it. So it fell to me and me alone to really figure out what it was I did believe. Ultimately I saw nothing there. I say I'm an atheist based upon the dictionary definition only. I don't identify with the local secular humanists, I don't really march in time to many of their political beliefs.
Interestingly, when the daughter and her friends were discussing this, they apparently agreed to a person they either knew it already or saw it as inevitable.
I'm not going to claim to you, Chelsea, or anyone else, that emotions didn't play a part. Of course they did; I really felt bad for awhile, feeling like I was betraying my family. In a way, I often wondered during that time if this is what it feels like to be the guy who stepped out with the secretary. Minus the sexual or positive component. But what I didn't do was "choose to disbelieve". When I embarked on that journey, you could not have convinced me that I would today be atheist. I became one by reading the very Christian works that keep many others Christian. Sure, I'm a big reader so of course I have read the likes of Carl Sagan for years. But there's a whole host of Christians, rather quiet ones in the U.S., who read scientific literature but are still Christian.
I also did read Josephyus where I discovered I'd been lied to all these years about Jesus being unequivocably proven by Josephus; he barely mentions Christianity at all and doesn't mention Jesus by name or association. And some of the events surrounding Herod, the genocide of baby boys in Bethlehem recorded in Luke? Josephus had good reason to hate herod, and was unapologetic in his criticism of that puppet king. But no mention by Josephus of that genocide in approximately 2 BCE if you believe the accounts. No census taken during that time, incorrect association of governor with emperor ruling at that time, no accounts ever in the Roman records of a census which required people to return to homelands and familial registration sites that predated Roman occupation.
This is stuff I thought I'd find the total opposite. I had high hopes for an AI-transcription of these ancient texts, where without bias we would find out what they actually said. Many of the moral problems secular people have with Christianity and the Christian god, I didn't get to until a bit later, as I was trying to authenticate it all first.
I also happened to have gone through my questioning phase just as the great discoveries in human and other genetics were really burgeoning. I didn't get my genetic bottleneck at somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 BCE which would corroborate the flood. It's not there. It is conspicuously absent, because if it were there we wuld see a worldwide genetic bottleneck in the record of mutation rates in all species at that time. There have been hominid genetic bottlenecks, but they reduced to several thousand, not 8. And for a worldwide genetic collapse, you're going to go far back, very much pre-hominid.
Then we have functional MRI studies of kids, babies. These have demonstrated against the notion of "original sin" by the Christians, or "born good" of the humanists. It ended up as I'd long suspected; we're a conglomerate of characteristics which are beneficial and maladaptive, and need to be either cultivated or curtailed.
It was a very serious time for me, because it wasn't so much about belief as it was my own family. I hadn't been going out of my way to be a problem, but you either think like they do or you don't. And perhaps they're the first to know. I really didn't want to tear my family apart. People who end up faking it can end up doing terrible things to the trust their family has in them. And yet, I also knew, especially as I went along, that what happened could cost me everything. Sometimes it does, I know people of various faiths for whom it has.
It makes me appreciate greatly what I do have.
But no, not all of us have carried on the stereotyped response of being bitter. Dr. Comings of the 19th century and others have posited that atheists are so in order to sin. Your Christian politician Dinesh D'Souza is notable for having said that we atheists are so in our sex organs, so that we can go out and cheat on our wives.
None of those arguments make any sense; we don't operate that way. Most of us find the notion of radiation fallout to be particularly unpleasant, but we don't just "disbelieve". This is one of the more trite arguments presented by a system alleging to be both reasonable and sure.
Wow, leo. As a more or less lame intellectual, I don’t even know where to go about starting with this post. Except to say that it all sounds very difficult to go through, sepesially while your family are steeped even now in Christianity. I do think it interesting that they wer “in between churche4s”. Does that mean differing Christian belief systems, or just differing buildings? I can’t speak about genetics; I believe in them and don’t find that interferes with any of my beliefs. I don’t fully understand your bit about the killing of babies or the lack of evidence for the sensus though. Can you please elaborate?
Yes Cody, I do look for evidence – such as it is – to reflect my personal beliefs about God. But then, don’t you do the same thing? Everything you’ve spread about and believe about god is a conclusion you’ve drawn based on either what you’ve found, or how you’ve interpreted what you’ve found based on your personal experience and beliefs. I can settle on my interpretation of God, Cody, because I’ve found a great deal of “evidence” – notice the quotes, which supports what I believe. Were it not for the LDS church, I don’t know if I’d have ever been a Christian, because most of Christianity just doesn’t have the answers I’ve always wondered about. But I’ve found those answers. I usually find answers to most of the hard questions. Are they the right ones? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – I don’t “know”. I can’t be one who says “I know this church is true.” I don’t. But I’m not closed minded Cody. I’m open to different interpretations. I just haven’t landed on any which make more sense to me intellectually and spiritually as those presented by the LDS church. I’m still more than willing to hear of others’ interpretations. Were I not, I’d be more inclined to be like Terrence in my out-and-out dismissal of others’ beliefs, or I’d constantly want to post reasons why so and so’s beliefs are wrong. But I hate when people feel the need to attack others to prove their point. I hate it during political campaigns and commercials too. I’ve told you several times that I could be wrong. I don’t “think” I am, but again and again and again, I don’t “know”. I’m sure there are some people who apparently know beyond any doubt, but I am not one of them. And honestly, that’s probably my own fault. And so I have faith, but it is not, so far as I understand, “blind” faith. As for gathering evidence versus ammunition. To me, it is evidence. Just as I’m sure to you, all the things you believe are “evidence”. I don’t really see you source many of your arguments. You’ll bring up things that happened in the scriptures, but rarely source those either. People reading these exchanges have to just assume both of us are representing our outlooks by what we’re saying. And when you do site, such as that “evil bible” site, what makes you certain that their “evidence” is sound? There’s many different interpretations of the bible, depending on translation and other factors. You’ve already said you’re no studier of ancient languages. Are you an archiologist? A Scientist? Where is your factual evidence? Anything can sound plausible if you give it enough sources and make it sound impressive. I’m not saying you’re wrong, because again, I don’t know, and moreso, I don’t “have” to feel I’m right. I’m also none of those things either. I do think, like me, you may take much of your “evidence” with a bit of faith yourself. You’re relying on the information of others to come to your own conclusions. Just like I’m doing. The only difference is you may have some more solid-sounding evidence to back you up, though I haven’t gotten to read much. But science is not infallible , no more than are historical records. Things can be lost, mis-interpreted, doctored or misunderstood. And yes, I’m including scriptural and church history too. I’m not saying the evidence might not be sound, but I’m saying it might have an agenda, or more likely, might simply not be the full picture. And, of course you can’t take my claims seriously. You’re a strong antitheist. You may even be a stronger antitheist than I am a Christian. Any evidence I give you isn’t going to seem like evidence to you. God doesn’t say anything about gathering evidence. He doesn’t show us signs and wonders because we ask for them. We have faith, and for those who do not believe in blind faith, we find what we consider evidence to support that faith. We use our personal experience, and our ability to reason based on that “evidence”. We look to those like minded individuals who have had similar experiences, or who are more learned in the gospel. For people in my church, we also look to our prophets and apostles because we have faith that they do, in fact speak for God, as they did of old. We study the scriptures, and the numerous resources available to make sense of said scriptures, hopefully. We pray, we study, we attend the temple and we fast for answers. We do our best to see the hand of God in the good times, and the bad. To some it is given that they may know for a certainty, having real manifestations shown to them. But I, so far, have not been one of those. People don’t find god by searching for logical evidence. Were it so, we’d still have a lot of people who would reject him. The scriptures are full of such accounts. And it becomes a lot harder for a person when they’ve had the truth manifested to them – they have no doubt based on real evidence – and they choose to outright reject it. That sounds like a cop-out perhaps, but think about this. If we “knew” actually “knew” that God was real, and we “knew How much more would we have to answer for at the final judgement? It’s not going to benefit us to claim ignorance, but it will benefit us less to have a sure knowledge, and reject it.” that his gospel was real, and we still chose to blatently reject and turn away from him, how much more accountable would that make us in his sight?”
Chelsea, thank you. I definitely know there’s a multitude of reasons people either believe, or not. And I’m still able to recall a time when I was in the other camp. I can relate to the many ways why people don’t believe. I can’t fault people their unbelief, only how they choose to treat others. Same goes for Christians who treat others’ beliefs as if they’re meaningless. You, Chelsea are a prime example of one who has suffered, and yet can still recognize the love of God. That’s a hard thing to do, and a harder thing for people who have not known god to understand.
Thank you Greg for correcting my spelling. I'm not sure if I'm sarcastic or not.:) As for the story, it was over a really bad break-up, one which I initiated a bit abruptly and callacely I'll admit, and the lady took ... pretty hard. I'm not proud of it, but it was nine years ago, and I'm sure we're quite different people now. I'd like to think we've both matured now, and even after the attempt, I bore her little ill will. Now, I bare her none. I'm alive after all.
As for seeing God's hand in things Greg, you're absolutely right. It's a choice we make to see his hand. That can range from havving simple feelings about God's involvement to utter hallusinations I suppose. All depends on your perspective. It all depends on the circumstances. I choose to believe that I was protected when filled full of over 30 sleeping pills in that hotel room, but I can't deny the addrenolyn that kicked in when I first felt the blade and realized what was really happening. I suppose there are biological reasons I got out of that alive. And maybe the fact that I suffered no ill psychological affects afterwards can be attributed to desensitization, a strong will, or a little insanity on my part. And I choose to see God's hand in that. And I can also see God's hand in the miscarriage my wife endured with our first child. At the time it was very hard, especially for her. Neither of us were sure about children. But we fasted together, and prayed together. We went to the temple with that question on our mind. And at the end, we also got a priesthood blessing – which is something else for some to “b-a-l-k” at. It convinced us the time was right. And not long beyond that, she got pregnant. We waited to tell our parents for three months, knowing things could go wrong. The literal day after we told them, she lost the little one. When we realized what might be happening, we called a trusted priesthood holder over and she got another blessing. I laid my hands on my wife’s head along with my companion. I did not give the blessing myself because I felt too … close, I guess you could say. The blessing, I don’t fully recall. But it said that no matter the outcome, we would be strengthened in our faith, and in each other. The instant the blessing ended, the baby was lost. I was there when it happened. I saw her pain, and I wondered why this had happened. It took a while for my wife to recover, mentally and physically. She recalls the experience in vivid detail to this day. As time passed, we saw the blessing given to us come to pass. Neither of us deny the good that came of it. It brought us closer together; showed us we had so much support around us when we didn't think we did, and yes, it did strengthen my faith, and hers, which was always much stronger than mine. As for the child? Was it fair that a child died for that? I don't know. But I believe as the scriptures teach: that little children are alive in Christ. I believe I know where he is, and that I will see him. And yes, that could all just be a convenient way to get past the pain. I tell you this story not to prove anything, but to show you my perspective. This story “proves” nothing in a rational sense. it doesn't "prove" that people were inspired by God. It doesn't disprove it either. And that's the conundrum between faith and rationality. None of these personal stories can sway you, Greg, unless you were to let them. And I can see why you may not. I can give you many stories of amazing things I believe God has done to people. But it's all subjective for now. Logic will not convince. Evidence is subjective. As for people believing that God abandoned them when they needed him most? Certainly people are willing to do that. I think those who dwell on it too much are the ones who abandon God. It’s easy to feel that way sometimes, because it’s hard to see his hand during the bad times. Everyone feels like that sometimes I'm sure. Even Jesus himself felt that way in the end as he hung dying on the cross. Why would he have? Well, we believe it was so that he could better empathize with us who have felt that way. That’s the same reason he felt our pains, sicknesses, and sorrows. Why he felt all the weight of all the sins we commit, and bad things any of us ever would. His suffering is so much more than just the crusifiction, but that just goes to show how much love and compassion, and empathy he has for us. I've felt abandoned by god too, and I've even dwelled on it sometimes. But I have, so far, always been able to see things from multiple angles. And even the bad things which have happened to me have had much good come from them, even if only to strengthen my character.
As for God being responsible for everything, I can’t refute that really. He did create Satan, along with Jesus, and all of us as spirits. And yes, he did allow Satan to continue to provide opposition. He probably could have banished him to outer Darkness rather than to the newly created world. But he didn’t force Satan to rebel, to want to strip our free will or make him aspire to raise above God. And he didn’t just roll over and let it happen, either. It’s like blaming a child for murder because they were born from their mother’s womb. One could argue that the mother is responsible for raising the child. But genetics, and a person’s overall personality plays a great part also. Good wombs and a nurturing environment have born bad sons. But God is not responsible for Satan’s actions. He’s not responsible for the rape and murder that happens in the world today. But he does allow things to happen. And at times he will step in to help if his children call upon him. Sometimes he allows some things to happen, for what ultimate purpose, we don’t always know right off, if ever in this life. And that’s sometimes incredibly frustrating and disheartening. You look at people like Peter Skully and the vile “art” he’s made and actions he’s wrott, and you wonder, how the hell can there be a God. But of one thing the scriptures are quite clear, to those who perpetuate evil, they will be held very accountable, and their victims will stand as a testament against them. That doesn’t help the hear and now at all. And it’s very hard for us, even those of us who do believe in anything beyond, to look past the here and now. There’s a story in the Book of Mormon where a group of people who knew they would be under attack from their enimies nevertheless refused to fight. They buried their weapons, vowing to never take them up in defense again. These were good men, whose faith in Christ was apparent. When their enemies arrived, these people kneeled in prayer, praying even as their enimies began to slay them. That story always bothered me. It all seemed like such a needless waist of life. They had faith, why couldn’t god have spared them? And yet, when their enimies saw that they would not fight, they were moved with compassion, and they were brought to repentance for what they had done. These enimies railed against God in the treiditions of their fathers. And yet by this act, many of them came to believe in him. God cannot encroach on free will. And so he allows some things to happen to call us to a remembrance, and to repentance, or to give us empathy, to strengthen our character. And yet I can’t deny there are things which happen that are hard to equate with any of that. At times he will let us handle things on our own. That doesn’t mean he’s sympathetic to our prayers, and that doesn’t mean we can not seek comfort. That he will not withhold. But why help some and not others? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone does. Not now. But one day all the mysteries of God will be revealed. We have that promise. Does he sometimes show his hand and smite, according to all the scriptures, yes, but not without a whole lot of warning, and only to preserve his children. If a few may die so many may live, it still saddens him. But even they whom he smites are not without mercy. Our hearts and our minds are known to god as much as our deeds, and he will take all of that into consideration at our final judgement. This mortal life is a treasure, but it is also transitory, a wink in the eternity of our existence.
As for giving all the thanks to God when something good happens, nobody says one can’t take some pleasure in their accomplishments. God does, after all, help those who help themselves. But it’s also about acknowledging him, and about showing our love for what he has made possible, and also for what his son has done. We don’t worship god just because we’re afraid. We do it because he gave us this world, and all that we use on it, he created who and what we are, and we do it because of what his son has done for us. It’s out of love, not out of fear. At least that’s how it should be. Too much pride can be dangerous. When you believe that you owe nothing to God, you forget God, and many who forget God become lacks in keeping his commandments. Fearing god is not mean living in terror of him or what he’ll do to us if we disobey. It’s more about minding and respecting him as you would respect a father. And in the case of Jesus, a father who has born unimaginable agony on your behalf.
I also think I have more to say about your post, leo, but I*'m not yet sure what. Nothing bad though.
No, its not what I do. I look for the truth of something. Sometimes I hate
finding that truth because it demonstrates how wrong I've been on something.
That's intellectual honesty. You, if you found a piece of evidence which
demonstrated how wrong you were about somethig, would either dismsis it
outright, or find some way to mold it so that it fit your interpretation of events.
For example, the way you think of joseph smith. All the evidence which
demonstrates how much of a fraud he was, you dismiss entirely. The fact that
he was actually convicted of fraud means nothing to you, because it doesn't fit
with your preconceived notion of what the truth is. That's intellectual
dishonesty, and I'll thank you to stop using the word evidence until you actually
get some.
But but but Cody, the book of morons corrects the naughty things in the bible and makes them all nice and warm and fuzzy, so let's let Smith off the hook.
Actually Cody, were I to find evidence to the contrary I wouldn't just ignore it. I'd look for an explanation, as you saiy which fit my beliefs. If I didn't find that explanation, then I'd have to, of course seriously reconsider my outlook. Hasn’t yet happened, though I’ve had a few instances where it came close.
I really, really don’t want this to turn into some is the lds church true topic. That’s not what this topic is about. But since you keep bringing it up: In the case of Joseph smith, there’s so much out there on him. Can you please point me to specifics? Maybe I’ve missed something about him in the studying I’ve done. I’ve red a lot of claims against him. There was even one famous one – I can’t recall the exact nature of it – which had people questioning and even leaving the church . Turned out the man who made that claim though made the whole thing up. That leads me to ask, how reliable is your evidence? Show me please. Don’t just tell me he was a fraud. I know he was convincted of fraud. He was accused too of a great many things. And think of the time. “mor”onism" – as it was labeled by people who didn’t think we were Christian was a sudden and new Christian belief. There were a lot of people who hated that. A lot of people hated Joseph smith for his claims and tried to discredit him. The government put bounties on the early saints, drove them from their homes, sometimes in blistering cold for many miles, destroyed their buildings, tried to stop the book of Mormon. They forced them All that in a land of “ apparent” religious freedom. And some hated him enough to form an angry mob and shoot him through a jaiol cell. He was tarred and feathered, scorned and spited. All because he created some imaginative fiction? Religious leaders actually cared what he had to say even when he was just a pube. Did the forming of some new sect of Christianity really bother people that much. Personally I think it all went down to power. More people believing in Joseph Smith’s vision meant less people attending all the congrogations who got paid. To them his claims might not have been merely outlandish, but also very dangerous. Now you speak to me of evidence. You could be right. Maybe Joseph Smith really was a fraud. But considering what not only he, but people who only saught the truth and gave up everything for it had to endure at the hands of others, I can’t help wondering how reliable some of that evidence you found really is. And it’s not like I haven’t read some of it. Though I admit I may have missed some things.
That's exactly what I'm saying Remy. When you find something that disagrees
with your beliefs, instead of trying to mold your beliefs to fit the truth, you try
to find a way to mold that truth to fit your beliefs. So, you believe god is all
good and couldn't possibly do something bad. You find out that he hardened
pharoah's heart in exodus, and instead of going, well maybe god isn't such a
good guy, you have to go, well its a mistranslation, has to be. I mean, the parts
of the bible that say god is good couldn't be mistranslated, only the parts I
dislike are mistranslated, so it has to be a mistranslation, because I don't like it.
See, now it fits perfectly with what I believe. God is good, the bible said he did
something bad, thus the bible must be wrong. You're too busy trying to get the
world to fit your beliefs to actually figure out if your beliefs are even true.
Which, I would think, you know they aren't judging by how readily you admit
they aren't based on evidence. Taht tells me that you know that, were you to be
intellectually honest, your beliefs would crumble.
First, Imp, let me pander to your need to be recognized for your “humor”. Your insight and and knowledge about the Book of Mormon is positively profound.
When I’m convinced of truth, Cody, I don’t discount it. When I’m not convinced, I seek to be convinced that the truth is as I understand it. When that doesn’t happen, I do question. I take a lot on faith, yes, but that faith isn’t based soly on want, but on what I find that conforms to that want. When I run into a passage of scripture that I don’t understand, or that jmakes god sound like what you believe him to be, I have two choices. Three actually. I can either let it slide and have faith that there’s reasons behind it. I can use the resources at my disposal to see what my church thinks about the passage, or I can curse god and have my faith falter. The thing is Cody, the answers I find nearly always leave me either satisfied, or with something to ponder. There isn’t much in my church that can’t be explained with a little bit of effort. Now, if my church is wrong, then I’m obviously wrong. If I find evidence of something to the contrary, I first have to consider how trustworthy that evidence is. What source am I drawing from? Is it anti-LDS doctrine of some kind? Or is it subjective and unbias? Can I find something to refute it in my own church literature? Almost always, I can. Obviously I have to take some things on faith that I’ll eventually understand. But for those times when my beliefs are questioned, I’m usually able to find answers which satisfy me. When that stopps being the case and I am left feeling like I’ve been wrong, then you and I can have a fantastic I told you so conversation about how I was deceived and should really wake the fart up and see reason with my previously spirit-blinded brain. For instances of scripture, such as the one about phaero, I don’t just assume, it says very specifically in the translation that god hardened phaero’s heart. I have faith in the inspired translation of the bible. Maybe I’m wrong, but I still have faith in it because in the grand scheme of how I understand God and all he is, the opposite just doesn’t make sense. That’s the frustrating thing about all this, it’s all subjective. That’s what the LDS church is supposed to do,k take us back to a more purer gospel before so much was taken out or altered as to make some concepts unrecognizable. Maybe the hwole thing’s bollucks. We’ll one day see.
There in lies the problem. What you want, and what your church has said, has
absolutely nothing to do with what is true. Your god doesn't even have anything
to do with what is true, because you can't even present evidence that he exists,
let alone that he takes part in creating or destroying things. Things are either
true, or not true. So, you don't have three options. You have two. You can either
ignore that truth, or you can accept it and adjust your beliefs to fit that truth.
But you're not intellectually honest enough to do that. You're too desperate to
maintain your beliefs.
Here I am again, to raise a couple of points. I'm not going to start firing shots, I just want to maybe set a couple of things up in a clearer light.
First, the merit of an assertion is not wholly or even largely determined by its origin in all cases. I am not religious, but that doesn't mean everything I say regarding religion's issues can be dismissed. Equally, anti-LDS doctrine, as it's been labelled here, might be harsh, mistargeted, unfair, untrue...and it also might be spot on. I wouldn't dismiss an idea just because it stems from your direct opposition. Some of the best food for thought I've ever gotten has been from people and ideologies that run counter to my own thought in some fashion.
Second, I hope no one is making the mistake here of equating hate/persecution with truth. People aren't just hateful and mean when they're afraid; sometimes they do it because someone really has raised their ire in a legitimate fashion. We weren't around in the days of Joseph Smith; I can't claim the man was a fraud, and thus cannot and will not attack the religion he's associated with, but I will say that trying to weaken the anti-Smith stuff by citing how ugly people acted toward him is perhaps missing the point. That said, however, I've seen pretty nasty things said about and done to anyone who dares break away from the flock, many many times, so there may be some truth to the notion that he was reviled out of proportion with the harm he may actually have caused.
Last and hopefully not least is a simple philosophical question of power. God is apparently supposed to be perfect, the ultimate being, having created everything. You say he's not responsible for everything in a direct fashion, no more than is a mother whose child commits murder. No one would blame her for giving birth, and likewise no one should blame God for the awful things done by his children often in his name. They are wayward, and acting against his wishes.
Well, there's one huuuuuuge difference between a random mother and God. God is asking us to simultaneously accept him as all-powerful, all-knowing, then asking us to look the other way when some part of that all-powerful all-knowing creature ends up being directly or indirectly responsible for pain, heartache, suffering, loss of life. When an average woman is born, she does not know her child will commit murder; a responsible mother, if she saw signs in her child of sociopathy or psychopathy, would do the responsible thing and try to get that child help before it did harm. If she never sees the proof, she doesn't take blame because there is nothing she could've done. Not so for God. He knows all, so nothing escapes his interest, or his notice. This means that any choice God makes which results in someone being murdered, raped, beaten, stolen from, cheated or cheated upon...all of it is beneath his eye, within his ability to comprehend. When we, as people, know something awful is going to happen but do nothing, we view that badly. If an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God, who has far more agency and apparently far more love and power than any one of us could ever hope to possess, turns a blind eye or a deaf ear in the same way we'd be looked down on for doing...I fail to see why he should get off the hook.
With great power comes great responsibility. I think God, and some of his followers, may have forgotten this.
One more thing:
We know for a fact that we're alive, right? Sensory reality, other entities which can validate the system, etc.? But even a devout but honest Christian will admit he does not frankly know what cmes after. He believes, but he doesn't know.
If this is true, then saying the horrors of life are small potatoes in the big picture is ludicrous. If life is all we can be certain of, then of course we're going to largely view it as the one concrete axis upon which existence is spinning.
Consider, for instance, how you'd feel if someone said that their attrocities were justified because they'd be rewarded in the next life. Or suppose someone came out with the crazy idea that you have to have sex, forcibly if possible, more than three times a week, or else your soul will essentially run out of juice. Do you think anyone's going to accept that in defense of rape?
No? Thought not. That's because 1. rape is ugly and nasty and wrong, and 2. justifying something, or trying to contextualize it, solely by saying "the next life, about which we can only speculate, will be better", is self-serving, intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Like it or not, this life is what we've got.
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Is God cruel?"
Answer: There are atheists and agnostics who argue that the God who is presented in the Bible is cruel. For example, the online Skeptics Annotated Bible has an entire section devoted to biblical passages that, they claim, demonstrate that God is cruel. By labeling God as cruel, they are appealing to our human, moral sensibilities. The word cruelty is defined as "callous indifference to, or pleasure in, causing pain and suffering.” The question before us now is, Is God cruel? To answer in the affirmative, we would have to allow that God either doesn’t care about pain and suffering, or He actually enjoys watching His creatures suffer.
The atheists / agnostics who claim that God is cruel have a large burden of proof. They are not merely claiming to know about the actions of God; they are also claiming to sufficiently know the circumstances in which He performed those actions, as well as His motivations. Additionally, they are claiming to know the very mind of God, ascribing to Him the attitudes of indifference and/or sadistic pleasure necessary to define Him as cruel. Quite frankly, this is beyond the skeptics’ ability to demonstrate—they can’t possibly know the mind of God. “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
There is no doubt that God both allows and, at times, causes pain and suffering, but God’s goodness cannot be impugned because He commits an act that appears cruel to us. While we can’t claim to know His reasoning in every circumstance, we do know several reasons for actions that can appear to us to be cruel, especially if we don’t know—or don’t bother to find out—the circumstances:
1. To mete out just punishment - If a punishment is just, can it be said to be cruel? What critics usually do not understand is that God’s love is not diminished when He brings punishment on people. God is able to bring judgment on an evil group of people in order to spare those who are devoted to Him. To allow evil and wrongdoing to go unpunished would indeed be cruel and would indicate a callousness toward the innocent. When God caused the Red Sea to close, drowning Pharaoh’s entire army, He was punishing Pharaoh’s rebellion against Him and preserving His chosen people from certain slaughter and annihilation (Exodus 14). Wrongdoing that does not result in punishment inevitably results in greater and greater wrongdoing, which benefits no one and is detrimental to the common good. Even when God told the Israelites to completely destroy the enemies of God, including women and children, He knew that to let them live would ensure the existence of future generations devoted to evil idolatrous practices—including in some cases child sacrifices on the altars of false gods.
2. To bring about a greater good- Pain and suffering that produce a greater good sometimes can be brought about by no other means. The Bible tells us that trials and difficulties produce stronger, better Christians, and we should “count it all joy” (James 1:2) when we encounter them. God brings these about for our benefit, in order to refine us like gold in the fire of affliction. The Apostle Paul saw his own suffering—beatings, stonings, shipwrecks, hunger, thirst, cold, imprisonments—as a means of ensuring that he would be ever conscious of his own weakness, would remember always that the power at work in him was from God, not himself, and would never be deluded into relying on his own power (2 Corinthians 1:8-10; 4:7-12). Against nonbelievers, God's justice is vindicated when He causes pain and suffering to them because they deserve it. He demonstrates His mercy to them by warning them repeatedly of the consequences of sin. When, through their own rebellion, they bring upon themselves calamity, this is just punishment, not cruelty. The fact that He lets rebels go on shaking their fists at Him as long as He does indicates His mercy and patience, not cruelty.
3. To glorify Himself - God is glorified by the exhibition of His attributes. We all agree that He looks pretty good to us when His love and mercy are on display, but since each and every attribute is holy and perfect, even the exhibition of His wrath and anger bring Him glory. And that is the ultimate goal—His glory, not ours. Our tiny, finite brains can't even adequately imagine Him, much less call Him into question.
All these are worthy, valid, noble causes for pain and suffering. Contrary to the claims of skeptics, there are good reasons for God’s allowing evil and suffering in this world. We are privileged to know some of those reasons, but we do not always know why God allows evil and suffering. To trust God in spite of not knowing the reasons is not a blind leap of faith. Rather, we trust Him with the things we don’t understand because we see His faithfulness in those actions which we do understand.
If we read the Bible carefully, rather than seeing God act out of cruelty, we see Him acting out of His love for us. For example, the book of Job is often pointed to as an example of God’s sadistic actions against an innocent man. The book declares that Job was innocent of the suffering that came upon him, which appears to favor the claim of the atheist. But to claim that it proves God is sadistic betrays a very superficial understanding of the book of Job.
In the Near East during the time of the patriarchs, a common belief was that God always blessed the righteous and brought suffering on the unrighteous. The book of Job is a polemic against that theology. The story shows that man’s view of God’s justice needed to be modified. We need to understand that God is not limited to using suffering as a means of retribution. He also uses it to tear people away from the earthly things that so easily entice them. Additionally, Job brings people closer to understanding God’s work of atonement on the cross. If mankind continued to think that God couldn’t allow an innocent man to suffer, then we would have missed God’s plan for redeeming the world. For God allowed the suffering of a perfectly innocent Man (Jesus Christ) in order to bring His own to salvation. So this book of Job ends up being an invaluable contribution to the history of redemption.
In summary, the skeptic must bear a very large burden of proof in claiming that God’s actions are characterized by cruelty. In context, the biblical passages which appear to paint God as cruel actually do no such thing. In fact, with a proper understanding of the Scriptures, we see that God’s actions are always motivated by, and consistent with, His holy and perfect character.
Recommended Resources: Knowing God by J.I. Packer and Logos Bible Software."
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Is God evil? Is the Bible evil?"
Answer: The web site evilbible.com endeavors to do two things: (1) demonstrate that the Bible is not the Word of God, but instead is only a book written by “evil” men, and (2) disprove the God of Christianity. The arsenal it attempts to use to prove its assertions is one common to many other atheist web sites and publications. Supposed Bible contradictions are put on display, atrocities and immoral practices that are recorded within the pages of the Bible are referenced, and various philosophical and moral arguments are used to assert that the God of the Bible is an impossibility or at best not a God to be worshipped.
While a number of these specific arguments will be addressed in the sections that follow, certain topics on the evilbible.com web site that have already been thoroughly tackled on Gotquestions.org (e.g., slavery) will not be covered, but anyone wishing more information on those subjects is encouraged to review the material that already exists and which sufficiently answers evilbible.com’s charges in those areas. Instead, the focus of this article will be the three broad problems that cause nearly all (or perhaps all) of evilbible.com’s arguments to fail:
• A misunderstanding of God’s Word
• A misunderstanding of God’s character
• A misunderstanding of God’s creation
Let’s now review each of these issues and cite specific examples from evilbible.com’s web site that illustrate how and why their assertions against the Bible and God are false.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Word
The first problem area for evilbible.com is a misunderstanding of God’s Word. In its efforts to attack the Bible, the evilbible.com web site makes two key assertions: 1) the Bible is full of horrible atrocities, and 2) the Bible is full of contradictions. As to the first point, evilbible.com is absolutely correct—the Bible is indeed full of atrocities and immoral behavior. From start to finish, the Bible records many terrible things, with the worst being the premeditated murder of the innocent and perfect Son of God. But where evilbible.com’s argument in this area falls flat is that they fail to understand that the Bible does not approve of everything it records. This is absolutely crucial to understand. For example, in Judges chapters 19 and 20, the Bible records the brutal rape and murder of a young woman who was a Levite’s concubine. Moreover, the actions of the Levite are less than honorable, and the crime results in a vicious civil war within the nation of Israel. But a careful reading of the text will show no approval of the actions that took place, and no commendation from God for the Levite’s behavior. So evilbible.com’s argument that atrocities being recorded in Scripture prove that it isn’t God’s Word simply does not hold up.
Another argument in this same vein on the evilbible.com web site focuses on the command of God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Obviously, they claim, since God initiated this request, and human sacrifice is abhorrent, surely this proves the Bible is not anything produced by a loving and good God. But where evilbible.com’s argument in this area fails is that the web site’s writers don’t understand that God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him; the story is a powerful narrative typology of God Himself sacrificing His own Son Jesus for the sins of mankind. And whereas Abraham was stopped by God from going through with his act, God Himself did not stay His own hand when it came to His Son, and the end result was salvation for all who would believe in Him.
With regard to point number two above, evilbible.com lists a number of supposed contradictions in the Bible they use to assert that the Bible is not inerrant but is instead a fallibly written book. When it comes to assertions of biblical contradictions, it should be noted that a number of good books on this subject address nearly every one (if not all) of evilbible.com’s claims. Second, it should not come as a surprise that non-Christians trip over the issues that evilbible.com brings to the table. The Bible is a spiritual book, and while it exhibits what is called perspicuity (clarity of expression) in regard to its core teachings, there are spiritual significance and lessons for much of what the Bible speaks about, and only those who have been quickened by God’s Spirit will arrive at their true meanings (1 Corinthians 2:14). For example, Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Critics look at this obscure Old Testament passage, laugh, and reach the conclusion that God doesn’t want people to wear wool and polyester blends. However, in this case God was using physical things to act as reminders of spiritual principles. He was telling Israel not to mix their pure religion with the pagan religions that literally surrounded them; they were not to be syncretistic, but instead they were to be devoted to the one true God and not assimilate other pagan teachings.
Spiritual lessons such as the above are found in a number of errors that evilbible.com makes. For example they argue for the following set of contradictions:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven... earth... [or] water. - Leviticus 26:11
And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them. - Exodus 25:18
First, it should be noted that evilbible.com does not reference the proper book/chapter/verse in the first quote – it is actually Exodus 20:4. That error aside, their argument fails because they quote the verse out of context; if one continues reading the next verse, the true reason for the prohibition is given: “You shall not worship them or serve them.” The command of God to not make images concerned objects of worship, not objects used for decorative or educational purposes as Exodus 25:18 records.
Another example of a supposed contradiction argued by evilbible.com in the New Testament is the following:
For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works. - Ephesians 2:8-9
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. - James 2:24
Again, evilbible.com should not really be faulted for not understanding these two verses clearly; they are spiritual two sides to one coin. The Bible makes it clear that Christians are saved by faith alone. But the Bible also makes it clear that faith in the life of a true Christian is always evidenced by good works. Good works are not the means of salvation; they are the evidence and the proof of salvation. So to put them together in one sentence: Christians are saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but the faith that saves is not alone (James 2:24). True faith will always manifest good works; faith which does not evidence good works is a dead faith which cannot save (James 2:26). This principle is viewed elsewhere in Scripture, for example by Jesus, who referenced the fact that good trees bear good fruit, but bad trees yield bad fruit (Matthew 7:17).
To summarize, we can see that evilbible.com’s claims of atrocities and contradictions in God’s Word simply do not hold water. There have always been critics who claim the Bible is wrong. For example, many used to maintain that the reigns and times of the Israelite kings were recorded in error (e.g., Joram-Jehoram), but then came Dr. Edwin Thiele’s book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which proved that they are indeed correct. In the end, the Bible always survives the challenges leveled against it.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Character
The second problem is that evilbible.com suffers from a misunderstanding of God’s character. The web site routinely speaks of God as a tyrant and an unabashed killer. Evilbible.com takes the position of Socrates who once said that it is better to suffer injustice than to do it, better to be the victim than the perpetrator. Apparently the site’s writers would be more comfortable with God if He were a victim rather than a sovereign. In making such assertions, evilbible.com also follows the lead of atheist Robert Wilson who wrote, “The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer.” In addition, evilbible.com charges that God is the creator of evil and wickedness, and therefore asserts that God cannot be the holy and righteous deity described in the Bible. In theology, this is the problem of theodicy, which is the branch of theology that vindicates God’s divine attributes (particularly holiness and justice) in the face of the existence of physical and moral evil.
With respect to the first assertion—that God is a tyrannical murderer of the innocent—evilbible.com displays a gross misunderstanding of history, which compounds their misunderstanding of God’s character. Referencing Old Testament accounts of God imposing judgment on various cultures and peoples, evilbible.com says:
“The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.)”
It is interesting to note that this absurd statement—that the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality, a position straight out the homosexual activists’ handbook—is completely illogical. The statement asserts that God was justified in “slaughtering” the people of Sodom because they were inhospitable. Yet they go on to claim He was not justified in punishing cultures who practiced true wickedness. And when, incidentally, has anyone who displayed a lack of hospitality ever been referred to as a Sodomite? The sin of Sodom was gross immorality and violent homosexuality, as Genesis 19 accurately records.
The claim that those God punished were “uniformly blameless” is completely without merit and historically inaccurate. The Bible records the exact opposite about the peoples whom God acted upon in judgment. A few examples include:
“After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Deuteronomy 9:4-5, emphasis added).
“Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 18:12-13, emphasis added).
"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants" (Leviticus 18:24-25, emphasis added).
Evilbible.com overlooks the historical evidences that these nations and cultures practiced the very things that evilbible.com decries as morally reprehensible. As just one example, the Assyrians who inhabited Nineveh during the time of Jonah were an incredibly barbaric and cruel people. When archaeologists uncovered Nineveh, the TV specials produced from their work had to be filtered because the evidence of brutality was so great. The discoveries unearthed facts such as how the Assyrians used to slowly impale their victims by sliding them down sharp poles, and that they also made handbags from their victim’s skins. In a stone pillar found at Nineveh, one Assyrian ruler boasted of “nobles I flayed” and “three thousand captives I burned with fire. I left not one hostage alive. I cut off the hands and feet of some. I cut off the noses, ears and fingers of others. The eyes of numerous soldiers I put out. Maidens I burned as a holocaust.” Such things certainly speak against evilbible.com’s claims that the people who fell under God’s judgment were innocent. Other examples include the inhabitants of Jericho who history has shown practiced child sacrifice, cultic prostitution, and much more.
Evilbible.com also overlooks the patience of God in dealing with such people. God always waited for the nations who ultimately experienced judgment to turn from their despicable ways and always warned them of the judgment that was coming. The book of Jonah describes God’s patience with the Ninevites, who finally did turn from their evil ways and avoided destruction. Other peoples and cultures could have repented of their sins, but they chose not to. As an example, the people of Amalek (described in 1 Samuel) routinely attempted to commit genocide against Israel, but were given 400 years by God to repent. But Amalek continued to commit their atrocities against Israel and so God judged them via Saul and the Israeli army.
Evilbible.com does not stop to consider that if one were to catapult the practices, genocide, and barbarism of these cultures/peoples into the 21st century and broadcast it around the world via CNN, there would most certainly be a global outcry for severe military action and punishment. And if modern, “enlightened” man would call for such severe judgment against such atrocities, why should evilbible.com criticize God for carrying out the same thing?
Lastly, in regard to evilbible.com’s claim that God is creator of evil, they present the following rationale and verse from the King James Version to support their position:
“God Is The Creator Of Evil: Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil. Please read verse Isaiah 45:7. ‘I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.” The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?”
In evilbible.com’s defense, the verse from Isaiah 45:7 has been misunderstood by many people, primarily because of a poor translation in the King James Bible (and ASV). Parts of the book of Isaiah are of the poetry genre, and there is a literary technique used at times in Hebrew poetry called antithetical parallelism which sets two thoughts in complete contrast to one another, which is exactly what is happening in Isaiah 45:7. For example, if you were asked what the opposition of “light” is, you would likely respond “darkness,” which is what Isaiah 45:7 says. But if you were asked what the opposite of “peace” is, would you respond “evil”? No, you likely wouldn’t. This is why nearly all other translations of this verse (including the New King James Version) translate the word “calamity” or something similar, as that is what the antithetical structure of the verse mandates. God does not bring moral evil upon anyone, but He does bring about calamity and disaster upon those who oppose Him, but such a thing does not make Him evil; it makes Him a just and righteous God.
So, in the end, the above examples (and others present on the web site) show how a misunderstanding of history and wrong biblical interpretation lead to the wrong conclusion about God’s character.
Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Creation
The last broad issue found on the evilbible.com web site is a misunderstanding of God’s creation, which manifests itself most in the problem of evilbible.com borrowing from the Christian moral worldview to carry out its arguments against God and the Bible instead of using its own atheistic foundation. In essence, evilbible.com invokes a Christian framework to deny the Christian God, a technique that is irrational and disingenuous, to say the least. For example, evilbible.com declares:
“It violates my morality to worship a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer.”
Here’s the problem with making such a statement: without God, evilbible.com has no real foundation for the morality it claims, no moral framework from which to attack God. Why is this the case? Because before a person can call something bad (as evilbible.com does God and the Bible), a person must know what good is. But before a person can call something good, he must have a moral framework to distinguish between good and bad. But before someone can have a moral framework to distinguish good and bad, he must have absolute moral laws to build that framework. But before a person can have absolute moral laws, he must have an absolute moral Lawgiver (laws don’t give themselves). Now the atheists have backed themselves into a corner, because the only absolute moral Lawgiver you can have is God. This is why intellectually honest atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, rightly understand that an atheist can’t ever call anything bad or good —the atheist foundation doesn’t support such a stance. In his book, River out of Eden, he writes, “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA . . . life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (emphasis added).
Since, being atheists, the writers of evilbible.com cannot be intellectually honest and use the term “evil,” they should rename their web site to something that is not prefaced with the word “evil.” All evilbible.com can assert is what atheist evolutionist William Provine calls “approximate morals,” but they can never have ethics that are globally, eternally, and universally binding upon everyone, and thus cannot call anything evil.
Another misunderstanding of God’s creation is exhibited in evilbible.com’s claim that God Himself is impossible. Evilbible.com puts forth a variety of common arguments against God, but the overall theme is that creation as we know it refutes the existence of the God described in the Bible. Here again the argument of the existence of evil is used to reject God. Evilbible.com wrongly rejects the argument of free will being the catalyst of evil (which it is/was) and mistakenly rejects the fact that, yes, there is evil in this world, but perhaps God has a good reason for permitting it. Jesus dying on the cross appeared on the surface to be the epitome of gratuitous evil, but out of that event, mankind was redeemed from the misery it finds itself in. God’s gift of freedom, and the misuse of that freedom, clearly explains the moral evil we experience. As Augustine said, “Such is the generosity of God’s goodness that He has not refrained from creating even that creature which He foreknew would not only sin, but remain in the will to sin. As a runaway horse is better than a stone which does not run away because it lacks self-movement and sense perception, so the creature is more excellent which sins by free will than that which does not sin only because it has no free will.”
Moreover, evilbible.com posits God is impossible because of supposed contradictions in His nature that do not match the world, yet they are perfectly happy to accept that an impersonal, amoral, meaningless, purposeless universe accidentally created personal beings who are obsessed with morality, meaning, and purpose in life. If, as they argue, a cause must resemble its effect, then what explanation do they give for this contradiction? Mindless matter has no way of producing mind or anything similar.
The fact is, the Being who is the cause of everything in the universe perfectly mirrors the God described in the Bible. This is evidenced by what one can infer just from the fact of creation alone:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes).
• He must be omnipresent (he created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality).
• He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only a cognitive being can produce cognitive beings.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
The Judeo-Christian God perfectly fits this profile.
Is God evil? – Conclusion
A misunderstanding of God’s Word, His character, and His creation all result in the argumentation errors found on evilbible.com. A fitting summation of their stance is this statement made on their web site:
“I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible.”
For certain, there are apparent difficulties that arise when one begins studying the Bible. But a person should not assume God doesn’t exist and/or the Bible is in error just because he encounters a problem in the Bible that he can’t immediately understand or explain. The scientist doesn’t throw out science just because he/she sees something in the physical world he can’t immediately explain. Neither should we do the same with theology or the study of Scripture. Misunderstandings like those committed by evilbible.com are the result of not thoroughly investigating matters or dismissing a belief based on a presupposition that is buried deep in a person’s heart or lifestyle (or both). And the danger in both cases is something Pascal warned about many years ago: “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” What self-described atheists find attractive about denying God is that they think if they deny Him, they will never have to deal with Him in any way. Sadly, they couldn’t be more wrong.
Recommended Resources: Knowing God by J.I. Packer."
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Are Mormons Christians? Are Mormons saved?"
Answer: Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity. In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from the God’s Word, they are not.
Joseph Smith, who referred to himself as “The Prophet,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid-1800s. He claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and God the Son, in which they denounced modern Christianity and appointed Smith to reveal and restore “true” Christianity (Articles of Faith, p. 182–185). Three years later, Smith alleged that the angel Moroni told him about some golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. In spite of Smith’s questionable background and proclivity toward bending the truth (see The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, New York, 1861; and Mormonism Unveiled, Painesville, Ohio, 1834), many believed Smith, and a new “religion” was born. Today, the members of the Mormon Church number in the millions.
The Book of Mormon is purported to be a new revelation, one that Mormons say is part of the new covenant to Israel and “another witness” to the truth of the Bible (History of the Church 4:461, 8th Article of Faith). Aside from the many theological conflicts with the Bible and historical and archeological fact, the writing of the Book of Mormon was shrouded in mystery and false claims. For example, Joseph Smith and his associates asserted that one Professor Charles Anthony of Columbia University verified the Egyptian characters on the golden plates. However, this same professor wrote a rebuttal letter soon after, saying that he never did any such thing and had, in fact, found the characters to be a hoax. In addition, many verses in the Mormon scriptures have been changed over the years, as the church leaders attempt to cover up something embarrassing in their past and to defend themselves against criticism. These facts alone are enough to cast much doubt on the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
One of the many areas in which Mormons fall short of saving faith is their belief that God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). This directly contradicts the Bible, which states that God has existed in His position as God of the universe from eternity past (Revelation 1:8; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15–16; Psalm 102:24–27). God was never a man (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9) and is the holy and powerful Creator of all things (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16). Mormons also believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). However, no man can ever become like God (1 Samuel 2:2; Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:21–22), despite what the serpent told Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5).
Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547; Articles of Faith, p. 35; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372). It is essential to Christian faith that Jesus is one with God and that He is God’s only begotten Son who became flesh (John 1:1, 14; John 3:16). Only Jesus’ oneness with God would have allowed Him to live a sinless, blameless life (Hebrews 7:26). And only Jesus Christ was able to pay the price for our sins by His death on the cross (Romans 4:25; Acts 4:12).
Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43; 2 Nephi 9:23–24; Alma 34:30–35; Articles of Faith, p.92). While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p 188; Mormon Doctrine, p. 670) and practicing good works (2 Nephi 25:23; Alma 11:37) in order to achieve salvation. The Bible is very clear on this point, stating that good works can never earn the way to heaven (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5) and that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation (John 10:9; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation by grace is incompatible with salvation by human works (Romans 11:6).
Sadly, many in the Mormon Church are unaware of the religion’s shady past, amended scriptures, and even the full doctrine of their church. Many Mormons who have discovered these things have left the church and come to a true saving faith in Jesus Christ. As Christians, we must treat Mormons with love and understand that they are among those deceived by Satan himself (1 Peter 5:8). Satan’s goal is to distort the truth, produce false assurance of salvation, and extend a deceptive hope of godhood (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Recommended Resources: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons by Ron Rhodes and Logos Bible Software."
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "How should Christians view the Book of Mormon?"
Answer: When Mormon missionaries (properly called Latter Day Saints or simply "LDS") come to your door, they will often offer a free copy of the Book of Mormon and tell you about its author, Joseph Smith. Smith, they will say, translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates he dug up in a hill in New York in the early 1800s. This is supposed to confirm his calling from God as the new prophet on the earth in these latter days. Further, they will tell you that the Holy Ghost will confirm the truth of the Book of Mormon by producing good feelings in you. Next will come the invitation to "read the Book of Mormon, pray, and ask God to show you it is true." Of course you must do this with sincerity, or it won't work.
Before you fall to your knees, there are some things you need to know that they are not telling you (and won't unless you ask). The first concerns many LDS beliefs that separate them from historical, orthodox Christianity. These are not found in the Book of Mormon. In fact, there is really very little in that book that is doctrinally disagreeable to orthodox Christians. The real meat of Mormonism is found in their other scriptures, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. These books, however, Mormons do not hand out at the door—and for good reason. If people knew up front what they were really going to be asked to believe (things such as God once being a man, denial of the Trinity, Satan being Jesus' brother, pre-existence of souls, etc.), they may not be quite so willing to put aside their skepticism.
The second thing to realize is that in accepting the Book of Mormon, one is, in fact, accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet. So what about this test of a prophet? Isn't it legitimate to "give this question up to God?" No, it isn't. This is because God has already revealed His test for would-be prophets, and it has nothing to do with prayer or feelings, and God has no obligation to answer prayers that He has already answered! We do not have to ask God whether or not we should rob a bank or murder someone. Rather, James 1:5 says, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God . . . and it will be given to him." Wisdom is applied knowledge, not lack of it.
God never tells us to pray about what is true. When we want to know how tall a wall is, we don't pray about it; we get something that we know is true (a ruler) and compare it to the wall. The Bible, God's Word, is true. That is our measuring stick for truth. See Acts 17:11, for example, which describes a group of people who were considered noble because when Paul came to them with the Christian message they "received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so."
Feelings are unreliable because they are subjective, easy to produce, and are not meant to discover facts but to tell us how we feel about facts. Psychological persuasion techniques, intensity, eye contact, or mere desire can produce feelings that feel real because they are real! But real feelings are still just letting us know how we are reacting to something, not the truthfulness of that thing. The Mormon missionary handbook specifically details these techniques, and missionaries go through training on how to persuade people before they ever leave the house.
What are the biblical tests for a prophet? They are in God's Word: Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, "You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Did Joseph Smith ever claim "in the name of the LORD" that something would happen when it did not? Yes—many times, in fact.
Joseph Smith prophesied that New York would be destroyed if they rejected the [Mormon] gospel (D&C 84:114-115). He also prophesied that the rebellion of South Carolina and the War Between the States would result in war being poured out upon all nations; slaves would revolt; the inhabitants of the earth would mourn; famine, plague, earthquake, thunder, lightning, and a full end of all nations would result (D&C 87). Oddly, this prophecy is the one most often cited by Mormons to prove Joseph Smith's prophetic power!
Further, Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says that "if a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." Did Joseph Smith lead his followers to other gods? Yes.
Joseph Smith was a polytheist. History of the Church 6:474 records Smith stating, "I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." Joseph Smith declared that "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345). This is clearly not the biblical God.
Galatians 1:6-7 says that people may be "turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all . . . trying to pervert the gospel of Christ." And Paul pronounced a curse upon them for doing so. In Romans 1:16 Paul tells us that the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation"—that's pretty important. Did Joseph Smith teach a "different gospel"? Yes.
Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon contains the "fullness of the gospel." The Book of Mormon says so itself in its introduction (see also Doctrines and Covenants 20:9; 27:5; 42:12; and 135:3). So what is the gospel according to Mormonism? It's a tough question for many LDS to answer. According to Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, author of the book Mormon Doctrine, the gospel is "the plan of salvation [that] embraces all of the laws, principles, doctrines, rites, ordinances, acts, powers, authorities, and keys necessary to save and exalt men." In other words, the whole of Mormon theology. In the Mormon gospel we see belief + repentance + baptism + laying on of hands + temple work + mission work + church ministry + tithing + ceasing from sin + abstaining from the use of intoxicants and strong drinks and tobacco and caffeine + confessing Joseph Smith as Prophet + temple marriage + baptism for the dead + genealogy research . . . the list could go on and on and on. Only upon completion of all these things may Mormons attain to the third and highest level of heaven, thus achieving the ultimate goal of the Mormon gospel—godhood. (see McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 116-117; Book of Mormon [3 Nephi 27:13-21]; Doctrines of Salvation 1:268; 18:213; The 4th Article of Faith; Smith, Gospel Doctrine pg. 107; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:93; 3:247; 9:312; Gospel Principles 290; Doctrine and Covenants 39:5-6; 132:19-20). In essence, Christ's death means nothing more to a Mormon than the gaining of the ability to be resurrected so that his works may be judged.
While we cannot judge another person's motives, we can and must judge what a person does or says. Joseph Smith, and hence the Book of Mormon, fails the twin tests of Deuteronomy 13 and 18. God takes false prophets very seriously. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says, "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God...; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you." Deuteronomy 18:19-21 says, "If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death..." And Galatians 1:8-9 says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
The gospel is God's power to bring us to Him. He will not stand for those who pervert it. He has given us the ability and the responsibility to discern whether or not the gospel is being tampered with. We must carefully investigate the claims of the LDS if we are to follow what God has commanded. In fact, we are invited to judge by Mormons themselves: "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any" (LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p.15).
(Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)
Recommended Resources: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons by Ron Rhodes and Logos Bible Software."
Remy, I'll answer both your questions:
Augustine asserted that the unbaptized baby went to Hell because its soul had
not been cleansed, and so as an unholy thing it was an offense to the person of
god. I brought that up because it really illustrates foundational the concept of
original sin -- the notion that we are all sinful from birth, and the notion that the
gravest part of sin itself is its offense against the god.
Ok, on to the census:
Many censuses were in fact taken during the Roman Empire. They're all
recorded. One thing the Romans -- and anybody else -- never did was require
people to return to the birthplace of their family heritage. That would be like the
U.S. requiring that anyone of Irish ancestry go back to Ireland to be counted in
the census there.
Or probably a better explanation, it would be like you having to return to the
state of your birth and the town of your birth to be registered in the census.
There are incredible economic, social and political implications of trying to carry
off such a feat. This feat "throughout the entire Roman World" as outlined in
Luke 2, would not be absent from records. People during the Pax Romana were
extremely mobile, and you also had officially-required deportations from
homelands. And anyway, how would the Roman government ever know about
Bethlehem as a birthplace for the Christ child? How would they be able to
authenticate Joseph's and Mary's lineages, both allegedly to the household of a
king who may or may not have existed, but the Romans never heard of? The
Romans already didn't trust the Judean populations, and dare I say, for some
very good reasons. So why would they start trusting the Judeans now when it
came to family register? All of this smacks of fitting the parts together to create
a Christ figure that matches some of what the old testament prophets allegedly
said.
As an aside and for the curious, the term Alma in Isaiah is translated "young
woman" in your old testament, but in your new testament (Greek) it's
translated "parthenos" or virgin.
This smacks of co-opting of neighborhood myths, seeing that several Roman
gods were born of virgins, and some even died. As far back as some of the
Zoroastrian myths, again a bit more difficult since for millennia they weren't
written down, we see virgin births and resurrections.
An intelligence who designed a plan of salvation that was based upon belief
alone would not render such a confusing scenario with so many parts missing.
Anyhow, I welcome your responses and yes any criticism of my arguments. But
this census bit is very important because the authors who tried to put the parts
together thought it was, and clearly there was no census requiring the entire
Roman world to move around each person going to their alleged hometown /
city of lineage. Again, your Scriptures would have it that Jesus being descended
from Mary and Joseph has two separate lineages that lead to King David. But
the Romans didn't know of such a king, and wouldn't have known or had a
reason to send Joseph and Mary off to David's alleged birthplace. A census is
not done to fill in prophetic quotas, it's there to determine how many people
you've got, how much taxes you can plan on collecting, and yes, how many are
available for military service. None of this requires the bureaucratic nightmare
that proving hometown connections would create.
There are actually quite a few other areas where the story comes apart, but the
census is pretty telling. Remember that Mark, the earliest gospel, doesn't even
record a birth let alone a virgin birth. You have to get to Luke before you get
this. And yet, many Christians are very set on the virgin birth, considering it
damnable heresy for someone to assert that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
The reason they do this isn't about sex, despite what Augustine writes. We can
learn from the other virgin birth gods who were born: It's always that god-man
hybrid which is so incredibly important, and incredibly impossible if the mother
had sex with a man.
Anyway, thank the evangelicals, they shook out what could be shaken. In their
demand for adherence, coupled with notion that they could make their faith
reasonable, that is what brought me to the position I now am. I'm no theologian
though I consider myself a fan of history and a student of political systems.
Just to add on one thing if I may Leo. The leaders listed in the christmas
story, Herod, Caesar, and the governor of the region whose name I have
forgotten, weren't even alive at the same time. Herod died six years before
caesar came to power. How could caesar have ordered a sensus taken, which
herod takes a part in, if herod was dead?
True, and when was Cyrenaeus governor? Wasn't he governor before Augustus'
reign? Yet Luke 2 says both names. You're absolutely right, and I forget who
preceded whom. A bit of laziness perhaps but I didn't want to go look that stuff
up and also didn't want to be wrong and claim Augustus came first if it was the
governor Cyrenaeu. For those unfamiliar with Roman history Cody and I are
talking about the emperor and also the local puppet king Herod as well as the
Roman governor.
Again I defer to Josephus: Josephus had such incredible reasons for hating
Herod who was Jewish by birth, considered a traitor to the Romans, kind of like
how many see CEO's today who outsource all our jobs to developing nations,
only way way worse. That genocide recorded in, I believe Matthew, where the
Magi tricked the king and returned east by a different route, he is claimed to
have killed all the boys two years old and younger in the surrounding area.
Again, economically devastating and would show up in the record, and for sure
Josephus would never have left that out.
The Biblical record is the only record of this.
Consider that after Constantine solidified the church, church fathers were
intense on getting any records that would verify their religion's story. This is one
of those records you would expect them to find seeing as the Judean provinces
were particularly problematic to the Romans, and there was a lot of
documentation on them. The Israelis had the Roman equivalent of a rather thick
FBI file, if you will. Such a genocide, which would be considered wasteful by the
Romans, would have been recorded. That's a lot of potential taxes and earning
power just up and gone over a story. Remember the Romans at that time didn't
believe any of the Jewish myths.
I have a lot to say, and Leo, I`ll get to your most recent posts I hope in time. Thank you in advance for clarifying.
Cody, I think I’ve already admitted that I can’t prove anything to anyone. That proof is personal. We’re dancing in circles. You don’t take me seriously because I can’t provide evidence, and I think you’re probably a bit jaded because of … reasons. I do appreciate you not resorting to profanity and name calling though. It’s clear we’re both blinded by our own beliefs. You see proof, I see proof. But neither of us can prove anything to the other. It’s a stalemate, and one which I for one can do without. , I have no intention of trying to prove anything. I can’t. You’ve told me I can’t and I’ve admitted I can’t. Yet again, and again. Only reason I participate in this forum is to provide another perspective. If you can’t or won’t believe in that perspective, that’s not a problem. I’m not here to push my beliefs on you.
Now, Greg. You’re quite right about the opposition. I’m not so much saying the “anti LDS” material is wrong, as I am cautioning anyone to be careful. All the persecutions we went through don’t make us right, you’re right about that too. When I mentioned all of that, I did it in order to outline the possibility that what Cody might have red might not accurately represent the truth. Since I don’t know what he red, I can’t comment. But There were a lot of people who took issue with Smith, and what he was doing. Also with those who followed the teachings. It was a bad time to be LDS, and a whole lot of people died due to Joseph’s either factual or fictional scriptures. No, that isn’t proof that we’re right. But it is an invitation to consider the sources of such anti-LDS material and decide for yourself if you like whether such sources are “true”, or whether our defenses are “true”. Don’t do it if you’re not interested in the LDS church at all of course. And ultimately, it’s hard to know what the absolute truth is. It’s all going to come down to what you choose to believe. It’s like that half the time in modern media to. There are a great many news outlets who scue the truth to fit their aims. Or who just don’t get their facts right. I and the issue I was involved in which I discussed earlier are a testament of how the details can get muddled. When I come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith is a prophet, I did so after considering both sides of the argument. Ultimately, for me, the pro LDS arguments won out, though I’ll admit that our history is not spotless.
You bring up an interesting point about God’s responsibilities, Greg. I’ve considered them before, but I do think your right. I did indeed say God knows the end from the beginning, and he knows our hearts and minds. So with that*ahem* logic, you’re right. He should be able to stop it. Instead he allows things to happen. Why is that? I’ve touched on some of the reasons, and I can’t deny that sometimes they seem like a hard sell. Opposition is all well and good, but some things that happen in this world, well, let’s just say one can easily stretch the limits of what we humans could consider acceptable opposition. It’s hard to see the darkness in the world. Hard to see god blamed for it, and easy to understand why he is blamed. I guess that’s where that F word comes in. I don’t think e’re really going to know yet. Opposition, trials, tests, refining fire, all of these are just concepts, words to be used which strip away the emotions seeing vile acts rises.
Terrence, I applaud the first two articles you posted. It’s a good indication that there are so many ways to interpret scripture, and that it requires more than face value study to really understand it. As for the article you posted about the LDS church – again:
I wonder what fundamental truths of god’s word we reject?
“In addition, many verses in the Mormon scriptures have been changed over the years, as the church leaders attempt to cover up something embarrassing in their past and to defend themselves against criticism.” This article says that, but doesn’t elaborate. That’s a pretty big claim, and it’s hard to refute because it’s not sourced.
It’s true that the scriptures have gone through a few changes over the years in terms of style and grammer. The original translation had no punctuation even. But I’d like to know what exactly was changed. And then I’d like to adopt what this website asks people to do, consider the circumstances and context of those eledged changes.
Regarding god’s eternal nature. It’s true we believe he has a body of flesh and bone, but it is an exaulted, glorified and perfected body. I’ll have to do a bit of research to discuss god’s origin, but we don’t refute that he is an eternal being. We believe that he came from somewhere, and that, in the far beginning he was much like we are now. As god was, so are we, as god is, so can we become. It’s a perpetual cycle of existence. But God is still eternal. Time is a relative term. As far as we’re concerned, he is perect, and he is eternal. I admit I’m spluttering here a bit. It’s a bit of a grayer area in my religions knowledge, but based on this article I’m going to learn about it.
Whether Jesus is god, who is also Jesus. That’s a fun one. Jesus and God are two separate entities. Jesus – known also as Jahova – is the first born son of the eternal father – Elohim. He is also the only begotten son of lohim in the flesh, born of Mary. Under God’s direction, he created the world. He is also what we believe to be the “lord” God” in the old testament. He says in the new testament that I and the father are one. But he also cals out to his father, prays to his father. And his father once, when Christ is baptised, speaks saying “This is my beloved son, in whom I am wel pleased.” So how can he both? Well, to know Christ, is to know the father. The father and the son are one in purpose, while still being two individual entities. For all intents and purposes, Jesus Christ is God, and nobody gets to the father but through him. We do not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, nor what he suffered for us, and why. We pray to God when we pray, but we do it in the name of Jesus Christ. For all intents and purposes, the two are interchangeable. We also believe he was the only one who could and did live a blameless, sinless life, and the only one who was able to pay the price for our sins on the cross. All of this is spoken of at length in the Book of Mormon, and in many other places throughout our faith. We may have a different idea about the origins or god and man, and our divine destinies, but about Jesus Christ, we are in complete agreement. And we do not deny the trinity of father, son and holy Ghost, just that they are literally one single entity. And really, as a bible reader, I don’t know how the council of Nicea came to that conclusion. As for Lucifer being the brother of Jesus? Sure. He was one of the first spirits, and one of the greatest, at least until his rebellion. In many ways, as we were all spiritual beings, created by God, we are all brothers and sisters. Jesus is also our brother, but also very much our God.
About Christ versus works. We believe Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. No one comes to the father but through him. TO again the highest degree of glory, we must be baptised with water, and with fire –being given the gift of the Holy Ghost.- First and foremost is faith in the lord Jesus Christ. The second is repentence. The third is baptism by water and fire by which we may be born again. But there is also the need to keep God’s commandments. I’ve spoken at great length about this. In short, works alone can not suffice. But faith without works is dead. Were it not so, then anyone who accepted Christ would automatically be forgiven of everythiWhat people forget though is if you truly have a testimony of Jesus Christ, you will most likely be striving to follow his commandments. If he didn’t mean for his commandments to be obeyed, why would he have bothered to bring them up at all during his many sermans? To understand faith versus works, one must understand our view – which is also alluded to in the bible – of what lies beyond mortality. I really need to explain that sometime, because it keeps coming up. But for now, Faith in Jesus Christ is indeed essential for our salvation.
I must actually applaud this article for its use of sitations. It’s innacurate in some areas, but that seems to come from more a misunderstanding of our doctrine than any particular malice. And I agree completely with its words regarding Satan. He is a deceiver. We believe that we are not the ones being deceived, but who knows. That’s a really personal choice. What matters most however is Jesus Christ. If all that is required for salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ fully, then we’re just as saved as any other Christian.
To pray about the truth of things is to receive revelation given to us by God. If you don’t believe in revelation, and really, it’s subjective, then you can’t believe that you can ask God if something is true. But then, how do you know Jesus is real? How do you know the bible is the word of God? We believe the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of these things, and that the Book of Mormon is also the word of God. And again, none of this leads away from Jesus. Should we be frustrated that God has given us even more of his word? Is an additional testament of Jesus Christ such a bad thing?
Even the people whom paul visited came with great eagerness, examining the scriptures to see if they were true. We are told we may ask, and receive an answer if we do so in sincerity.
“Feelings are unreliable because they are subjective, easy to produce, and are not meant to discover facts but to tell us how we feel about facts. Psychological persuasion techniques, intensity, eye contact, or mere desire can produce feelings that feel real because they are real! But real feelings are still just letting us know how we are reacting to something, not the truthfulness of that thing.” Well yes, I can attest to the truthfulness of that, as can we all.
Joseph smith’s speaking of the plurality of God’s extends to beyond Our God’s sphere in ways I don’t know enough about to comment. But what I do know is as far as we on this earth are concerned, there is only one God, and one God’s son. If there are other gods in other spheres of the universe, they are not even vaguely our concern. Jesus and his father are the only ones hwo matter. We are not polytheists as far as I understand the term.
Remy, THIS is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of WHAT RESULTS in putting trust in our OWN ATTEMPTS to understand GOD'S INERRENT, INSPIRED WORD through OUR OWN FLAWED UNDERSTANDING, to where, as YOU mentioned, the "MORMON" book had to be TWEEKED, RE-ADJUSTED, and WHATEVER, JUST to ONCE AGAIN, UNSUCCESSFULLY BLEND with GOD'S ETERNAL WORD that NEVER HAS, ISN'T NOW, nor will EVER be changed, which defines INFALLIBILITY.
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Are Jesus and Satan brothers?"
Answer: No, Jesus and Satan are not brothers. Jesus is God, and Satan is one of His creations. Not only are Jesus and Satan not brothers, they are as different as night is from day. Jesus is God incarnate—eternal, all-knowing, and all-powerful, while Satan is a fallen angel that was created by God for God’s purposes. The teaching that Jesus and Satan are “spirit brothers” is one of the many false teachings of the Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) and, to some degree, also the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both of these groups are properly labeled as cults because they deny essential Christian doctrine. While they use Christian terms such as Jesus, God, and salvation, they have heretical views and teachings on the most basic and essential Christian doctrines. (Please note that most Mormons today will vehemently deny that they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. However, this teaching was most definitely a belief of the early Mormons.)
The teaching that Jesus and Satan are “spirit brothers” is born out of the Mormons’ misunderstanding and distortion of Scripture as well as some of the extra-biblical teachings they consider to be authoritative. Simply put, there is no way you can read the Bible using any type of sound hermeneutical principles and come away with the idea that Jesus and Satan are “spiritual brothers.” The Scriptures are very clear that Jesus is fully God, not some type of lesser god as the Mormons and other cults believe. The Scriptures are also very clear that God is transcendent above His creation, which simply means that there is no comparison between Christ the Creator and Satan His creation.
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the first “spirit child” born to God the Heavenly Father with one of his many wives. Instead of acknowledging Jesus as the one true God, they believe He became God, just as they will one day become gods. According to Mormon doctrine, as the first of the “spirit children” of God, Jesus had preeminence over Satan or Lucifer, who was the second “son of God” and the “spirit brother” of Jesus. It is ironic that they will use Colossians 1:15 as one of their “proof texts,” because it says that “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Yet they ignore verse 16, where we see that “By [Christ] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth. Visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. ALL THINGS were created through Him and for Him.” All things—thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers—includes Satan and his demons.
In order to believe that Satan and Jesus are “spiritual brothers,” one must deny the clear teaching of Scripture. Scripture says that it was Jesus Christ who created all things and that, as the second Person of the triune Godhead, Christ is fully and uniquely God. Jesus claimed to be God in many passages of Scripture. In John 10:30 Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” Jesus was not claiming to be another, lesser god. He was declaring that He was fully God. In John 1:1–5 it is clear that Jesus was not a created being and that He Himself created all things. “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:3). How much clearer can it get? “All things” means what it says, and it includes Satan, who as an angel was himself a created being just like the other angels and demons are. Scripture reveals Satan to be a fallen angel who rebelled against God and Jesus to be God. The only relationship that exists between Satan and Jesus is that of creation and Creator; of the sinful created being, Satan, and the righteous Judge, Jesus Christ.
Like the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses also teach that Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers. While some Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses might sometimes try to sidestep this teaching because it is so antithetical to what the Bible actually says, it is nevertheless what these organizations believe and is part of their official doctrine.
Mormons believe that, not only were Jesus and Lucifer “spirit children of Elohim,” but that humans are spiritual children, as well. In other words, they believe that “God, angels, and men are all of the same species, one race, one great family.” This is why they believe that they themselves will one day become as much of a god as Jesus or even God the Father. Rather than seeing the clear distinction in Scripture between God and His creation, they believe that one day they will be a gods themselves. Of course, this is the same old lie Satan has been telling us since the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:15). Apparently, the desire to usurp the throne of God is endemic in the hearts of men.
In Matthew 16:15 Jesus asked the important question: “But who do you say that I am?” This is a question that is essential to salvation and one that the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses get wrong. Their answer that Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan is the wrong one. Jesus is God the Son, and in Him the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily (Colossians 2:9). He created Satan, and one day He will cast Satan into the lake of fire as the just punishment for his rebellion against God. Sadly, on that Day of Judgment those who fall for Satan’s lies will also be cast into the lake of fire with Satan and His demons. The god of the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the God who revealed Himself in Scripture. Unless these groups repent and come to understand and worship the one true God, they have no hope of salvation.
Recommended Resources: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons by Ron Rhodes and Logos Bible Software."
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Who was Joseph Smith?"
Answer: Joseph Smith is widely known as the founder of the Mormon Church, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Joseph Smith from an early age was thought to have certain occult powers. He was known at a young age as a seer and reportedly used a seer stone to tell him where he could find such precious metals as silver. Both he and his father were known “treasure seekers” and used divination and magic to carry out treasure-seeking excursions. This, of course, brought him a name and a reputation. To this day, he is considered by some a saint and by others a complete charlatan.
Joseph Smith grew up during a time of spiritual revival in America known as restorationism. It was at this time, 1820, that Joseph Smith claimed to have received a marvelous vision in which God the Father and God the Son materialized and spoke to him as he was praying in the woods. He reportedly said that the two “personages” took a rather dim view of the Christian church and, for that matter, the world at large and announced that a restoration of Christianity was needed and that Smith had been chosen to launch the new dispensation. Since its beginnings until the present day, the Mormon Church holds the position that they alone represent true Christianity (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670).
Mormon leaders have consistently taught that, after the death of the apostles, true Christianity had fallen into complete apostasy, making a “restoration” necessary (1 Nephi 13:28, Articles of Faith, p. 182-185). But, even after the supposed heavenly visitation, Joseph Smith and friends continued to dig for treasure using occult methods. These methods were illegal in that day, and Smith was convicted of “glasslooking” in 1826. But, before that conviction in Chenango County, New York, the new “prophet of the Lord” continued to stir up controversy with yet another amazing close encounter with heaven. In 1823, Smith claimed to have been contacted by an angel named Moroni, who revealed that there were golden plates at a certain location near Palmyra, New York. On the golden plates was a history of an ancient man named Mormon and his fabled ancient Hebrew tribe. These plates were said to be a new revelation, “another witness” to the truth of the Christian gospel. It is recorded in Mormon historical documents that the angel provided Smith with special spectacles needed to help him translate the writings from the golden plates. It was also reported that during the translation, the man who was helping him had the privilege of having John the Baptist, accompanied by Peter, James, and John, come to Pennsylvania on that day of May 15, 1829, to confer upon the men the “Aaronic Priesthood.” These and other amazing stories are recorded in Smith’s book Pearl of Great Price.
Joseph Smith claimed to have special visions and an incredible opening up of heaven to him (Joseph Smith – History 1:17). But a statement signed by sixty-two residents of Palmyra, New York, who wanted others to know that they had known him, his family, his beliefs, and his occult excursions to find treasure, declared him to be “entirely destitute of moral character and addicted to vicious habits.” Yet Smith claimed to be God’s mouthpiece, and, when he spoke, he claimed that God was speaking. This powerful position was taken seriously by many followers, and, when Smith had a vision it was to be taken seriously, no matter if it flew in the face of Christian moral standards. His new “revelation from God” on polygamy is but one example.
Popular or not, Smith’s pronouncements “from God” took him quite a ways for quite a few years. His highly imaginative stories always read like science fiction, mixing and twisting biblical truth with imagination. He was always careful to imitate biblical truth, and many times he rewrites the Bible. To many, his theology is a twisted mirror image of real theology. It tempts by using a smattering of the real thing, the things that people know as Bible truth.
Joseph Smith met his end at the hands of an angry mob. Having attempted to quiet the polygamy issue after the church had settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Smith and his followers destroyed an anti-Mormon newspaper building and consequently were arrested and in a jail awaiting trial. The jail was stormed by an angry mob of two hundred people and Joseph Smith and his brother were murdered. After his untimely death, there was a split in the “church.” The church Smith established remains centralized today both in Missouri (the Community of Christ—RLDS) and in Utah, where many Mormons had followed their new leader, Brigham Young.
(Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)
Recommended Resources: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Mormons by Ron Rhodes and Logos Bible Software."
Remy, I'd like to challenge one thing, and thanks for entertaining my posts, rambly as they are at times.
Instead of asking the question "Why does god allow ...":
We really ought to ask whether it's likely that a god *would* allow x or y.
Consider the classical Christian free will position. Leaving aside some of the latest findings regarding neural responses. Free will came into use somewhere between the 10th century and the reformation, Cody maybe you can tighten that up. At any rate, this free will argument was not a foregone conclusion in any of the Abrahamic faiths.
But in modern evangelical Christianity at least, free will is sort of a sacred cow. At least free will in this life. The next one you're in one of two places, presumably your will no longer applies. Leaving aside C. S. Lewis's controversial but well-loved work "The Great Divorce".
So the free will of the abuser surpasses the condition of the abused to the point that for lack of a better term, the abused is serving as collateral damage for the benefit of the abuser.
The question I asked, was not "Why does God allow," but "Would a god allow?" Different question, different implications. I know the former is asked by all the Atheism Plus kids now, millennials who never read the likes of Robert G. Ingersoll and David Hume.
The reason that question phrased correctly is so important, from a moral objectivist point of view is this: If greater reasoning coupled with greater capacity to discipline one's emotions equals greater moral and ethical choices, the resulting formula doesn't leave you with a god capable of using some of its sentient creation as collateral damage for the benefit of the *idea* of free will of the other party.
A god with greater logical ability, greater control of its emotions, and better reasoning skills would clearly do better, not worse, than we do.
Remy, as a father you're going to get tired of saying this, but someday you'll tell your children something like: "If you need to justify it, don't do it." If an action needs a lot of tap-dancing rings of apologetics around it to justify it, that action is probably less than ethical. The classical Christian response might look something like: "God needs no apologetics, we simply use that to better understand him."
Here's the problem with that: Greater, smarter, better beings by definition have the capacity to use language and methods to explain things to "lesser" beings. It is the particularly inadequate and incompetent who cannot do so and must resort to "talking shop" or refrain from explanations.
It isn't so much that we're "owed" an explanation, as the evangelicals claim atheists state, and yes, as many of the Atheism Plsus millennials do in fact state. What is true is that a higher being, if it existed, would actually be providing the explanations for how things work and the why behind the prohibitions. Because in doing so, it doesn't only get compliance to that particular prohibition. It actually gets compliance to a whole set of prohibitions and ethical and social constraints without having to spell each one out.
Now if we understand this god is a product of its era, and it was created by people from a specific geographic region, then that god becomes suddenly a lot more understandable.
Now if someone starts with the premise that authority and not reason is the basis for any ethical constraints, you've got a completely relativistic system like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, where ethical constraints are not in and of themselves valid, they are so because the god said so.
Since so many brilliant post-enlightenment minds exist within the various sects of Christianity, an attempt has been made to marry the two. A valiant attempt, if I say so myself, even if I am unconvinced.
Anyway Remy, I admire your courage in these responses, because I respect people who are not so ideologically hidebound that they are willing to engage in an open discussion, ask the tough questions, bring on the tough answers. Oh, and the fearful and hidebound are not only found among the Christians. No, not even among religious people. There are plenty of dogmatic types in the secular humanist movements which I'm not part of but I do run into, who are equally dogmatic and fundamentalist. And I remain as unconvinced of there arguments as I am those presented by the websites Terrance quotes from.
Terrence, I can't say anything I haven’t already said about our beliefs in Jesus also being God. I’ve explained it to you, and you’ve done a rebuttal. As for Joseph Smith, there’s a whole lot said about him. And there’s a lot of testimony from other people, also who knew him who would attest to his character in a positive light. Simply put, there’s a lot of stuff said about him to cast him and thus our church in a negative light. There’s some of that we even agree with. He’s not perfect. He had faults. But we must judge our findings of him for ourselves. I notice this article is more than willing to slander him, but not to go in depth or provide any external sources of iits claims. I’ve heard them all before mind, and I’ve heard things to the contrary. Who is right will be an answer for individuals to make based on the information available. But it was said that the name of Joseph Smith would be used for much good, and much evil. And so it has indeed been.
Leo, oh Leo. Your posts often leave me feeling way out of my depth – and I don’t necessarily mean that in a bad way. You certainly make me use the ol’ imperfect noggin. Lert’s see if I can tackle this one.
I think I’m going to need some clarity here, as you’re undoubtedly more learned than I.
First, what neural responses are you speaking of that would have to do with free will? I really enjoy learning about the brain, and its implications in spiritual matters.
Regarding free will, I can’t speak to how the idea came about in what century, except to say that as our species continues to grow and progress, a lot of our ideas start changing too. Free will as I understand it from an LDS perspective always existed for us, from the pre-existance where we lived as spiritual beings with God, to the fall of Adam and Eve which I voer in the sin topic, all the way to Jesus, and beyond, all the way through eternity. Simply put, we believe free will ever has and ever will exist, yes, even in the beyond, that being the “heaven/hell state, and the eternity that comes beyond that state.
You said” So the free will of the abuser surpasses the condition of the abused to the point that for lack of a better term, the abused is serving as collateral damage for the benefit of the abuser.l” Are you saying that the abused – the victim in a situation – has their free will encroached upon by the free will of the abusor? If so, I suppose I can agree with that. When we do harm, when we rape, murder etc, we are in essence stripping opportunity from the victim, up to and including their very lives. I guess you could call that collateral damage? I don’t think I’m understanding that right though.
God does give us free will to act as we will. Would a being of love and compassion, such as that which I believe God to be, allow, in his love, bad things to happen? Well, if there is a god, than obviously he does, and he would. I think the real question, again if there is a god, is not does and would, but “why” does he or would he? Why does allow the wicked sometimes to thrive, and the righteous to suffer? Why allow a woman to be raped, or a baby to be splattered across a speeding bus? Why doesn’t God just stop all the pain an dmissery. Is this sort of what you’re getting at? If so, I think I’ve sort of covered that, but we can delve deeper if you like. If I’m way off track, as I suspect, not being a philosopher, can you try to clarify?
The need to justify our actions does indeed often seem to be linked to unethical behaviour. I did this because. In the LDS church, it’s usually said that if you have to ask whether something you’re doing is wrong, it’s probably best just not to do it. Now, children often ask “why”. Why can’t I do this, or that. They want a reason. As a Christian, I totally get that. I hate “because god said so”. I want a reason. As a father, I want to be able to give reasons to my children when they ask, rather than just laying down the law, so to speak. I often consider the parent child relationship when talking of God, because he is our “father”. We are his children. He has given us a lot of reasons why we should refrain from behaving in certain ways. We might not accept those reasons. We might think they don’t apply to us. I’ve felt that way before. But there are reasons. But sometimes God has given us commandments which we may not understand right away. I think of my church’s word of Wisdom. It’s a health commandment, commanding us to refrain from certain substances, such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs and certain hot drinks. It also gives us a guide on what we should do, and should eat to keep healthy. There wasn’t a whole lot of knowledge about the ill affects of certain substances back in the time this commandment came about. Smoking and alcohol were pretty common place. People’s lives were already pretty active I’d wager. But now, when we know better about the dangers of Booze, drugs, cigarettes and, certain foods and the dangers of not taking care of our bodies, that old commandment starts making a whole lot more sense. So I think, everything in its time.
But sometimes you just can’t explain your reasons to a child in a way they will completely understand. The thing is, sometimes you do just have to say “because I said so”. My daughter has no idea why I’m telling her not to walk on the back of the couch, or to not touch the hot stove, even when I try explaining it to her. And so sometimes I have to be firm, still loving of course, but firm in my negation. Someday, though I hope not, she may fall off that couch, or brush up against that hot element. I’ll be sad for her if that happens. I’ll comfort her and tend to her wounds, and I will hope that the experience will have taught her the why. Now of course, when she’s over, she’ll have a greater understanding of that hot stove. She’ll use it to cook, and a whole new set of how tos, whys, why nots and whens will come into place. And so I believe it is with us, and God. But why he lets others be affected by our actions, that I don’t think we really know beyond what I’ve already said.
Remy, what they have now measured is the way the brain responds during decision making. I'm not very proficient on neurology, but basically the parts of the brain that light up when you decide something apparently light up in a particular direction before you're cognizant enough to say this is what you have decided. Even selecting nonethical options, like the blue one or the green one.
What I meant by collateral was that in the economy of free will, the suffering of the victim seems to be collateral damage, or a fair tradeoff, for the abuser's free will.
Now this doesn't seem logical to me.; As a father myself, I superimposed my daughter's free will all the time. We all do it. But especially parents with multiple kids. When the kids start fighting, the parents often intervene and make them quit that, especially if they're headed towards hurting one another. Failure to do so would be negligent parenting.
And this is where, instead of asking why God doesn't intervene, my moral objecttivist framework finds that there must in all likelihood not be any god involved at all. Otherwise, that god would do at least as much as we parents do when dealing with multiple kids be they siblings or our own kid plus friends, or nieces and nephews. The reality is, we place the child's free will second to their personal safety, and certainly second to the safety of another child. We don't even allow that child the free will of pulling the cat's ears and tail.
Any moral higher being would at least do as much as we do in that department. That is why, unlike the Atheism Plus kids, I don't ask the question Why does God allow it. I merely find that if there was a god, that god most certainly would not allow it, in the same way that we do not allow our kids to hurt each other.
You've probably heard recently about the Duggar situation. What's so aggregious from a parenting standpoint is that the parents never properly managed Josh Duggar once they found out. As soon as you know, when you're the responsible adult, you are responsible for doing something about it.
Presumably, working that same equation up as many notches as it takes to get to a god standpoint, as soon as the god knows -- which presumably except for open theism -- is before the event, then that god is now responsible for stopping the one human from damaging the other. That doesn't make the god responsible for the human's actions directly, only for its own action or inaction to rectify. If you delay after knowing, you can be in trouble with the law. Certainly in trouble with your highly evolved conscience, a part of yourself that despite your scriptures' claim can be seared, you really cannot escape.
This is how the moral objectivist outlook leads me to the lack of evidence, rather than asking why the god allows this or that.
C. S. Lewis is totally wrong and backwards in his "The Problem Of Pain" because he starts with the Santa Claus trope, rather than the character of the most powerful and wise, and thereby responsible, party.
Returning to the Duggar incident: The parents aren't responsible for his initial molestations. But they are indeed responsible for further molestations after they did not properly intervene. We hold them to that standard not because we feel like it. Not because it feels good to us, or because it seems right. We do so because it objectively makes sense to do so, and we cannot escape objective reality.
Now if you're open to the concept of open theism, where the god doesn't know what choice someone will make ahead of time, that system has some moral plausibility which the typical Christian doctrine does not. We still have the problem of not intervening after the fact, something that in all likelihood wouldn't happen if there was a supreme moral and objectively rational agent.
I don't know if your church allows for open theism or not. Since evangelical Christianity is so splintered, and like Islam it doesn't have a central head, there are places and people who embrace this position while others consider it heresy.
The site is OpenTheism.org
It doesn't answer the whole argument, of course, but at least answers the preemptive strike aspect which an objective analysis demands an answer.
I'm not a postmodern or an atheism plus, so as a pragmatist, I could imagine a deity where you have open theism plus the added limitation where it cannot interfere between two active parties. "Will not" does not seem plausible from an objectively ethical sense, as it defeats a lot of principles regarding the relationship between hierarchy and responsibility that are implied with any set of hierarchies. But can not, that's an entirely separate matter, and while probably damnable heresy to many Christians would make objective sense.
The system we now have renders human parents, uman police officers and other humans in authoritative capacity far more ethical than the deity only because they are taking responsibility for the situation where their charges start damaging one another.
I hope this helps differentiate my approach from the commonly-cited "Why does God allow" approach which you hear from so many contemporary popular atheist writers. For the curious, you might try reading a bit of Bertrand Russell, some of his stuff might be in the public domain. He doesn't have my admittedly red-blooded American pragmatism, but I think he's really solid. His background is philosophy, unlike mine being engineering, so our perspectives are quite different.
I love how theological debates always seem to go into detailed discussions of
nurology and philosophy, subjects I'd assume none of us know anything about. I
just find it humorous that christians claim to have direct contact with an all
knowing, all powerful, all loving being, and yet they have to dance in circles and
jump through hoops and try to argue about subconscious identities and all kinds
of bumbojumbo they don't understand. I really can't wrap my head around such
an idea. That in and of itself would make me not believe in god. If I had to do
so many backflips in order to justify my beliefs, I'd take it on principle that my
beliefs were wrong.
That’s very interesting about the brain Leo. It’s almost like the brain knows in advance what’s to be done. I don’t know enough about the biology of that, but I don’t see it as a testament for or against free will. Though it’s true that people’s brains can be guided, by various methods, to make certain decisions. The brain though is a biological organ. What happens to it, while perhaps decreasing our capacity for free will, isn’t God taking it away.
I can’t deny the wisdom in your collateral damage idea. You’re not wrong. People excersize their free will and hurt someone, someone else gets damaged. If there were ever any reason to question god, that would be it, on behalf of others who didn’t ask to deal with what they got. I don’t know if I really have an answer to satisfy you there. I have explanations, and can find more. But no matter the reason, it’s still a real raw deal when it happens to someone. Knowing reasons, even accepting reasons doesn’t make that suck any less.
I can agree with your parenting analogy regarding children hurting each otherdda Even though there are some parents who would encourage one child to “hit back”. I don’t find that much of a solution myself. The thing is though, God does intervene at times. A lot of what happens in the scriptures is a direct result of God intervening on his children’s behalf against people who would do them harm, after first giving a lot of warning. Individual Christians too could give you plenty of examples where they’ve felt that god intervened on their behalf. Whether you believe such stories, or whether there’s any marrit to them is up for debate of course. The real question isn’t why doesn’t god intervene, because there are times, great and small, where he does, either directly or indirectly. The real question I think is why doesn’t he intervene all the time? Why doesn’t he intervene during times of exceeding torment for his children. I can give you all the answers I’ve already given about opposition, empathy, strengthening, the testifying of the innocent against the wicked at the last day. But all of that doesn’t stop people from getting hurt, or make the pain they or their loved ones go through any easier to bare. Actually, sometimes, believe it or not, it does. Christ is there to comfort those who seek comfort in such times. Such reasons can often provide comfort, even forgiveness and peace to the victim, or those close to the victim. In that way, the scriptures, whether they are true or not, act as a coping mechanism. But none of this changes the fact that bad things do still happen to “good” people. And the why rarely comforts.
I hadn’t heard about the Dugger situation until I looked it up just now. If nothing else, it gives marrit to what I’ve been saying about sexual sin though. I don’t know how much the parents knew or how long they knew, but yes, if you find out something like that, you do something about it. Don’t think anyone would disagree. And yes, there was collateral damage there too, and you can see the result of that. Again it begs the the difficult question of why God intereferes only sometimes.
What do you mean Leo about the conscience being seered, and how the scriptures contradict that?
About God’s knowledge of our actions. As I understand it – and I could perhaps be wrong – God does know our actions ahead of time. Were that not so, it would certainly make things easier. There are times I wonder about just how much he knows. I know as far as the world itself goes, he knows the end from the beginning. It’s already been planned out, and will all come to pass as he knows it. But what about the little people, the small things that happen? Does god know them all before they happen? There is a saying in our church. Many are called, but few are chosen. God has plans for us all. He calls us all to do certain things in our lives, but many do not accept. Many turn away. So why would he call us, knowing that would happen? I really don’t know. On one hand, we are taught that god does not interfere with free will. I don’t think his intervening dispels that notion. But then, why interfere at all? You know, I feel like I need to look into all this a bit more, as it’s raised some interesting theological questions. I have a feeling that this may fall under the category of things I won’t have all the answers to in this life, but you never know. If nothing else, I’d like to have some more concrete things to defend my faith with. But for now, Leo, you’ve got me.:)
From www.gotquestions.org: Question: "Why does God allow evil?"
Answer: The Bible describes God as holy (Isaiah 6:3), righteous (Psalm 7:11), just (Deuteronomy 32:4), and sovereign (Daniel 4:17-25). These attributes tell us the following about God: (1) God is capable of preventing evil, and (2) God desires to rid the universe of evil. So, if both of these are true, why does God allow evil? If God has the power to prevent evil and desires to prevent evil, why does He still allow evil? Perhaps a practical way to look at this question would be to consider some alternative ways people might have God run the world:
1) God could change everyone’s personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be “programmed” to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.
Instead, God made Adam and Eve innocent but with the ability to choose good or evil. Because of this, they could respond to His love and trust Him or choose to disobey. They chose to disobey. Because we live in a real world where we can choose our actions but not their consequences, their sin affected those who came after them (us). Similarly, our decisions to sin have an impact on us and those around us and those who will come after us.
2) God could compensate for people’s evil actions through supernatural intervention 100 percent of the time. God would stop a drunk driver from causing an automobile accident. God would stop a lazy construction worker from doing a substandard job on a house that would later cause grief to the homeowners. God would stop a father who is addicted to drugs or alcohol from doing any harm to his wife, children, or extended family. God would stop gunmen from robbing convenience stores. God would stop high school bullies from tormenting the brainy kids. God would stop thieves from shoplifting. And, yes, God would stop terrorists from flying airplanes into buildings.
While this solution sounds attractive, it would lose its attractiveness as soon as God’s intervention infringed on something we wanted to do. We want God to prevent horribly evil actions, but we are willing to let “lesser-evil” actions slide—not realizing that those “lesser-evil” actions are what usually lead to the “greater-evil” actions. Should God only stop actual sexual affairs, or should He also block our access to pornography or end any inappropriate, but not yet sexual, relationships? Should God stop “true” thieves, or should He also stop us from cheating on our taxes? Should God only stop murder, or should He also stop the “lesser-evil” actions done to people that lead them to commit murder? Should God only stop acts of terrorism, or should He also stop the indoctrination that transformed a person into a terrorist?
3) Another choice would be for God to judge and remove those who choose to commit evil acts. The problem with this possibility is that there would be no one left, for God would have to remove us all. We all sin and commit evil acts (Romans 3:23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8). While some people are more evil than others, where would God draw the line? Ultimately, all evil causes harm to others.
Instead of these options, God has chosen to create a “real” world in which real choices have real consequences. In this real world of ours, our actions affect others. Because of Adam’s choice to sin, the world now lives under the curse, and we are all born with a sin nature (Romans 5:12). There will one day come a time when God will judge the sin in this world and make all things new, but He is purposely “delaying” in order to allow more time for people to repent so that He will not need to condemn them (2 Peter 3:9). Until then, He IS concerned about evil. When He created the Old Testament laws, the goal was to discourage and punish evil. He judges nations and rulers who disregard justice and pursue evil. Likewise, in the New Testament, God states that it is the government’s responsibility to provide justice in order to protect the innocent from evil (Romans 13). He also promises severe consequences for those who commit evil acts, especially against the "innocent" (Mark 9:36-42).
In summary, we live in a real world where our good and evil actions have direct consequences and indirect consequences upon us and those around us. God’s desire is that for all of our sakes we would obey Him that it might be well with us (Deuteronomy 5:29). Instead, what happens is that we choose our own way, and then we blame God for not doing anything about it. Such is the heart of sinful man. But Jesus came to change men’s hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit, and He does this for those who will turn from evil and call on Him to save them from their sin and its consequences (2 Corinthians 5:17). God does prevent and restrain some acts of evil. This world would be MUCH WORSE were not God restraining evil. At the same time, God has given us the ability to choose good and evil, and when we choose evil, He allows us, and those around us, to suffer the consequences of evil. Rather than blaming God and questioning God on why He does not prevent all evil, we should be about the business of proclaiming the cure for evil and its consequences—Jesus Christ!
Recommended Resources: If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question by Norman Geisler and Logos Bible Software.
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Does God sometimes use evil to accomplish His plans (Habakkuk 1:5-11)?"
Answer: Habakkuk 1:5-11 is a prophecy in which God relates His intention to raise up Babylon, a “ruthless” and “dreaded” nation, to achieve His purpose. This raises the question, Does God sometimes use evil to accomplish His plans?
There is an important distinction to be made between God controlling evil and God creating evil. God is not the author of sin, but He can use sinful men to attain an objective. Romans 8:28 says, “For those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” “All things” includes both good and bad things. God can use struggles, heartbreaks and tragedies in ways to bring about His glory and our good. Such events, even though we don’t understand the reason for them, are part of His perfect, divine plan. If God could not control evil, He would not be God. His sovereignty demands that He be in control of everything, even “dreaded” nations such as Babylon.
At the same time, the Bible is clear that God does not sin and He performs no evil. James 1:13 teaches, “God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” Deuteronomy 32:4 says, “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice” (see also 2 Samuel 22:31; Psalm 18:30; and Matthew 5:48).
The problem in Habakkuk is that God was using the Babylonians (an evil people) to accomplish His will. Our wise and perfect God can and sometimes does use the sin already existing in our world to fulfill His purpose. The perfect example of this is Jesus’ crucifixion: the murder of Christ was an evil act, but through it God redeemed His elect and “disarmed the [demonic] powers and authorities” (Colossians 2:15). In Habakkuk’s day, God’s purpose was to bring judgment on Judah for their idolatry. Babylon was the instrument of His judgment (cf. Isaiah 10:5).
God’s revelation caused Habakkuk to then ask how God could use a nation wickeder than Judah to judge Judah (1:12-2:1). God’s response was a promise that He would later punish Babylon as well (2:2-20). In the end, Habakkuk could only acknowledge the Lord’s perfect wisdom; the prophet ends with a song of praise in chapter 3.
We may struggle with questions about God’s methods as Habakkuk did. How God chooses to operate is up to Him. At times, He intervenes miraculously. Other times, He works behind the scenes. And, yes, God may even allow a certain measure of freedom to evil forces in our world to bring about His design. Like Habakkuk, if we view life from God’s perspective, our response will be to worship the Lord, knowing He is in control of all things.
Recommended Resources: Holman Old Testament Commentary: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah by Trent Butler and Logos Bible Software."
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "Did God create evil?"
Answer: At first it might seem that if God created all things, then evil must have been created by God. However, evil is not a “thing” like a rock or electricity. You cannot have a jar of evil. Evil has no existence of its own; it is really the absence of good. For example, holes are real but they only exist in something else. We call the absence of dirt a hole, but it cannot be separated from the dirt. So when God created, it is true that all He created was good. One of the good things God made was creatures who had the freedom to choose good. In order to have a real choice, God had to allow there to be something besides good to choose. So, God allowed these free angels and humans to choose good or reject good (evil). When a bad relationship exists between two good things we call that evil, but it does not become a “thing” that required God to create it.
Perhaps a further illustration will help. If a person is asked, “Does cold exist?” the answer would likely be “yes.” However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist; it is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good.
God did not create evil, but He does allow evil. If God had not allowed for the possibility of evil, both mankind and angels would be serving God out of obligation, not choice. He did not want “robots” that simply did what He wanted them to do because of their “programming.” God allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a free will and choose whether or not we wanted to serve Him.
As finite human beings, we can never fully understand an infinite God (Romans 11:33-34). Sometimes we think we understand why God is doing something, only to find out later that it was for a different purpose than we originally thought. God looks at things from a holy, eternal perspective. We look at things from a sinful, earthly, and temporal perspective. Why did God put man on earth knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore bring evil, death, and suffering on all mankind? Why didn’t He just create us all and leave us in heaven where we would be perfect and without suffering? These questions cannot be adequately answered this side of eternity. What we can know is whatever God does is holy and perfect and ultimately will glorify Him. God allowed for the possibility of evil in order to give us a true choice in regards to whether we worship Him. God did not create evil, but He allowed it. If He had not allowed evil, we would be worshipping Him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own will.
Recommended Resources: If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question by Norman Geisler and Logos Bible Software."
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "What is the definition of evil?"
Answer: Evil is what is morally wrong, sinful, or wicked. Evil is the result of bad actions stemming from a bad character. Biblically, evil is anything that contradicts the holy nature of God (see Psalm 51:4). Evil behavior can be thought of as falling into two categories: evil committed against other people (murder, theft, adultery) and evil committed against God (unbelief, idolatry, blasphemy). From the disobedience in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9) to the wickedness of Babylon the Great (Revelation 18:2), the Bible speaks of the existence of evil.
For many centuries Christians have struggled with both the existence and the nature of evil. Most people would acknowledge that evil is real and has always had devastating effects on our world. From the sexual abuse of children to the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11, evil continues to rear its ugly head in our own time. Many people are left wondering what exactly is evil and why does it exist.
The existence of evil has been used as a weapon by opponents of theism—and Christian theism in particular—for some time. The so-called “problem of evil” has been the subject of various arguments by atheists in an attempt to demonstrate that a God who is good simply cannot exist. By implying that God must be the creator of evil, God’s holy character has been called into question. There have been many arguments used to indict God as the cause of evil. Here is one of them:
1) God is the creator of everything that exists.
2) Evil exists.
3) Therefore, God is the creator of evil.
The logic of this syllogism is sound. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. But does this syllogism demonstrate that God is the creator of evil? The problem with this argument is its second premise, that evil is something. For evil is not a thing; it is a lack or privation of a good thing that God made. As Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland has noted, “Evil is a lack of goodness. It is goodness spoiled. You can have good without evil, but you cannot have evil without good.”
Goodness has existed as an attribute of God from all eternity. While God is perfectly holy and just, He is also perfectly good. Just as God has always existed, so too has goodness as it is a facet of God’s holy character. The same cannot be said for evil. Evil came into being with the rebellion of Satan and subsequently entered the physical universe with the fall of Adam. As Christian apologist Greg Koukl has said, “Human freedom was used in such a way as to diminish goodness in the world, and that diminution, that lack of goodness, that is what we call evil.” When God created Adam, He created him good, and He also created him free.
However, in creating Adam free, God indirectly created the possibility of evil, while not creating evil itself. When Adam chose to disobey God, he made this possibility a reality. The same scenario had previously played out when Satan fell by failing to serve and obey God. So it turns out that evil is not a direct creation of God; rather, evil is the result of persons (both angelic and human) exercising their freedom wrongly.
While evil is certainly real, it is important to recognize that evil does not have existence in and of itself. Rather, it only exists as a privation (or a parasite) on the good. It exists in the same way that a wound exists on an arm or as rust exists on a car. The rust cannot exist on its own any more than cold can exist without the existence of heat or darkness can exist without the existence of light.
Despite the horrible effects of evil on our world, the Christian believer can take comfort in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ recorded for us in the Gospel of John, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). More importantly, we look forward with great anticipation to our home in heaven where the ultimate evil, death, will finally be destroyed along with the “mourning, crying and pain” which it inevitably produces (Revelation 21:4).
Recommended Resources: If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think about the Question by Norm Geisler and Logos Bible Software."
Those were actually some interesting articles, Terrence. I don't really have anything to say about those. I will say though that, according to our beliefs, the world in which we all served out of obligation is exactly the kind of World Satan would have brought about if given the chance. I think what leo was getting at is the unfairness of people who have had evil enacted upon them suffering as a result of someone's free will. I'll be curious to see what people say about these articles.
There's a lot I'd like to touch on here so hopefully I'll be able to cover it all.
Although this question is unrelated to the topic at hand, I'm curious what's so terrifying about brain surgery to you, Greg? Surgery is surgery, and with any surgery comes great risk.
Regarding the fact that some people feel God has abandoned them, the truth is that God never abandons us--we may of course abandon him, though. I did for a time, because I felt as most atheists seem to feel, wondering why God would make people go through some of the things they're forced to endure. However, just as a loving parent would punish us for doing something wrong, so too does God punish us when we've disobeyed him in some way. This does not mean that people deserve what happens to them, but simply that God is working while those people are hurting, grieving, denying him or whatever else the case may be. Maybe those people will grow after a tragedy/traumatic experience they endured, maybe they'll learn more about themselves through that tragedy/traumatic event than they ever could've imagined possible, maybe they won't gain or learn anything, but their community will come together and help with whatever their needs are. Either way, the reality is that although we may not understand why God allows certain things to happen, there is a reason why they do.
For example, when I had my most recent brain surgery, I didn't feel God was there for me at the time. I felt I was all alone, even moreso when I had to be direct with the hospital staff and try to articulate to them that I needed them to be my support system because I couldn't count on anyone besides them. Eventually they did, which I was very grateful for. However, you still ask where God was in my time of need? He was right there, quietly working while I second-guessed his existence, while I begged him to take me to Heaven, then wondered why he wouldn't heed that request, while I asked why I was going through such hell before surgery, as well as after surgery. He was there, waiting for me to come out of the hell to the other side, the side of growth, of character-building, of loving him more than I ever have before and eagerly yearning to publicly proclaim Him as my savior.
That being said, God wasn't good because I wanted him to be--he was good because, plane and simple, that is His nature.
for the curious, my daughter told me about a book "God and the Gay Christian" by Matthew Vines. This is one she's read recently. It explains the difference between what was proscribed in the Bible and what modern gay or bi loving relationships represent.
Obviously as an atheist I have a different view, cities like Sodom and Gomorrah in that region ought to have left us archeological evidence for one thing. Especially that destruction that is described like a volcano (Pompeii anyone?) But he's a gay Christian pastor and provides Christian, not secular arguments for gay relationships, and explains the meanings of words as they were originally written.
I haven't read it, she was just explaining some of this to me today. To be honest I probably won't as she says he doesn't address the archeological issue of Sodom and Gomorrah, it seems some people's pet passage on the topic.
Anyhow, for the questioning or curious, you might want to check his book out. She says it's unapologetically Christian, he's not writing to us atheists.
I can tell by how she talks that she's spent a lot of time on this issue. She would tell you it has strengthened her faith. I'll take that on face value, there's no way I could make sense of that one. But she's certainly a lot more confident.
Hmmm, that really would be an interesting book to read.
WELL, as a QUICK-JUMP back to the MAIN TOPIC, THIS is from a site that I hadn't read the URL OF, but is DEFINITELY TRUSTED as INFALLIBLY ACCURATE, as far as its SOLID GROUND, BIBLICALLY, called: "AMERICANS FOR TRUTH ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY."
The Agenda: GLBTQ & Activist Groups
Next Page »
Target Corporation Backs Radical ‘Equality Act’ (HR 3185) – aka ‘Criminalizing Christianity Act’
Friday, November 20th, 2015
Retail giant stands proudly with anti-Christian homosexual-transgender lobby, Human Rights Campaign
Target-Logo-2012
Target Backs Anti-Christian LGBT “Equality Act,” HR 3185: The corporate giant is standing with anti-Christian activists at the Human Rights Campaign to support the most radical and far-reaching homosexual-transgender legislation ever introduced in Congress. AFTAH is calling HR 3185 the “Criminalizing Christianity Act” because it would empower the State to punish those who exercise their conscience and stand up for biblical morality on sex and true marriage (between a man and a woman). Call Target at 800-440-0680 FREE [or 612-696-3400; hit #1]; or write them via their contact page. E-mail Target at guest.relations@target.com. or press@target.com.
TAKE ACTION: Contact Target Corporation: [(800)440-0680 FREE; or call 612-696-3400 and hit #1; email: guest.relations@target.com. or press@target.com]; urge them to reverse their support of the anti-Christian “Equality Act”; [HR 3185; S. 1858] aka the “Criminalizing Christianity Act” or “Homosexual Superiority Act.” Suggest to Target that they would be smarter to at least stay neutral in the Culture Wars over redefining marriage and “civil rights” rather than siding with intolerant homosexual and transgender activists. The latter now champion anti-Christian bigotry by equating the defense of biblical morality and marriage with “hate”–and make shameful comparisons between cross-dressing men using Female restrooms and racist Jim Crow laws from the past that persecuted Black Americans.
For more information about the “Criminalizing Christianity Act,”go HERE. Target’s pandering and capitulations to LGBT activists go way back: see this 2011 L.A. Times article reporting Target’s pledge to give at least half a million dollars per year to homosexual activist organizations.
_____________________
Target Backs “Criminalizing Christianity Act,” HR 3185
By Peter LaBarbera
The popular department store giant Target has recently signed on as a corporate endorser of the radical homosexual-transgender “Equality Act” (HR 3185; S. 1858). AFTAH has renamed this LGBT bill the “Homosexual Superiority Act” or the “Criminalizing Christianity Act” because it will accelerate pro-homosexual State tyranny against people of faith or morals who oppose sinful, unnatural homosexual behavior and same-sex “marriage.” See this piece on HR 3185.
Target recently put out a statement on HR 3185–which was ballyhooed by the powerful, anti-Christian homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign (a Target ally):
“Target proudly stands with the LGBT community through all that we do, from our partnerships with organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), to our volunteer efforts, and even the products we sell. We want to be a champion for an inclusive society by using our influence and resources to support equality in the communities where our team members and guests live and work…
“Target is helping to lead the fight against discrimination by putting its support behind the Equality Act. Discrimination has no place in the workplace, and Target is demonstrating to all that inclusion is a pillar of any successful business,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “The time has come for full federal equality, and HRC is proud to include Target as a partner in this fight. Everyone should have a fair chance to earn a living, provide for their families, and live free from fear of discrimination, including Americans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.”
HRC continues in its statement:
Target has a history of scoring highly on HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, and was named as one of HRC’s 2015 “Best Places to Work”.
Target joins a number of leading American corporations, including Amazon, American Airlines, Apple, the Dow Chemical Company, Facebook, General Electric, General Mills, Google, HP, IBM, Intel, Levi Strauss & Co, Microsoft, Nike, Oracle, Orbitz, PayPal and Symantec Corporation in support of federal LGBT non-discrimination protections.
As AFTAH has documented, HRC’s rigged “Corporate Equality Index” is a woefully-biased”scorecard” that gives companies points toward a Perfect 100 rating for making grants to LGBT activist groups–but takes points away from corporations that give to, say, pro-traditional-marriage groups. The homosexual-transgender lobby group continues to ratchet up the scoring criteria so that pro-“gay” corporations that have attained the “100 percent” ranking are pressured to make ever greater capitulations to LGBT demands to keep their “perfect” rating. In recent years that includes massive grants to pro-LGBT events such as “gay pride parades” [see Walmart’s funding of “New York City pride” HERE] and health insurance coverage for transgender employees seeking body-disfiguring “sex reassignment surgeries” as they “transition” to the opposite sex.
For more information about the “Criminalizing Christianity Act,”go HERE. Target’s pandering and capitulations to LGBT activists go way back: see this 2011 L.A. Times article reporting Target’s pledge to give at least half a million dollars per year to homosexual activist organizations. HRC is relying on large corporations to build support in Congress for the radical “Equality Act”; see this HRC release.
TAKE ACTION: Contact Target Corporation: [(800)440-0680 FREE; or call 612-696-3400 and hit #1; email: guest.relations@target.com. or press@target.com
Urge Speaker Paul Ryan and Congress to oppose the “Criminalizing Christianity Act” (HR 3185). Call 202-225-3121 for the House and 202-224-3121 for the Senate. More information from AFTAH HERE.
Posted in "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Sexual Orientation"/"Gender Identity" and the Law, Christian Persecution, Equality Act (Criminalizing Christianity Act), Equality Act (Homosexual Superiority Act), Freedom Under Fire, Government Promotion, HRC, News |
VIDEO: Chicago Teenage Girl Has Healthy Breasts Surgically Removed to Become Transgender ‘Male’ – Chicago Children’s Hospital’s ‘Trans’ Activism
Tuesday, October 13th, 2015
Threat of youth suicide drives radical, body-disfiguring “sex reassignment” surgeries on minor children–should this be legal?
Emily Pascal as a teenage girl, before her transgender "sex reassignment" surgeries to become like a man.
Defying Nature: Emily Pascal as a teenage girl, before undergoing her transgender “sex reassignment” surgeries to appear like the male she thinks she is. Paschal, 17, now identifies as “Emmet” (see video below) after having her healthy breasts surgically removed. Both Pascal’s parents and the medical professionals at Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago cite her potential suicide as a key reason for pursuing the body-disfiguring operations as a minor.
“We don’t offer anything that would have any long-lasting negative or irreversible effect unless this is truly a kid who’s older, who can make a wise decision, whose family is supportive.”— Dr. Scott Leibowitz, child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lurie Children’s Hospital’s Gender and Sex Development program
Folks, I am stunned at what passes for science and medical care these days. Emily Paschal, a 17-year-old girl from Gurnee, Illinois featured in these WYCC (PBS-Chicago) video segments, had her healthy adolescent breasts surgically removed as part of her “transitioning” process to become her male persona, “Emmet.” Her parents allowed the radical surgery in the name of helping their daughter become like the transgender “male” she thinks she is. They were assisted by Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, in a program led by an open homosexual, Dr. Robert Garofalo, who heads up the hospital’s “Gender and Sex Development Program.”
Last month I was interviewed by WYCC for this “In the Loop” segment, “Raising a Transgender Teen,” without knowing the specifics of the Emily-“Emmet” Pascal story. WYCC is the lesser known of two PBS TV stations in Chicago, and this program aired September 24, 2015. WYCC used only a tiny portion of my interview, which is a shame because the reporter who interviewed me–not “In the Loop” host Barbara Pinto, who narrates the piece–was very fair and asked no “gotcha” questions. Note:I am identified here with “Center For Morality,” which will be a project of Americans For Truth as we transition to our new home in the Washington, D.C. area.
How tragic it is that the threat of suicide drives this entire process whereby panic-stricken parents–working with doctors who double as de facto LGBTQ activists–allow their child’s confused feelings to guide and rationalize the pursuit of permanent body-disfiguring operations. Speaking of rationalizations: what would feminists say about Emily’s (“Emmet’s’) father Dirk Paschal recalling her leadership skills as a girl in the neighborhood as evidence that she was really a “boy.” Can’t girls be leaders?
The bottom line here is that doctors have become activists and pop-culture philosophers in pushing these extreme experimental “solutions” on vulnerable youth and their vulnerable parents–even though, as Dr. Garofalo admits (see 3:18 mark), the doctors are far from having all the answers. Most importantly, as he acknowledges, some kids overcome their sense of “gender nonconformity”–so why rush the operations and puberty-blocking drug “treatments”? And will we all one day as taxpaying Americans be subsidizing these horrific procedures through Obama-care? I question whether these radical “transgender” surgeries should even be legal for minors. More coming on this. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Some highlights of the video are transcribed after the videos and the page jump:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/6ptiDoMceuE
video-chicago-teenage-girl-has…
Read the rest of this article »
video-chicago-teenage-girl-has…
video-chicago-teenage-girl-has…
Posted in "Sexual Orientation"/"Gender Identity" and the Law, 04 - Gender Confusion (Transgender), Chicago, GLBTQ Terms, Homosexual Meccas, News |
Brought to You by Walmart: New York City ‘Gay Pride’ Parade Exposes Kids to Nudity, Lewdness, Vulgarity, even an S&M Float
Thursday, July 2nd, 2015
AFTAH Exclusive: NYC parade belies SCOTUS claim that homosexual marriage “safeguards children”;homo-fascist tells AFTAH president that freedom doesn’t apply to him because ‘you’re anti-gay”
PART ONE: WARNING: Offensive images, expletives and graphic descriptions
Homosexual Sadomasochistic "Pride" - Brought to You by Walmart: This float for the New York city homosexual "leather" bar The Eagle rolls down Fifth Avenue at the New York City "Pride" parade Sunday. Note the black-and-blue flag at left symbolizing "leather pride"--the S&M counterpart to the rainbow-colored flag symbolizing "gay pride." Sadistic/masochistic "leather" sex involves extreme behaviors that glorify domination, brutality and human degradation. This includes "master-slave" couplings in which one partner becomes the "sex slave" of another "master." Homosexual leathermen revel in some of the vilest practices invented by mankind, including hand-arm-rectal "fisting." Click to enlarge. Note the police looking on at lower left: one wonders what they are thinking. Photos may be reproduced provided credit given as follows: "Photo: AmericansForTruth.org."
Homosexual Sadomasochistic “Pride” – Brought to You by Walmart: This float for the New York city homosexual “leather” bar The Eagle rolls down Fifth Avenue at the New York City “Pride” parade Sunday. Note the black-and-blue flag at left symbolizing “leather pride”–the S&M counterpart to the rainbow-colored flag symbolizing “gay pride.” Sadistic/masochistic “leather” fetishes involve extreme behaviors that glorify domination, brutality, pain and human degradation. This includes “master-slave relationships” in which one partner becomes the “sex slave” of his “master.” Homosexual leathermen revel in some of the vilest practices invented by mankind, including hand-arm-rectal “fisting.” Note the policemen looking on at lower left: one wonders what they are thinking. Photos may be reproduced provided credit given as follows: “Photo: AmericansForTruth.org.”
TAKE ACTION: Call Walmart’s Corporate Offices:
Call Walmart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., at 479-273-4000 and choose ext. 3, then ask for the office of CEO Doug McMillon. Or call 1-800-WALMART FREE (925-6278). Write Walmart online HERE (click the “Community and Giving” option). When I called the first number I was routed to Customer Relations. Send the CEO a fax: fax CEO McMillon directly at 479-204-0798. Urge Walmart to STOP financing the celebration of sexual immorality and extreme gender confusion like New York City “Pride.” Tell them that you are offended as a customer that Walmart would sign on as a top-level funder of a New York City’s debauched homosexual “pride” parade that featured nudity, perversion, vulgarity, gender rebellion and even an S&M float being flaunted in front of young children. See also this past AFTAH article on Walmart’s capitulation to the LGBTQ agenda.
_____________________________
Walmart_Pride_logoBy Peter LaBarbera; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
Americans For Truth Exclusive
New York City’s annual homosexual “Pride” parade–sponsored Sunday (June 28, 2015) for the first time at the highest “Platinum” level by Walmart Corporation–featured nudity, lewdness, vulgarity and even a sadomasochism float–subjecting the many young children who either marched in or viewed the parade to behaviors and messages that are highly inappropriate for their age and emotional immaturity. [See photos below.]
This AFTAH writer observed most of the parade, which was dominated by major corporate sponsors. One of the bases for the Supreme Court’s stunningly radical June 26 ruling creating a “constitutional right” for homosexual “marriage” is that it “safeguards children and families.” But in truth homosexual parenting harms kids in a variety of ways. It was precisely homosexual (and pro-“gay”) parents who brought impressionable children to observe this highly-sexualized parade glorifying immorality and gender confusion. This is just one example, but a very troubling one, of how “gay parenting” harms children.
I asked a woman who was hostile to me being there about the propriety of exposing kids to lewd behaviors and vulgarity. She said she didn’t agree with everything that goes on at the “pride” parade but that nobody was forcing people to attend it. However, that right to choose does not extend to minor children, who are taken to such bawdy events by their parents and subjected to the perverseness and homo-eroticism that naturally flow from a parade celebrating deviant sex and gender. One such child was a girl standing next to me who appeared to be about 10 or 11; she was evidently dropped off by her father (I saw a man check on her once), who left her alone for hours to view the “pride” parade.
Walmart Champions "Pride" in Homosexuality: Walmart marchers at New York City's homosexual "Pride" parade carry massive "rainbow flag" symbolizing the celebration of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism (extreme gender confusion). Walmart was a top-level "Platinum" corporate sponsor of Heritage Pride, which runs the parade and the extended "pride" activities in late June in the Big Apple.
Walmart Champions “Pride” in Homosexuality: Walmart marchers at New York City’s homosexual “Pride” parade carry massive “rainbow flag” symbolizing the celebration of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism (extreme gender confusion). Walmart was a top-level “Platinum” corporate sponsor of Heritage of Pride, which runs the parade and the extended “pride” activities in late June in the Big Apple.
“Gay” Bully Exercises Special Rights
At one point half-way through the parade, as I stood near the corner of Fifth Avenue and 10th Street (near the homosexual “pride”-celebrating Church of the Ascension), two homosexual activists, a man and a woman–started verbally challenging me, escalating to outright harassment. They had figured out that I was not a homosexual enthusiast and were upset that a moral critic was taking photos at “their” parade, even though it was a very public event.
brought-to-you-by-walmart-new-…
Read the rest of this article »
brought-to-you-by-walmart-new-…
brought-to-you-by-walmart-new-…
Posted in "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Sexual Orientation"/"Gender Identity" and the Law, Corporate Promotion, Homo-fascism - Intimidation by Gay Lobby, Homo-Promiscuity, Homosexual Pride Parades & Festivals, New York, News, Sadomasochism, The Agenda: GLBTQ & Activist Groups, Too Much Tolerance |
If You Can Be Transgender, Why Can’t You Be Transracial? – Michael Brown
Thursday, June 18th, 2015
Rachel-Dolezal-trans-racial
Feelings vs. Reality: ‘Trans-racialist’ Rachel Dolezal, a woman born white who wants to live as a black person. Click to enlarge.
Folks, I’m tempted to say that only by falsely labeling Michael Brown as a ‘Transracial-phobe’ could one reject his sound arguments below. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
________________________
First published on CharismaNews, 6/15/2015
By Michael Brown
I do not for a moment want to minimize the very real struggles of those who identify as transgender nor do I want to ignore those individuals who have genuine biological or genetic abnormalities.
I simply want to state once again—really, I want to shout it from the rooftops—that perception does not change reality, and so Bruce Jenner is no more a woman than Rachel Dolezal is black.
In the last week, a steady stream of articles has drawn comparisons, both positive and negative, between Jenner and Dolezal, with not a few stating that Dolezal’s actions are harmful to the transgender cause. (The opening lines of Ben Shapiro’s fairly comprehensive article, detailing many other claims made by Dolezal and dripping with sarcasm, are classic.)
Obviously, I have no idea whether Dolezal genuinely believes she is black or simply chooses to identify as black, but what’s clear, if all the reports are true, is that she is not black.
How can I be so dogmatic?
It’s because skin color is verifiable.
It is not based on perception.
It is not based on feelings.
It is based on provable data.
The same is true when it comes to gender (again, putting aside the question of how to best help those with biological or genetic abnormalities that are not so easily categorized as male or female).
Some people are genetically and biologically male while others are genetically and biologically female, and to alter their physical appearance through cosmetic surgery no more changes their real identity than wearing leopard skins transforms a human being into a big cat.
Bruce Jenner (posing for Vanity Fair as "Caitlyn" above) is a biological male who wants to live as a woman--and claim that fictitious identity despite his male DNA.
Living Out a Lie: Former Olympic star Bruce Jenner (posing for Vanity Fair as “Caitlyn” above) is a biological male who wants to live as a woman–and claims that fictitious identity despite his male DNA. Click to enlarge.
The same is true when it comes to hormonal treatments: You can pump up Bruce Jenner with all the female hormones in the world but that does not make him into a woman. (To date, we have not been presented with any evidence that he is a genetic female in any form.)
In the words of Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the nation’s most respected psychiatrists yet a man despised by many in the transgender community as out of date and out of touch:
“Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.'”
Not only so, but in many ways, the transgender movement is based on fundamental contradictions.
if-you-can-be-transgender-why-…
Read the rest of this article »
if-you-can-be-transgender-why-…
if-you-can-be-transgender-why-…
Posted in "Sexual Orientation"/"Gender Identity" and the Law, 04 - Gender Confusion (Transgender), News, Political Correctness vs. Truth, Redefining Morality, Redefining Normal, Sex Reassignment Surgeries, Sex-change Operations, Transgender-General |
Janet Mefferd on Matthew Vines and the Homosexual-Christian ‘Dialogue’
Thursday, June 18th, 2015
Matthew Vines is working hard to win Christians to the idea that homosexual relationships can be blessed before a holy God. For espousing that heresy, he cannot and must not be seen as a "brother in Christ."
Sin Advocate: Young and winsome Matthew Vines is working hard to win Christians to the idea that committed homosexual relationships should be blessed before a holy God. Despite his apostasy, Vines was recently welcomed as a “brother in Christ” by Rev. Caleb Kaltenbach, lead pastor of Discovery Church in Simi Valley, CA. See Vines’ curiously named “Reformation Project.“
“We are to have no fellowship with darkness. We can’t ‘dialogue’ with any professing Christian who’s in open rebellion against the Word of God. We can’t ‘dialogue’ with anybody who is deceiving and misleading the Body of Christ on any sin while claiming to be a Christian!”–Janet Mefferd
______________________
I welcome my friend Janet Mefferd to the pages of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. Janet is a former longtime radio talk show host with the Salem Radio Network–and, I must say, as someone who cumulatively chatted a few hours in on-air interviews with Mefferd over the years–she was one of the best in the business (Christian and secular). We look forward to seeing what’s next in Janet’s career, but until then we are delighted to publish her work.
Regarding this issue of “dialogue” or “bridging” with homosexuality advocates, I recall an article by the late Alan Medinger–a man who walked away from homosexuality with the help of the Savior he loved, Jesus Christ. Medinger, who founded Regeneration Ministries in Baltimore, wisely cautioned against an internal Church debate over homosexuality because there is nothing compelling it except outside, anti-biblical agitation. The sinfulness of same-sex behavior is a settled matter in both the Bible and thousands of years of Church/Old Testament tradition, argued Medinger, and we need not debate it now within Christendom any more than we should debate, say, adultery.
Read this beautiful tribute to Medinger by Regeneration’s Josh Glaser–then decide if the same Spirit of Christ that impelled Alan lies with Matthew Vines, who–by trying to redefine Christianity to accommodate homosexual relationships and “gay marriage”–propels the very same debate that Medinger rejected on principle. Below Mefferd ably applies what I call the “Sexual Sin Substitution Test.”— Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
_____________________________________
Enough with the “Dialogue,” Already
By Janet Mefferd; first posted June 17, 2015 on Mefferd’s blog; Twitter: @JanetMefferd
“Evangelicals Open Door to Debate on Gay Rights.” Just the kind of headline I never enjoy, but it ran June 8 in The New York Times over a story about “influential evangelicals” meeting with homosexual activist Matthew Vines at Biola University last month, complete with a Times reporter and photographer on hand.
Vines, you may recall, is author of 2014’s controversial “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships,” which manipulates biblical terminology in an unconvincing attempt to argue against the sinfulness of homosexuality.
Worse, the book was published by Crown Publishing Group’s Convergent imprint, which shared staff and operations with and was a sister imprint of evangelical Christian publisher WaterBrook Multnomah. Among other repercussions for printing such unbiblical garbage, WaterBrook Multnomah resigned its membership from the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB). (Crown later separated the two imprints.)
Vines also runs an apostate group called The Reformation Project, which claims to exist “to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.”
janet-mefferd-on-matthew-vines…
Read the rest of this article »
janet-mefferd-on-matthew-vines…
janet-mefferd-on-matthew-vines…
Posted in "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", A - What does the Bible say about homosexuality?, B - Ex-Homosexual Testimonies, Bible, D - GLBTQ Pressure Within Churches, Emergent Theology, Matthew Vines, Morality and Moral Judgments, News, Queer Theology, Reformation Project, Sexual Sin Substitution Test, The Bible, Churches, & Homosexuality, What is truth? |
Statements by Hackett, Costello and Komaniecki on Chicago S&M ‘Perversion Museum’ – Leather Archives
Friday, June 12th, 2015
Leather_Archives_Kilmer_Elementary_medium-size
Joyce Kilmer Elementary School (right) is located on Greenview Ave., just three blocks from the deviance-honoring “museum,” Leather Archives (left), which sits at 6418 N. Greenview Ave., near Devon Ave., in Chicago’s Rogers Park neighborhood. Two other public schools are also within walking distance of the mainly homosexual-oriented sadomasochistic perversion “museum”–which celebrates “fisting’ and other depraved homosexual acts, including porn that eroticizes adult-child sadistic sex. See AFTAH PDF Flier about the despicable “museum” HERE.
The following statements were issued by Illinois pro-family leaders at the Americans For Truth press event held May 22, 2015 directly in front of the Leather Archives & Museumat 6418 N. Greenview Ave., down the street from Joyce Kilmer Elementary School, in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago. Links to related stories on the LA&M S&M “Perversion Musuem” are at bottom:
Mary Anne Hackett, President, Catholic Citizens of Illinois:
“We were shocked to hear that there is a museum in a Chicago neighborhood, Leather Archives & Museum, dedicated to celebrating obscene and offensive sexual practices. Does tolerance have any limits? Are families supposed to welcome a museum dedicated to perversion in their neighborhood? Can parents protect the innocence of their children from exposure to behaviors that should not even be practiced or celebrated in private? The Leather Archives & Museum is located in a neighborhood of families. Children walk to the Joyce Kilmer Elementary School and the Roger C. Sullivan High School within blocks of the ‘Museum.’
“This weekend, the annual International Mr. Leather convention will take place in Chicago and it is anticipated that thousands of homosexuals will arrive in our city to ‘celebrate’ this event. We call upon the Mayor of Chicago and the people of Chicago to stand against the degradation of our communities and to uphold standards of decency to protect families and children.”
Nick Costello, Board Member, Catholic Citizens of Illinois:
“The ‘cultural’ underpinning the Leather Archives & Museum reflects the general disintegration of our sexual sanity as a nation. Of course, proponents of this “leather” deviance (rooted in sadomasochism) will present it with a smile as harmless sexual expression, while hiding the harmful effects spiritually, psychologically, and physically on those who practice it. This museum should be nowhere near Joyce Kilmer Elementary School and area parents must be put on notice. If the proprietors do not have the decency to close this ‘museum’ or relocate to an area unfrequented by children, then area parents have every right and duty to demand it. May God’s Holy Spirit lead us to a just and peaceful resolution to this pitiful situation!”
statements-by-hackett-costello…
Read the rest of this article »
statements-by-hackett-costello…
statements-by-hackett-costello…
Posted in Chicago, Extremism, Homosexual Meccas, News, Pedophilia/Pederasty, The Bible, Churches, & Homosexuality, The Folly of PC, Too Much Tolerance |
Mike Heath of Maine Recounts Murder Linked to Chicago Sadomasochistic ‘Perversion Museum’ – Leather Archives
Tuesday, June 9th, 2015
“The sin of homosexual perversion took Fred Wilson to a place called a dungeon. It cost him his life, and it showed him the horrors of hell.”
–Mike Heath, at AFTAH press event exposing Chicago’s “Leather Archives” perversion “museum”
Rev. Mike Heath stands next to AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera at press event in front of Chicago's "Perversion Museum," the sadomasochism-celebrating Leather Archives & Museum. At right with microphone is Monte Larrick, the former Moody Radio reporter who now does media reports for Illinois Family Institute.
Calling Evil, Evil: Rev. Mike Heath stands to the left of AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera at press event in front of Chicago’s homosexual “Perversion Museum,” the sadomasochism-celebrating “Leather Archives & Museum.” At right with microphone is Monte Larrick, the former Moody Radio reporter who now is on staff Illinois Family Institute. See Part One of AFTAH’s report on the vile collections housed at the “museum”–which include works celebrating “fisting,” urination “watersports” and BDSM–including the eroticization of such perversions engaged in between adults and minors. See AFTAH’s PDF flier alerting Chicago residents to the uber-perverse “museum” HERE.
The following statement on Chicago “Leather Archive and Museum” was made May 22, 2015, at a press event held directly in front of the Leather Archived & Museum at 6418 N. Greenview Avenue in Chicago:
Chicago, Illinois
Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) Press Conference
Friday, May 22, 2015
By Rev. Michael S. Heath, President, Helping Hands Ministries Augusta, Maine
______________________
My friend Peter LaBarbera and I are here today to expose a grave, and up to now, a well-hidden evil.
Christianity teaches that evil thrives by cloaking itself in what is pleasing and what is good. Hence, sodomy is called being “gay.” The word “gay” is like the name on the front of this building “LA&M.”
It sounds pleasant, lamblike almost. The vile movement that is honored by this “museum” chooses to hide their evil, their malice and their contempt for community standards behind the name “LA&M.”
Bruce LaVallee-Davidson
Bruce LaVallee-Davidson
But no evil can be concealed for very long. Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God, Very God in Human Form, said “What is done in secret shall be shouted from the rooftops.”
We are here to shout it from the rooftops. Fred Wilson could not be here today to tell his story. Fred Wilson is dead, He was a donor to this temple, this shrine to sadomasochism, and he was shot and killed in a sadomasochistic orgy. Four days later, his killer testified on behalf of same sex “marriage” at a public hearing in Maine.
I published an article on the matter in 2012:
mike-heath-of-maine-recounts-m…
Read the rest of this article »
mike-heath-of-maine-recounts-m…
mike-heath-of-maine-recounts-m…
Posted in BDSM, Homosexual Pornography & Film Festivals, Leather, News, Sadomasochism |
Chicago’s Homosexual S&M ‘Perversion Museum’ – Leather Archives – Features Pedophile Porn, Incest Fantasies and ‘Man-Boy Love’ Advice from NAMBLA
Friday, June 5th, 2015
AFTAH Exclusive: Perversion “museum” — part of Chicago’s “gay community” — sits near three schools and a day-care center; houses BDSM works eroticizing adult sadistic sex with minors
WARNING: Some stories about the homosexual movement are so grotesquely perverse that they are difficult to report. This article by necessity describes some deeply disturbing sexual “fetishes” involving homosexual adult sadistic sex with children and teenagers–and vile, unnatural acts like “fisting” practiced for decades by by sadomasochistic homosexual “leathermen.” One book cover below contains an obscenity, another a highly offensive image. Keep in mind that the “Leather Archives & Museum” in Chicago that houses and celebrates these depraved works is located in the middle of a residential neighborhood within a short distance of three public schools and a day-care center.
“[S]landerers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil….” (Romans 1:30, NIV)
Leather_Archives_Kiddies_Walking_RESIZED_Childrens_Faces_BLOCKED
EVIL IN THEIR MIDST: Young children evidently attending a nearby day-care center file by the Chicago “Leather Archives & Museum” (see “LA&M” building in the center of the photo). [Take Action: view and distribute the AFTAH flier alerting the local Rogers Park neighborhood to this deviant institution HERE.] The BDSM “museum”–which is listed in the official Chicago “Visitors Guide”–houses some of the most vile sadomasochistic material imaginable–including pornography centered around adult-child sadistic sex. Other works glorify vile S&M perversions such as “fisting” and “watersports.” One “gay sex” book housed in the Leather Archives gives advice from NAMBLA to adult male “boy lovers” on how to avoid entrapment by police (see graphic in story below). The “museum” also caters to heterosexual BDSM enthusiasts, but it is a product of the “gay” sexual revolution, which has deep roots in the Windy City. We have blocked the faces of the children in this AFTAH photo; click to enlarge.
PART ONE
TAKE ACTION: Download the AFTAH PDF flier alerting residents to this “Perversion Museum,” the Leather Archives & Museum, at 6418 N. Greenview Ave., near Devon Ave., in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago. [Click HERE for flier.] Contact the Chicago Alderman in whose ward the “Leather Archives” sits, Ald. Pat O’Connor: 312-744-6858; e-mail: ward40@cityofchicago.org.
________________________
“The wicked strut about on every side when vileness is exalted among the sons of men.” (Psalm 12:8; NASB)
By Peter LaBarbera; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
If you need convincing that the homosexual (LGBTQ) movement is about immoral, unnatural behaviors rather than innate “identities” and “civil rights,” keep reading this article.
Chicago’s Leather Archives & Museum–a de facto “museum” of mostly homosexual sadomasochistic perversions–contains numerous works that eroticize adult sex with underage children–including man-boy sodomies and parent-child incest, AFTAH has learned. One book even offers advice from NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man/Boy Love Association, for adult “gay” men on how not to get entrapped by police in their “boy-love” pursuits.
The “museum” sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood in the heavily homosexual north side Chicago neighborhood of Rogers Park–within a half mile of three public schools (two elementary schools and a high school), as Americans For Truth previously reported. [See AFTAH’s PDF flier, which we distributed last week alerting residents to this perverse establishment.] There is also a day-care center nearby and young children evidently in its care are walked by the Leather “Museum” as part of their daily activities (see photo above).
The "Leather Archives" has prominently displayed the lesbian S&M book "Macho Sluts," which includes a fictional short story about a 40-something mother who sadistically tortures her own young daughter.
Sadism, Incest & Pedophilia on display: The “Leather Archives” has prominently displayed the lesbian S&M book “Macho Sluts,” which includes a fictional short story about a 40-something mother who sadistically sex-tortures and beats her own young daughter, who doubles as a her slave “lover.”
The homosexual “leather” world is so hellishly twisted and perverse that it is difficult to research and describe it without corrupting minds and souls. I venture to say that the uber-deviant fetish depravities honored and carefully documented by this “museum”–celebrating “fisting,” “watersports,” body-punishing “sex play,” masters-and-slaves, etc.–are simply inconceivable to the average human being. However, as depraved as BDSM (mostly homosexuals “Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission, Sadism & Masochism) acts between consenting adults are, their wickedness and horror are magnified exponentially when involving children. In this case, that includes fictionalized pornographic fantasies glorifying adult sexual domination of minors, as in “Macho Sluts” –a work this writer saw on display when I toured the “museum” several years ago. The younger the child, the greater the evil.
Because AFTAH has been tracking the homosexual movement with its “leather” subculture for many years, we had some knowledge about the depraved and disturbing works possessed and made available by this “museum.” The mostly “gay” BDSM “erotica” opens a window into the history of modern homosexuality and its overlap with pedophilia and ephebophilia (adults who pursue sex with adolescents)–as well as other extreme behaviors once dubbed, in saner times, as anti-social and deviant. Ironically, the “leather” archivists and other homosexual historians have helped preserve and document this creepy, predatory reality of “gay history”–and LGBT perversions in general–for the wider public.
“Chicken” and chicken hawks
So pervasive is adult homosexual male lust for teenage boys that–through “gay liberation”–it earned its own slang category: “chicken” is “gay” slang for highly desired teen boys and “chick hawks” their adult sexual pursuers. (Boy Scouts of America: beware.) AFTAH will post future articles on the sickening and outrageous “gay” phenomenon that dehumanizes boys as “chicken” to be sexually devoured.
The following are brief descriptions of a sampling of selections from the Leather Archives & Museum; the items are available for perusal to patrons of the museum’s library. I apologize in advance for describing such awful deviance but it is our role to document and shed light on behaviors that are not only tolerated but honored, as it were, in the larger homosexual “community.” More will follow in future pieces:
Chicago’s Homosexual S&M ‘Perversion Museum’ – Leather Archives – Features Pedophile Porn, Incest Fantasies and ‘Man-Boy Love’ Advice from NAMBLA
AFTAH Exclusive: Perversion “museum” — part of Chicago’s “gay community” — sits near three schools and a day-care center; houses BDSM works eroticizing adult sadistic sex with minors
WARNING: Some stories about the homosexual movement are so grotesquely perverse that they are difficult to report. This article by necessity describes some deeply disturbing sexual “fetishes” involving homosexual adult sadistic sex with children and teenagers–and vile, unnatural acts like “fisting” practiced for decades by by sadomasochistic homosexual “leathermen.” One book cover below contains an obscenity, another a highly offensive image. Keep in mind that the “Leather Archives & Museum” in Chicago that houses and celebrates these depraved works is located in the middle of a residential neighborhood within a short distance of three public schools and a day-care center.
“[S]landerers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil….” (Romans 1:30, NIV)
Leather_Archives_Kiddies_Walking_RESIZED_Childrens_Faces_BLOCKED
EVIL IN THEIR MIDST: Young children evidently attending a nearby day-care center file by the Chicago “Leather Archives & Museum” (see “LA&M” building in the center of the photo). [Take Action: view and distribute the AFTAH flier alerting the local Rogers Park neighborhood to this deviant institution HERE.] The BDSM “museum”–which is listed in the official Chicago “Visitors Guide”–houses some of the most vile sadomasochistic material imaginable–including pornography centered around adult-child sadistic sex. Other works glorify vile S&M perversions such as “fisting” and “watersports.” One “gay sex” book housed in the Leather Archives gives advice from NAMBLA to adult male “boy lovers” on how to avoid entrapment by police (see graphic in story below). The “museum” also caters to heterosexual BDSM enthusiasts, but it is a product of the “gay” sexual revolution, which has deep roots in the Windy City. We have blocked the faces of the children in this AFTAH photo; click to enlarge.
PART ONE
TAKE ACTION: Download the AFTAH PDF flier alerting residents to this “Perversion Museum,” the Leather Archives & Museum, at 6418 N. Greenview Ave., near Devon Ave., in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago. [Click HERE for flier.] Contact the Chicago Alderman in whose ward the “Leather Archives” sits, Ald. Pat O’Connor: 312-744-6858; e-mail: ward40@cityofchicago.org.
________________________
“The wicked strut about on every side when vileness is exalted among the sons of men.” (Psalm 12:8; NASB)
By Peter LaBarbera; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
If you need convincing that the homosexual (LGBTQ) movement is about immoral, unnatural behaviors rather than innate “identities” and “civil rights,” keep reading this article.
Chicago’s Leather Archives & Museum–a de facto “museum” of mostly homosexual sadomasochistic perversions–contains numerous works that eroticize adult sex with underage children–including man-boy sodomies and parent-child incest, AFTAH has learned. One book even offers advice from NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man/Boy Love Association, for adult “gay” men on how not to get entrapped by police in their “boy-love” pursuits.
The “museum” sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood in the heavily homosexual north side Chicago neighborhood of Rogers Park–within a half mile of three public schools (two elementary schools and a high school), as Americans For Truth previously reported. [See AFTAH’s PDF flier, which we distributed last week alerting residents to this perverse establishment.] There is also a day-care center nearby and young children evidently in its care are walked by the Leather “Museum” as part of their daily activities (see photo above).
The "Leather Archives" has prominently displayed the lesbian S&M book "Macho Sluts," which includes a fictional short story about a 40-something mother who sadistically tortures her own young daughter.
Sadism, Incest & Pedophilia on display: The “Leather Archives” has prominently displayed the lesbian S&M book “Macho Sluts,” which includes a fictional short story about a 40-something mother who sadistically sex-tortures and beats her own young daughter, who doubles as a her slave “lover.”
The homosexual “leather” world is so hellishly twisted and perverse that it is difficult to research and describe it without corrupting minds and souls. I venture to say that the uber-deviant fetish depravities honored and carefully documented by this “museum”–celebrating “fisting,” “watersports,” body-punishing “sex play,” masters-and-slaves, etc.–are simply inconceivable to the average human being. However, as depraved as BDSM (mostly homosexuals “Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission, Sadism & Masochism) acts between consenting adults are, their wickedness and horror are magnified exponentially when involving children. In this case, that includes fictionalized pornographic fantasies glorifying adult sexual domination of minors, as in “Macho Sluts” –a work this writer saw on display when I toured the “museum” several years ago. The younger the child, the greater the evil.
Because AFTAH has been tracking the homosexual movement with its “leather” subculture for many years, we had some knowledge about the depraved and disturbing works possessed and made available by this “museum.” The mostly “gay” BDSM “erotica” opens a window into the history of modern homosexuality and its overlap with pedophilia and ephebophilia (adults who pursue sex with adolescents)–as well as other extreme behaviors once dubbed, in saner times, as anti-social and deviant. Ironically, the “leather” archivists and other homosexual historians have helped preserve and document this creepy, predatory reality of “gay history”–and LGBT perversions in general–for the wider public.
“Chicken” and chicken hawks
So pervasive is adult homosexual male lust for teenage boys that–through “gay liberation”–it earned its own slang category: “chicken” is “gay” slang for highly desired teen boys and “chick hawks” their adult sexual pursuers. (Boy Scouts of America: beware.) AFTAH will post future articles on the sickening and outrageous “gay” phenomenon that dehumanizes boys as “chicken” to be sexually devoured.
The following are brief descriptions of a sampling of selections from the Leather Archives & Museum; the items are available for perusal to patrons of the museum’s library. I apologize in advance for describing such awful deviance but it is our role to document and shed light on behaviors that are not only tolerated but honored, as it were, in the larger homosexual “community.” More will follow in future pieces:
_________________________
PEDOPHILE PORN: “Macho Sluts”: Lesbian Mom Sexually Torments and Beats Young Daughter in BDSM scene
Macho_Sluts_thumbnail_Newer_CoverThis book of lesbian S&M fantasies is the twisted creation of prolific, self-styled “sex-radical pornographer” and BDSM enthusiast Pat Califia, who became “Patrick Califia” after becoming a “transman” (female-to-male transsexual). “Macho Sluts” intentional pushes the envelope to promote sadomasochism of the sort practiced by homosexual “leathermen” to lesbians. In one story of the book, “The Finishing School,” a mother in her “early forties” sexually tortures and beats her pubescent daughter, Clarissa, who, it turns out, is also her sex slave. The mother, Berenice, shackles up her daughter for a BDSM scene and berates her, as is the practice of sadistic “masters” humiliating their “slaves.” After being manipulated by various means into a state of sexually excitement, Clarissa begs to be manually penetrated by her mother. Instead Berenice beats her child’s bottom with a yellow cane to the point of causing welts and bleeding–which, in this wicked tale, makes Clarissa proud and happy. The sadistic mom also is the dominant “master” over her sister Elise (Clarissa’s aunt), another love “slave.”
An introduction celebrating the salacious “Macho Sluts” is written by University of Southern Maine professor Wendy Chapkis (USM page HERE). “Nowhere in this collection does anyone sacrifice their own pleasure for another,” writes Chapkis. Indeed. The professor writes that she could “barely get through” the “The Finishing School”–not because of the of pedophilic, incestuous exploitation and child molestation in the story–she is no prude!–but because of “my preference for sci-fi over Victorian school-girl fantasies.” For such grotesquely reckless judgment in championing Califia’s book with its pedophile porn, this professor should not be allowed to work among young adults or children.
Patrick Califia. Photo: Mark Chester.
Patrick Califia…author of “Macho Sluts, went from “macho” lesbian to “transman.” Photo: Mark Chester.
Incredibly, Califia has the gall to complain about “bullying” in her (“he” is a biological female) own foreword to the 2009 re-published edition of “Macho Sluts” by Arsenal Pulp Press. (See Califia’s political correct listing in the Left-biased Wikipedia HERE.) Note that the very first newsletter published in 1993 by “The Lambda Report,” the forerunner to Americans For Truth About Homosexuality,” exposed the original publisher of “Macho Sluts,” Alyson Publications, as a purveyor of pro-pedophilia advocacy. The now-defunct Alyson published several other books containing pro-pedophile themes, including one almanac listing NAMBLA as a resource group, and another titled “The Age Taboo.” [See original AFTAH story HERE.]
_________________________.
“Gay Sex” manual gives advice from NAMBLA for “boy-lovers” on how not to get caught
Gay-Sex-Manual-Jack-Hart-old-edOne of the books published by Alyson Publications is “Gay Sex: A Manual for Men who Love Men,” by Jack Hart. In its first edition, which is found in the “Leather Archives” library, this very graphic “gay sex” guide contains a section on “Pedophilia.” It offers seven “suggestions” from “a member of NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association” on how to “minimize the risk” for men who want to have sex with boys–including hiding the relationship and not taking any photos together with the boy! Here are the seven NAMBLA tips for “boy-lovers”–and following that photos of the “Pedophilia” section:
Verbatim passage from page 122-123 section on “Pedophilia” in “Gay Sex: A Manual for Men who Love Men” (Alyson Publications, 1991, first printing); text bolded by AFTAH:
“Precautions: For men who are involved with partners under the legal age of consent, a member of NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) offers some suggestions to minimize the risk:
1. Ethical as well as legal considerations dictate that you carefully establish the wishes of your partner. Do not push him to become more involved than he wants to be.
2. Don’t unnecessarily share information about your relationship, including the identity of your lover, with anyone.
3. Don’t take photos of him, even in non-sexual situations. Such photos simply provide fuel for police and ambitious D.A.’s [District Attorneys].
4. Don’t record your experiences in a diary, letters, or in any other written form.
5. Avoid situations where a number of men have sex with the same boy, or group of boys, over a period of time.
6. A young partner may be uninformed about AIDS prevention, and he probably trusts you to protect him. It’s your responsibility to engage only in safer sex.
7. Be especially cautious about swapping photos by mail, or putting information of any sort onto computer bulletin boards. These are often monitored by police, and it’s easy to become trapped in a situation with strong evidence against you.
“This may seem like a daunting list of don’ts. But many men today are languishing in prison simply because they had sex with a willing partner who was under the age of consent.” [The excerpt goes on and urges those so inclined to…
“…form friendships with other man/boy-lovers and join organizations like NAMBLA. You can form non-sexual relationships with boys, although this option isn’t without risk: An irate and suspicious parent could easily cause trouble.”
We have reproduced the entire section in “Gay Sex” on “Pedophilia” in two photos below (orange emphasis added):
Gay_Sex_Manual_Pedophilia_Section_NAMBLA_Part_one_1991_Alyson_Edition_ADDED_EMPHASIS
Gay_Sex_Manual_Pedophilia_Section_NAMBLA_Part_two_1991_EMPHASIS_ADDED
Here is the entry in the “Leather Archives'” online library for the “Gay Sex” book by Jack Hart–with its advice for “boy-lovers” from NAMBLA on how not to get caught by the police (click to enlarge):
Leather_Archives_Library_Jack_Hart_Gay_Sex_Manual
_________________________
“Fisting” Manual includes “chicken” porn story in which man “fists” teenage boy
Leather_Museum_Fisting_Manual_RESIZED
A “Gay” Turn-on? “Fisting” manual housed in the Leather Archives library, among other “fisting” items. This booklet contains a fantasy porn story under the heading “Chicken in the Basket” — about a 16-17 year old boy who is sodomized and “fisted” by a veteran sadistic “leatherman.” “Chicken” is the dehumanizing “gay” slang term for uninitiated teenage boys who are sexually sought after for sodomy by experienced adult homosexual male “chicken hawks.” Please forgive the obscene cover.
Anal fisting — hand/arm-anal “sodomy” — is a product of the modern “gay” revolution, in which the “leather” subculture, with its anything-goes “sexuality,” played a key role. As this article in a San Francisco homosexual newspaper Bay Area Reporter states…
“Today’s [homosexual] community also might not realize how prominent the leather community was in decades past. Leather men were perhaps the first group of gay men who publicly celebrated their sexuality without shame….
The leather act of anal “fisting” manual shown at right is one of the many items celebrating the grotesque BDSM practice — — available in the Leather Archives & Museum. It is part “how-to” on fisting — a revolting BDSM fetish brought to the world by homosexual “leathermen” in which a man inserts his hand and forearm into the rectum and lower colon of another man — and part pornographic stories featuring the notorious act. (Note: a lesbian/heterosexual version has one partner inserting their hand and forearm into the vagina of their partner.) One of the manual’s “fisting porn” stories involves a teen boy (“chicken”) who is penetrated by an adult “leatherman.”
Under the heading “CHICKEN IN THE BASKET,” the pornographic tale is about a boy, Allen, who “looked about 16-17 and had one of those hairless bodies with tight skin that seemed to pull itself taut around well defined muscles.” The boy meets older leatherman Chet at a bathhouse and the man takes him back to his apartment for a sexual romp that includes “fisting” the boy. To describe the sickening fantasy as “debauched” would be an understatement, but it is interesting that poppers–an inhalant that relaxes the muscles–is necessary to accomplish the vile act.
“Fisting” Dangers
In the booklet, on page 4, a warning on the perils of “fisting” appears under the headline “DANGERS”–just before an appeal to use “common sense” (!). Below is an excerpt. Note the description of the human body–clearly not designed for outside penetration by fist, penis, or “sex toy” (as any normal guy who has had a physical can testify). It is incredible and a testament to human depravity that men (or women) engage in this wicked act. Again, we apologize for the grossness [link added]:
When your hand is up a butt, you can cause an irreparable amount of damage without his being aware of it. There is no sensation of pain past the anal opening. During surgery anesthetic is needed only to get into the bowels. Once there a doctor can do whatever he likes without anesthetic. The intestinal walls are very thin and can be compared to wet tissue paper. The penetration won’t cause pain at the time of injury. It will take about two hours before enough bleeding builds up to cause severe abdominal cramps. By that time the condition is critical and the chances of peritonitis setting in is about 85%, and even in our age of medical miracles, 10% of all peritonitis cases are fatal…..
Also, see this case in the 2012 Journal of Surgical Case Reports paper about a surgical healing from a homosexual “fisting” mishap; from the abstract:
“Bowel perforation can be potentially fatal. We describe the case of a 42-year-old male who presented with severe abdominal pain following anal fisting. Clinical examination revealed tenderness of the complete abdomen with signs of peritonism.”
Side note: dangerous, extreme and reckless sexual misbehavior has its consequences: lots of bizarre “accidents.” Several times over the years, I have been regaled by hospital workers, mostly retired, telling Emergency Room horror stories about various extraneous objects that were jammed in the posteriors of “gay” men as a result of anal “sex toy” romps gone bad. These required the attention of doctors to be carefully removed. Once a retired nurse easily in her 70s approached me after I gave a speech in Wheaton, Illinois, and casually began to inform me–in that matter-of-fact way of nurses who have seen it all–of all the odd items that she had witnessed being removed from men’s rectums.
Leather_Archives_Library_Fisting_Selections_1
From the Archives’ “Fisting” Collection… The Leather Archives online library shows a total of 121 items related to the sickening BDSM act of hand-anal “fisting” (see entries on “Fisting” at left. In addition to the “Fist F—kers] Manual described above, the perversion museum holds dozens of newsletters for “fisting” clubs in San Francisco and Chicago. Click to enlarge.
_________________________
Turning men into urinals: the homosexual BDSM “Watersports” perversion
Soaked_Watersports_Book
For Sale at the Chicago Leather Archives: “SOAKED: A Waterspors Handbook for Men.” Men urinating in and on one another for sexual pleasure is a vile BDSM “fetish” that has grown in popularity, according to author Joseph Bean. The Leather Archives offered this despicable book for sale.
Deviance begets deviance, and twisted “fetishes” develop a network of enthusiasts who use the web to organize around their perversions–no matter how extreme. I purchased this “watersports” porn book “Soaked” shown at right as evidence when I visited the Chicago “Leather Archives” several years ago.* This is yet another–in my opinion, Satanic–“fetish” that BDSM enthusiasts (some would say perverts) began practicing years ago in the name of “gay liberation.”
AFTAH has covered and helped close down homosexual BDSM “pig sex” parties that cater to BDSM perversions.
Homosexual activists will respond to this article by asserting that extreme behaviors like “watersports”: 1) are only at the fringe of the “gay” world; and 2) are also practiced by heterosexuals, so why single out homosexuals?
Regarding Objection Number 1: Nobody is saying all or even most homosexual men are into this revolting fetish or others like “fisting”–but the fact that “leather” bars, homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs (such as “Blow Buddies” in San Francisco) cater to such bizarre fetishes shows they do have a following. For example, “Blow Buddies” hosts a monthly “Golden Shower Buddies” event for men into this urination perversion. Moreover, homosexual “leathermen” played a key role in “gay liberation” and increasingly their “leather pride” flag flies in homosexual “pride” parades and in “gay” Meccas like San Francisco.
“Soaked” author and homosexual BDSM author Joseph Bean, made this observation on the growing acceptance and popularity of the “watersports” perversion among homosexual men–comparing 2004, when his book was published, to the 1980’s. From a Christian perspective, this passage also illustrates the seemingly endless capacity for men (and women) given over to sin to embrace deeper and deeper levels of depravity. Bean writes:
[H]ere…is what I wrote back in the 1980s: Unattractive as some people may find it, piss is hot stuff to a lot of guys. Even so, piss play or watersports is one of those things, even one of those words, that embarrasses people. Why? What is so embarrassing about wanting to see, play in, drink, or be ‘humiliated’ with piss in a subculture that accepts all kind of variations on oral sex, rimming and boot licking so much more easily?”
[Bean writing in 2004:] “Times change. Way back when, no one seemed to doubt that rimming [oral-anal ‘sex’] and boot licking were great fun, nor to imagine much danger in them. Piss seemed an unbreakable taboo. Now, after a couple of decades of AIDS and open discussion about wet sex [urination fetish] and safer sex, the tables have turned. Piss is everywhere (always was, naturally) and people don’t seem all that freaked out by it.”
Regarding Objection Number 2: AFTAH focuses on homosexuality, but we of course oppose BDSM and other perversions–including anal sodomy–when practiced by heterosexuals. Sadly, homosexual advocates like sex writer Dan Savage (who has attended the annual “Mr. Leather” event in Chicago) are working to “mainstream” such extreme behaviors in the heterosexual world. Naturally, movies like “50 Shades of Grey” thrill homosexual activists, who love it when unnatural deviancies like sadomasochism and “watersports” grow in popularity among “straights,” but this has no bearing on the gross immorality of such behaviors.
The Kilmer Elementary School is located just three blocks from the perversion "museum" known as the "Leather Archives."
Three Blocks Down the Street: The Kilmer Elementary School is located at 6700 N. Greenview Ave., just three blocks down the street from the perversion “museum” known as the “Leather Archives.”
The writer contacted the ward office of Ald. Pat O’Connor to alert them to the presence of the “Leather Museum” and its pedophilic holdings. Staffer Jennifer Dill was unaware of the gross contents of the “museum,” but said that it is properly licensed in the City of Chicago.
TAKE ACTION: Download the AFTAH PDF flier alerting residents to this “Perversion Museum,” the Leather Archives & Museum, at 6418 N. Greenview Ave., near Devon Ave., in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago. [Click HERE for flier.] Contact the Chicago Alderman in whose ward the “Leather Archives” sits, Ald. Pat O’Connor: 312-744-6858; e-mail: ward40@cityofchicago.org.
Stay tuned for further articles on Chicago’s very own “perversion museum” and the support for it in the city.
____________________
*The writer went as a pro-family reporter and as a critic–and has zero prurient interest in anything homosexual or BDSM, contrary to the vicious assertions of homosexual activists trying to “kill the messenger.”
I don't even believe that bullshit in either of those stories. Get a life my god, whatever the hell you call yourself.