A Theological Perspective on Why the Sky Is Blue

YUCK here. I am so glad to see you dedicate this exemplar of common sense to that wonderful US American, the Canadian Robert Byers!

Robert Byers (God bless him in all his endeavors!) is even now routing the infidel Darwinists from the field. God willing, soon he shall become North America's first and greatest Constitutional Theomancer and return us to glory!

dpr

Why do non theists like this one all too often feel so free to be disrespectful to people's most dearly held beliefs? Have you no compassion or respect for others? The arrogance. And this is all coming from one who accepts the science of evolution, etc. I am also a Bible believer. I don't interpret the creation story in Genesis as what we would deem literal. But to so freely mock the beauty of the language used in the creation story is totally uncalled for. There are other ways to poke fun at Creationists that are not so "blasphemous" to people's faith.

Avi, if you've read anything by Byers you know he is not worthy of any respect whatsoever. The man is unhinged, and just will not go away.

Also please note the publishing date.

Avi said: Why do non theists like this one all too often feel so free to be disrespectful to people's most dearly held beliefs? Have you no compassion or respect for others? The arrogance. And this is all coming from one who accepts the science of evolution, etc. I am also a Bible believer. I don't interpret the creation story in Genesis as what we would deem literal. But to so freely mock the beauty of the language used in the creation story is totally uncalled for. There are other ways to poke fun at Creationists that are not so "blasphemous" to people's faith.

That's great. And in the Northeast we had flooding this week just like Noah did. (The sky wasn't blue then.)

Karen S. said: That's great. And in the Northeast we had flooding this week just like Noah did. (The sky wasn't blue then.)

@ Matt Young -

Have a confession to make. I have seen the light and the Disco Tute is absoluely right. Have accepted as the one true PROPHET, thy master's most humble servant, Bill Dembski.

P. S. Of course I most strongly endorse your dedication to my favorite Canadian not named Denyse O'Leary.

Avi said: Why do non theists like this one all too often feel so free to be disrespectful to people's most dearly held beliefs?

From our "you can't make this stuff up" department: A relative of mine, a science teacher, has friends who are Biblical literalists. Recently he asked them to explain the existence of dinosaur fossils. They replied that they subscribed to a "theory" -- they insisted on the word theory -- that God had enclosed the earth with a shell that allowed the humidity to rise. Plants grew lush, and there was adequate food for dinosaurs. When God removed the shell the dinosaurs died out.

That's what's known as the "vapor canopy" theory, which was at one time seriously proposed by some of the well-known creationists. The removal of the shell was what led to Noah's flood.

Matt Young said: From our "you can't make this stuff up" department: A relative of mine, a science teacher, has friends who are Biblical literalists. Recently he asked them to explain the existence of dinosaur fossils. They replied that they subscribed to a "theory" -- they insisted on the word theory -- that God had enclosed the earth with a shell that allowed the humidity to rise. Plants grew lush, and there was adequate food for dinosaurs. When God removed the shell the dinosaurs died out.

You made some good points Avi, but you see how they respond to you.

Don't worry, you are useful to them, you are still their friend, of course -- as long as you limit your comments to criticizing and opposing Non-Darwinist efforts and creationist theology.

And you'd better learn to love that good bible satire, and (according to Fnxtr), you had better be thankful that your masters don't do anything WORSE to you Christians (how would you like to be dunked under water, you uppity Avi?).

FL

My sister's church "taught" her that the Earth was much more "pure" back in the "olden days" and that's why animals were far larger "back then" than they are now. I countered that the Earth's atmosphere was toxic to multi-cellular animal life for most of Earth's history, and that the largest animal that has ever existed exists in the present. My mother's church is even WORSE: they "teach" that idiotic "regenerating eagle" parable as biological fact. I set her straight on the biology end of things, but I had the sense she wasn't fully believing me. I love my mother, but it pains me to no end that she became all Jesus-y late in life and believes more and more stupid, untrue, and sometimes hateful things as she "grows" in her faith. I miss that woman who raised me.

FL said: ... you had better be thankful that your masters don't do anything WORSE to you Christians (how would you like to be dunked under water, you uppity Avi?).

Oh great, more sneering and baiting by Flaming Looney. I won't hang around for more of his special brand of short-bus riding, window-licking, steaming heap of bible babble. As it turns out, PZ Myers is speaking tonight at my place of employment, so I'm thrilled. And Avi, the xian persecution complex is getting pretty tired. Don't make me call the whaaaaambulance for you. Take a joke, ya crybaby.

Do I smell a persecution complex all up in this thread?

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones, they're a page right out of history...

Avi said: Why do non theists like this one all too often feel so free to be disrespectful to people's most dearly held beliefs?

I wonder if maybe, just to be on the safe side, the "me" in "And God said let the sky be blue* as a token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations" ought to be rendered as "Me."
The Big Fella tends to be kinda touchy about things like that, ya know. He gets pretty steamed if you have any other gods before Him.
Far as I know, though, it's okay to have other gods alongside of Him, eh?

Why do non theists like this one all too often feel so free to be disrespectful to people’s most dearly held beliefs? Have you no compassion or respect for others?

The arrogance. And this is all coming from one who accepts the science of evolution, etc. I am also a Bible believer. I don’t interpret the creation story in Genesis as what we would deem literal. But to so freely mock the beauty of the language used in the creation story is totally uncalled for. There are other ways to poke fun at Creationists that are not so “blasphemous” to people’s faith.

There are other ways to poke fun at Creationists that are not so “blasphemous” to people’s faith.

— Avi

A belief being "cherished" is not some sort of kryptonite shield against criticism, which is all good satire ever really is. I'm sure "The Producers" was offensive to some folks who "cherish" Nazism, too. In fact, I'd bet that ever target of satire is, if not exactly cherished, at least valued by some people or another. Next stop: ridiculous British libel and anti-blasphemy laws.

And to add to the point an earlier poster made, I happen to have a degree in biblical studies from well-known evangelical college. I know the Bible quite well, especially the New Testament (I studied Greek but not Hebrew, so I naturally learned more of the New Testament that way). And as objectively as I can put it, parts of the Bible are pretty good. There is a pleasant sort of poetic symmetry in Genesis 1 that I can understand people growing attached to. But with dozens of people working on it for hundreds of years, it could have been better. It's OK literature, and from that historical period, probably above average. But apart from its putative magical qualities, there's not much to "cherish" in the Bible. Much of what in it is good has been said better (or at least as well) elsewhere, and much of the rest of it is not only a middling source of literature, but a deplorable source of morals and wisdom. I don't think a person can just claim any old thing, regardless of its qualities, cherished and special and sacred and thereby off-limits for cheeky criticism...because I don't know what, then, could ever be fair game for criticism, nor how many things could improve without it.

Greg Peterson said: A belief being "cherished" is not some sort of kryptonite shield against criticism, which is all good satire ever really is. I'm sure "The Producers" was offensive to some folks who "cherish" Nazism, too. In fact, I'd bet that ever target of satire is, if not exactly cherished, at least valued by some people or another. Next stop: ridiculous British libel and anti-blasphemy laws. And to add to the point an earlier poster made, I happen to have a degree in biblical studies from well-known evangelical college. I know the Bible quite well, especially the New Testament (I studied Greek but not Hebrew, so I naturally learned more of the New Testament that way). And as objectively as I can put it, parts of the Bible are pretty good. There is a pleasant sort of poetic symmetry in Genesis 1 that I can understand people growing attached to. But with dozens of people working on it for hundreds of years, it could have been better. It's OK literature, and from that historical period, probably above average. But apart from its putative magical qualities, there's not much to "cherish" in the Bible. Much of what in it is good has been said better (or at least as well) elsewhere, and much of the rest of it is not only a middling source of literature, but a deplorable source of morals and wisdom. I don't think a person can just claim any old thing, regardless of its qualities, cherished and special and sacred and thereby off-limits for cheeky criticism...because I don't know what, then, could ever be fair game for criticism, nor how many things could improve without it.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ218.html

FL said: You made some good points Avi, but you see how they respond to you. Don't worry, you are useful to them, you are still their friend, of course -- as long as you limit your comments to criticizing and opposing Non-Darwinist efforts and creationist theology. And you'd better learn to love that good bible satire, and (according to Fnxtr), you had better be thankful that your masters don't do anything WORSE to you Christians (how would you like to be dunked under water, you uppity Avi?). FL

Jesse said:

Greg Peterson said: A belief being "cherished" is not some sort of kryptonite shield against criticism, which is all good satire ever really is. I'm sure "The Producers" was offensive to some folks who "cherish" Nazism, too. In fact, I'd bet that ever target of satire is, if not exactly cherished, at least valued by some people or another. Next stop: ridiculous British libel and anti-blasphemy laws. And to add to the point an earlier poster made, I happen to have a degree in biblical studies from well-known evangelical college. I know the Bible quite well, especially the New Testament (I studied Greek but not Hebrew, so I naturally learned more of the New Testament that way). And as objectively as I can put it, parts of the Bible are pretty good. There is a pleasant sort of poetic symmetry in Genesis 1 that I can understand people growing attached to. But with dozens of people working on it for hundreds of years, it could have been better. It's OK literature, and from that historical period, probably above average. But apart from its putative magical qualities, there's not much to "cherish" in the Bible. Much of what in it is good has been said better (or at least as well) elsewhere, and much of the rest of it is not only a middling source of literature, but a deplorable source of morals and wisdom. I don't think a person can just claim any old thing, regardless of its qualities, cherished and special and sacred and thereby off-limits for cheeky criticism...because I don't know what, then, could ever be fair game for criticism, nor how many things could improve without it.

Feeling persecuted is feeling closer to the Christians of old and Christ himself. It's also a convenient way to shut people up. Er, well, it would be convenient if it actually worked. I suspect that the Christians of old (you know - the ones who were used as lighting by Nero) were very different from the fundamentalists of today.

Hey, let me ask a question. Something I've been wondering about for a while.

You know, PvM used to post and contribute threads in this forum. He was a professing Christian, a theistic evolutionist just like Avi.

You guys used to get a lot of mileage off of PvM, but I've noticed that he hasn't posted around here in a long long time.

Just wanted to ask, whatever happened to him? Why did he stop posting at PT?

avi the hypocritical wacko: Why do non theists like this one all too often feel so free to be disrespectful to people’s most dearly held beliefs? Have you no compassion or respect for others? The arrogance.

google screen: 'Cardinal Cormac: 'Atheism the greatest of evils.'' by Ruth ...May 22, 2009 ... You need that behaviour to gain and strengthen your superior Catholic Morality to withstand sub-human atheist danger to the proper working ... www.richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?...Atheism... - Cached 'Atheists 'not fully human', says Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor ...I am also surprised that this interview didn't ask the natural follow-up question "do you think that atheists are subhuman?" ...

raven said:

avi the hypocritical wacko: Why do non theists like this one all too often feel so free to be disrespectful to people’s most dearly held beliefs? Have you no compassion or respect for others? The arrogance.

google screen: 'Cardinal Cormac: 'Atheism the greatest of evils.'' by Ruth ...May 22, 2009 ... You need that behaviour to gain and strengthen your superior Catholic Morality to withstand sub-human atheist danger to the proper working ... www.richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?...Atheism... - Cached 'Atheists 'not fully human', says Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor ...I am also surprised that this interview didn't ask the natural follow-up question "do you think that atheists are subhuman?" ...

You should see what xians say to and about atheists. According to an RCC cardinal, atheism is "the greatest of evils" and atheists are subhuman. In times past, before we took away their guns, rope, and firewood, xians could and did kill atheists. Better get that beam out of your eye before you claim atheists have a speck in theirs.

raven said: In times past, before we took away their guns, rope, and firewood, xians could and did kill atheists.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor Paedo Protector - Name and shame ...A priest at the centre of the latest child abuse scandal to rock the Catholic Church has been moved from his Sussex parish. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor ...

FL said: (snip)...and (according to Fnxtr), you had better be thankful that your masters don't do anything WORSE to you Christians ...(snip) FL

raven said:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor Paedo Protector - Name and shame ...A priest at the centre of the latest child abuse scandal to rock the Catholic Church has been moved from his Sussex parish. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor ...

Hmmm, looks like that Cardinal that called atheism "the greatest of evils" and atheists subhuman is up to his pointed hat in the RCC child sexual abuse problems. So Avi, that is why we make fun of theists. When they aren't insulting atheists or crying about their lost powers to murder whoever they want to, they are sometimes flat out evil.

You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items.

I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him.

Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items. I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him. Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items.

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items. I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him. Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

fnxtr said:

FL said: (snip)...and (according to Fnxtr), you had better be thankful that your masters don't do anything WORSE to you Christians ...(snip) FL

That was dogmeatrib, you pompous, arrogant, self-righteous turd.

Keelyn said:

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items. I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him. Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

Well, there is a saying, "If you can't take the heat ..."

dogmeatib said:

fnxtr said:

FL said: (snip)...and (according to Fnxtr), you had better be thankful that your masters don't do anything WORSE to you Christians ...(snip) FL

That was dogmeatrib, you pompous, arrogant, self-righteous turd.

Now he's gonna yell at me. ;o)

FL said: You made some good points Avi, but you see how they respond to you. Don't worry, you are useful to them, you are still their friend, of course -- as long as you limit your comments to criticizing and opposing Non-Darwinist efforts and creationist theology. And you'd better learn to love that good bible satire, and (according to Fnxtr), you had better be thankful that your masters don't do anything WORSE to you Christians (how would you like to be dunked under water, you uppity Avi?). FL

dogmeatib said: That you manage to completely miss the point of my comment, take it as some sort of veiled threat, *AND* manage to place the "blame" on the wrong person suggests you truly lack reading, analysis, and critical thinking skills. Sad, really, that you prove the very point you try to argue against.

That was dogmeatrib, you pompous, arrogant, self-righteous turd.

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items.

I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him.

Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

FL said:

That was dogmeatrib, you pompous, arrogant, self-righteous turd.

That was dogmeatrib?? Well, in that case, my sincere apologies to Fnxtr for the inaccurate attribution. My mistake. But I'd suuuuuure be careful about all that name-calling if I were (ahem) you, because Avi has effectively nailed this entire forum on the issue of arrogance. (Now, refute THAT one dude!) FL

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items. I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him. Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

The irony is that you were unable to fathom the fact that I said, quite clearly, that while the non-religious can be offensive, snarky, snide, they tend to be rather non-violent and non confrontational.

FL said:

The irony is that you were unable to fathom the fact that I said, quite clearly, that while the non-religious can be offensive, snarky, snide, they tend to be rather non-violent and non confrontational.

I'm sure Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung would agree with you. But you might get an objection or two from several million graves scattered throughout their respective countries!!!! FL

FL said:

That was dogmeatrib, you pompous, arrogant, self-righteous turd.

That was dogmeatrib?? Well, in that case, my sincere apologies to Fnxtr for the inaccurate attribution. My mistake. But I'd suuuuuure be careful about all that name-calling if I were (ahem) you, because Avi has effectively nailed this entire forum on the issue of arrogance. (Now, refute THAT one dude!) FL

FL said:

The irony is that you were unable to fathom the fact that I said, quite clearly, that while the non-religious can be offensive, snarky, snide, they tend to be rather non-violent and non confrontational.

I'm sure Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung would agree with you. But you might get an objection or two from several million graves scattered throughout their respective countries!!!! FL

Rilke's Granddaughter said: They weren't killed in the name of atheism, FL. I know that's a pretty big idea for you to wrap your brain around, but give it a shot. The Christians kill people in the name of religion. Stalin just didn't like people very much. :)

Thing is, FL, I really do have some devout Christian friends. They don't act like you. Apparently, your Christ wants you to be an obnoxious prick. That's not the Christ I've always heard about.

FL said:

The irony is that you were unable to fathom the fact that I said, quite clearly, that while the non-religious can be offensive, snarky, snide, they tend to be rather non-violent and non confrontational.

I'm sure Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung would agree with you. But you might get an objection or two from several million graves scattered throughout their respective countries!!!! FL

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler again. "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933; from Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 378.

"Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history....No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene." ----"Darwin's Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World," [1998], by eovlutionary biologist M.R. Rose, quoted at Stephen E. Jones website

"National Socialism is nothing but applied biology." --- Rudolf Hess, quoted by Benjamin Wiker, "Darwin and Hitler: In their Own Words." http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26346

Where did Jesus say He appreciated His followers spreading lies and slander? I was out that day in Sunday School.

FL, you brought up atheists who, for reasons other than atheism, killed lots of people.

We pointed out that there were worse killers who killed for explicitly christian purposes.

Try to act like a grown-up and deal with that issue.

Thing is, FL, I really do have some devout Christian friends. They don’t act like you. Apparently, your Christ wants you to be an obnoxious prick. That’s not the Christ I’ve always heard about.

And btw, RG, the officially atheist government of China is STILL imprisoning, beating, starving, and even sometimes murdering thousands of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists. Even in 2010.

Let's be honest, please. Darwinism fuels Atheism, and Atheism is just flat out NO-GOOD LOW-DOWN VAR-MINT SKUNK-MESS!!!

(I love those Cornfield County adjectives, don't you?)

FL :)

FL said: Well now, if y'all want to bring up Nazism, just go right ahead:

"Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history....No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene." ----"Darwin's Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World," [1998], by eovlutionary biologist M.R. Rose, quoted at Stephen E. Jones website

"National Socialism is nothing but applied biology." --- Rudolf Hess, quoted by Benjamin Wiker, "Darwin and Hitler: In their Own Words." http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26346

FL

That the program of Jesus and the capacity of self-fulfillment for the individual and for race, and the program of the Christian Church following after him, can hardly be accomplished without more knowledge and practice of simple eugenic laws. Edwin Bishop of the Plymouth Congregational Church of Lansing, Michigan - 3rd place winner, The American Eugenics Society Annual Sermon Contest

nmgirl said:

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items. I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him. Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

well, even if he/she's gone, this Christian is still here and I suspect a few others.

It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

FL, you don't get to promote outright fraud in the name of your extremist brand of religion and expect to be treated with respect by people who can see right through your constant nonsense and lies.

And bringing PvM into this was just a cheap shot. Grow up!

FL said: And btw, RG, the officially atheist government of China is STILL imprisoning, beating, starving, and even sometimes murdering thousands of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists. Even in 2010. Let's be honest, please. Darwinism fuels Atheism, and Atheism is just flat out NO-GOOD LOW-DOWN VAR-MINT SKUNK-MESS!!! (I love those Cornfield County adjectives, don't you?) FL :)

Stanton said: FL, how exactly is pointing that, and ridiculing you because you lie, slander and taunt us tantamount to hating Jesus Christ? I mean, last I heard, Jesus said that of those of His self-professed followers, provoking people with lies and slander, exactly what you are doing right now, He would specifically deny them salvation.

Dale Husband said: FL, you don't get to promote outright fraud in the name of your extremist brand of religion and expect to be treated with respect by people who can see right through your constant nonsense and lies.

And bringing PvM into this was just a cheap shot. Grow up!

FL said: And btw, RG, the officially atheist government of China is STILL imprisoning, beating, starving, and even sometimes murdering thousands of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists. Even in 2010. Let's be honest, please. Darwinism fuels Atheism, and Atheism is just flat out NO-GOOD LOW-DOWN VAR-MINT SKUNK-MESS!!! (I love those Cornfield County adjectives, don't you?) FL :)

FL said: And btw, RG, the officially atheist government of China is STILL imprisoning, beating, starving, and even sometimes murdering thousands of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists. Even in 2010. Let's be honest, please. Darwinism fuels Atheism, and Atheism is just flat out NO-GOOD LOW-DOWN VAR-MINT SKUNK-MESS!!! (I love those Cornfield County adjectives, don't you?) FL :)

For the record FL, if you use any of your Evolution -> Eugenics -> Holocaust sources that uses that Darwin quote as its evidence, that makes you the one guilty of lying, since you have now been informed of the full content rather than the out of context meaning.

Jesse said:

Stanton said: FL, how exactly is pointing that, and ridiculing you because you lie, slander and taunt us tantamount to hating Jesus Christ? I mean, last I heard, Jesus said that of those of His self-professed followers, provoking people with lies and slander, exactly what you are doing right now, He would specifically deny them salvation.

Why did I click on any of his links? Because I would have bet money that there was a Darwin quote in there where had they included the next few sentences, it would have totally changed the meaning of the message that they were conveying. I was right. Predictable.

D. P. Robin said:

nmgirl said:

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items. I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him. Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

well, even if he/she's gone, this Christian is still here and I suspect a few others.

Count me in as well. ELCA dpr

Stanton said:

Jesse said:

Stanton said: FL, how exactly is pointing that, and ridiculing you because you lie, slander and taunt us tantamount to hating Jesus Christ? I mean, last I heard, Jesus said that of those of His self-professed followers, provoking people with lies and slander, exactly what you are doing right now, He would specifically deny them salvation.

Why did I click on any of his links? Because I would have bet money that there was a Darwin quote in there where had they included the next few sentences, it would have totally changed the meaning of the message that they were conveying. I was right. Predictable.

I always found it utterly bizarre that people still believe that Charles Darwin somehow inspired Adolf Hitler into becoming the mastermind of a mass-murdering government. I mean, none of Hitler's rantings about anything ever suggested he even heard of Darwin, beyond one rant where he insisted that animals could not change with each passing generation because God made them the way they are.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

I've been around a number of different main stream churches. I didn't see any of those congregations as feeling oppressed.

A creationist once told me there is an area in the Peruvian Andes which is original earth not submerged by the flood. He told me there is no sickness there, people live very long lives, and grow monster vegetables. Where did that come from?

Jesse said: Oops, hit submit before I was ready.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

FL said: Let's be honest, please. Darwinism fuels Atheism ... FL :)

Stanton said:

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items. I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him. Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

Got any evidence for that claim, FL? I happen to be Christian, and I don't see anyone here trying to run me out. Could it be that you're just making up shit in order to slander Panda's Thumb? Can you show us where in the Bible it says it's okay to make false accusations in order to slander others?

John_S said:

FL said: Let's be honest, please. Darwinism fuels Atheism ... FL :)

If so, you'd think there'd be more atheists by now - I mean the theory has been around for over 150 years. Acceptance doesn't seem to have turned the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Evangelical Lutherans, US Presbyterians, United Methodists or United Church of Christ into atheists, unless you're using a strange definition of the word.

Jim Thomerson said: A creationist once told me there is an area in the Peruvian Andes which is original earth not submerged by the flood. He told me there is no sickness there, people live very long lives, and grow monster vegetables. Where did that come from?

Jim Thomerson said: I've been around a number of different main stream churches. I didn't see any of those congregations as feeling oppressed.

A creationist once told me there is an area in the Peruvian Andes which is original earth not submerged by the flood. He told me there is no sickness there, people live very long lives, and grow monster vegetables. Where did that come from?

John_S said:

FL said: Let's be honest, please. Darwinism fuels Atheism ... FL :)

If so, you'd think there'd be more atheists by now - I mean the theory has been around for over 150 years. Acceptance doesn't seem to have turned the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Evangelical Lutherans, US Presbyterians, United Methodists or United Church of Christ into atheists, unless you're using a strange definition of the word.

D. P. Robin said:

nmgirl said:

FL said: You know what? I think you guys ran off the theistic evolutionist PvM, ran him away from this PT board, because he was a professed Christian evolutionist who occasionally dared to challenge you guys and stand up for theism on one or two items. I remember some of your posts when you disagreed with his theistic views. Y'all were hittin' him pretty hard with those gut punches, weren't you? You made things ohhhh so clear to him. Is that why he left PandasThumb, amigos? Hmmm? That seething, barely concealed hatred towards Christianity was a bit too much for him, wasn't it?

well, even if he/she's gone, this Christian is still here and I suspect a few others.

Count me in as well. ELCA dpr

FL said: Well now, if y'all want to bring up Nazism, just go right ahead:

FL said: Well now, if y'all want to bring up Nazism, just go right ahead:

"Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history....No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene." ----"Darwin's Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World," [1998], by eovlutionary biologist M.R. Rose, quoted at Stephen E. Jones website

"National Socialism is nothing but applied biology." --- Rudolf Hess, quoted by Benjamin Wiker, "Darwin and Hitler: In their Own Words." http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26346

FL

Sorry about any typos in the above post. I'm using a smaller keyboard and sometimes I miss the space bar.

amyc said: Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223). Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based. Basically eugenics calls for the killing and/or sterilization of people with "detrimental" and/or unwanted genes or lineages. When a person has a full understanding of how evolution works hand in hand with mutations in genes, they will see that eugenics is counterproductive. A population needs genetic variability--just look at cheetahs. Without genetic variability we would all be inbred, we would have little to no ability to survive plagues and other types of environmental pressures. (Scientists are now able to see if one of your ancestors was infected with the black plague but was immune to it, they are using this information in the fight for aids). Without genetic variability, all of Europe probably would have fallen to the black plague, but we now know that there were a few whose immune systems could fight it. You cannot blame eugenics on Darwin. Eugenics relies on a false understanding of evolution and the way genetics works. There were plenty of mass killings and genocides before Darwin--Most of which in the name of religion. Plus there are plenty of examples of Hitler justifying himself through God. This does not mean we can blame religion either. Sick people will use any reason to kill people--whether it's religion, biology, politics, racism, or paranoia.

Byers, FL, this god chap, why doesn't s/he, it, defend his/her/its self these days like s/he, it used to do in the good ol' days?
Why does this god chap/chapess nedd prats like you, or taliban suicide nut jobs? Seems like a pretty lame arse god to follow, doesn't it? Why not follow an empty bottle of Coke, at least you could see, and touch it.

Jim Thomerson said: I've been around a number of different main stream churches. I didn't see any of those congregations as feeling oppressed. A creationist once told me there is an area in the Peruvian Andes which is original earth not submerged by the flood. He told me there is no sickness there, people live very long lives, and grow monster vegetables. Where did that come from?

FL is a perfect example of what my pastor called, "hardening hearts toward the Gospel". The large quantity of lying Christian scumbags, especially in the more evangelical churches, are one of the major reasons why I eventually left the church.
FL seems completely oblivious to the fact that he's not doing a very good job of representing his savior amongst the majority heathen population here. In fact, he's doing a great job of ensuring that most of us will spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire! Not that he probably would be bothered by that thought at all...

Alex H said:

Jim Thomerson said: I've been around a number of different main stream churches. I didn't see any of those congregations as feeling oppressed. A creationist once told me there is an area in the Peruvian Andes which is original earth not submerged by the flood. He told me there is no sickness there, people live very long lives, and grow monster vegetables. Where did that come from?

I'm guessing it was originally part of a snake oil sales pitch, I've heard a similar one about a village in the Himalayas where everybody lives to be 120 because of the super-minerals in the water.

Thank you for the dedication. I guess for Easter.
The difference from your invention and the bible is authority , evidence, powerful persuasion, and human agreement with these things.
The bible claims to be from God. Its a claim in good standing until you prove the witness lied.
The bible is fantastic full of ideas and data that can be checked by modern man. its excellent in its credibility.
the bible was the words of a ancient famous successful people in the middle east who still are the focus of earth while all other neighbours vanished in their identies.
The bible is the book for the great Christian civilization and especially the dominant and present Protestant civilization which created the modern world.
Especially amongst the English speaking people who were most excited about the truth of scripture as led by the Puritan/Evangelical in the Anglo-American universe.
It is these people, most close to following the bible, that raised the moral and intellectual standards of mankind. All good things come from here.
The world just copys or immigrates to this bible influence civilization.

The bible is the greatest book of ideas and facts in mankinds history and still in the greatest and most moral and intelligent people ever it is a source for truth on every detail of man.
It is the origin of this forum.

Nope. The bible is more then made up as if this was so there would by now be credible challengers by the ark-full.

Byers, the Bible claims to be from God, and you believe it.

The Book of Mormon (say) also claims to be from God, and you don't believe it. The Koran claims to be from God, and you don't believe it. The Bhagadavita claims to be from God, and you don't believe it.

What is the difference between these claims that causes you to believe the one, but not the others?

I've read the Bible, and it truly is not a magical book. It is boring, repetitive, and overall is not very inspiring, which probably explains why most people who claim to believe in its veracity have never read much of it. Besides, for every good or honorable idea found within its pages, there are at least a dozen horrid or despicable stories. Rape, torture, genocide - it's all in there! I'm familiar enough with biblical apologetics to know just how much twisting of scripture, evidence, and logic that is required to make the bible into anything resembling the coherent, inerrant word of god.

All the greatest parts of Western society, including science, humanism, and logic, happened despite the contents of the bible, not because of it.

sinned34 -

I'm not religious either, but I am one of the many non-religious people who finds the Bible, especially the KJV, to be an interesting, unique, and powerful work (or works) of literature.

Obviously there's no reason why we can't disagree on that subjective judgment. Just expressing a different view.

I'm definitely sick and tired of the influence of the decadent, post-modern, narcissistic, nihilistic version of Christianity which is a big political force in the US. However, I still love a lot of religion-inspired art, music, etc. I choose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Robert Byers said: The bible claims to be from God. Its a claim in good standing until you prove the witness lied. ... The bible is the greatest book of ideas and facts in mankinds history and still in the greatest and most moral and intelligent people ever it is a source for truth on every detail of man.

Robert Byers said: ... The bible claims to be from God. Its a claim in good standing until you prove the witness lied. the bible was the words of a ancient famous successful people in the middle east who still are the focus of earth while all other neighbours vanished in their identies.

You claim that the Bible is a source for truth on every detail...

— TomS

Frank J said:

You claim that the Bible is a source for truth on every detail...

— TomS

How can anything that is interpreted in so many mutually contradictory ways, by its defenders no less, be the source for truth on anything?

Thank you for the dedication.

I guess for Easter.

The difference from your invention and the bible is authority, evidence, powerful persuasion, and human agreement with these things.

And bringing PvM into this was just a cheap shot. Grow up!

How can anything that is interpreted in so many mutually contradictory ways, by its defenders no less, be the source for truth on anything?

And now you inform them that they do not meet the standards that you set to be a Christian....

"Because, ultimately, evolution honestly IS incompatible with Christianity. "

FL said:

How can anything that is interpreted in so many mutually contradictory ways, by its defenders no less, be the source for truth on anything?

Hmmm. Seems like a person could ask the same question about evolution, yes?

JKS said: And now you inform them that they do not meet the standards that you set to be a Christian.... "Because, ultimately, evolution honestly IS incompatible with Christianity. "

FL said:

And bringing PvM into this was just a cheap shot. Grow up!

So, Dale Husband, you ADMIT that you guys collectively ran PvM off your farm!! (And btw, I was there when you guys were jumping on him, so you're doing the right thing by owning up to your sins.) And it's a shame too. He contributed pro-evolution thread after pro-evolution thread to try to prove to you guys that he was on your side, that he was one of the boys, despite being a professing Christian. But like Avi, PvM couldn't quite suck it all up and suffer in silence when y'all went after his theistic beliefs. You could tell when all those collective criticisms was starting to get to him.

Think about it: PvM didn't leave because of FL. And Avi hasn't fallen silent in this thread becasue of FL. (And you've probably noticed that I haven't accused either person of not being a Christian.) No, YOU GUYS are the ones who attacked those theistic evolutionists despite them swearing their personal allegiance to the religion of evolution. You dog-piled 'em into silence.

And you know why you did it? Because, ultimately, evolution honestly IS incompatible with Christianity.

And as Avi is discovering (with you guy's gracious assistance of course), those huge incompatibilities are NOT resolved merely by claiming that Genesis is "non-literal."

harold said: sinned34 - I'm not religious either, but I am one of the many non-religious people who finds the Bible, especially the KJV, to be an interesting, unique, and powerful work (or works) of literature. Obviously there's no reason why we can't disagree on that subjective judgment. Just expressing a different view. I'm definitely sick and tired of the influence of the decadent, post-modern, narcissistic, nihilistic version of Christianity which is a big political force in the US. However, I still love a lot of religion-inspired art, music, etc. I choose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

FL said:

How can anything that is interpreted in so many mutually contradictory ways, by its defenders no less, be the source for truth on anything?

Hmmm. Seems like a person could ask the same question about evolution, yes?

Robert Byers said: Thank you for the dedication. I guess for Easter. The difference from your invention and the bible is authority , evidence, powerful persuasion, and human agreement with these things. The bible claims to be from God. Its a claim in good standing until you prove the witness lied. The bible is fantastic full of ideas and data that can be checked by modern man. its excellent in its credibility. the bible was the words of a ancient famous successful people in the middle east who still are the focus of earth while all other neighbours vanished in their identies. The bible is the book for the great Christian civilization and especially the dominant and present Protestant civilization which created the modern world. Especially amongst the English speaking people who were most excited about the truth of scripture as led by the Puritan/Evangelical in the Anglo-American universe. It is these people, most close to following the bible, that raised the moral and intellectual standards of mankind. All good things come from here. The world just copys or immigrates to this bible influence civilization. The bible is the greatest book of ideas and facts in mankinds history and still in the greatest and most moral and intelligent people ever it is a source for truth on every detail of man. It is the origin of this forum. Nope. The bible is more then made up as if this was so there would by now be credible challengers by the ark-full.

Oh, wait, no, that requires devoting energy searching for truth, and Jesus will die, return to life, die again, return to life again and make friends with Satan before FL will devote energy to search for truth.

FL said: Oh well. Anybody (including yourself) who wants to spend the day searching PT archives is welcome to do so. I'm just going off my own memories.

(And btw, remember I began here by asking YOU GUYS why PvM was departed from PT. You didn't respond, so I decided to supply my own reason for his absence. Looks like it was a pretty good reason!!)

One of the last comments I remember of PvM was that he was tired of dealing with petulant, narcissistic trolls.

Jesse said:

amyc said: Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223). Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based. Basically eugenics calls for the killing and/or sterilization of people with "detrimental" and/or unwanted genes or lineages. When a person has a full understanding of how evolution works hand in hand with mutations in genes, they will see that eugenics is counterproductive. A population needs genetic variability--just look at cheetahs. Without genetic variability we would all be inbred, we would have little to no ability to survive plagues and other types of environmental pressures. (Scientists are now able to see if one of your ancestors was infected with the black plague but was immune to it, they are using this information in the fight for aids). Without genetic variability, all of Europe probably would have fallen to the black plague, but we now know that there were a few whose immune systems could fight it. You cannot blame eugenics on Darwin. Eugenics relies on a false understanding of evolution and the way genetics works. There were plenty of mass killings and genocides before Darwin--Most of which in the name of religion. Plus there are plenty of examples of Hitler justifying himself through God. This does not mean we can blame religion either. Sick people will use any reason to kill people--whether it's religion, biology, politics, racism, or paranoia.

Eugenics was supported by a number of churches in the US prior to WWII. One of the many things that Eugenics was used to push was the continued ban on interracial marriages. Eugenics is unnatural selection, which is a bit different from one of the features of evolution.

Why has this thread turned into an argument about why or why not PvM left the Panda's Thumb forum? Maybe he found a different forum that didn't have so many delusional trolls. Maybe his computer broke, or he lost his internet connection. Maybe he hasn't had time to get online. It really doesn't matter why he left. The point of this forum is not to discuss why somebody may or may not have left. It is a pointless endeavor.

I also notice that FL dropped his eugenics argument and started focusing on the PvM debacle once he was shown to be an idiot on the subject.

And why are you accusing us of attack PvM, when you, yourself, do not regard him as a Christian? Isn’t that hypocritical of you?

Not my goal to turn this into a eugenics thread, Amyc. Somebody tried to bring up Nazism and that led to the appropriate quotations on my part, which then led to more replies.

For me, this thread is all about what Avi tried to tell y'all, and the way y'all responded to him.

THAT, is what folks here apparently don't wanna discuss too much.

FL said:

And why are you accusing us of attack PvM, when you, yourself, do not regard him as a Christian? Isn’t that hypocritical of you?

When PvM asked, I told him that just because he was an evolutionist didn't mean he wasn't a Christian. (Umm, where were you?) Btw, it's the same thing for Avi. You've never heard me say any different. He believes in evolution, but he's still a Christian. It's fully possible for genuine Christians to still believe in things that are in fact genuinely opposed and irreconcilable to Christianity. Happens all the time. Especially with Darwinism. Doesn't necessarily mean that a particular person is not a Christian. But it ALSO doesn't mean that evolution is compatible with Christianity. Not at all. (Think syncretism. Syncretism is not a good thing--in fact it's severely unhealthy for Christians--but it happens all the time. In fact, theistic evolutionism is essentially a permanent exercise in syncretism.) FL

FL said: Not my goal to turn this into a eugenics thread, Amyc. Somebody tried to bring up Nazism and that led to the appropriate quotations on my part, which then led to more replies.

For me, this thread is all about what Avi tried to tell y'all, and the way y'all responded to him.

THAT, is what folks here apparently don't wanna discuss too much.

amyc said: Why has this thread turned into an argument about why or why not PvM left the Panda's Thumb forum? Maybe he found a different forum that didn't have so many delusional trolls. Maybe his computer broke, or he lost his internet connection. Maybe he hasn't had time to get online. It really doesn't matter why he left. The point of this forum is not to discuss why somebody may or may not have left. It is a pointless endeavor.

amyc said: Why has this thread turned into an argument about why or why not PvM left the Panda's Thumb forum? Maybe he found a different forum that didn't have so many delusional trolls. Maybe his computer broke, or he lost his internet connection. Maybe he hasn't had time to get online. It really doesn't matter why he left. The point of this forum is not to discuss why somebody may or may not have left. It is a pointless endeavor.

If that’s so, then why have you been going on and on and on about how Christians could not be Christians if they accepted evolution as true?

FL said:

If that’s so, then why have you been going on and on and on about how Christians could not be Christians if they accepted evolution as true?

Go ahead and provide the exact quotation for where I said such a thing. I'll wait. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. For SURE. But, we live in a syncretistic world. Some of that syncretism has rubbed off on Christians. One of the many tasks of Christian leadership is to work on eliminating that syncretism, one heart, one mind, one life at a time. FL

Furthermore, you keep insisting that "Evolution is incompatible with Christianity," meaning that "one can not accept Jesus Christ and evolution"

If you accept that there are Christians who have no trouble with accepting Evolution, then your whole premise is false to begin with.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: My sister's church "taught" her that the Earth was much more "pure" back in the "olden days" and that's why animals were far larger "back then" than they are now. I countered that the Earth's atmosphere was toxic to multi-cellular animal life for most of Earth's history, and that the largest animal that has ever existed exists in the present. My mother's church is even WORSE: they "teach" that idiotic "regenerating eagle" parable as biological fact. I set her straight on the biology end of things, but I had the sense she wasn't fully believing me. I love my mother, but it pains me to no end that she became all Jesus-y late in life and believes more and more stupid, untrue, and sometimes hateful things as she "grows" in her faith. I miss that woman who raised me.

FL said: Not my goal to turn this into a eugenics thread, Amyc. Somebody tried to bring up Nazism and that led to the appropriate quotations on my part, which then led to more replies. For me, this thread is all about what Avi tried to tell y'all, and the way y'all responded to him. THAT, is what folks here apparently don't wanna discuss too much.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

FL said:

How can anything that is interpreted in so many mutually contradictory ways, by its defenders no less, be the source for truth on anything?

Hmmm. Seems like a person could ask the same question about evolution, yes?

Can you explain why you think this statement... "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf) ...was stated by a god-hating "Darwinist"?

Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, "The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives," by saying: "They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies." "In other words, definitely non-Christian." http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

(Night of 11th-12th July, 1941) National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." http://www.answers.org/apologetics/Hitquote.html

Syncretism is not a good thing–in fact it’s severely unhealthy for Christians ...

FL said:

Can you explain why you think this statement... "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf) ...was stated by a god-hating "Darwinist"?

Actually, that's a good question Stanton. Thanks for asking it. Gotta do the short answer right now, though. Hitler was certainly a Darwinist, but not necessarily an atheist. However, it is certain certain that Hitler was not a Christian. Hitler's idea of "God" or "Lord" was far different than Biblical Christianity.

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. - Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941 My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order

Anyway, Hitler probably wasnt' an atheist, nor did he necessarily hate ALL gods. But he sure didn't like the God of Judaism and Christianity. Didn't like THAT God (the God of Genesis, btw) at all!!!!!!

To answer your other issue, yes Hitler was a Darwinist.

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

Go back to the previous link from Benjamin Wiker: the parallel between Descent of Man and Mein Kampf is just plain flat out TOO obvious to miss, even if you're an evolutionist.

That's why Jesse wants to make an issue of whether the longer extended snippets support the point clearly established by Wiker's comparison of the key paragraphs in TDOM and MK. (Btw, they do.) There's no doubt about it, Hitler and his MK bought straight into the evolutionary natural selection based Racial Inferiority view of Darwin and his TDOM, right down to Hitler viewing the "negroids and mongrels" coming to a VERY BAD end in the Darwinian Survival Of Fittest evolution scheme--a scheme that explicity predicted evolution-based, planet-wide WIPEOUT of the Negroes and Aborigines (who were only one stinky pee-pee above the gorilla anyway, Darwin pointed out in TDOM.)

Anyway, gotta take this up later, but this should be enough to answer your question, one way or another.

Robert Byers said: Thank you for the dedication. I guess for Easter. The difference from your invention and the bible is authority , evidence, powerful persuasion, and human agreement with these things. The bible claims to be from God. Its a claim in good standing until you prove the witness lied. The bible is fantastic full of ideas and data that can be checked by modern man. its excellent in its credibility. the bible was the words of a ancient famous successful people in the middle east who still are the focus of earth while all other neighbours vanished in their identies. The bible is the book for the great Christian civilization and especially the dominant and present Protestant civilization which created the modern world. Especially amongst the English speaking people who were most excited about the truth of scripture as led by the Puritan/Evangelical in the Anglo-American universe. It is these people, most close to following the bible, that raised the moral and intellectual standards of mankind. All good things come from here. The world just copys or immigrates to this bible influence civilization. The bible is the greatest book of ideas and facts in mankinds history and still in the greatest and most moral and intelligent people ever it is a source for truth on every detail of man. It is the origin of this forum. Nope. The bible is more then made up as if this was so there would by now be credible challengers by the ark-full.

FL said: So, Dale Husband, you ADMIT that you guys collectively ran PvM off your farm!! (And btw, I was there when you guys were jumping on him, so you're doing the right thing by owning up to your sins.)

And it's a shame too. He contributed pro-evolution thread after pro-evolution thread to try to prove to you guys that he was on your side, that he was one of the boys, despite being a professing Christian. But like Avi, PvM couldn't quite suck it all up and suffer in silence when y'all went after his theistic beliefs. You could tell when all those collective criticisms was starting to get to him. Think about it: PvM didn't leave because of FL. And Avi hasn't fallen silent in this thread becasue of FL. (And you've probably noticed that I haven't accused either person of not being a Christian.) No, YOU GUYS are the ones who attacked those theistic evolutionists despite them swearing their personal allegiance to the religion of evolution. You dog-piled 'em into silence. And you know why you did it? Because, ultimately, evolution honestly IS incompatible with Christianity. And as Avi is discovering (with you guy's gracious assistance of course), those huge incompatibilities are NOT resolved merely by claiming that Genesis is "non-literal." FL

And for the record, I do not consider the absurd idea that the Bible is the Word of God to be an essential dogma of Christianity, since you can beleive in Jesus while still viewing the Bible as a flawed human product. Jesus lived in the Jewish culture of his time and place and spoke to his people in their own theological language. Had he not done so, none of them would have understood him. To support the assertion that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, you have to find a statement directly from Jesus denying outright the possibility of man's common descent from other animals species. And I know of none. Therefore, FL's claim is debunked.

Dale Husband said: I always knew you were a deluded freak, and now here is damning proof of it. That entire statement of yours is MADE UP!

FL Said: To answer your other issue, yes Hitler was a Darwinist. Go back to the previous link from Benjamin Wiker: the parallel between Descent of Man and Mein Kampf is just plain flat out TOO obvious to miss, even if you’re an evolutionist. That’s why Jesse wants to make an issue of whether the longer extended snippets support the point clearly established by Wiker’s comparison of the key paragraphs in TDOM and MK. (Btw, they do.)

Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

sinned34 - I’m not religious either, but I am one of the many non-religious people who finds the Bible, especially the KJV, to be an interesting, unique, and powerful work (or works) of literature. Obviously there’s no reason why we can’t disagree on that subjective judgment. Just expressing a different view. I’m definitely sick and tired of the influence of the decadent, post-modern, narcissistic, nihilistic version of Christianity which is a big political force in the US. However, I still love a lot of religion-inspired art, music, etc. I choose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Byers, you truly amaze me, your Jesus armour must be a foot thick; this is not a compliment.

Have you ever read, Plato's "Myth of the Cave"? You should, as you are one of the men who remained down the hole and never saw the light of day, and yet maintained a claim to enlightenment.

Byers said: "Especially amongst the English speaking people who were most excited about the truth of scripture as lead (?) by the Puritan/Evangelical in the Anglo/American universe."

This is pitiable stuff, do you have any, any shame? Your rants are the stuff of a truly delusional thought process; I use 'thought process'in its loosest meaning. Pray to Jesus but why bring in nationality? You are part of the 'Anglo/American universe' for one reason, your parents fucked there. This, as I'm sure you will agree does not bestow insight, hell, some people, me included, would consider it very unfortuanate.

sinned34 said:

sinned34 - I’m not religious either, but I am one of the many non-religious people who finds the Bible, especially the KJV, to be an interesting, unique, and powerful work (or works) of literature. Obviously there’s no reason why we can’t disagree on that subjective judgment. Just expressing a different view. I’m definitely sick and tired of the influence of the decadent, post-modern, narcissistic, nihilistic version of Christianity which is a big political force in the US. However, I still love a lot of religion-inspired art, music, etc. I choose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What I meant by my post was that all the great Western art in the past that was "inspired" by Christianity had very little to do with Christianity at all. Rather, it was crafted by creative humans that likely would have found inspiration in something else (nature, another religion, etc) if Christianity had not been the dominant religion where and when those artists lived.

In order to convince us that the bible is not made up, Byers makes up his own words, rules of grammar and rules of logic. Well I sure am convinced (that Byers is a delusional twit who should be ignored completely). If he did have anything meaningful to say, he could at least have the common decency to try to attempt to say it in a comprehensible manner. Trying to parse some meaning from his garbled ramblings is like trying to divine the future from tea leaves. You can convince yourself that you know what he is trying to say, but it is usually so strange that you can't believe that anyone would try to actually say that. So then you have to convince yourself that he wasn't really trying to say what you thought he said, so then you have to come up with something even more improbable, it can get very confusing. Probably better to just assume insanity and leave it at that. Even false prophets should learn to speak the language.

Jesse said: You just lied. Do you even understand that? You lied. Looking at those two paragraphs in their entirety shows a very different meaning that you are claiming.

DS said: In order to convince us that the bible is not made up, Byers makes up his own words, rules of grammar and rules of logic. Well I sure am convinced (that Byers is a delusional twit who should be ignored completely). If he did have anything meaningful to say, he could at least have the common decency to try to attempt to say it in a comprehensible manner. Trying to parse some meaning from his garbled ramblings is like trying to divine the future from tea leaves. You can convince yourself that you know what he is trying to say, but it is usually so strange that you can't believe that anyone would try to actually say that. So then you have to convince yourself that he wasn't really trying to say what you thought he said, so then you have to come up with something even more improbable, it can get very confusing. Probably better to just assume insanity and leave it at that. Even false prophets should learn to speak the language.

I just read thru most of the replies here. I apologize for sounding as though I was categorizing all non theists like so many people thought. I did say "all too often" and "non theists like this one." So I did try to be selective. But again, it is obvious that not all non theists are guilty of this.

And yes, all too often many people of faith fail to follow their own books like the Bible and fail to show love to those without the same views. I hate that. I believe that God does too.

I am new here so I don't know anything about the person who was being satired. So I won't comment on him.

One good thing about our freedom here in America is that our differences are rarely a cause for violence nowadays. Most often our differences can be safely kept to the freedom of speech. And so while I don't agree with speaking in a demeaning or mocking fashion of anyone, I can be thankful that this is as far as most will go with it.

And as a Bible believer, I for one can say that just because you may be an athiest or non believer you are not automatically a person with no morals, etc. That idea is thankfully not one that comes out of the Bible. It is what folks in my circles call "religious." But I am not here to get into this sort of debate. So while I do disagree with looking down your proud nose and mocking another, I don't mean to categorize an entire group. People are to be understood on a person to person basis.

Avi said: I just read thru most of the replies here. I apologize for sounding as though I was categorizing all non theists like so many people thought. I did say "all too often" and "non theists like this one." So I did try to be selective. But again, it is obvious that not all non theists are guilty of this. And yes, all too often many people of faith fail to follow their own books like the Bible and fail to show love to those without the same views. I hate that. I believe that God does too. I am new here so I don't know anything about the person who was being satired. So I won't comment on him. One good thing about our freedom here in America is that our differences are rarely a cause for violence nowadays. Most often our differences can be safely kept to the freedom of speech. And so while I don't agree with speaking in a demeaning or mocking fashion of anyone, I can be thankful that this is as far as most will go with it. And as a Bible believer, I for one can say that just because you may be an athiest or non believer you are not automatically a person with no morals, etc. That idea is thankfully not one that comes out of the Bible. It is what folks in my circles call "religious." But I am not here to get into this sort of debate. So while I do disagree with looking down your proud nose and mocking another, I don't mean to categorize an entire group. People are to be understood on a person to person basis.

Dale Husband said: That is very commendable. Welome to my circle of respect.

Avi wrote:

"And as a Bible believer, I for one can say that just because you may be an athiest or non believer you are not automatically a person with no morals, etc."

Agreed. Indeed, it seems to me that it is much more commendable that one develop a consistent rational basis for moral values that that one uncritically accept whatever is written in a book that has been translated four times. The two things are not necessarily incompatible, but in cases of conflict between reason and tradition, there must be an arbiter. Those who deny the value of human reason would seem to have absolved themselves of moral responsibility, that doesn't make their decision correct, or even desirable.

The early Christian church practically invented syncretism, when it took Greek paganism and covered it with a veneer of Hebrew monotheism.

The early Christian church practically invented syncretism, when it took Greek paganism and covered it with a veneer of Hebrew monotheism.

FL said:

The early Christian church practically invented syncretism, when it took Greek paganism and covered it with a veneer of Hebrew monotheism.

Thankfully, today's Christian scholarship (think NT Wright, Ronald Nash, Craig Blomberg and a host of others) and apologists like JP Holding (Tektonics website) have utterly destroyed, (as in totally nuked), skeptic-claims such as this one. FL

...Thankfully,...

FL said:

The early Christian church practically invented syncretism, when it took Greek paganism and covered it with a veneer of Hebrew monotheism.

Thankfully, today's Christian scholarship (think NT Wright, Ronald Nash, Craig Blomberg and a host of others) and apologists like JP Holding (Tektonics website) have utterly destroyed, (as in totally nuked), skeptic-claims such as this one. FL

Robert Byers said: Thank you for the dedication. I guess for Easter. The difference from your invention and the bible is authority , evidence, powerful persuasion, and human agreement with these things. The bible claims to be from God. Its a claim in good standing until you prove the witness lied. The bible is fantastic full of ideas and data that can be checked by modern man. its excellent in its credibility. the bible was the words of a ancient famous successful people in the middle east who still are the focus of earth while all other neighbours vanished in their identies. The bible is the book for the great Christian civilization and especially the dominant and present Protestant civilization which created the modern world. Especially amongst the English speaking people who were most excited about the truth of scripture as led by the Puritan/Evangelical in the Anglo-American universe. It is these people, most close to following the bible, that raised the moral and intellectual standards of mankind. All good things come from here. The world just copys or immigrates to this bible influence civilization. The bible is the greatest book of ideas and facts in mankinds history and still in the greatest and most moral and intelligent people ever it is a source for truth on every detail of man. It is the origin of this forum. Nope. The bible is more then made up as if this was so there would by now be credible challengers by the ark-full.

henry said: He is risen.

Touched a nerve did I?

Avi said: Touched a nerve did I?

"touched a nerve did I?.... coming home to numerous small kids is demanding"

...so, do you want sympathy, or respect for your ability to touch nerves?

FL said:

The early Christian church practically invented syncretism, when it took Greek paganism and covered it with a veneer of Hebrew monotheism.

Thankfully, today's Christian scholarship (think NT Wright, Ronald Nash, Craig Blomberg and a host of others) and apologists like JP Holding (Tektonics website) have utterly destroyed, (as in totally nuked), skeptic-claims such as this one. FL

In the beginning of years, when the world was so new and all, and the Animals were just beginning to work for Man...

this isn't biblical terminology, this is purest Kipling! Updated, of course, for the 21st century.

Either way, I do not comprehend how or why Jesus would appreciate people going out of their way to make reality-rejecting idiots out of themselves in order to prove themselves worthy of salvation.

Touched a nerve did I?

If you accept that there are Christians who have no trouble with accepting Evolution, then your whole premise ("evolution is incompatible with christianity") is false to begin with.

We can certainly agree with Ayala that these are common sentiments among Christians. But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict. The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.

My apologies, I forgot to cite the source on Rosenhouse.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-10/#feature

FL

this isn't biblical terminology, this is purest Kipling! Updated, of course, for the 21st century.

Even Hebrew monotheism was a mash-up of several other religions that the Israelites had been exposed to.

"All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion which cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing." ---A.R. Millard, quoted in John Walton's book Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Zondervan, 1994).

Matt Young said:

this isn't biblical terminology, this is purest Kipling! Updated, of course, for the 21st century.

Yes, O Best Beloved! I was wondering when someone would notice. I owe you a pastry and a cup of coffee at Erhard's the next time you are in Boulder.

FL is like the old judges in the witch trials who thought that questioning their authority was the same as heresy.

No-one hates the cross, FL, they just hate people who use it as an excuse to be assholes. And yes I mean you.

FL said:

If you accept that there are Christians who have no trouble with accepting Evolution, then your whole premise ("evolution is incompatible with christianity") is false to begin with.

That statement is incorrect, Stanton. How do we know that's incorrect? Because your fellow evolutionist, Jason Rosenhouse, said so. Quite eloquently, too.

We can certainly agree with Ayala that these are common sentiments among Christians. But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict. The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.

FL

Dave Luckett said: You neglect the vital datum that Jason Rosenhouse is stating his opinion, and no more. He agrees with Philip Kitcher, a philosopher, who says that the difficulties presented to Christianity by evolution are "insurmountable".

So, Jesus died on the cross so that FL would have an excuse to reject reality. Kind of puts the whole thing in a brand new light now doesn't it.

John Kwok said: I suppose next time you'll be emulating P. G. Wodehouse (And then you ought to dedicate it to FL IMHO, but of course LOL!!!!), though my personal preference would be Douglas Adams:

Matt Young said:

this isn't biblical terminology, this is purest Kipling! Updated, of course, for the 21st century.

Yes, O Best Beloved! I was wondering when someone would notice. I owe you a pastry and a cup of coffee at Erhard's the next time you are in Boulder.

fnxtr said: FL is like the old judges in the witch trials who thought that questioning their authority was the same as heresy. No-one hates the cross, FL, they just hate people who use it as an excuse to be assholes. And yes I mean you.

Dave Luckett said: You neglect the vital datum that Jason Rosenhouse is stating his opinion, and no more. He agrees with Philip Kitcher, a philosopher, who says that the difficulties presented to Christianity by evolution are "insurmountable". But even Kitcher's opinion is still only an opinion, and in my opinion, he is in error. Further, he and Jason Rosenhouse are doing the same as you, from the other direction. They also are trying to tell Christians what they must believe. Specifically, Christians do not have to believe that God created the world in six days six thousand years ago. They can accept the Theory of Evolution, with all its implications. They can and do believe that death is part of God's plan, and always was. As for suffering, yes, it happens, and God allows it. Darwin demonstrated that death and suffering are part and parcel of life. So? Jesus was very certain of that, too, yet he still taught as he did. I know you very badly want to enforce this false dichotomy, FL - believe Genesis literally or give up Christianity - but you can't. The known facts are in irreconcilable conflict with a literal reading of Genesis, true, but they are not in conflict with the actual doctrines of Christianity. I know that sticks in your craw, but too bad. You're simply wrong.

FL said:

If you accept that there are Christians who have no trouble with accepting Evolution, then your whole premise ("evolution is incompatible with christianity") is false to begin with.

That statement is incorrect, Stanton. How do we know that's incorrect? Because your fellow evolutionist, Jason Rosenhouse, said so. Quite eloquently, too.

We can certainly agree with Ayala that these are common sentiments among Christians. But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict. The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.

FL

FL said:

Even Hebrew monotheism was a mash-up of several other religions that the Israelites had been exposed to.

No, that is not true either. Please consider:

"All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion which cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing." ---A.R. Millard, quoted in John Walton's book Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Zondervan, 1994).

FL

FL said:

Either way, I do not comprehend how or why Jesus would appreciate people going out of their way to make reality-rejecting idiots out of themselves in order to prove themselves worthy of salvation.

Stanton, I believe you identified yourself earlier in this thread as a Christian. Do you believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead? Or is that a rejection of reality in your opinion? I await your answer..... FL

FL said:

If you accept that there are Christians who have no trouble with accepting Evolution, then your whole premise ("evolution is incompatible with christianity") is false to begin with.

That statement is incorrect, Stanton. How do we know that's incorrect? Because your fellow evolutionist, Jason Rosenhouse, said so. Quite eloquently, too.

We can certainly agree with Ayala that these are common sentiments among Christians. But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict. The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions.

FL

FL is like the old judges in the witch trials who thought that questioning their authority was the same as heresy.

Mike Elzinga said:

fnxtr said: FL is like the old judges in the witch trials who thought that questioning their authority was the same as heresy. No-one hates the cross, FL, they just hate people who use it as an excuse to be assholes. And yes I mean you.

One might go even farther and say that FL and his “kind” are the quintessential wolves in sheep’s clothing. They make a point of advertising their phony piety and their fake “Christian” authority, yet they deny the objective realities of the universe made by a deity they claim to worship. The irony is that, if there is a deity who did in fact make a universe, atheists know far more about that deity than do FL and the rest of his angst-driven, social-climbing cult leader wannabes. Why would someone who claimed to worship a deity constantly refuse to study and learn about the deity's handiwork; reverting instead to any pseudo-science that promotes extreme narcissists to positions of power and authority over ignorant rubes?

FL said:

FL is like the old judges in the witch trials who thought that questioning their authority was the same as heresy.

I have not said anything about me having any kind of authority. I claim nothing like that here. Ummm, I am quite serious about my statement "the Cross is a HUGE offense around here." (The phrase effectively means in the NLT version, "If I were no longer preaching salvation through the cross of Christ, no one would be offended.") Honestly, from a pro-evolution perspective, PvM satisfied ALL the requirements for every evolutionist's "circle of respect" around here, but in the end he still received serious criticisms all the same for his beliefs. And now he's not around, not even slightly or occasionally. Go figure. An offense. FL

Are you aware that we are aware that literally every non-Creationist you quote you deliberately distort in quotemines?

FL said:

Are you aware that we are aware that literally every non-Creationist you quote you deliberately distort in quotemines?

That's why I provided the link along with the Rosenhouse quote. I want you to have everything you need. You want to make an accusation of quote-mining? Go back to that link and actually DEFEND the accusation.

FL said:

Are you aware that we are aware that literally every non-Creationist you quote you deliberately distort in quotemines?

That's why I provided the link along with the Rosenhouse quote. I want you to have everything you need. You want to make an accusation of quote-mining? Go back to that link and actually DEFEND the accusation.

John Kwok said: Why don't you shut up for once, pay attention to what we have been saying, and then, after you've made a serious attempt at enlightenment, drop by again to demonstrate that you've really acquired some wisdom

John Kwok said to FL: Why don't you shut up for once, pay attention to what we have been saying, and then, after you've made a serious attempt at enlightenment, drop by again to demonstrate that you've really acquired some wisdom:

If you haven't noticed FL, your scumbaggery really turns people off. It makes the Christians who use their brains and actually have decent ethical standards look bad and they get pissed off. They don't like being lumped in with the hypocritical, asinine willfully ignorant circus that you call being a good Christian. It makes non-Christians look at Christianity and not want anything to do with such an unethical set of religious practices. That is part of why fundamentalism is going to lose a lot of influence in the not too distant future.

Personal testimony:

I am an atheist. I was raised in a mainstream Protestant church. When we moved to a new town, and were raising toddlers, I seriously considered attending church again (yes, hypocritically), for the social contacts and the exposure my kids would have to Christianity, whether they adopted it or not. I have atheist friends who did just that.

However, occasional contact with fundamentalist bigots, YECs and the like, even in that mainstream church, persuaded me that any positive benefit of church membership for my children would not be worth the risk. I REALLY wouldn't want one of my kids to decide to become "born again" and become a reality-denying bibliolator like FL.

Thus my children missed out on a "Christian education" and background (culturally useful even if they remained atheist). And Christians missed out on a chance to educate and "save" them. All thanks to fundamentalist YECs like FL.

Just Bob said: Personal testimony: I am an atheist. I was raised in a mainstream Protestant church. When we moved to a new town, and were raising toddlers, I seriously considered attending church again (yes, hypocritically), for the social contacts and the exposure my kids would have to Christianity, whether they adopted it or not. I have atheist friends who did just that. However, occasional contact with fundamentalist bigots, YECs and the like, even in that mainstream church, persuaded me that any positive benefit of church membership for my children would not be worth the risk. I REALLY wouldn't want one of my kids to decide to become "born again" and become a reality-denying bibliolator like FL. Thus my children missed out on a "Christian education" and background (culturally useful even if they remained atheist). And Christians missed out on a chance to educate and "save" them. All thanks to fundamentalist YECs like FL.

What I believe about my Savior, Jesus Christ, is my own damned business. If you think I’m stupid enough to expose my own personal beliefs to you, knowing full well that you fully intend to ridicule and mock my personal beliefs, and that you are champing at the bit to judge me to be unworthy a Christian, you’re a bigger idiot than I already assume you to be.

Just Bob said: However, occasional contact with fundamentalist bigots, YECs and the like, even in that mainstream church, persuaded me that any positive benefit of church membership for my children would not be worth the risk. I REALLY wouldn't want one of my kids to decide to become "born again" and become a reality-denying bibliolator like FL.

FL said: I would never--totally never--use ridicule against another Christian WRT their personal Christianity.

But we both know that I put out ALL of what I believe for you guys to critically examine, everyday, no matter what.

And yes, if you dared to do the same, I would indeed take a sincere and critical look at your statement of belief, to see if what you say matches the Bible or contradicts it. You know I would do that without even blinking. But never to ridicule you, never to mock. F(oolish) L(oon)

FL said: I would never--totally never--use ridicule against another Christian WRT their personal Christianity. But never to ridicule you, never to mock. FL

Dale Husband said: Liar. You already do that every time you assert that Christianity and evolution are not compatible. You don't get to define what Christianity is for others, unless you claim to be Jesus Himself.

I am myself an agnostic who is a loyal member of my Unitarian Universalist Church and I see myself as no hypocrite.

Heres' another one... "and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery."

There you go. The supreme intelligent master of the universe thinks divorced women have the "cooties" or something. The supreme super-duper intelligent master of the universe so full of love and joy, is worried about some lame superstitious baloney. Nice.

You're not a hypocrite in that situation (if I may opine briefly). The UU in my hometown is a perfect fit for agnostics. But, I'm a hypocrite. And hypocrites have NO business joining the Unitarians. (Perrrrriod!!) FL

386sx said: Heres' another one... "and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery." There you go. The supreme intelligent master of the universe thinks divorced women have the "cooties" or something. The supreme super-duper intelligent master of the universe so full of love and joy, is worried about some lame superstitious baloney. Nice.

Dale Husband said:

You're not a hypocrite in that situation (if I may opine briefly). The UU in my hometown is a perfect fit for agnostics. But, I'm a hypocrite. And hypocrites have NO business joining the Unitarians. (Perrrrriod!!) FL

Fixed. Now your statement appears to be accurate. As for Christians who are members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, here is their website: http://www.uuchristian.org/ Again, you don't get to define what Christianity is. Or what Unitarians are. Or even what the Word of God is. Are you God?

Jesse said:

Dale Husband said:

You're not a hypocrite in that situation (if I may opine briefly). The UU in my hometown is a perfect fit for agnostics. But, I'm a hypocrite. And hypocrites have NO business joining the Unitarians. (Perrrrriod!!) FL

Fixed. Now your statement appears to be accurate. As for Christians who are members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, here is their website: http://www.uuchristian.org/ Again, you don't get to define what Christianity is. Or what Unitarians are. Or even what the Word of God is. Are you God?

No True Scotsman.

I would never–totally never–use ridicule against another Christian WRT their personal Christianity. But we both know that I put out ALL of what I believe for you guys to critically examine, everyday, no matter what. And yes, if you dared to do the same, I would indeed take a sincere and critical look at your statement of belief, to see if what you say matches the Bible or contradicts it. You know I would do that without even blinking. But never to ridicule you, never to mock.

— FL

Dale Husband said:

Jesse said:

Dale Husband said:

You're not a hypocrite in that situation (if I may opine briefly). The UU in my hometown is a perfect fit for agnostics. But, I'm a hypocrite. And hypocrites have NO business joining the Unitarians. (Perrrrriod!!) FL

Fixed. Now your statement appears to be accurate. As for Christians who are members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, here is their website: http://www.uuchristian.org/ Again, you don't get to define what Christianity is. Or what Unitarians are. Or even what the Word of God is. Are you God?

No True Scotsman.

Yes, and I'd be just as irritated at an atheist who asserts that "No true atheist would attend a UU church." I'm against ALL intolerance, not just the "Christian" kind.

FL said:

What I believe about my Savior, Jesus Christ, is my own damned business. If you think I’m stupid enough to expose my own personal beliefs to you, knowing full well that you fully intend to ridicule and mock my personal beliefs, and that you are champing at the bit to judge me to be unworthy a Christian, you’re a bigger idiot than I already assume you to be.

Gotta admit, your opening sentence is a classic. I'd love to see it on the front cover of "Evangelism Today"!!! And believe it or not, I can honestly understand your logic there. I would never--totally never--use ridicule against another Christian WRT their personal Christianity. But we both know that I put out ALL of what I believe for you guys to critically examine, everyday, no matter what. And yes, if you dared to do the same, I would indeed take a sincere and critical look at your statement of belief, to see if what you say matches the Bible or contradicts it. You know I would do that without even blinking. But never to ridicule you, never to mock. FL

Keep in mind that we have no idea what Jesus actually taught, since everything in the Gospels that refers to him is a second or third hand account and we don’t know for sure who wrote what about him.

FL said:

Keep in mind that we have no idea what Jesus actually taught, since everything in the Gospels that refers to him is a second or third hand account and we don’t know for sure who wrote what about him.

Ahhhh, there we go. Spoken like a genuine agnostic, I'll give you that. But NOW, you demonstrate where you're really coming from. Your statement, as you've worded it there, means that nobody knows if ANYTHING Jesus said or did in the Gospels is true at all. Not Avi, not PvM, not Nmgirl, not me, not even Stanton. You're saying that their profession of faith, and mine too, is a completely blind leap in the dark with no basis other than ignorance, for you claim that nobody knows if Jesus's words or deeds ever happened, because they are secondhand accounts you say (that ignores what Luke and John said about eyewitness testimony, but I'm sure that doesn't bother you, mmmm.) IOW, no "Love Thy Neighbor", no Miracles, no healings, no displays of Compassion, no Atonement for all of humanity's sins, no Resurrection from the dead to prove that the Atonement was accepted by God. Nothing. None of it historically trustworthy. And obviously you yourself believe that the major claims of Jesus from the Gospels are historically false, or else you'd choose to trust Christ yourself. ****** So when you start preaching to me that "I don't get to define what Christianity is,", that's actually because you've already adopted a view of Christianity in which Christ himself would not be able to define Christianity. (Unless he bedame a full-blown skeptic like you, eh?) As an agnostic, you're not only saying "nobody knows", you're saying "it's not possible for anybody TO know" if the Gospels are historically true or false. Furthermore, your view entails throwing out the Bible's historical testimony about Jesus. Just assuming it didn't happen or something. As indeed, you've clearly done. And, under your criterion, there is necessarily a great deal of non-biblical ancient historical literature that must be suddenly thrown out as well!!! ****** But anyway, it's not my job to define Christianity. Jesus already did it. Quite clearly. The Bible is clear enough: You cannot be an atheist and a Christian at the same time, for example. In fact, not even an agnostic at the same time. You CAN rationally figure out what Christianity is and what it necessarily ain't, because God's Word spells it out for you. But you specifically reject Jesus, the Bible, God, the Gospels, the New T, the Old T, the whole thing----------and have chosen a skeptic-religion in which to keep Jesus from ringing your doorbell. So now, when somebody expresses agreement with what Christianity is as Jesus defined it, as it's spelled out in the New Testament, you start getting an attitude and calling people hypocrites. And calling them Blasphemers too, isn't that right? I think you were preaching about that too, earlier in the thread. But, (sigh), that stuff just ain't gonna work Dale. A fundie-level religious devotion to the religion of agnosticism -- and that's where you're at -- cannot be allowed to define Christianity either. FL

Dale Husband said: ...snip...Atheists don't hate God, Jesus, etc., etc,...snip...

Dale Husband said:

386sx said: Heres' another one... "and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery." There you go. The supreme intelligent master of the universe thinks divorced women have the "cooties" or something. The supreme super-duper intelligent master of the universe so full of love and joy, is worried about some lame superstitious baloney. Nice.

Keep in mind that we have no idea what Jesus actually taught, since everything in the Gospels that refers to him is a second or third hand account and we don't know for sure who wrote what about him. All we have are church traditions and Jesus himself warned the Jews about blindly following religious traditions.......yet that is exactly what most Christians do. So when @$$holes like FL argue about who or who may not be a "true" Christian, I just laugh.

The historical saga contained in the Bible...*...was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination. Finkelstein/Silberman, "The Bible Unearthed", page 1

FL said:

Even Hebrew monotheism was a mash-up of several other religions that the Israelites had been exposed to.

No, that is not true either. Please consider:

"All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion which cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing." ---A.R. Millard, quoted in John Walton's book Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Zondervan, 1994).

FL

Dale Husband said: Perhaps you could have gone to a Unitarian Universalist church. Atheists are welcome at such places. Or if there is no UU church near where you live, you can sign up for membership here: http://clf.uua.org/ But start here to learn more about the Unitarian Universalism: http://www.uua.org/visitors/index.shtml and here: http://www.uua.org/visitors/theologicalperspectives/6191.shtml I am myself an agnostic who is a loyal member of my Unitarian Universalist Church and I see myself as no hypocrite.

Dale Husband said: Yes, and I'd be just as irritated at an atheist who asserts that "No true atheist would attend a UU church." I'm against ALL intolerance, not just the "Christian" kind.

FL said:

Keep in mind that we have no idea what Jesus actually taught, since everything in the Gospels that refers to him is a second or third hand account and we don’t know for sure who wrote what about him.

Ahhhh, there we go. Spoken like a genuine agnostic, I'll give you that. But NOW, you demonstrate where you're really coming from. Your statement, as you've worded it there, means that nobody knows if ANYTHING Jesus said or did in the Gospels is true at all. Not Avi, not PvM, not Nmgirl, not me, not even Stanton. You're saying that their profession of faith, and mine too, is a completely blind leap in the dark with no basis other than ignorance, for you claim that nobody knows if Jesus's words or deeds ever happened, because they are secondhand accounts you say (that ignores what Luke and John said about eyewitness testimony, but I'm sure that doesn't bother you, mmmm.) IOW, no "Love Thy Neighbor", no Miracles, no healings, no displays of Compassion, no Atonement for all of humanity's sins, no Resurrection from the dead to prove that the Atonement was accepted by God. Nothing. None of it historically trustworthy. And obviously you yourself believe that the major claims of Jesus from the Gospels are historically false, or else you'd choose to trust Christ yourself. ****** So when you start preaching to me that "I don't get to define what Christianity is,", that's actually because you've already adopted a view of Christianity in which Christ himself would not be able to define Christianity. (Unless he bedame a full-blown skeptic like you, eh?) As an agnostic, you're not only saying "nobody knows", you're saying "it's not possible for anybody TO know" if the Gospels are historically true or false. Furthermore, your view entails throwing out the Bible's historical testimony about Jesus. Just assuming it didn't happen or something. As indeed, you've clearly done. And, under your criterion, there is necessarily a great deal of non-biblical ancient historical literature that must be suddenly thrown out as well!!! ****** But anyway, it's not my job to define Christianity. Jesus already did it. Quite clearly. The Bible is clear enough: You cannot be an atheist and a Christian at the same time, for example. In fact, not even an agnostic at the same time. You CAN rationally figure out what Christianity is and what it necessarily ain't, because God's Word spells it out for you. But you specifically reject Jesus, the Bible, God, the Gospels, the New T, the Old T, the whole thing----------and have chosen a skeptic-religion in which to keep Jesus from ringing your doorbell. So now, when somebody expresses agreement with what Christianity is as Jesus defined it, as it's spelled out in the New Testament, you start getting an attitude and calling people hypocrites. And calling them Blasphemers too, isn't that right? I think you were preaching about that too, earlier in the thread. But, (sigh), that stuff just ain't gonna work Dale. A fundie-level religious devotion to the religion of agnosticism -- and that's where you're at -- cannot be allowed to define Christianity either. FL

FL said:

Touched a nerve did I?

Yes, Avi, you did. That's actually how this thread got going. Think about it: of all the (few) professing Christians in this forum (myself included), only YOU made a decision to challenge the original post as inappropriate from a Christian perspective. You're in my "circle of respect" for doing so. But please don't wind up apologizing to these guys for the original stand you made. Yes, show the Christian love as best you can, but don't let these guys back you down, because they'll absolutely do it if you let them. Sorry if that doesn't sound loving enough, but you admit you are new, so please make no mistake about what forum you've landed in. Biblically speaking, the Cross is a HUGE offense around here, no matter how loving and caring you may be. FL

386sx, that quote about "in the beginning God made them male and female": you have to ask what "in the beginning" means, and who the "them" are.

Context. Jesus was being asked whether it is lawful to divorce, and is answering that question. He is therefore giving a rule - something he very rarely did - about a human institution. The remark is a preamble to an (implied) idea: that marriage was ordained by God at the beginning.

At the beginning of what? Why, since this is about human institutions, at the beginning of humanity, of course. These are the "them" of which Jesus speaks: humans.

And when we look at human societies, we find that marriage, in some form, is absolutely universal to all of them, which argues that it has been with us since "the beginning". We also find that it is different from the arrangements of our nearest relatives. We also find that the very long infancy and dependence of humans on their parents makes marriage an advantageous arrangement, and sexual pair-bonding - marriage - is therefore probably consequent on it.

So Jesus was speaking perfect truth, as far as we understand it. Male and female were there at the beginning (of humanity), and so was marriage.

Just to be absolutely specific, he was not saying or implying that God created the Universe in six days, or the species by separate supernatural creation.

Sexual pair-bonding in humans is a cultural choice. If we were truly a pair-bonding species, there would be no infidelity, no divorce, no prostitution. Once we found a mate, we would simply not react sexually to anyone else. And we really don't know the social behaviour of early humans. Chimps and bonobos are quite promiscuous, though, and that might be a clue.

fnxtr said: Sexual pair-bonding in humans is a cultural choice. If we were truly a pair-bonding species, there would be no infidelity, no divorce, no prostitution. Once we found a mate, we would simply not react sexually to anyone else. And we really don't know the social behaviour of early humans. Chimps and bonobos are quite promiscuous, though, and that might be a clue.

So far as we know. Exactly. And there are polygamous/polyandrous cultures. If by marriage he meant monogamy then I suggest he was quite simply wrong.

There's still ample doubt as to whether or not Jesus was really a historic figure. The Roman - Jewish historian Flavius Josephus doesn't mention him, and if he does, then it's merely in passing.

Oh, quite so. I quite agree with you. He was wrong, in our terms. His opinion, that divorce is impermissable except in the case of the adultery of the woman, is quite obviously only applicable to the culture of his time and place (and similar).

But on the other hand, it was that culture, that time and place, of which he was speaking, and his stricture recognised that marriage was an economic institution the dissolution of which had economic effects, among which was the tendency to impoverish - actually to render destitute - the woman, and (unfairly) to stigmatise her. In terms of that culture, the opinion was actually a compassionate one. It does not hold for our culture.

Certainly there are polygynous, polyandrous, serial and line marriage and various other forms of marriage in human societies. (Well has it been remarked that modern western culture practices serial polygamy.) That doesn't mean that marriage is not found in all human societies, nor that it is not very ancient, at least.

The point, I submit, stands. Jesus was not describing the origin of the species. He was giving an opinion on divorce, one with which rational people may differ. But to say he was stating that the world was created in six days and the species separately by supernatural means is to put words in his mouth.

John Kwok, I agree that there is a body of opinion that holds that there is insufficient evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I do not agree with that opinion.

Dave Luckett said: John Kwok, I agree that there is a body of opinion that holds that there is insufficient evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I do not agree with that opinion.

Dave Luckett said: 386sx, that quote about "in the beginning God made them male and female": you have to ask what "in the beginning" means, and who the "them" are. Context. Jesus was being asked whether it is lawful to divorce, and is answering that question. He is therefore giving a rule - something he very rarely did - about a human institution. The remark is a preamble to an (implied) idea: that marriage was ordained by God at the beginning. At the beginning of what? Why, since this is about human institutions, at the beginning of humanity, of course. These are the "them" of which Jesus speaks: humans. And when we look at human societies, we find that marriage, in some form, is absolutely universal to all of them, which argues that it has been with us since "the beginning". We also find that it is different from the arrangements of our nearest relatives. We also find that the very long infancy and dependence of humans on their parents makes marriage an advantageous arrangement, and sexual pair-bonding - marriage - is therefore probably consequent on it. So Jesus was speaking perfect truth, as far as we understand it. Male and female were there at the beginning (of humanity), and so was marriage. Just to be absolutely specific, he was not saying or implying that God created the Universe in six days, or the species by separate supernatural creation.

Jesse, I quite agree that the fully contemporary records (within one lifetime) are very scant, but the letters of Paul date as early as the early fifties, and the first Gospels probably no later than 70. The Gospel of John is thought by most scholars to incorporate eyewitness material. Most scholars accept the view that there were written sources for the synoptic Gospels that predate them. The Rylands fragment appears to be a piece of one of these.

The reference in Josephus has certainly been tampered with, but when I read it, I hear two voices, one skeptical, one credulous. I think the former is the original text, which would argue that Josephus did actually acknowledge at least the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, as a nabi and miracle-worker who attracted many who believed in such things. There is also the passing reference in Pliny. Ironeus and some other Church fathers date as early as the early second century.

You seem to assume that Christian writers must be excluded from evidence altogether, but this appears unreasonable to me. Others would have little reason to mention Jesus, and the Gospels, at least, are consistent within reason with each other and with what else is known of the time and place and Roman administration of Judea.

The other side of the argument is how well any figure from ancient history is attested by first-class direct disinterested eyewitness accounts. It is, in fact, very rare to find this. Socrates, for example, is only known from the writings of his disciples and adherents written a generation later. These plainly contain material that could not have been recorded at the time. The Dialogues purport to be reportage of actual conversations, thirty years on, for example.

Even someone as momentous as Alexander the Great is not known from any contemporary or eyewitness source. The accounts we have, while certainly credible - Arrian particularly - originate centuries later, and are based on material that has been lost.

It always seems to me that demands that the existence and teachings of Jesus be attested by direct disinterested eyewitness accounts, or be discounted altogether, is uncannily like the demand of creationists that every detail of evolution be demonstrated before their eyes, or they won't believe a word of it. Both require "proof" in ways or to extents that take no account of the nature of the materials and evidence available.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, quite so. I quite agree with you. He was wrong, in our terms. His opinion, that divorce is impermissable except in the case of the adultery of the woman, is quite obviously only applicable to the culture of his time and place (and similar). But on the other hand, it was that culture, that time and place, of which he was speaking, and his stricture recognised that marriage was an economic institution the dissolution of which had economic effects, among which was the tendency to impoverish - actually to render destitute - the woman, and (unfairly) to stigmatise her. In terms of that culture, the opinion was actually a compassionate one. It does not hold for our culture. Certainly there are polygynous, polyandrous, serial and line marriage and various other forms of marriage in human societies. (Well has it been remarked that modern western culture practices serial polygamy.) That doesn't mean that marriage is not found in all human societies, nor that it is not very ancient, at least. The point, I submit, stands. Jesus was not describing the origin of the species. He was giving an opinion on divorce, one with which rational people may differ. But to say he was stating that the world was created in six days and the species separately by supernatural means is to put words in his mouth.

386sx said: I thought he (Jesus) like speaking out against social injustices? And he liked it when people gave up their wealth? I guess not...

Dave Luckett said:

386sx said: I thought he (Jesus) like speaking out against social injustices? And he liked it when people gave up their wealth? I guess not...

I am not going to ask how you arrived at such a conclusion, nor will I attempt to reply to your earlier comment. It is plain that the subject itself offends you. I regret doing that. I assure you, it was inadvertent.

The "conclusion" I referred to was "I guess not."

I'm sorry, but there are now so many layers of irony in your sarcasm that I'm having trouble understanding what you're actually objecting to. You appear to wish to deride me for thinking that Jesus's opinion on divorce, while defensible in his time and place, is not reasonable or acceptable now, and that in any case it is not an opinion on the origin of species. Is that right?

FL, are you really trying to claim that not one of the origin stories in the Pentateuch was cribbed from earlier mythos?

"As we have seen above, there is no piece of literature extant from Mesopotamia that presents itself as an account of creation. Therefore, there is nothing comparable to the creation account of Genesis in terms of literary genre. The similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish are too few to think that the author of Genesis was in any way addressing the piece of literature we know as Enuma Elish." --John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context, p 34.

"(It) begins with two long temporal dependent sentences and concludes on the ninth line with an independent statement. Hence, say the modern, as the Babylonian creation account begins in that way, Genesis chapter one, being a similar cosmogony from the ancient world must begin in the same way.... ...The Hebrew does NOT begin that way, but it begins: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." ---EJ Young, quoted in Creation and Change, Douglas Kelly (2008), pp 58-59.

"Let me start with the religious traditions. If you go to a mainline seminary and study Genesis, you will be told that Genesis is really a hodge-podge of various Middle Eastern sources, with parallels in Babylonian and other Near Eastern mythologies. One myth commonly used is called the Enuma Elish, the story of how Marduk, the chief of the Babylonian gods, came to be the head god. And, certainly, there will be some parallels in these accounts, because the Bible as well as these myths occurred in the matrix of the Near East. But despite the common elements, there are some fundamental differences, which is what I want to focus on now. “Enuma elish” are the first words of the poem. They mean “when on high.” The poem is talking about the origin of the world, and it ultimately tries to vindicate Marduk as the head god of the Babylonians. The poem starts out with Tiamat and Apsu, who are the salt and fresh waters. Notice that this starts with natural, material forces. As the salt and fresh waters mingle, there is a sort of cohabitation, and out of this comes a first generation of gods. As the gods go on, they kill each other and do various things. For generation upon generation you get new gods, and as you read along, you find that these gods are becoming more and more conscious and intelligent, until you finally get to the head god, Marduk. Notice what is happening. It is not that you are starting out, as in Genesis, with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;” that God speaks the world into existence; that God, a conscious, intelligent, personal agent, is the source of all being, and then everything is created as a result of this intelligence. Rather, intelligence is emerging as a byproduct of natural forces working themselves out. So we see an evolutionary story in the Enuma Elish. I am not just imposing it; it is there. We also find this in other myths and religious traditions of the ancient world. Hesiod, who came just after Homer, wrote his Theogony to explain how the gods came about. It starts with an abyss, or chaos, and then earth and heaven, Gaia and Uranus, who become husband and wife. This leads to one generation of gods, and which comes to more gods who end up being the gods of Mount Olympus. So here again we see a progression from natural forces and primeval simplicity to intelligent agents. This is always the trajectory of materialism. You have to explain the complex—the things meaningful and purposeful—as a result of primeval simplicity. Christian worldviews and other theistic worldviews generally turn that around, saying it is not primeval simplicity, but a process guided by a conscious personal God. If there is an evolutionary process, God guides it also. You do not get something from nothing. That is what the materialists are looking for. They are looking for the ultimate free lunch." William Dembski, "Intelligent Design: Yesterday's Orthodoxy, Today's Heresy." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.04.ID_Orthodoxy_Heresy.htm

There’s still ample doubt as to whether or not Jesus was really a historic figure. The Roman - Jewish historian Flavius Josephus doesn’t mention him, and if he does, then it’s merely in passing.

Antiquities 18.3.3., Section 63-64 "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer of amazing deeds, a teacher of persons who receive truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading men among us having accused him, those who loved him from the first did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets bhaving spoken these things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him. And to the present the tribe of Christians, name after this person, has not yet disappeared." This passage has aroused a great deal of academic debate. Some scholars have argued that the passage is inauthetic in its entirety and is nothimg more than a Christian insertion, perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius. Others have argued that that the passage is wholly authentic. Today, however, most agree that the passage was authored by Josephus, with the exception of the three italicized sections. The principal support for the authenticity of this passage lies in a second passage that refers to Jesus, albeit only incidentally.... Antiquities 20.9.1, Section 200-201 "He (Ananus) convened the council of judges and brought before it the brother of Jesus--the one called Christ--whose name was James, and certain others. Accusing them of trangressing the law he delivered them up for stoning. But those of the city considered to be the most fair-minded and strict concerning the laws were offended at this and sent to the king secretly urging them to order Ananus to take such actions no longer." There are no compelling reasons for rejecting this shorter passage as inauthentic...It is not surprising, therefore, that, in the words of Josephus scholar Louis Feldman, "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James." The authenticity of the second, shorter passage lends further support to the authenticity of the earlier passage. The reference to "Jesus the one called "Christ'" clearly implies a prior reference; in all probability, the Testimonium Flavianum (the earlier passage) is that prior reference. The significance of the (earlier) passage lies in its corroboration of the basic narrative outline of the New Testament Gospels. ---Craig Evans, "What Did Jesus Do?", in Jesus Under Fire, eds Michael J. Wilkins and JP Moreland, 1995, p. 106.

As for Christians who are members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, here is their website: http://www.uuchristian.org/

FL said: Thanks for reading this far if you've read this far. So stop swallowing that "borrowing" mess. The skeptics lied to you, they lied in your face, on that one. You know they did. FL

FL said:

As for Christians who are members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, here is their website: http://www.uuchristian.org/

Hey, I never said there were no Christians visiting or located within the UU church. (Indeed, it was through a member of another Christian church who was regularly visiting the local UU's, that I wound up visiting their services for a while.) What I said though, is that Christians have no business joining the UU's. Think about it, seriously: you've got a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, and a Homosexual (these days, that's a religion too) all sitting on the same pew, supposedly gonna sing songs and worship together. Question is, worship WHAT together? God? No, that would turn off the atheist. Buddha? No, the Christian can't do Buddha. Jesus? No, the Jew won't like that. And what if the Christian has trouble celebrating, umm, gay marriage? Then you hurt the Homosexual's feelings. You better believe that it's the Christian who's walking on eggs in that particular situation. Compromising. Learning to keeping your mouth shut when you hear your Lord, your salvation through the Cross, and your Bible being denied on Sunday mornings. Oh yeah baby, that's gonna be fun. (And that UU hymnal is sooooooo watered down, it ain't even funny!) And that's on top of the warning given to Christians in 2 Cor. 6:14. So, you know, I'm not trying to attack the UU's. Like I said, if I were atheist/agnostic, I'd join 'em in a heartbeat. Better than going it alone in this tough world. But if you're a Christian, you got NO business joining the UU's. Do the Episcopalians if you have to, or go join the Amish folks and live off the land, just find yourself a Christian church, for God's sake!!! FL

FL said:

FL, are you really trying to claim that not one of the origin stories in the Pentateuch was cribbed from earlier mythos?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's time to stop swallowing that "borrowing" crap (and it really is crap). Start checking things out for real. Prime example: the Babylonians and their Enuma Elish story. Thanks for reading this far if you've read this far. So stop swallowing that "borrowing" mess. The skeptics lied to you, they lied in your face, on that one. You know they did. FL

FL said: Think about it, seriously: you've got a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, and a Homosexual (these days, that's a religion too) all sitting on the same pew, supposedly gonna sing songs and worship together. Question is, worship WHAT together?

Avi wrote:

"Each myth is a masterpeice in its own rite. Genesis was very, very carefully worded. It does NOT contain discrepencies. Even the Hebbrew letters were carefully chosen in order to contain mathematical patterns that were significant to the ancient authors and recipients.

What may look at first like a mistake or contradiction does not look that way once you understand their worldview more. To them the stars were hanging inside a material dome covering the four sided flat earth, which was its self “floating” on abysmal waters. All the ancients who wrote all those myths saw things about the same way."

I am glad that you do not believe that you have to deny science and reality in order to cling to a myth. However, if the writers of the bible could get the science wrong, why is it a big deal if the bible contains contradictions? Why would this invalidate the moral lessons in the myths any more than getting the science wrong?

On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

IMO, it's not surprising that there are few references to Jesus outside the early Christian community, even if we accept the gospel accounts as perfectly accurate historical records of his ministry. There were plenty of people during that time who preached to crowds, argued with other groups within the Jewish community, performed "miracles," gathered groups of disciples, challenged the Romans, etc. To the Jews who were not his disciples, he was just another rabble rouser who might making their life harder by ticking off the Romans; to the Romans he was just another political criminal and his execution by crucifixion was entirely routine. Only his disciples would have cared enough to preserve some record of his life and teaching.

Dave Luckett said: You seem to assume that Christian writers must be excluded from evidence altogether, but this appears unreasonable to me. Others would have little reason to mention Jesus, and the Gospels, at least, are consistent within reason with each other and with what else is known of the time and place and Roman administration of Judea.

John Kwok said: we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence

Avi said: The other ancient myths from that area of the world are very enlightening in regard to Genesis. A few of them have unmistakable paralells and similarities and contrasts that were obviously not a coincidince. I am not sure what to make of it all yet. But I am sure that an honest cross examination of the myths shows that Genesis is NOT a simple patchwork and rework of some other myths.

eric said:

John Kwok said: we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence

You would, however, expect the Roman records to mention a Palestine-wide census required by the emporer Tiberius (who started ruling in 14 CE, BTW). That would be a big bureaucratic deal. Yet no independent record of any census like the one mentioned in the NT exists.

John Kwok said: Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten this:

eric said:

John Kwok said: we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence

You would, however, expect the Roman records to mention a Palestine-wide census required by the emporer Tiberius (who started ruling in 14 CE, BTW). That would be a big bureaucratic deal. Yet no independent record of any census like the one mentioned in the NT exists.

W

Dave Luckett said: The point, I submit, stands. Jesus was not describing the origin of the species. He was giving an opinion on divorce, one with which rational people may differ. But to say he was stating that the world was created in six days and the species separately by supernatural means is to put words in his mouth.

I recently read a book by John H Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. In it, the author pretty much proves that the creation story in Genesis is myth. It teaches a functional ontology, not a material ontology. He proves it air tight too. So while affirming the divine inspiration of Genesis, he fairly approaches it in the original context of the time when it was first penned. This, by his own admission also, opens the door for the sciences to reveal what they will about the physical origin of the universe and life on earth. Basically, you can accept evolution and also believe the Bible without a problem. I agree with him. And if anyone is knowledgable about the worldview of the ancient Hebrews it is this scholar.

Walton must also be mentioned in this respect. I have a lotta respect for OEC evangelical scholar John Walton (and one or two books of his as well), but one of Beidler's discussion partners was able to point to the problem with Walton's approach: Walton's "ANE approach", when applied to Genesis, abandons the baseline Bible interpretation rule of "Scripture Interprets Scripture" and replaces it with "My Expert Opinion of ANE Texts Outside the Bible Interprets Scripture." (Indeed, when you hear Beidler say things like "the Hebrews would not have interpreted Verse So-and-so that way"—well, that's exactly the same wording my atheist professor sometimes used to attack the historical and doctrinal reliability of the Old Testament!!)

You have to study ancient history at some depth before you understand how tiny is the fraction of reasonably reliable copies of ancient documents. Originals are vanishingly rare. The survival chances of the records of the trial of Jesus of Nazareth - probably a one-line entry on a postcard-size piece of papyrus - are so exiguous as to hardly exist.

Oh yeah, I forgot to give Mike Beidler proper credit. If you like theistic evolution, you gonna like him for sure. An interesting guy.

http://thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com/

eric said: You would, however, expect the Roman records to mention a Palestine-wide census required by the emporer Tiberius (who started ruling in 14 CE, BTW). That would be a big bureaucratic deal. Yet no independent record of any census like the one mentioned in the NT exists.

Dave Luckett said:

eric said: You would, however, expect the Roman records to mention a Palestine-wide census required by the emporer Tiberius (who started ruling in 14 CE, BTW). That would be a big bureaucratic deal. Yet no independent record of any census like the one mentioned in the NT exists.

Luke's Gospel says that the census, the first, was ordered by the Emperor Augustus. The Roman records actually substantiate this. There was such a census. The problem is that the other dating data given by Luke - and you have to remember that there was no such thing as a common calendar at the time - are not consistent with that date. It would appear that Luke is making an honest effort to date the birth of Jesus, but he gets it wrong.

Dave Luckett said: You have to study ancient history at some depth before you understand how tiny is the fraction of reasonably reliable copies of ancient documents. Originals are vanishingly rare. The survival chances of the records of the trial of Jesus of Nazareth - probably a one-line entry on a postcard-size piece of papyrus - are so exiguous as to hardly exist.

FL bloviated Abandoning the “Scripture interprets Scripture” rule and replacing it with anything else.….hey that’s MAJOR erosion, bar none.

I think that the evidence suffices to say that there was a man called Yeshu bin Yussuf, a Galillean preacher, who was a radical in the terms of his day, teaching ideas startlingly different both from the ritualism that was overtaking Jewish thought then (and which largely overcame it in the next few centuries) and yet who also avoided sterile mysticism, although his later followers did not.

Regrettably, he also conceived or accepted the idea that he was the Messiah of the Jews (he was gravely mistaken), and for this he was crucified by the Romans, after he fomented, or was at least involved in, some kind of civil disturbance in Jerusalem in or about 30 CE, during the Passover.

Some of his words were recorded. There is evidence for translation from the Aramaic, which adds weight to the idea that they originated with him, and even one short page of his sayings in the original survives. His words as recorded include some of the most sublime ideas ever spoken, far out of place for his time. Whatever he was, whoever he was, he was a prodigy, and one of the greatest - perhaps the greatest of all - of the teachers of humanity.

That's as far as the evidence, within reason, can possibly take us - and as you say, further than some would go. That I would go so far is only a personal opinion, not a denial of others.

Dave Luckett said: I think that the evidence suffices to say that there was a man called Yeshu bin Yussuf, a Galillean preacher, who was a radical in the terms of his day, teaching ideas startlingly different both from the ritualism that was overtaking Jewish thought then (and which largely overcame it in the next few centuries) and yet who also avoided sterile mysticism, although his later followers did not. Regrettably, he also conceived or accepted the idea that he was the Messiah of the Jews (he was gravely mistaken), and for this he was crucified by the Romans, after he fomented, or was at least involved in, some kind of civil disturbance in Jerusalem in or about 30 CE, during the Passover. Some of his words were recorded. There is evidence for translation from the Aramaic, which adds weight to the idea that they originated with him, and even one short page of his sayings in the original survives. His words as recorded include some of the most sublime ideas ever spoken, far out of place for his time. Whatever he was, whoever he was, he was a prodigy, and one of the greatest - perhaps the greatest of all - of the teachers of humanity. That's as far as the evidence, within reason, can possibly take us - and as you say, further than some would go. That I would go so far is only a personal opinion, not a denial of others.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

John Kwok said: I said "essentially eyewitness accounts" if you haven't noticed already. In Thucydides's case he apparently did an excellent job looking over source material to ensure that his history remains one of the best accounts of the Peloponnesian War almost until its end (Technically I won't argue with your characterization of the war as a series of wars which were fought approximately over a thirty year period between the Delian League (Athens and allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies):

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

FL said: What I said though, is that Christians have no business joining the UU's. Think about it, seriously: you've got a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, and a Homosexual (these days, that's a religion too) all sitting on the same pew, supposedly gonna sing songs and worship together. Question is, worship WHAT together? God? No, that would turn off the atheist. Buddha? No, the Christian can't do Buddha. Jesus? No, the Jew won't like that. And what if the Christian has trouble celebrating, umm, gay marriage? Then you hurt the Homosexual's feelings.

But if you're a Christian, you got NO business joining the UU's. Do the Episcopalians if you have to, or go join the Amish folks and live off the land, just find yourself a Christian church, for God's sake!!! FL

Stanton said:

FL said: What I said though, is that Christians have no business joining the UU's. Think about it, seriously: you've got a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, and a Homosexual (these days, that's a religion too) all sitting on the same pew, supposedly gonna sing songs and worship together. Question is, worship WHAT together? God? No, that would turn off the atheist. Buddha? No, the Christian can't do Buddha. Jesus? No, the Jew won't like that. And what if the Christian has trouble celebrating, umm, gay marriage? Then you hurt the Homosexual's feelings.

Would you prefer to shackle them to the wall, and torture them as punishment for the otherwise unforgivable sin of not being Christian until they died or agreed to convert?

But if you're a Christian, you got NO business joining the UU's. Do the Episcopalians if you have to, or go join the Amish folks and live off the land, just find yourself a Christian church, for God's sake!!! FL

So in other words, you're saying a good Christian must avoid contact with any and all non-Christians or people who aren't Christian enough by your standards, as otherwise, those horrible non-Christians, who are utterly implacable, will contaminate and destroy a good Christian with their evil non-Christian cooties. How come, then, do you not take your own advice and stop bothering us all together? Even if you can not comprehend that we do not hate Jesus Christ, we do resent how you constantly antagonize us with your constant lies, your smarmy gossip, your total aversion to learning, and your patently false slander. And then there is the fact that we find the way you constantly refuse to explain how our resentment of your abuse towards us, or even the fact that we constantly point out the bullshit content of your lies, slander and gossip, is somehow tantamount with "hating Jesus" to be utterly annoying.

Here we go again!

Note to Rilke’s Granddaughter and John Kwok, oh ye who love to bash each other:

Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While direct observation may not be necessary to validate a historical account of an ancient war (even one memtioned in the Bible), claims of any events that clearly violate the known laws of science (such as a resurrection from the dead) must be examined skeptically to ensure it is credible. Indeed, Christianity's biggest weakness is its reliance on miracles. If we argue that such miracles do not happen today, that leads to one questioning if they actually happened back then. If we DO claim such miracles occur today, that leads to skeptics examining the more recent claims.....and they are often debunked, leading to one wondering if the ancient claims of miracles in Christianity might also be bogus.

Dale Husband said: Here we go again! Note to Rilke’s Granddaughter and John Kwok, oh ye who love to bash each other: Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While direct observation may not be necessary to validate a historical account of an ancient war (even one memtioned in the Bible), claims of any events that clearly violate the known laws of science (such as a resurrection from the dead) must be examined skeptically to ensure it is credible. Indeed, Christianity's biggest weakness is its reliance on miracles. If we argue that such miracles do not happen today, that leads to one questioning if they actually happened back then. If we DO claim such miracles occur today, that leads to skeptics examining the more recent claims.....and they are often debunked, leading to one wondering if the ancient claims of miracles in Christianity might also be bogus.

Stanton said:

FL said: What I said though, is that Christians have no business joining the UU's. Think about it, seriously: you've got a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, and a Homosexual (these days, that's a religion too) all sitting on the same pew, supposedly gonna sing songs and worship together. Question is, worship WHAT together? God? No, that would turn off the atheist. Buddha? No, the Christian can't do Buddha. Jesus? No, the Jew won't like that. And what if the Christian has trouble celebrating, umm, gay marriage? Then you hurt the Homosexual's feelings.

Would you prefer to shackle them to the wall, and torture them as punishment for the otherwise unforgivable sin of not being Christian until they died or agreed to convert?

But if you're a Christian, you got NO business joining the UU's. Do the Episcopalians if you have to, or go join the Amish folks and live off the land, just find yourself a Christian church, for God's sake!!! FL

So in other words, you're saying a good Christian must avoid contact with any and all non-Christians or people who aren't Christian enough by your standards, as otherwise, those horrible non-Christians, who are utterly implacable, will contaminate and destroy a good Christian with their evil non-Christian cooties. How come, then, do you not take your own advice and stop bothering us all together? Even if you can not comprehend that we do not hate Jesus Christ, we do resent how you constantly antagonize us with your constant lies, your smarmy gossip, your total aversion to learning, and your patently false slander. And then there is the fact that we find the way you constantly refuse to explain how our resentment of your abuse towards us, or even the fact that we constantly point out the bullshit content of your lies, slander and gossip, is somehow tantamount with "hating Jesus" to be utterly annoying.

I once wrote an article in Free Inquiry and presented a paper on how to be religious without believing in God. Nearly if not literally the only people who attended the paper were Unitarian-Universalists and Reform Jews. I thought we understood each other fairly well. Tom Flynn, the editor of FI, took me to task in the following issue. I think we can fairly conjecture that certain biblical literalists would not like the article either.

This discussion leaves me wondering why some people insist on limiting God to things we can't explain. Why would a theist think that God can't be responsible for things that are explained scientifically? Especially when those things wouldn't require any violation of known physical laws?

Dale Husband said: Here we go again! Note to Rilke’s Granddaughter and John Kwok, oh ye who love to bash each other: Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While direct observation may not be necessary to validate a historical account of an ancient war (even one memtioned in the Bible), claims of any events that clearly violate the known laws of science (such as a resurrection from the dead) must be examined skeptically to ensure it is credible. Indeed, Christianity's biggest weakness is its reliance on miracles. If we argue that such miracles do not happen today, that leads to one questioning if they actually happened back then. If we DO claim such miracles occur today, that leads to skeptics examining the more recent claims.....and they are often debunked, leading to one wondering if the ancient claims of miracles in Christianity might also be bogus.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The point remains: Herodotus is not necessarily any more reliable evidence for the wars than the authors of the various letters of Paul; even presuming they were all written by Paul.

John Kwok said: I said "essentially eyewitness accounts" if you haven't noticed already. In Thucydides's case he apparently did an excellent job looking over source material to ensure that his history remains one of the best accounts of the Peloponnesian War almost until its end (Technically I won't argue with your characterization of the war as a series of wars which were fought approximately over a thirty year period between the Delian League (Athens and allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies):

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

John Kwok said: Thanks for your astute advice, o worthy one:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The point remains: Herodotus is not necessarily any more reliable evidence for the wars than the authors of the various letters of Paul; even presuming they were all written by Paul.

John Kwok said: I said "essentially eyewitness accounts" if you haven't noticed already. In Thucydides's case he apparently did an excellent job looking over source material to ensure that his history remains one of the best accounts of the Peloponnesian War almost until its end (Technically I won't argue with your characterization of the war as a series of wars which were fought approximately over a thirty year period between the Delian League (Athens and allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies):

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

Should I repeat it to the staff of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art and to the administrative staff of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation (USA)? I am sure that if I did, then you would be viewed as an ignorant kook and I would seen as a silly fool for repeating your observation. Apparently Herodotus is still regarded as someone quite credible, even if modern historians are quite skeptical of his claim of a Persian invasion force commanded by Xerxes numbering in the millions.

In any event, the point remains: our understanding of the past is conditioned by highly limited documentation. If we accept Herodotus, what stops us from accepting Paul and Christ? I exclude the miracles, of course, though Herodotus was fond of the outlandish tale as well.

Jesse said:

Dale Husband said: Here we go again! Note to Rilke’s Granddaughter and John Kwok, oh ye who love to bash each other: Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While direct observation may not be necessary to validate a historical account of an ancient war (even one memtioned in the Bible), claims of any events that clearly violate the known laws of science (such as a resurrection from the dead) must be examined skeptically to ensure it is credible. Indeed, Christianity's biggest weakness is its reliance on miracles. If we argue that such miracles do not happen today, that leads to one questioning if they actually happened back then. If we DO claim such miracles occur today, that leads to skeptics examining the more recent claims.....and they are often debunked, leading to one wondering if the ancient claims of miracles in Christianity might also be bogus.

Applying a real scientific approach to an actual miracle would simply yield the conclusion "we cannot explain it." This gets us into the God of the Gaps that our fundamentalists are oh so fond of worshiping. Worshiping before the God of the Bible, none the less. If a miracle is something that science is incapable of explaining, then to them, obviously anything that science has not yet explained is a miracle.

Dale Husband said: Evolution makes atheism plausible, but it does not disprove Christianity ...

FL said:

There’s still ample doubt as to whether or not Jesus was really a historic figure. The Roman - Jewish historian Flavius Josephus doesn’t mention him, and if he does, then it’s merely in passing.

Oh, no no no no. You are going to sit there, talk about "ample doubt" about Jesus existing as a historical figure, and then mention Josephus???? Okay then , let's look at Josephus.

Antiquities 18.3.3., Section 63-64 "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer of amazing deeds, a teacher of persons who receive truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading men among us having accused him, those who loved him from the first did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets bhaving spoken these things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him. And to the present the tribe of Christians, name after this person, has not yet disappeared." This passage has aroused a great deal of academic debate. Some scholars have argued that the passage is inauthetic in its entirety and is nothimg more than a Christian insertion, perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius. Others have argued that that the passage is wholly authentic. Today, however, most agree that the passage was authored by Josephus, with the exception of the three italicized sections. The principal support for the authenticity of this passage lies in a second passage that refers to Jesus, albeit only incidentally.... Antiquities 20.9.1, Section 200-201 "He (Ananus) convened the council of judges and brought before it the brother of Jesus--the one called Christ--whose name was James, and certain others. Accusing them of trangressing the law he delivered them up for stoning. But those of the city considered to be the most fair-minded and strict concerning the laws were offended at this and sent to the king secretly urging them to order Ananus to take such actions no longer." There are no compelling reasons for rejecting this shorter passage as inauthentic...It is not surprising, therefore, that, in the words of Josephus scholar Louis Feldman, "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James." The authenticity of the second, shorter passage lends further support to the authenticity of the earlier passage. The reference to "Jesus the one called "Christ'" clearly implies a prior reference; in all probability, the Testimonium Flavianum (the earlier passage) is that prior reference. The significance of the (earlier) passage lies in its corroboration of the basic narrative outline of the New Testament Gospels. ---Craig Evans, "What Did Jesus Do?", in Jesus Under Fire, eds Michael J. Wilkins and JP Moreland, 1995, p. 106.

Okay, that seems clear enough. You may not believe the rest of the story about Jesus, but the evidence is ALL against you if you claim that Jesus never existed in history. FL

Yes, Unitarians are Christians, although they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, which denial is formally a heresy in all three major branches of Christianity, Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant; but only a very narrow, rigid and doctrinaire Christian would take issue with that, nowadays. You there, FL?

The Unitarian Universalist Church is a different beast altogether. They don't describe themselves as Christian at all. Some of them are happy to describe themselves as atheists. I don't get it myself, but there you are.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Unitarians ARE Christians.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: I see. So he's reliable, but he's not reliable? John, do you even bother to think before you post? You certainly don't read things written to you. Just curious.

John Kwok said: Thanks for your astute advice, o worthy one:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The point remains: Herodotus is not necessarily any more reliable evidence for the wars than the authors of the various letters of Paul; even presuming they were all written by Paul.

John Kwok said: I said "essentially eyewitness accounts" if you haven't noticed already. In Thucydides's case he apparently did an excellent job looking over source material to ensure that his history remains one of the best accounts of the Peloponnesian War almost until its end (Technically I won't argue with your characterization of the war as a series of wars which were fought approximately over a thirty year period between the Delian League (Athens and allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies):

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

Should I repeat it to the staff of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art and to the administrative staff of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation (USA)? I am sure that if I did, then you would be viewed as an ignorant kook and I would seen as a silly fool for repeating your observation. Apparently Herodotus is still regarded as someone quite credible, even if modern historians are quite skeptical of his claim of a Persian invasion force commanded by Xerxes numbering in the millions.

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Unitarians ARE Christians.

You need to remember that if a person or a group doesn't worship or even visualize Jesus exactly like the way FL worships and or visualizes Jesus, they aren't Christians. At best, if he's feeling supremely charitable, he'll consider them to be inferior Christians or Christian-wannabes.

Being human and inhabitants of the same world, the Christian, Jew, Buddhist, and atheist who choose to attend a UU church together and thus acknowledge their commonalities (like the Golden Rule) and respect each other’s different beliefs when together, while observing their diverse traditions while apart from each other, are expressing a far healthier spirituality than the extremism of people like FL.

The correct answer is that the Church universal consists of all persons in every nation, together with their children, who profess faith in Jesus
Christ as Lord and Savior and commit themselves to live in a fellowship under his rule. We must hope well of all, and not rashly judge any man to be a reprobate.

So in other words, you’re saying a good Christian must avoid contact with any and all non-Christians or people who aren’t Christian enough by your standards, as otherwise, those horrible non-Christians, who are utterly implacable, will contaminate and destroy a good Christian with their evil non-Christian cooties.

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers [do not make mismated alliances with them or come under a different yoke with them, inconsistent with your faith]. For what partnership have right living and right standing with God with iniquity and lawlessness? Or how can light have fellowship with darkness?

Jesse said:

Dave Luckett said: John Kwok, I agree that there is a body of opinion that holds that there is insufficient evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I do not agree with that opinion.

The only early non-Christian references to Jesus that I am aware of were written on the order of 100 years after 0CE. That was a few average lifespans of the time after Jesus was supposedly born. Perhaps some historian on here knows more than I, but as far as I know, the Romans did not document Jesus until after the fact, and that documentation could have been the result of them knowing something that I don't, or it could be the result of listening to the Christians when it came to the existence of Christ. Find something closer to 20 or 30 CE in the Roman documents talking about Jesus and you have some good proof. Everything else (that I am aware of) could be considered religious views that may or may not be based on faith.

After all, the claims of Christianity going against the claims of Islam against the claims of Judaism against the claims of Hinduism against the claims of atheism can only be dealt with fairly by measuring all of them against what REALITY itself reveals.

Alex H said:

Jesse said:

Dale Husband said: Here we go again! Note to Rilke’s Granddaughter and John Kwok, oh ye who love to bash each other: Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While direct observation may not be necessary to validate a historical account of an ancient war (even one memtioned in the Bible), claims of any events that clearly violate the known laws of science (such as a resurrection from the dead) must be examined skeptically to ensure it is credible. Indeed, Christianity's biggest weakness is its reliance on miracles. If we argue that such miracles do not happen today, that leads to one questioning if they actually happened back then. If we DO claim such miracles occur today, that leads to skeptics examining the more recent claims.....and they are often debunked, leading to one wondering if the ancient claims of miracles in Christianity might also be bogus.

Applying a real scientific approach to an actual miracle would simply yield the conclusion "we cannot explain it." This gets us into the God of the Gaps that our fundamentalists are oh so fond of worshiping. Worshiping before the God of the Bible, none the less. If a miracle is something that science is incapable of explaining, then to them, obviously anything that science has not yet explained is a miracle.

It doesn't really need to be said, but step one of this process would be to find a real miracle that doesn't have a scientific explanation. So far, there hasn't been a whole lot of success in that regard.

It doesn’t really need to be said, but step one of this process would be to find a real miracle that doesn’t have a scientific explanation. So far, there hasn’t been a whole lot of success in that regard.

FL said: Avi wrote (and it was a very interest post):

I recently read a book by John H Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. In it, the author pretty much proves that the creation story in Genesis is myth. It teaches a functional ontology, not a material ontology. He proves it air tight too. So while affirming the divine inspiration of Genesis, he fairly approaches it in the original context of the time when it was first penned. This, by his own admission also, opens the door for the sciences to reveal what they will about the physical origin of the universe and life on earth. Basically, you can accept evolution and also believe the Bible without a problem. I agree with him. And if anyone is knowledgable about the worldview of the ancient Hebrews it is this scholar.

I haven't yet read that particular book by John Walton, but I believe a theistic evolutionist named Mike Beidler has mentioned or referred to it. Walton has done a great job (indeed, a stellar scholarly job) dealing with skeptical topics like "borrowing" and "contradictions", but he DOES adopt what either Walton or Beidler has called an "ANE (ancient near east) Approach." And as you suggest, that particular "ANE approach" DOES view things as a "functional ontology" and hence DOES allow for viewing Genesis as a historically inaccurate myth, which, as you point out, is exactly what's being posited there. (Not "proved", mind you, just posited.) When Mike Beidler mentioned Walton in one of his threads, and when a Beidler thread appeared at CARM where I normally hang out, I took a look at the thread, and then offered this response about Walton:

Walton must also be mentioned in this respect. I have a lotta respect for OEC evangelical scholar John Walton (and one or two books of his as well), but one of Beidler's discussion partners was able to point to the problem with Walton's approach: Walton's "ANE approach", when applied to Genesis, abandons the baseline Bible interpretation rule of "Scripture Interprets Scripture" and replaces it with "My Expert Opinion of ANE Texts Outside the Bible Interprets Scripture." (Indeed, when you hear Beidler say things like "the Hebrews would not have interpreted Verse So-and-so that way"—well, that's exactly the same wording my atheist professor sometimes used to attack the historical and doctrinal reliability of the Old Testament!!)

Abandoning the "Scripture interprets Scripture" rule and replacing it with anything else.....hey that's MAJOR erosion, bar none. So, I'm still a John Walton fan, I love his "Ancient Israelite Literature" book to death. But yeah, his ANE approach honestly does have problems, not least of which it undermines the authority, reliability and historicity of not just Genesis, but potentially the whole Bible. FL

FL said:

It doesn’t really need to be said, but step one of this process would be to find a real miracle that doesn’t have a scientific explanation. So far, there hasn’t been a whole lot of success in that regard.

Hmmm. What is the scientific (translation: naturalistic) explanation for Jesus's Resurrection? FL

Garbled oral history, a credulous population, and as Elzinga-san has pointed out, propaganda.

The stories were written down to strengthen the unity of the community and make new converts. Not exactly what we would call "unbiased reporting" these days.

It's no coincidence we get the word "propaganda" from the Catholic Church (Gregory XV, 1622).

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said:

It doesn’t really need to be said, but step one of this process would be to find a real miracle that doesn’t have a scientific explanation. So far, there hasn’t been a whole lot of success in that regard.

Hmmm. What is the scientific (translation: naturalistic) explanation for Jesus's Resurrection? FL

Humans making up a story to make someone appear special. Happens a lot in religion and mythology; and political ID/creationism.

Avi said:

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said:

It doesn’t really need to be said, but step one of this process would be to find a real miracle that doesn’t have a scientific explanation. So far, there hasn’t been a whole lot of success in that regard.

Hmmm. What is the scientific (translation: naturalistic) explanation for Jesus's Resurrection? FL

Humans making up a story to make someone appear special. Happens a lot in religion and mythology; and political ID/creationism.

I recommend you read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ." Your answer is not at all that simple to bring a deathblow to the resurrection. In fact, to attempt to seriously compare Jesus to pagan myths as though they are of the same origins is absolutely ludicrous. We might as well convert to being Zeitgeist followers and Michael Moore fans. Lol.

Avi said: In fact, to attempt to seriously compare Jesus to pagan myths as though they are of the same origins is absolutely ludicrous. We might as well convert to being Zeitgeist followers and Michael Moore fans. Lol.

Avi said: I recommend you read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ."

Science Avenger said:

Avi said: I recommend you read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ."

Ugh, I sufferred that tome years ago, and still want those hours of my life back. Not recommended.

Mike Elzinga said:

Avi said: In fact, to attempt to seriously compare Jesus to pagan myths as though they are of the same origins is absolutely ludicrous. We might as well convert to being Zeitgeist followers and Michael Moore fans. Lol.

This illustrates rather nicely the fantastic double standard of proof that ID/creationists demand regarding science and as compared with their sectarian dogma.

Avi said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Avi said: In fact, to attempt to seriously compare Jesus to pagan myths as though they are of the same origins is absolutely ludicrous. We might as well convert to being Zeitgeist followers and Michael Moore fans. Lol.

This illustrates rather nicely the fantastic double standard of proof that ID/creationists demand regarding science and as compared with their sectarian dogma.

How is that? I am not an IDer nor a Creationist. I accept the science of evolution, etc.

Avi said: I recommend you read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ." Your answer is not at all that simple to bring a deathblow to the resurrection.

Here is a review of that book by Jeffery Jay Lowder. Pretty nicely sums up what we see all the time in these apologetics tomes.

"I'll put it succinctly: After years of this sort of work, I find that there is no such thing as "reasonable nonbelief." The litany of poor scholarship, speculations, and other unreasonable ideas offered by Skeptics and critics doesn't deserve the adjective "reasonable."

FL said:

Here is a review of that book by Jeffery Jay Lowder. Pretty nicely sums up what we see all the time in these apologetics tomes.

And over at Tektonics, JP Holding has put forth a nice, detailed, thorough refutation of Jeffery Lowder's review. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lowdstrob.html

"I'll put it succinctly: After years of this sort of work, I find that there is no such thing as "reasonable nonbelief." The litany of poor scholarship, speculations, and other unreasonable ideas offered by Skeptics and critics doesn't deserve the adjective "reasonable."

FL :)

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Holding is a joke. The man got banned from Wikipedia for arrogance, stupidity, and all-around errors. Only a fool would accept anything Holding said.

tomh said:

Avi said: I recommend you read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ." Your answer is not at all that simple to bring a deathblow to the resurrection.

I could recommend a dozen books for you to read. Instead, why don't you tell us what this evidence is that you accept for this particular miracle?

FL asks me what I believe about the Resurrection. He speaks from his faith, which I'm afraid has been denied to me. I don’t know why, but I cannot shake the idea that if I am to place a belief at the core of my life, I should have actual evidence for it.

By FL’s own account, the Resurrection was an event unique in all history. Extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary attestation, but the reports he accepts as unerring are known to be unreliable, on internal evidence alone. None of them come from eyewitnesses, nor even originate anywhere near the event in time or place. Mark's gospel, written probably in Rome perhaps about 70 AD, contains the simplest and probably the earliest account we have of the events of that Sunday morning, but the last twelve verses of Mark are almost certainly bogus. The oldest manuscripts omit them entirely; all early manuscripts contain differing versions of them. The writing style of these verses is different from the rest of Mark's gospel - more literate and pious, less immediate, with different vocabulary. Some centuries ago, bible scholars came to the conclusion that this material was added by a different hand or hands, at some unknown later date. The most common opinion is that this was done before the middle of the second century CE, which is to say, about a hundred years after Jesus died.

Those last twelve verses contain all Mark's references to the resurrection of Jesus and to his appearances after death. Without them, the original account simply says that the women went to anoint the body, but found the stone rolled away and a young man in a white robe inside the tomb. The body was gone. The young man is said to have told the women that Jesus was raised, certainly, but the Greek word used need mean no more than "lifted" or "picked up". Mark's account, the earliest we have, ends there. No miracle is stated or implied. If none is required, none should be assumed, and Mark does not seem to assume one at all. There is no specific statement of a supernatural cause.

The other gospels were written later - towards the end of the first century, or even after that. Matthew and Luke have their own agendas, although they generally follow Mark, but where Mark reports nothing supernatural at the tomb, they indulge in an orgy of miracles: the young man becomes an angel or angels; the stone is not found rolled away, but rolls itself, with earthquakes; the Roman guards flee. And so on. In these particulars they contradict each other, and they also give completely different accounts of Jesus's appearances after death. In other words, they display the classic hallmarks of elaboration and invention in two diverging traditions. They retail legend, not history.

John's gospel gives an entirely different account. Significantly, he says that Mary Magdalene was the sole witness to anything miraculous at the tomb. She alone is said to have met Jesus in the garden, and mistook him for the gardener - which seems very unlikely, since she knew him well - and that this happened after the disciples had verified that the body was missing and had gone away again. There was apparently no thought in their minds that Jesus had risen from the dead. Mary herself greeted the man she thought to be the gardener by asking where “they” had taken him. Who is “they”, one wonders.

John’s gospel does not quite directly contradict Mark's account - though it does the others - and it might be regarded as an addendum. Again, it is late - but it might preserve an earlier story. John’s gospel is perhaps the one with the closest connection to the original disciples. (Mark and Luke were Pauline converts, and clearly somewhat hostile to the Jerusalem church, which was in any case destroyed by the Romans when they crushed the revolt of 70 CE. Matthew, from internal evidence, had probably never lived in Palestine, and was therefore not the disciple of that name. On the other hand, though John's gospel is late, it displays a knowledge of Palestinian geography and contains a great deal of material that the others do not; material that seems to originate with someone who had actually accompanied Jesus. This might perhaps be the original disciple, who is traditionally thought to have lived to a great age.) Perhaps the origin of the whole business, then, was the emotional distress of one overwrought woman who convinced herself that she had seen something that she desperately wanted to see.

The point is that teasing the truth out of this material is impossible. It is simply too distant from the events and it is fundamentally compromised. The only rational approach is to grant the most credence to the earliest, plainest and simplest account, and to take it at its least controversial and miraculous value.

This is Mark's original version, which says the women came to the garden and found the tomb empty and the stone rolled aside. Here they found a young man who told them that Jesus was gone; "picked up". Nothing more.

Could Mary Magdalene have actually met him in the Garden? Did Jesus die on the cross at all? It would have been unusual for a robust man to die in only six hours, as the need to break the legs of the thieves shows. Further, the gospels are at pains to insist on actual corporeality after the resurrection; that Jesus ate and drank, that his wounds were real. Also, it's odd that he should be said to tell Mary Magdalene on that Sunday morning not to touch him, for he had not yet ascended, and yet invite others to do so a few days later. Some have explained this inconsistency by saying he was infirm after his apparent death, but felt stronger later. They have used these odd scraps of information as evidence that he survived the cross. It's pure speculation, though. It has no more credibility than the idea that he rose from the dead.

And that is the point. Unless belief is informed by faith, there is no reason to believe either that Jesus didn't die on the cross, or that he rose from the dead. The simplest explanation is that he did die, but that his body was removed from the tomb by followers who paid off the guards. Possibly they did this with the intention of starting a legend - and if so, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. However, though that explanation is the simplest one that fits the earliest account, and therefore is to be preferred when one uses Occam’s Razor, it can never be verified, nor can any of the other explanations. There is no way that we can ever know the truth.

I'm sure FL would rejoin that he knows the truth already. Perhaps he does, but I'm afraid I don't, and although I envy him his certainty, I find it a trifle alarming. People have often been certain in their various faiths. Many have felt sure that they knew the truth, but often they were horribly wrong, with hideous results, as we in our own time can lamentably attest.

I hope FL’s certainty is not like that, but I'm glad he is not able to enforce it on others. Still, I commend to him the words of a man who was by no means a humanist agnostic. Oliver Cromwell wrote, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken."

Perhaps the real difference between FL and me is that I allow that I might be mistaken.

Avi said:

tomh said:

Avi said: I recommend you read Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ." Your answer is not at all that simple to bring a deathblow to the resurrection.

I could recommend a dozen books for you to read. Instead, why don't you tell us what this evidence is that you accept for this particular miracle?

First of all, I don't hold Stroble to be a master scholar. I don't at all agree with his Creationist book of parroted debunked Creationists notions. But that doesn't discredit anything and everything else he has written. My evidence. I am not about to do a thesis on "my evidence" and I hope a simple "off the top of my head" response will do. I believe because I have been reading and studying the Bible for a long time now (and earned an education with it) and I have yet to find an objection to it that is reasonable beyond doubt. Most of the typical arguments against Christianity I hear are so simple minded and uninformed strawman arguments. I also believe because of my experiences that I have had since I began to follow and seek Jesus. Answered prayers, the way that my prayers were answered, other spiritual experiences, demonic encounters that I can't explain to this day, and yes a few genuinely and irrefutable (to me personally) miracles that I was there witnessing when they happened. And of course I can't document those things. I don't carry around a panel of PHDs and forensic experts in my back pocket, lol.

FL said:

Being human and inhabitants of the same world, the Christian, Jew, Buddhist, and atheist who choose to attend a UU church together and thus acknowledge their commonalities (like the Golden Rule) and respect each other’s different beliefs when together, while observing their diverse traditions while apart from each other, are expressing a far healthier spirituality than the extremism of people like FL.

Actually, the example I gave was a real-life example that I used from my own visits to the local UU church. It really did go down like that. Knew the names of each person/religion too. All sat right there in my pew (actually, they used folding chairs.) Hey, I didn't even mention the Atheist Jew, did I? Yes, they had one of them too. That whole UU congregation was a solid adventure in Comparative Religion.) But like I suggested earlier: they're not just sitting there "respecting each other's religion", Dale. They're sitting there trying as hard as they can not to step landmines. And the UU Christian is the one steppin' the most gingerly and nervously, because they easily have the most triggers with which to accidentally detonate somebody's feelings. One incorrect step, one affirmation of the wrong Bible verse from that UU podium, and there will be plenty stress in the room. You don't dare preach about Jesus in any kind of straight salvafic John 3:16 manner. And woe, oh WOE, to any UU Christian who dares to preach the next two verses after 3:16!!!! Having said that, a positive note of the local UU's in my hometown is that they allow questions and answers right after the "sermon." Lotta Christian churches might want to try that one to help increase audience involvement. *** RG says "Unitarians are Christians." Correct answer is: Only if the person directly tells you he or she is. Otherwise, forgit it baby!!

FL said:

After all, the claims of Christianity going against the claims of Islam against the claims of Judaism against the claims of Hinduism against the claims of atheism can only be dealt with fairly by measuring all of them against what REALITY itself reveals.

And therefore, Dale, tell me how YOU arrive at an accurate assessment of reality? Especially when it comes to events that are said to have occurred in the historical past?

Avi said: I believe because I have been reading and studying the Bible for a long time now (and earned an education with it) and I have yet to find an objection to it that is reasonable beyond doubt. I also believe because of my experiences...

Dave Luckett said: FL asks me what I believe about the Resurrection. He speaks from his faith, which I'm afraid has been denied to me. I don’t know why, but I cannot shake the idea that if I am to place a belief at the core of my life, I should have actual evidence for it.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: FL asks me what I believe about the Resurrection. He speaks from his faith, which I'm afraid has been denied to me. I don’t know why, but I cannot shake the idea that if I am to place a belief at the core of my life, I should have actual evidence for it.

I think the major difference is that you don’t appear to have the kind of sectarian induced brain damage that causes people to rule out objective reality instantly and automatically.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: FL asks me what I believe about the Resurrection. He speaks from his faith, which I'm afraid has been denied to me. I don’t know why, but I cannot shake the idea that if I am to place a belief at the core of my life, I should have actual evidence for it.

I think the major difference is that you don’t appear to have the kind of sectarian induced brain damage that causes people to rule out objective reality instantly and automatically.

Ironically enough, I think one of the major differences between the two is that Dave Luckett takes the Biblical texts seriously enough to read them carefully and consider them critically. I know plenty of people who claim to know the Bible well but somehow cannot see inconsistencies in the various accounts of, for example, the nativity or the resurrection; if they do see them, they attempt to rationalize the differences. These people will pull out their references for Biblical Greek and agonize over the meaning of a word but miss the narrative differences -- sort of the interpretational analog of straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel. This leads to a further irony: I, a Christian, find Dave Luckett's comments on Biblical texts far more enlightening and thought-provoking than, for example, FL's.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/the-bible-cannot-be-the-word-of-god/ The Bible CANNOT be the Word of God One of the great tragedies of the Protestant Reformation, in addition to destroying forever the unity of the Christians in western Europe, was that it enshrined the Bible as the sole source of dogma among Protestants. Now, I will grant that the incredible corruption and tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable, but the way it was done by most Protestants made spiritual tyranny inevitable among them as well. This was because they simply replaced the Catholic papacy and church councils with the Bible itself, or rather, how Protestant leaders read the Bible. Calling the Word of God what is actually your INTERPRETATION of words of men writing in the name of God is stretching things beyond any bounds of logic you can imagine, which is why Christians constantly emphasize faith as their standard. When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda. The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place. But the Biblical dogmatist says that without the Bible, most of us would not know of God at all. That may be true, but that would not justify adhereing to absurdities or even outright lies for the sake of beleiving in God. We know that the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy was made up to illustrate the moral value of honesty (how ironic), but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist, since all the other historical records of his military achievements and Presidency are beyond dispute. We need to use science and reason to find out what is valid and reject what is rediculous, or we will doom ourselves. Jesus himself said that the Jews of his time erred by “teaching as doctrines (of God) that teachings of men.” And that is true whether you believe in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church traditions or the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura. Either way, you will be led into tyranny. Truth can only be found via science, never dogma of any kind. Science unifies people by showing what is true via objective study of the universe and everything in it, while religion with its baseless assertions divides people. It must be noted that my statement is just as applicable to Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran cannot be the Word of Allah, though it contains much wisdom. It also contains much evil and must be regarded critically by science and reason just as much as the Bible

FL said:

So in other words, you’re saying a good Christian must avoid contact with any and all non-Christians or people who aren’t Christian enough by your standards, as otherwise, those horrible non-Christians, who are utterly implacable, will contaminate and destroy a good Christian with their evil non-Christian cooties.

Nope. I've said nothing about avoiding contact. (Exactly how would one do that anyway, other than becoming a hermit?) I've visited many or most of the Christian AND non-Christian congregations in my hometown, at least once. It's not about avoiding contact, although these days you must be careful and knowledgeable about which religious groups you decide to visit. ( After all, Jim Jones used to have some representatives in my state, about 75 miles away, before they all took that weird little trip to South America.) For Christians, it's simply about taking 2 Cor. 6:14 seriously.

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers [do not make mismated alliances with them or come under a different yoke with them, inconsistent with your faith]. For what partnership have right living and right standing with God with iniquity and lawlessness? Or how can light have fellowship with darkness?

(And trust me, having done all that visiting, I now have a pretty good feeling about why that Bible verse was put there!!!) FL

John Kwok said: You're sounding as bad as every evolutionary biologist I can think of who believes that the Modern Synthesis is the best, last word, we have with respect to a unifying theory of biological evolution:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: I see. So he's reliable, but he's not reliable? John, do you even bother to think before you post? You certainly don't read things written to you. Just curious.

John Kwok said: Thanks for your astute advice, o worthy one:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The point remains: Herodotus is not necessarily any more reliable evidence for the wars than the authors of the various letters of Paul; even presuming they were all written by Paul.

John Kwok said: I said "essentially eyewitness accounts" if you haven't noticed already. In Thucydides's case he apparently did an excellent job looking over source material to ensure that his history remains one of the best accounts of the Peloponnesian War almost until its end (Technically I won't argue with your characterization of the war as a series of wars which were fought approximately over a thirty year period between the Delian League (Athens and allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies):

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

Should I repeat it to the staff of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art and to the administrative staff of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation (USA)? I am sure that if I did, then you would be viewed as an ignorant kook and I would seen as a silly fool for repeating your observation. Apparently Herodotus is still regarded as someone quite credible, even if modern historians are quite skeptical of his claim of a Persian invasion force commanded by Xerxes numbering in the millions.

What was unique with Herodotus is the fact that he was the first real historian of antiquity (and of all time). He was the first to be interested in the underlying causes behind the Persian Wars. And though his account is Athenian-centric, nonetheless it does a fine job in recounting the major battles of the wars from 490 to 478 BC, while seeking to address the underlying causes behind them. John P. S. You're not very good at reading comprehension either, since you have a habit of trying to distort and to misinterpret some of my postings (which, incidentally, others, like Dale Husband, have either noted explicitly or have implied).

tomh said:

Avi said: I believe because I have been reading and studying the Bible for a long time now (and earned an education with it) and I have yet to find an objection to it that is reasonable beyond doubt. I also believe because of my experiences...

Well, we were talking about the Resurrection and your claim that Strobel's book shows that it "is not at all that simple to bring a deathblow to the resurrection." So your own personal experiences, what happens inside your head, is not really relevant. I have no quarrel with you believing anything you experience inside your head and would never deny anything of that sort. But, as for the Resurrection, that is an external event, supposedly an historical event, and that requires a least a modicum of impartial evidence. It seems you believe the Resurrection happened because of what you read in the Bible, hardly an impartial source. In fact, using the same book that tells the story to prove the story is true is not very rigorous scholarship. And if you have really never heard a reasonable objection to the Bible stories... well, you must have a unique definition of reasonable.

Avi said: So I would offer the challenge, where is even one piece of undeniable proof or reason to deny that Jesus is in fact who he claimed in the gospels and that he did not rise from the dead? It IS and absolutely unique event. Not to say that no others have risen from the dead or not, but none have done so in fulfillment of the Bible's prophecies or their own predictions.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Either deal with the substance of what I actually WROTE, Kwok (your internal contradiction) or don't bother to reply. You're inability to read is boring.

John Kwok said: You're sounding as bad as every evolutionary biologist I can think of who believes that the Modern Synthesis is the best, last word, we have with respect to a unifying theory of biological evolution:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: I see. So he's reliable, but he's not reliable? John, do you even bother to think before you post? You certainly don't read things written to you. Just curious.

John Kwok said: Thanks for your astute advice, o worthy one:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The point remains: Herodotus is not necessarily any more reliable evidence for the wars than the authors of the various letters of Paul; even presuming they were all written by Paul.

John Kwok said: I said "essentially eyewitness accounts" if you haven't noticed already. In Thucydides's case he apparently did an excellent job looking over source material to ensure that his history remains one of the best accounts of the Peloponnesian War almost until its end (Technically I won't argue with your characterization of the war as a series of wars which were fought approximately over a thirty year period between the Delian League (Athens and allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies):

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

Should I repeat it to the staff of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art and to the administrative staff of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation (USA)? I am sure that if I did, then you would be viewed as an ignorant kook and I would seen as a silly fool for repeating your observation. Apparently Herodotus is still regarded as someone quite credible, even if modern historians are quite skeptical of his claim of a Persian invasion force commanded by Xerxes numbering in the millions.

What was unique with Herodotus is the fact that he was the first real historian of antiquity (and of all time). He was the first to be interested in the underlying causes behind the Persian Wars. And though his account is Athenian-centric, nonetheless it does a fine job in recounting the major battles of the wars from 490 to 478 BC, while seeking to address the underlying causes behind them. John P. S. You're not very good at reading comprehension either, since you have a habit of trying to distort and to misinterpret some of my postings (which, incidentally, others, like Dale Husband, have either noted explicitly or have implied).

FL said:

Being human and inhabitants of the same world, the Christian, Jew, Buddhist, and atheist who choose to attend a UU church together and thus acknowledge their commonalities (like the Golden Rule) and respect each other’s different beliefs when together, while observing their diverse traditions while apart from each other, are expressing a far healthier spirituality than the extremism of people like FL.

Actually, the example I gave was a real-life example that I used from my own visits to the local UU church. It really did go down like that. Knew the names of each person/religion too. All sat right there in my pew (actually, they used folding chairs.) Hey, I didn't even mention the Atheist Jew, did I? Yes, they had one of them too. That whole UU congregation was a solid adventure in Comparative Religion.) But like I suggested earlier: they're not just sitting there "respecting each other's religion", Dale. They're sitting there trying as hard as they can not to step landmines. And the UU Christian is the one steppin' the most gingerly and nervously, because they easily have the most triggers with which to accidentally detonate somebody's feelings. One incorrect step, one affirmation of the wrong Bible verse from that UU podium, and there will be plenty stress in the room. You don't dare preach about Jesus in any kind of straight salvafic John 3:16 manner. And woe, oh WOE, to any UU Christian who dares to preach the next two verses after 3:16!!!! Having said that, a positive note of the local UU's in my hometown is that they allow questions and answers right after the "sermon." Lotta Christian churches might want to try that one to help increase audience involvement. *** RG says "Unitarians are Christians." Correct answer is: Only if the person directly tells you he or she is. Otherwise, forgit it baby!!

John Kwok said: Your observation about me is an apt description of yourself. When you decide to publish in Classics or Ancient Greek History, then I will consider yours as comments worth noting. Otherwise, I suspect every major Classicist or Ancient Greek historian working here in North America or elsewhere around the globe would regard yours as remarks replete in their breathtaking inanity:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Either deal with the substance of what I actually WROTE, Kwok (your internal contradiction) or don't bother to reply. You're inability to read is boring.

John Kwok said: You're sounding as bad as every evolutionary biologist I can think of who believes that the Modern Synthesis is the best, last word, we have with respect to a unifying theory of biological evolution:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: I see. So he's reliable, but he's not reliable? John, do you even bother to think before you post? You certainly don't read things written to you. Just curious.

John Kwok said: Thanks for your astute advice, o worthy one:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The point remains: Herodotus is not necessarily any more reliable evidence for the wars than the authors of the various letters of Paul; even presuming they were all written by Paul.

John Kwok said: I said "essentially eyewitness accounts" if you haven't noticed already. In Thucydides's case he apparently did an excellent job looking over source material to ensure that his history remains one of the best accounts of the Peloponnesian War almost until its end (Technically I won't argue with your characterization of the war as a series of wars which were fought approximately over a thirty year period between the Delian League (Athens and allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies):

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

Should I repeat it to the staff of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art and to the administrative staff of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation (USA)? I am sure that if I did, then you would be viewed as an ignorant kook and I would seen as a silly fool for repeating your observation. Apparently Herodotus is still regarded as someone quite credible, even if modern historians are quite skeptical of his claim of a Persian invasion force commanded by Xerxes numbering in the millions.

What was unique with Herodotus is the fact that he was the first real historian of antiquity (and of all time). He was the first to be interested in the underlying causes behind the Persian Wars. And though his account is Athenian-centric, nonetheless it does a fine job in recounting the major battles of the wars from 490 to 478 BC, while seeking to address the underlying causes behind them. John P. S. You're not very good at reading comprehension either, since you have a habit of trying to distort and to misinterpret some of my postings (which, incidentally, others, like Dale Husband, have either noted explicitly or have implied).

Rilke's Granddaughter said: John, you made a claim that certain ancient documents were practically eyewitness accounts. I pointed out that was wrong. Then I noted that you directly contradicted yourself in a post. Instead of dealing with the contradiction, you continue to harp on the topic of Herodotus, which wasn't my point at all. Learn to read. Get help. Grow up. Geez.

John Kwok said: Your observation about me is an apt description of yourself. When you decide to publish in Classics or Ancient Greek History, then I will consider yours as comments worth noting. Otherwise, I suspect every major Classicist or Ancient Greek historian working here in North America or elsewhere around the globe would regard yours as remarks replete in their breathtaking inanity:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Either deal with the substance of what I actually WROTE, Kwok (your internal contradiction) or don't bother to reply. You're inability to read is boring.

John Kwok said: You're sounding as bad as every evolutionary biologist I can think of who believes that the Modern Synthesis is the best, last word, we have with respect to a unifying theory of biological evolution:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: I see. So he's reliable, but he's not reliable? John, do you even bother to think before you post? You certainly don't read things written to you. Just curious.

John Kwok said: Thanks for your astute advice, o worthy one:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The point remains: Herodotus is not necessarily any more reliable evidence for the wars than the authors of the various letters of Paul; even presuming they were all written by Paul.

John Kwok said: I said "essentially eyewitness accounts" if you haven't noticed already. In Thucydides's case he apparently did an excellent job looking over source material to ensure that his history remains one of the best accounts of the Peloponnesian War almost until its end (Technically I won't argue with your characterization of the war as a series of wars which were fought approximately over a thirty year period between the Delian League (Athens and allies) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and allies):

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Herodotus is certainly NOT an eyewitness account. Herodotus started writing at least a decade after the Persian wars were finished. Thucydides claims to have actually fought in the Peloponnesian wars, but most of his account details incidents he couldn't have witnessed.

John Kwok said: On the other hand we have excellent, essentially eyewitness, accounts of the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War from the likes of Herodotus and Thucydides. With regards to the historical evidence for Christ's existence, we need to bear in mind that Roman Palestine was a relatively unimportant part of the Roman Empire until the Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries of the common era. So it shouldn't be too surprising that there is such scant historical evidence for his existence (Or even Mohammed's, for reasons similar to what I have stated; in Mohammed's case, central Arabia being a relatively remote region that didn't fall under the spheres of influence of either the Byzantine or Sasanid Persian Empires.).

Should I repeat it to the staff of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art and to the administrative staff of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation (USA)? I am sure that if I did, then you would be viewed as an ignorant kook and I would seen as a silly fool for repeating your observation. Apparently Herodotus is still regarded as someone quite credible, even if modern historians are quite skeptical of his claim of a Persian invasion force commanded by Xerxes numbering in the millions.

What was unique with Herodotus is the fact that he was the first real historian of antiquity (and of all time). He was the first to be interested in the underlying causes behind the Persian Wars. And though his account is Athenian-centric, nonetheless it does a fine job in recounting the major battles of the wars from 490 to 478 BC, while seeking to address the underlying causes behind them. John P. S. You're not very good at reading comprehension either, since you have a habit of trying to distort and to misinterpret some of my postings (which, incidentally, others, like Dale Husband, have either noted explicitly or have implied).

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Unitarians are Christians. Lying will get you damned to eternal hellfire, FL.

Unitarians are Christians. Lying will get you damned to eternal hellfire, FL.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Unitarians are Christians. Lying will get you damned to eternal hellfire, FL.

John Kwok said to Rilke’s Granddaughter: So let's just drop this now before Dale Husband decides to chide both of us again: and later.... P. S. You're not very good at reading comprehension either, since you have a habit of trying to distort and to misinterpret some of my postings (which, incidentally, others, like Dale Husband, have either noted explicitly or have implied).

Avi said: So I would offer the challenge, where is even one piece of undeniable proof or reason to deny that Jesus is in fact who he claimed in the gospels and that he did not rise from the dead?

FL said:

Unitarians are Christians. Lying will get you damned to eternal hellfire, FL.

What, you are saying you believe in the existence of eternal hellfire? Riiiiiight. But the fact is, I was there, RG. I went to their services. Like I said, I even knew which person's name went with which person's religion, for many members of the congregation. The only Christians in the UU church, are the UU's who directly tell you they are. Btw, making a blanket declaration that "Unitarians are Christians" actually could be considered offensive by those Unitarians who personally claim to be agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish. You may want to keep that in mind next time you visit a UU service, yes? Musn't step on ecumenical landmines, you know. FL

Like I said, I even knew which person's name went with which person's religion, for many members of the congregation.

Avi said: I know that this sounds probably like nothing more than strong faith. So I would offer the challenge, where is even one piece of undeniable proof or reason to deny that Jesus is in fact who he claimed in the gospels and that he did not rise from the dead? It IS and absolutely unique event. Not to say that no others have risen from the dead or not, but none have done so in fulfillment of the Bible's prophecies or their own predictions.

So I guess it really is true that FL can not tolerate the idea of treating other people humane and decently if they do not share his own narrow, religious bigotries.

FL said:

Unitarians are Christians. Lying will get you damned to eternal hellfire, FL.

What, you are saying you believe in the existence of eternal hellfire? Riiiiiight.

But the fact is, I was there, RG. I went to their services. Like I said, I even knew which person's name went with which person's religion, for many members of the congregation. The only Christians in the UU church, are the UU's who directly tell you they are.

Btw, making a blanket declaration that "Unitarians are Christians" actually could be considered offensive by those Unitarians who personally claim to be agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish.

Unitarianism is a Nontrinitarian Christian theology which teaches belief in the single personality of God, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity (God as three persons).[1] According to its proponents, Unitarianism reflects the original God-concept of Christianity. The movement has come to be associated with other liberal Christian beliefs as well. The term Unitarianism (with an upper case "U") customarily refers to a liberal Christian theology. The term unitarian (lower case "u") is used descriptively to refer to anyone adhering to the teaching of the single personhood of God, a wide-ranging category that also includes many conservative evangelical branches which are not the subject of this article. They generally hold similar beliefs to most other evangelical Christians, apart from their rejection of the Trinity doctrine. This version of unitarianism is more commonly called Nontrinitarianism, rather than Unitarianism. There also are some nontrinitarians who, while holding God to be a single person, perceive Jesus to be God himself, and therefore they do not really fall into the usual unitarian category, which typically rejects the idea of Jesus as Almighty God. Instead see: Sabellianism, Oneness Pentecostalism, Monarchianism, Binitarianism, and The New Church.

Dale Husband said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Unitarians are Christians. Lying will get you damned to eternal hellfire, FL.

It depends on how you define "Christians". There are indeed some UUs who call themselves Christians and there are some for who the lable "Christian" couldn't apply, as they themselves would affirm. But that does not disprove that FL is a liar. And a bigot.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: FL is simply denying anyone is a Christian unless they share FL's invalid, disproved version of Biblical literalism.

However, last I heard, trying to deny other people Jesus’ salvation without Jesus’ explicit permission (i.e., saying someone isn’t a Christian even though they said they were) is said to be a far graver sin/crime than lying.

Was their “religion” written on their name tags?

Side note for all Panda people: Jesus is not a universalist. See John 14:6 and John 3:16 for details. Gotta make a choice baby, and it better NOT be the wrong one!!)

Can I suggest this to you, Stanton? One thing in that guy’s favor (and I think I told him this), is that he was truly willing to discuss his beliefs. Even his denials and disbelief were on the table.

Mike Elzinga said:

Avi said: So I would offer the challenge, where is even one piece of undeniable proof or reason to deny that Jesus is in fact who he claimed in the gospels and that he did not rise from the dead? It IS and absolutely unique event. Not to say that no others have risen from the dead or not, but none have done so in fulfillment of the Bible's prophecies or their own predictions.

There are hundreds of mutually suspicious sects within Protestantism alone. Which one is the right one? They can’t all be right.

Mike Elzinga said: Then how about all those thousands of sects among all the world’s religions; which are right and which are wrong?

Mike Elzinga said: If there is a single deity and a single “truth” about such a deity, why do religions fragment and diverge; each claiming to have the truth? There should be a clue in there somewhere.

tomh said:

Avi said: So I would offer the challenge, where is even one piece of undeniable proof or reason to deny that Jesus is in fact who he claimed in the gospels and that he did not rise from the dead?

Good grief, now you want me to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead? That must sound silly, even to you. You started this by claiming that a book by Strobel made it difficult to disbelieve the Resurrection. When I asked what that evidence was, all I've heard about is your personal experiences with demons and such, confirming my suspicions that there is no evidence about the Resurrection. Other than the assertions made in the Bible, of course.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, all you want is to gain power over the other commenters at Panda’s Thumb, if not gain power over the entire blog.

Mike Elzinga said: The existence of New York City essentially comes down to what you can believe about what others report. They never think about what other kinds of evidence would corroborate these reports; that is nowhere on their radar screen.

Avi said: The first evidence of the resurrection is the eyewitness accounts in the gospels themselves. The second is the accounts that Paul referred to as being around 500 or so in number.

omh said:

Avi said: The first evidence of the resurrection is the eyewitness accounts in the gospels themselves. The second is the accounts that Paul referred to as being around 500 or so in number.

Eyewitness accounts? Hardly. It always boils down to the same old song - I know... because the Bible tells me so. That kind of ends any rational discussion.

Avi said: There is something called orthodoxy, not the denomination though. If a sect/denomination holds to the core doctrines of Christianity, they are considered orthodox. Groups that diverge from this are "wrong." Being within the confines of orthodoxy leaves a whole lot of room for in house differences on pretty much everything outside of the core theology. Its simple.

Since when does every religion by default get an equal shot at being the “right one?”

If there is an absolute truth, it really does not matter how many false competitors there may be competing for people’s belief.

Now to answer your Q, any religion that is made up by people is going to get you nowhere with God- according to the gospel. That is not to say that there is no good in any other religions. Man naturally has a very good side to him, thus man made religions would naturally have a lot of good in various ways in various religions. But according to the gospel, religion is not here for man’s benefit so that man can be “good” and happy in life. That is a man centered religion. Man is here ultimately for the good pleasure of God. It is God centered. And it goes deeper than that but God does intent the best for people so when we are living whole and productive lives that is still considered “good” by God, even if you aren’t a believer it is still good. Though it will offer you no real hope for salvation.

The clue is that all people are naturally spiritual and religious on one level or another.

But truth is not a creation of men’s minds as religion is.

Avi said: No. It all boils down to the fact that there were numerous eyewitnesses that left their testimonies in the four pieces of literature we today call the gospels. You can not reasonably discount them just because their accounts ended up in a collection called the Bible. You are the irrational one to suggest that any information in the Bible specifically is automatically unreliable. That is as biased an irrational as they come.

Mike Elzinga said:

Avi said: There is something called orthodoxy, not the denomination though. If a sect/denomination holds to the core doctrines of Christianity, they are considered orthodox. Groups that diverge from this are "wrong." Being within the confines of orthodoxy leaves a whole lot of room for in house differences on pretty much everything outside of the core theology. Its simple.

Ah yes, so predictable; that old “orthodoxy” bugbear. There has been plenty of blood spilt over who gets to call themselves “orthodox” and condemn the rest as prodigal. This is where all the exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, and excruciating word-gaming go on. It is terribly important to know who will burn in Hell and who won’t. FL is a stickler for this endless justification of his own version of “orthodoxy.” Gotta read that holy book properly; and it is his sect that defines “properly.”

Since when does every religion by default get an equal shot at being the “right one?”

Since when does any religion by default get any shot at being the “right one?” The underlying assumption in your question is that some religion gets to be the right one. But it ignores the deeper question of how one determines which religion is the “right one.” The mere fragmentation of all religions into increasing numbers of warring sects should be a warning that nobody has figured it out and that all religions have hazy insights at best. Another clue is the fact that most religions, especially those claiming to be “orthodox’” end up being personality cults like the one FL belongs to. They are dominated by people who sit in judgment of all other “orthodoxies” and proclaim themselves as the “chosen.”

If there is an absolute truth, it really does not matter how many false competitors there may be competing for people’s belief.

How does any sectarian demonstrate he has the “absolute truth?”

Now to answer your Q, any religion that is made up by people is going to get you nowhere with God- according to the gospel. That is not to say that there is no good in any other religions. Man naturally has a very good side to him, thus man made religions would naturally have a lot of good in various ways in various religions. But according to the gospel, religion is not here for man’s benefit so that man can be “good” and happy in life. That is a man centered religion. Man is here ultimately for the good pleasure of God. It is God centered. And it goes deeper than that but God does intent the best for people so when we are living whole and productive lives that is still considered “good” by God, even if you aren’t a believer it is still good. Though it will offer you no real hope for salvation.

Now you are simply reciting the orthodoxy of your sect. But there are thousands of other “orthodoxies” vying to be the correct one. Why is yours the “correct orthodoxy?”

The clue is that all people are naturally spiritual and religious on one level or another.

It is no surprise that you would miss the entire point of that sentence; and that is because you have already assumed that yours is the correct orthodoxy that cannot be questioned. In other words, how could anyone imagine that your orthodoxy be wrong? But to people who have been around and have seen and experienced far more than you have, it is an obvious question that arises from watching wars over holy book interpretation and sectarian power.

But truth is not a creation of men’s minds as religion is.

I’m not sure what point you are making; but we certainly know by now that there is such a thing as objectively verifiable knowledge, and we know how to achieve it. The problem comes when sectarians declare they have the “truth” when, in fact, there is no possible way they could know what they claim to be true. The fragmentation and warring over orthodoxy is the clue. Yet you appear to interpret it as all others being wrong and your sectarian “orthodoxy” being correct. That is the problem; every one of these personality cults is absolutely sure they are correct and everyone else is wrong. It never seems to occur to any of them that they themselves may be wrong. That would take away their power within their little sectarian world.

To continue to offer only the Bible as evidence is silly, since there is no reason to believe that existing copies of this work bear any relationship to the original and every reason to believe it is simply a work of fiction.

(Old Testament) In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity." (New Testament) In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

Avi said:

omh said:

Avi said: The first evidence of the resurrection is the eyewitness accounts in the gospels themselves. The second is the accounts that Paul referred to as being around 500 or so in number.

Eyewitness accounts? Hardly. It always boils down to the same old song - I know... because the Bible tells me so. That kind of ends any rational discussion.

No. It all boils down to the fact that there were numerous eyewitnesses that left their testimonies in the four pieces of literature we today call the gospels. You can not reasonably discount them just because their accounts ended up in a collection called the Bible. You are the irrational one to suggest that any information in the Bible specifically is automatically unreliable. That is as biased an irrational as they come.

Also, what exactly is “my” orthodoxy that you assume is so different than FL’s?

FL said: But I suspect you'll find out quickly NOT to take Mike's word for things, when it comes to the question of what my theological positions are. That's important. :)

Avi said: If humans were simply fabricating the whole thing, why make it more outlandish and difficult to believe as they are now? Why not just keep it simple like Muhammad did: very few or no miracles, actions that are easily understood?

FL said:

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, all you want is to gain power over the other commenters at Panda’s Thumb, if not gain power over the entire blog.

Well, I've been accused of a lot of things within this forum, but AFAIK, this is honestly the first time I've encountered such a suggestion. Especially the latter half: "...Gain power over the entire blog." Hmmm. Hadn't considered that concept before, but I admit it DOES sound a bit tasty when you mull it over. Dream big, the motivational speakers always say. And this PT forum probably could use a pinch of Machiavelli, couldn't it? Ah, yes.... (Darth) FL

Avi said: The first evidence of the resurrection is the eyewitness accounts in the gospels themselves.

dogmeatIB said: Avi, Critical, CRITICAL flaw in your argument. The Gospels weren't written at the time of the events. The earliest dates suggest that they weren't written until late in the 1st century, 30 to 40 years after the events they claim to portray. They weren't written by Mark, Luke, etc., but instead those names were used to give them authority (very common in the time period). On top of that the gospels contradict one another *and* they were chosen from the 30 to 50 existing gospels in the early 3rd century. To make matters worse the evidence from those missing gospels that have since been discovered further contradict the orthodox gospels adding further evidence to dispute your argument. This isn't bias, this is simple evidence that leads an unbiased observer to question the authority of those four gospels and the authenticity of their stories. It falls upon you to prove your position to be the correct one.

Avi said:

omh said:

Avi said: The first evidence of the resurrection is the eyewitness accounts in the gospels themselves. The second is the accounts that Paul referred to as being around 500 or so in number.

Eyewitness accounts? Hardly. It always boils down to the same old song - I know... because the Bible tells me so. That kind of ends any rational discussion.

No. It all boils down to the fact that there were numerous eyewitnesses that left their testimonies in the four pieces of literature we today call the gospels. You can not reasonably discount them just because their accounts ended up in a collection called the Bible. You are the irrational one to suggest that any information in the Bible specifically is automatically unreliable. That is as biased an irrational as they come.

FL said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basis for your statement there is your apparent belief that the clear statement "Evolution is incompatible with Christianity" somehow means that you're automatically not a Christian anymore if you believe in evolution. However, as you're reading my dialogue with Avi (or even my posts at the ATBC debate, which I think you were there), that should be sufficient to dispel that notion, wouldn't you agree?

So far, I have only met one person online, in another forum, of whom it was seriously necessary to say out loud, "No, you are NOT a Christian, not if what you've posted is what you actually believe." This was a guy in a particular general-religion forum who repeatedly claimed to be a Christian, but whom, over a period of about two years, had literally and publicly denied every major Gospels-New Testament claim about who Jesus is and what Jesus had done in regards to the salvation of humanity. (I mean, this guy even denied John 3:16, for heaven's sakes!). Finally, I initiated a thread, respectfully and carefully, and listed all of his different denials regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I explained the significance of those New Testament texts WRT obtaining salvation through Jesus Christ, and pointed out clearly where he'd denied them. I told him, "Hey a line's been crossed here, it's time to figure out just WHAT you are, because you AIN'T no Christian. God ain't scared of honesty; so just be honest about your disbelief." And yes, we had a nice, respectful, no-yelling dialog on it, right there in that forum. I don't know if he ever changed his mind, but at least we discussed things, and in a surprisingly calm manner. And yeah, it felt absolutely correct, even the timing of it felt right. Jesus's "permission", you ask? Yeah, I truly felt like it was okay with Him.

Side note for all Panda people: Jesus is not a universalist. See John 14:6 and John 3:16 for details. Gotta make a choice baby, and it better NOT be the wrong one!!)

Can I suggest this to you, Stanton? One thing in that guy's favor (and I think I told him this), is that he was truly willing to discuss his beliefs. Even his denials and disbelief were on the table. But it all depends on the forum. PT may not be the correct forum--in fact I'm SURE it's not--for many Christians to put their stuff on the table. But it would be good to locate a Christian forum where you believe it WOULD be safe to do so. FL

30-50 gospels to choose from? I would love to read those gospels. It seems that Like stated in Luke 1 that there were others who wrote about these events recorded in his gospel. But beyond that unless I am missing something, there is little or no evidence of those actual writings. Ever wonder why? And you must be referring to the "gnostic gospels" when you mentioned those other texts that have indeed been unearthed. It does not take scholarship to understand that the gnostic texts were COMPLETELY fabricated, totally non Jewish originated texts written solely to teach gnostic beliefs. Any serious look at any of the gospels will reveal a thorough and historically accurate knowledge of geography, politics, Judaism and Jewish traditions, beliefs and their worldview, and the local languages. Gnostic texts bear absolutely none of these marks to any recognizable extent. Christianity was a new and spreading religion full of the public interest and full of ambiguity to those outside. The Gnostics took advantage of this and contextualized their beliefs into a "Christian" context by utilizing popular Christian personalities and such to teach their beliefs. Just try reading one of their texts to see what I mean. It does not take a scholar to recognize this. It is much similar to the Book of Mormon with taking something from the Bible and attempting to mimic it and get the reader to buy into its new and different doctrines that radically differ from the original Bible. What is interestingly amazing about the Bible is the deep Jewishness to the texts, the actions of Jesus, his teaching style, his speaking style, and everything about his life death and resurrection. All of this is so deeply rooted and emergent out of 1st century Judaism as opposed to the utterly alien Gentile zeitgeist that emanates out of the gnostic texts.

FL said:

To continue to offer only the Bible as evidence is silly, since there is no reason to believe that existing copies of this work bear any relationship to the original and every reason to believe it is simply a work of fiction.

Perhaps we could start off with the highlighted section? I believe that Jimmy Williams (and others) have put that specific issue to rest. You can catch all the details in his article. As an appetizer, here are his concluding paragraphs for the Old T and the New T.

(Old Testament) In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity." (New Testament) In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

Source: Jimmy Williams, "Are the Biblical Documents Reliable? http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html FL

Avi said:

FL said: Avi wrote (and it was a very interest post):

I recently read a book by John H Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. In it, the author pretty much proves that the creation story in Genesis is myth. It teaches a functional ontology, not a material ontology. He proves it air tight too. So while affirming the divine inspiration of Genesis, he fairly approaches it in the original context of the time when it was first penned. This, by his own admission also, opens the door for the sciences to reveal what they will about the physical origin of the universe and life on earth. Basically, you can accept evolution and also believe the Bible without a problem. I agree with him. And if anyone is knowledgable about the worldview of the ancient Hebrews it is this scholar.

I haven't yet read that particular book by John Walton, but I believe a theistic evolutionist named Mike Beidler has mentioned or referred to it. Walton has done a great job (indeed, a stellar scholarly job) dealing with skeptical topics like "borrowing" and "contradictions", but he DOES adopt what either Walton or Beidler has called an "ANE (ancient near east) Approach." And as you suggest, that particular "ANE approach" DOES view things as a "functional ontology" and hence DOES allow for viewing Genesis as a historically inaccurate myth, which, as you point out, is exactly what's being posited there. (Not "proved", mind you, just posited.) When Mike Beidler mentioned Walton in one of his threads, and when a Beidler thread appeared at CARM where I normally hang out, I took a look at the thread, and then offered this response about Walton:

Walton must also be mentioned in this respect. I have a lotta respect for OEC evangelical scholar John Walton (and one or two books of his as well), but one of Beidler's discussion partners was able to point to the problem with Walton's approach: Walton's "ANE approach", when applied to Genesis, abandons the baseline Bible interpretation rule of "Scripture Interprets Scripture" and replaces it with "My Expert Opinion of ANE Texts Outside the Bible Interprets Scripture." (Indeed, when you hear Beidler say things like "the Hebrews would not have interpreted Verse So-and-so that way"—well, that's exactly the same wording my atheist professor sometimes used to attack the historical and doctrinal reliability of the Old Testament!!)

Abandoning the "Scripture interprets Scripture" rule and replacing it with anything else.....hey that's MAJOR erosion, bar none. So, I'm still a John Walton fan, I love his "Ancient Israelite Literature" book to death. But yeah, his ANE approach honestly does have problems, not least of which it undermines the authority, reliability and historicity of not just Genesis, but potentially the whole Bible. FL

I see your point. At the moment, I can't see another way to treat Genesis 1-11 fairly and still believe that it is inspired of God without employing Walton's ANE approach. And I say "proved" for rhetorical purposes. How about this? Wouldn't Genesis 1-11 be categorically different than any other parts of the Bible being that it was A. Myth B. It had no other literature that ended up being a part of the canon yet written that could be used to cross examine with. Hence the notion of scripture interpreting scripture gets uniquely challenging in Gen1-11. Now the Bible never even asserts that all scripture must interpret scripture. That is an apparently self evident rule of thumb that modern theologians made up and for the most part I have to agree with it. But there definitely are particular things in the Bible that simply cannot be interpreted very far with the use of other scripture. Some things that come to mind are the origin of the name Yahweh, the reference to the book of Enoch in Jude, the references to apocryphal fables in Peter's epistle, the reapplication of lines from a non canonical hymn to Baal making it directed to Yahweh. These are just what come to mind. So I submit that the beginning of Genesis is a relatively unique part of scripture that can't be interpreted with other scriptures in the same way that most of the rest of the Bible would be. The Song of Solomon is another book that makes itself very difficult to interpret very deeply by its nature and lack of being mentioned at all anywhere else in the Bible. zMike Beidlere is one who I am definitely going to look into. THanks.

henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

Henry, you have no idea of whether Jesus was referring to those stories as fictional narratives or as real events. Insisting on the latter is simply putting words in Jesus's mouth, and making statements that you don't know are true. Making such statements as if you knew them to be true, when you know no such thing, is a form of lying.

Jesus asked his disciples who was the good neighbour in the parable of the Good Samaritan, just as if the Samaritan was a real person and the parable retailed real events, but both Jesus and the disciples knew that this was a fictional story, told to make a point. He told, and referred to, many stories for that purpose. They were fictional narratives, not real events.

If you're going to be literal about Jesus, be literal - but that means not adding to his words, and that's what you're doing.

Dale Husband said:

Can I suggest this to you, Stanton? One thing in that guy's favor (and I think I told him this), is that he was truly willing to discuss his beliefs. Even his denials and disbelief were on the table. But it all depends on the forum. PT may not be the correct forum--in fact I'm SURE it's not--for many Christians to put their stuff on the table. But it would be good to locate a Christian forum where you believe it WOULD be safe to do so. FL

Stanton is wise to your tricks, even if that other guy probably wasn't. Finally, we must keep remembering that FL is claiming something clearly man-made (the Bible) as the Word of God. If someone made a blog entry with racist, sexist, and homophobic insults in it and called it the Word of Dale Husband, I'd not only deny it, I'd SUE the bastard for libel!

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

If I had been Jesus living among the Jews of 2000 years ago, I would have talked to the people living at that time and place in their own cultural and theological "language", because it would have been impossible to teach them anything otherwise.

Dave Luckett said: If you're going to be literal about Jesus, be literal - but that means not adding to his words, and that's what you're doing.

SWT said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

If I had been Jesus living among the Jews of 2000 years ago, I would have talked to the people living at that time and place in their own cultural and theological "language", because it would have been impossible to teach them anything otherwise.

If you had been Jesus living among the Jews of 2000 years ago, that cultural and theological language would have been your language as well!

Stanton said:

SWT said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

If I had been Jesus living among the Jews of 2000 years ago, I would have talked to the people living at that time and place in their own cultural and theological "language", because it would have been impossible to teach them anything otherwise.

If you had been Jesus living among the Jews of 2000 years ago, that cultural and theological language would have been your language as well!

Then why do so many Christians assume that Jesus spoke only American English?

henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

For all we know Jesus actually said “Blessed are the Cheesemakers…” Play a game of “grapevine” and you get the idea, stories, even ones seen as critically important, often become unrecognizable after only a few retellings of the tale.

"When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. "The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament. "The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear, as in the telephone example--one person communicating to a second who communicates with a third, etc. In a linear paradigm people are left with one message and many generations between it and the original. "Second, the telephone game example depends on oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written. "Neither assumption applies to the written text of the New Testament. "First, the transmission was not linear but geometric--e.g., one letter birthed five copies which became 25 which became 200 and so on. Secondly, the transmission in question was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way that oral communications cannot be." ---Greg Koukl http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

Avi said: No. It all boils down to the fact that there were numerous eyewitnesses that left their testimonies in the four pieces of literature we today call the gospels. You can not reasonably discount them just because their accounts ended up in a collection called the Bible. You are the irrational one to suggest that any information in the Bible specifically is automatically unreliable. That is as biased an irrational as they come.

I have a friend who claims to have seen possession and exorcism. Funny how the only people ever possessed are the ones who believe in it in the first place....

If somebody gets an exorcism but then doesn't pay for it, do they get repossessed?

As long as you define Christianity as “based strictly on Biblical teachings, rather than reality based thinking”, of course Christianity is incompatible with evolution.

But you know what they call making and defending statements that conflict with reality? L-Y-I-N-G! Now, do you wish to affirm that as a basic part of Christian life?

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. ---the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 15

Christianity does not depend on a literal reading of the bible.

Anyone who claims otherwise is not simply lying, they are literally insane.

Henry J said: If somebody gets an exorcism but then doesn't pay for it, do they get repossessed?

It was obvious when Dale posted his comment that FL would gleefully jump on it. But it is not the “victory” he thinks it is.

He has clearly admitted that, in choosing between objective reality and his evidence-free, sectarian “interpretation” of a purported holy book, he comes down squarely against objective reality.

But we already knew that.

The main point of his argument is his assertion that nobody else is a Christian if they don’t accept his sectarian interpretation of his holy book.

But we knew that also.

But how can FL be a Christian if he rejects and ignores the objective reality his purported deity slaps him in the face with every second of his existence? The clear answer is that he knows nothing of deities of any sort.

And we already knew that also. FL is a fraud, pure and simple.

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: But I suspect you'll find out quickly NOT to take Mike's word for things, when it comes to the question of what my theological positions are. That's important. :)

It’s the pattern of smarmy gotcha games you play that reveals what you really are. Your religion is not as important as you seem to think. There are millions of other people in other religions who have far deeper insights and knowledge than you do; and they don’t have to deny objective reality, as you do, in order to practice their religion. You are quite simply one of the worst possible role models that exist in all of religion anywhere. And it’s your own fault.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Christianity does not depend on a literal reading of the bible. Anyone who claims otherwise is not simply lying, they are literally insane.

You are an utter disgrace and a pathetic, intellectually - (and mentally) challenged "creature" who would be rejected instantly by Jesus Christ if Christ returned and walked among us. Some of the most intelligent people I know are devout Christians, and yet, they demonstrate consistently far more intelligence, understanding and appreciation of Christ and his teachings than we have ever seen from you.

Why don't you renounce Christianity and "infest" some other faith, such as, for example, Salafi Sunni Islam (No wait, you would be yet another one of that bizarre, murderous, and quite insane multitude.)?

John Kwok said: ... challenged "creature" who would be rejected instantly by Jesus Christ if Christ returned and walked among us.

John Kwok said: I concur with your first observation. As for the second, I would use slightly more diplomatic language, like suggesting that someone like FL is suffering from some acute delusion, which may be suggestive of long-term permanent insanity:

Rilke's granddaughter said: Christianity does not depend on a literal reading of the bible. Anyone who claims otherwise is not simply lying, they are literally insane.

Mike Elzinga said:

Avi said: If humans were simply fabricating the whole thing, why make it more outlandish and difficult to believe as they are now? Why not just keep it simple like Muhammad did: very few or no miracles, actions that are easily understood?

You tell stories from within your own religion; but you have no objectively verifiable evidence for those stories. You have only stories told about stories within a history of fabrications mixed with alleged evidence that never can be objectively checked. Humans have a long history of fabricating things. It continues today in political discourse by people who claim to be speaking for religion. Your stories are just that; stories, nothing more. Whatever inspirational value they might have for you is a matter of your individual history. But billions of other people have different histories and traditions. They have different stories and inspirations and templates for living their lives. There are millions of good people doing their best with the hand they are dealt; and they won’t be going to FL’s hell because FL says so, or because they don’t care for FL’s self-righteous claims of exclusivity on the “truth.” FL is wrong because he denies and mocks objectively verifiable knowledge; therefore he is wrong about religion as well. There is no possible way he can know any “truth” whatsoever. He lives in a hermetically sealed, self-validating world view which he continuously monitors for leaks to the outside world. He isn’t wired for either truth detection or deity detection.

Mike Elzinga said:

Avi said: If humans were simply fabricating the whole thing, why make it more outlandish and difficult to believe as they are now? Why not just keep it simple like Muhammad did: very few or no miracles, actions that are easily understood?

You tell stories from within your own religion; but you have no objectively verifiable evidence for those stories. You have only stories told about stories within a history of fabrications mixed with alleged evidence that never can be objectively checked. Humans have a long history of fabricating things. It continues today in political discourse by people who claim to be speaking for religion. Your stories are just that; stories, nothing more. Whatever inspirational value they might have for you is a matter of your individual history. But billions of other people have different histories and traditions. They have different stories and inspirations and templates for living their lives. There are millions of good people doing their best with the hand they are dealt; and they won’t be going to FL’s hell because FL says so, or because they don’t care for FL’s self-righteous claims of exclusivity on the “truth.” FL is wrong because he denies and mocks objectively verifiable knowledge; therefore he is wrong about religion as well. There is no possible way he can know any “truth” whatsoever. He lives in a hermetically sealed, self-validating world view which he continuously monitors for leaks to the outside world. He isn’t wired for either truth detection or deity detection.

Mike Elzinga said:

Avi said: If humans were simply fabricating the whole thing, why make it more outlandish and difficult to believe as they are now? Why not just keep it simple like Muhammad did: very few or no miracles, actions that are easily understood?

You tell stories from within your own religion; but you have no objectively verifiable evidence for those stories. You have only stories told about stories within a history of fabrications mixed with alleged evidence that never can be objectively checked. Humans have a long history of fabricating things. It continues today in political discourse by people who claim to be speaking for religion. Your stories are just that; stories, nothing more. Whatever inspirational value they might have for you is a matter of your individual history. But billions of other people have different histories and traditions. They have different stories and inspirations and templates for living their lives. There are millions of good people doing their best with the hand they are dealt; and they won’t be going to FL’s hell because FL says so, or because they don’t care for FL’s self-righteous claims of exclusivity on the “truth.” FL is wrong because he denies and mocks objectively verifiable knowledge; therefore he is wrong about religion as well. There is no possible way he can know any “truth” whatsoever. He lives in a hermetically sealed, self-validating world view which he continuously monitors for leaks to the outside world. He isn’t wired for either truth detection or deity detection.

Sorry about the blips above...

Avi said: If FL ia such a waste of effort, why do you and others here allow yourselves to get all worked up over him? Who cares?

Henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

FL is actually better - he is capable of and occasionally engages in actual comment and response patterns. IBIGGY is incapable of holding acoherent conversation. IBIGGY is the stupidest poster I've seen in ages. He makes byers look intelligent.

Can't one simply ignore a particular poster here? Is there an option to block their posts from your computer viewing them as some blogs have?

I think you folks get a kick out of crucifying one another in the name of truth. Its sort of like a dysfunction family. :)

Avi said: Can't one simply ignore a particular poster here? Is there an option to block their posts from your computer viewing them as some blogs have? I think you folks get a kick out of crucifying one another in the name of truth. Its sort of like a dysfunction family. :)

Avi said: Can't one simply ignore a particular poster here? Is there an option to block their posts from your computer viewing them as some blogs have? I think you folks get a kick out of crucifying one another in the name of truth. Its sort of like a dysfunction family. :)

FL said:

For all we know Jesus actually said “Blessed are the Cheesemakers…” Play a game of “grapevine” and you get the idea, stories, even ones seen as critically important, often become unrecognizable after only a few retellings of the tale.

The problem is that the "grapevine" or "telephone" analogy fails if you try to apply it to the Bible, the New Testament for example.

"When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. "The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament. "The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear, as in the telephone example--one person communicating to a second who communicates with a third, etc. In a linear paradigm people are left with one message and many generations between it and the original. "Second, the telephone game example depends on oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written. "Neither assumption applies to the written text of the New Testament. "First, the transmission was not linear but geometric--e.g., one letter birthed five copies which became 25 which became 200 and so on. Secondly, the transmission in question was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way that oral communications cannot be." ---Greg Koukl http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068

You may want to read the rest of Koukl's article, and even go back and re-read Jimmy Williams' article as well. Koukl's conclusion:

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

FL

FL said:

As long as you define Christianity as “based strictly on Biblical teachings, rather than reality based thinking”, of course Christianity is incompatible with evolution.

Dale, this sentence is so very important that I'm repeating it. I thank you for offering it. I know that for you, the "Biblical teachings" are indeed at odds with "reality"---indeed, your sentence clearly implies that very thing. Okay. Understood. But yes, for sure, if you define Christianity strictly in terms of the biblical teachings, (and indeed, how else WOULD a person rationally define it?), then evolution honestly, sincerely IS incompatible with Christianity. And no, I'm not quote-mining you. We'll look at the rest of your paragraph in a second. Just had to deal with what you directly wrote there. The implicatiions of what you said are far, far-reaching. ***

But you know what they call making and defending statements that conflict with reality? L-Y-I-N-G! Now, do you wish to affirm that as a basic part of Christian life?

Well okay, let's work with this statement. For example, the naturalistic, scientific "reality" (and that's what you go by, ain't it?) is that once a person dies, they stay dead. Right? They don't come back to life three days after burial and get themselves seen by a total of, ohhhh, somewhere over 500 people. Right? And yet, the Bible makes that exact historical claim about Jesus Christ, in actual Earth history.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. ---the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 15

So, according to you, this specific "biblical teaching" is a lie because it "conflicts with reality" as you put it, and I am hereby "L-Y-I-N-G", as you emphasized, because I openly affirm and agree with said biblical teaching. Isn't that right, Dale? That IS what you are telling me, are you not? *** So let's add it all up for a moment. We now see that Christianity really IS strictly based on the "biblical teachings" of 1 Corinthians 15 above. For if Christ is still dead like every other corpse, and didn't rise again in actual Earth history as claimed in the Bible, then Christianity is false, the New Testament is false, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is false. All false, end of story. You would be right. Lying is wrong, we gotta stick to reality, like you suggested. So now here's one of those far-reaching implications I was referring to earlier: Your second quoted statement there, effectively confirms that Christianity INDEED "is strictly based upon biblical teachings". And therefore, according to your first quoted statement, Christianity must NECESSARILY be incompatible with evolution, for Christianity is indeed strictly based on the biblical teachings, as we have seen. Don't respond immediately. Just think about that one. Does it sound, umm, plausible to you? FL

You are an utter disgrace and a pathetic, intellectually - (and mentally) challenged “creature” who would be rejected instantly by Jesus Christ if Christ returned and walked among us.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. —the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 15

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:19-22)

A British agnostic once said, "let's not discuss the other miracles; let's discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter." ---Dr. Dan Hayden, "What If?" http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if.htm

....(If) Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

FL said:

You are an utter disgrace and a pathetic, intellectually - (and mentally) challenged “creature” who would be rejected instantly by Jesus Christ if Christ returned and walked among us.

I had to smile when I read this from you, John. All you need is the appropriate song track to go with it: http://www.41051.com/xmaslyrics/grinch.html *** I suppose I should plead guilty to all that and get it over with, yes? Probably should. But let's also be serious for a moment. My response to Dale there, was a considered, responsible and supportable argument. I would honestly like to see somebody sit down and do a considered reply that fits the material that I have offered. *** RG began to post a serious reply--"Christianity does not depend on a literal reading of the bible". But instead of rationally explaining and supporting her claim, she immediately derailed herself, offering armchair psychiatric diagnoses without a license. However, let's examine the claim. Is it true, that "Christianity does not depend on a literal reading of the Bible"? . Let's imagine for a moment that the biblical passage I offered to Dale is "non-literal."

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. —the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 15

This specific passage is not "a parable." It's not "an allegory." It's not "a metaphor." Whether the passage is true or false, each line at least presents at least a straight historical claim (as in "this-event-really-did-happen-in-actual-Earth-history"). Do you agree? *** So let's say that, for whatever reason, the passage is actually historically FALSE, and it's not literally true. Then what follows (rationally speaking)? First, that would mean that every New Testament book from Matthew to Revelation is no longer trustworthy at all. They all either openly state, or require a presupposition, that Christ actually literally rose from the dead and didn't stay in the ground. Hence the NT must now be considered untrustworthy and unreliable. Second, Jesus himself predicted that he would rise from the dead in three days. So HIS reliability and trustworthiness would also be negated.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:19-22)

*** So if the passage I gave to Dale is "non-literal", then that means that Jesus himself spoke a clear falsehood about himself and is himself unreliable and trustworthy. So becoming a Christian would no longer be a rational move to make, if Christ did NOT do as he said he would do and rise from the dead. No wonder you get comments like this one:

A British agnostic once said, "let's not discuss the other miracles; let's discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter." ---Dr. Dan Hayden, "What If?" http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if.htm

And finally, the Apostle Paul said it best:

....(If) Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

So, do you see the real deal there RG? You and I can label ourselves "Christians" seven days a week, but if you and I are still in our sins, then our labeling is pure worthless. Wouldn't you agree? Jesus' Resurrection therefore MUST NECESSARILY be literal, and it must necessarily be historically accurate in actual Earth history, or else it's GAME OVER no matter what you and I call ourselves (because we would still be in our sins). Therefore Christianity does depend on a literal reading of the Bible. *** Do you have a considered reply on this one, RG? I am willing to listen if you do. FL

The Gospels were not written until several decades after the events they claim to describe. And please note that they did not have tape recorders, cameras, or other sophisticated recording devices. Indeed, Jesus never wrote anything directly that survives to this day. There is a Gosple of Matthew, one of Mark, one of Luke, and one of John.……but NO Gospel of Jesus himself. The Bible itself is an artifact of human beings that exists in REALITY! Therefore, you judge the Bible by reality, NOT reality by the Bible. You are deluded in the extreme to say that any book is a standard to judge truth of any kind. And unless you wish to claim that Paul was the real founder of “Christianity”, and not Jesus, I’d suggest you not imply that Paul’s words have any absolute authority. He wasn’t even an original disciple of Jesus! And how can you be so damn shallow as to insist that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, ethical teachings like those in the Sermon on the Mount would be useless?!

And I wasn't offering armchair diagnoses: there are thousands of Christian sects in the world, very few of which demand the bible be literal. To deny this reality would be insane, by definition.

And the truth or falsity of the resurrection DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER IT WAS ACCURATELY REPORTED. Got that? 500 people don't have to have seen Christ risen for him to have risen. People are fallible, they misremember, they hear rumours, they write what they've heard - nothing in the NT was written by eyewitnesses; and we know telephone effects happen. By the way, your rebuttal was useless - it talked about transmission of the texts, not the story.

In other words, FL is saying that if the Bible is not to be read word for word literally, if God didn't magically poof the world into existence 10,000 years ago, while making it look like at least 4.7 billion years old, if God didn't magically annihilate all life outside of Noah's magic boat 4000 years ago by opening the magical windows of the Heavens and turning on the "fountains of the deep," Jesus and His teachings are utterly useless.

Jesus’ Resurrection therefore MUST NECESSARILY be literal, and it must necessarily be historically accurate in actual Earth history, or else it’s GAME OVER no matter what you and I call ourselves (because we would still be in our sins). Therefore Christianity does depend on a literal reading of the Bible.

And how can you be so damn shallow as to insist that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, ethical teachings like those in the Sermon on the Mount would be useless?!

...(If) Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit. (1 Pet. 3:18)

But I’m using an iPhone over a satellite link from a sailboat 1400 km from the Chilean coast. My response may be slow til I can get back to the laptop.

FL said: Hence--Christianity DOES depend on a literal reading of the Bible. Jesus' Resurrection MUST be literal and historically true, or it really IS game over for you and I.

You are deluded in the extreme to say that any book is a standard to judge truth of any kind.

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

FL,

Do you follow every rule in the Bible litterally?

Rob

Rob said: FL, Do you follow every rule in the Bible literally? Rob

Everything else, too? Then why did you say that the “windows of heaven” were figures of speech?

"The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise." --quoted by Dr. Hugh Ross, reasons.org

Stanton said: Since FL isn't trying to murder his enemies, his enemies' families, his enemies' neighbors, his enemies' livestock, nor trying to burn his enemies' worldly possessions, as well as actively trying to force other Christians to commit apostasy; no, FL doesn't bother with following every rule in the Bible literally, despite constantly nagging us to do so.

Or what about taking literally the parts of the Bible where God says to kill your enemies, and your enemies’ families, and your enemies’ neighbors, and your enemies’ livestock, and burn all of your enemies’ worldly possessions?

That's not figurative, Stanton. Those parts are literal. Yes, they are. Examine the actual texts and examine them in context. They are quite literal.

So the next question is, who did God give those specific orders to? Stanton? FL? Billy Graham? Pope Benedict?

No, he gave the orders to the children of Israel, in the book of Joshua, as they passed over into the Promised Land--a land inhabited by people who had spat in God's face for hundreds of years despite God having mercy on them over and over and over again.

When the time came that God was forced to execute justice instead of His mercy, God sovereignly chose the children of Israel to go ahead and execute His justice, to do the Radical Surgery and completely on those extreme sinners who had gone off the deep end in terms of disobedience to God.

As OT professor Gleason Archer points out, it was indeed radical surgery. Apparently things had gotten to the horrific point that allowing any of them to live would only spread and increase the extreme sin-contagion once again. Cancers gotta be cut out all the way or they come back on you and kill you.

God is a God of love, Stanton. And mercy. And kindness. And patience. And, ummmmmmmm, justice and holiness, too.

The God you say that you serve.....is NOT tame. God loves us all very dearly, but you and I best not try to screw with Him. He's still God.

So God gave a limited-time, limited-range order to the Israelites to execute His divine judgment on the people of whom God had put up with those people's crap for 400 years and time was up.

Literally. But that's what I mean by context, Stanton: The context indicates that you and I have NOT been given divine orders to completely take out the Canaanites. Right?

So that would answer your question. Again, a good question, but the Bible gives a good (and true)answer.

FL

FL said:

Everything else, too? Then why did you say that the “windows of heaven” were figures of speech?

Because that one IS a figure of speech, Stanton. The Bible contains figures of speech in various places, as you know.

The Skeptic-Trouble begins when people start assigning "non-literal" labels to Bible texts that are clearly intended to be literally and historically true.

Skeptics are doing this a lot these days, with both the book of Genesis AND the Four Gospels. Christians have to NOT allow the skeptics to snooker them on this kind of thing. Jesus' Resurrection is clearly one of those key Bible texts, of course. You stick a "non-literal" tag on THAT one -- and some skeptics do, as you know -- you have just eliminated Christianity as a rational option, as the New Testament spelled out.

You might as well become a bloody atheist, if the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is not literally and historically true. The matter is just that serious.

Meanwhile, here is the standard rule for determining what is literal and what is not literal in the Bible:

"The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise." --quoted by Dr. Hugh Ross, reasons.org

Then how come you can not show any of us exactly where in the Bible Jesus explicitly told His followers that He would deny salvation to those who did not read every single word of the Bible literally?

Where exactly in the Bible did Jesus say that He was going to send anyone who thought the description of Creation in Genesis was a parable straight to Hell to burn forever and ever and ever until the end of Time?

Where exactly in the Bible did Jesus say that He was going to deny His love to anyone who thought that trilobites were older than the stone the Pyramids of Giza were built out of? Or even for assuming that "descent with modification" was a fact?

Why can't you answer those questions?

Now that is just plain sick; and this is the true FL showing through.

It's not genocide or murder if one's deity says to do it.

So all one has to do is demonize one's enemies and claim "the deity made me do it; I'm an innocent child of my diety."

That's certainly one of the major themes in the history of religion all right.

FL said:

You are an utter disgrace and a pathetic, intellectually - (and mentally) challenged “creature” who would be rejected instantly by Jesus Christ if Christ returned and walked among us.

I had to smile when I read this from you, John. All you need is the appropriate song track to go with it: http://www.41051.com/xmaslyrics/grinch.html *** I suppose I should plead guilty to all that and get it over with, yes? Probably should. But let's also be serious for a moment. My response to Dale there, was a considered, responsible and supportable argument. I would honestly like to see somebody sit down and do a considered reply that fits the material that I have offered. *** RG began to post a serious reply--"Christianity does not depend on a literal reading of the bible". But instead of rationally explaining and supporting her claim, she immediately derailed herself, offering armchair psychiatric diagnoses without a license. However, let's examine the claim. Is it true, that "Christianity does not depend on a literal reading of the Bible"? . Let's imagine for a moment that the biblical passage I offered to Dale is "non-literal."

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. —the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 15

This specific passage is not "a parable." It's not "an allegory." It's not "a metaphor." Whether the passage is true or false, each line at least presents at least a straight historical claim (as in "this-event-really-did-happen-in-actual-Earth-history"). Do you agree? *** So let's say that, for whatever reason, the passage is actually historically FALSE, and it's not literally true. Then what follows (rationally speaking)? First, that would mean that every New Testament book from Matthew to Revelation is no longer trustworthy at all. They all either openly state, or require a presupposition, that Christ actually literally rose from the dead and didn't stay in the ground. Hence the NT must now be considered untrustworthy and unreliable. Second, Jesus himself predicted that he would rise from the dead in three days. So HIS reliability and trustworthiness would also be negated.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:19-22)

*** So if the passage I gave to Dale is "non-literal", then that means that Jesus himself spoke a clear falsehood about himself and is himself unreliable and trustworthy. So becoming a Christian would no longer be a rational move to make, if Christ did NOT do as he said he would do and rise from the dead. No wonder you get comments like this one:

A British agnostic once said, "let's not discuss the other miracles; let's discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter." ---Dr. Dan Hayden, "What If?" http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if.htm

And finally, the Apostle Paul said it best:

....(If) Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

So, do you see the real deal there RG? You and I can label ourselves "Christians" seven days a week, but if you and I are still in our sins, then our labeling is pure worthless. Wouldn't you agree? Jesus' Resurrection therefore MUST NECESSARILY be literal, and it must necessarily be historically accurate in actual Earth history, or else it's GAME OVER no matter what you and I call ourselves (because we would still be in our sins). Therefore Christianity does depend on a literal reading of the Bible. *** Do you have a considered reply on this one, RG? I am willing to listen if you do. FL

John Kwok said: You're utterly hopeless Fl. But that's exactly what I expect from someone who has allowed himself to be "assimilated" by the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective. On the other hand, for once I have to agree with RG. You are most certainly insane

You can really see where FL has gone completely off the rails. He lives in his medieval, air-tight mind, terrified of everything around him, using his deity as a projection of all his fears, hatreds, and desires to utterly annihilate all the enemies he imagines and provokes all around him.

Nature “red in tooth and claw” is far more humane and without malice. The laws of the universe are what they are; beautiful to behold and inspiring to understand.

And you get recycled rather than being sent to the “furnace” to be burned for things which a jealous projection of your tortured psyche called a deity did.

Stanton said: What gave that away? The fact that FL says that the only way to Salvation is through reading the Bible word for word literally, except for those parts that he thinks should be read as figures of speech?

In other words, you’re saying that it’s of far graver importance to be wowed by Jesus’ magic tricks than it is to take what Jesus was trying to tell and teach people to heart.

From that time on, Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. (Matt. 16:21)

So please explain how assuming the narratives in Genesis describing the creation of the Earth were meant to be read as parables, or assuming that the most important parts of the Bible are Jesus’ parables and commands to His followers are supposed to totally negate, if not destroy Jesus.

...(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. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"

FL said: Take away the Resurrection, and you really, honestly, eliminate Christianity. There's no escaping it Stanton. ******

"Did God Order the Killing of Babies?" http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240275

And yet, you can't explain where Jesus admonished His followers to read every single word of the Bible literally, except for the parts where you say are figures of speech.

Why are we supposed to assume that the narrative of Creation as described in Genesis is literally, 100% percent true, except for the figure of speech, "windows of heaven," even though there is no physical evidence anywhere that suggests that the world is less than 10,000 years old?

In a sad way, it's touching that you're concerned for our spiritual well-being, but, I, at least, do not find it flattering at all to receive the concern of a demonstrated liar-slanderer-gossip, like you. Why don't you tend to your own soul, and leave us be?

I can not find any conflict with assuming "descent with modification" is true because of the evidence, as well as accepting Jesus Christ as my savior. In marked contrast, I do find an enormous amount of conflict in being told by other people what I can and can not assume is true, especially when what these other people say conflict with reality.

FL said: I'll try to keep an eye out for whenever the ocean-going RG is able to provide her response, and make sure I honor that response with some sort of reply.

FL said: You can find a good biblical explanation from Dr. Dave Miller, and I encourage you to take a careful look at his article:

"Did God Order the Killing of Babies?" http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240275

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: You can find a good biblical explanation from Dr. Dave Miller, and I encourage you to take a careful look at his article:

"Did God Order the Killing of Babies?" http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240275

And here is precisely the mentality I was mentioning in my earlier post. Note in that article how “atheists” are demonized. If anyone doubts that this is what goes on in the minds of people like FL, well, there it is for all to see.

Stanton said: Like how a lot of officials in the Roman Catholic Church are blaming gays and atheists (as well as the victims, themselves) for the current child molestation cover-up scandal?

And you get recycled rather than being sent to the “furnace” to be burned for things which a jealous projection of your tortured psyche called a deity did.

How incredibly ironic that the atheist, the agnostic, the skeptic, and the liberal all attempt to stand in judgment upon the ethical behavior of God when, if one embraces their position, there is no such thing as an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything right or wrong.

"How incredibly ironic that the atheist, the agnostic, the skeptic, and the liberal all attempt to stand in judgment upon the ethical behavior of God when, if one embraces their position, there is no such thing as an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything right or wrong." --- Dr. Dave Miller

FL said: "Recycled", are we....? So at long last, good ole Mike finally lets slip where HE's really coming from spiritually. Sounds like some-o'-dat Reincarnation business, es verdad?

FL said: I see that Dale has posted a response, and to his credit it's somewhat higher quality (though certainly not a higher tone) than the other posts. For now, let me start by engaging Dale's final question there. It's seriously important:

And how can you be so damn shallow as to insist that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, ethical teachings like those in the Sermon on the Mount would be useless?!

Good question, but the Bible does give a clear answer for that question, Dale. It's part of what I offered to RG:

...(If) Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).

Remember, if Christ has not been raised from the dead, that would automatically mean that Jesus did NOT pay the full price and die on the Cross for your sins and my sins, after all. And we would still therefore remain in our sins, even if we did our best to practice the Sermon on the Mount or the 10 Commandments.

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit. (1 Pet. 3:18)

Notice how it all fits together. The process of Christ reconciling us back to God REQUIRES the Resurrection to complete the process and validate that his Atonement on the Cross really got the job done. We are all sinners, Dale. We've all violated the Sermon on the Mount at one time or another, just like nobody has a perfect score on the 10 Commandments. I've done sins and violated the Sermon, Dale. And as for you, acceptance of the Sermon on the Mount presupposes acceptance of theism (notice the prayer part of the Sermon for example), so as a professing *agnostic*, you're ALREADY in violation of the Sermon anyway. So we are in the same boat, we are both sinners who need the same Solution to our same Problem. And that Solution must be real ("reality", right?); must be literal; must actually have taken place in actual Earth history; must be directly applicable in the real world, the here and now. Myths and fables can't wash away personal sins--we both know that. Hence--Christianity DOES depend on a literal reading of the Bible. Jesus' Resurrection MUST be literal and historically true, or it really IS game over for you and I. And that's the answer to your question above. It was a good question, btw. FL

FL said:

You are deluded in the extreme to say that any book is a standard to judge truth of any kind.

Am I? Maybe si, maybe no. For my part, I will simply offer what the Bible says. In John 17, Jesus prays to God the Father:

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

Hmmm. Truth, He said. And of course, there's always Hebrews 4:12, which directly speaks to your claim.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Perhaps I am indeed 'deluded.' But then again, your argument is NOT with me, now is it? Consider well: not only are the Scriptures the truth, but they DO in fact pass judgment on "truth of any kind". Astonishingly, the Scriptures can even pierce through any human's mental and emotional defenses, and actually reveal--and judge--what's really going on in their minds and hearts. (Scary, isn't it? That's why the very next verse is a head's up for all of us: "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.") Just something to sleep on. Unless it keeps you awake, of course. *** (By the way, Jordan Rudess's "Crack The Meter" is an interesting song to listen to while posting. It's not a Christian song, but still quite interesting all the same, especially if you use the headphones.) FL

FL said: And no, nobody's being "demonized" in Dr. Dave Miller's article. Apparently atheists and skeptics can criticize Christianity but cannot take any rational critiques of their own skepticism and atheism. Here's a good example of where skepticism and atheism falls short:

"How incredibly ironic that the atheist, the agnostic, the skeptic, and the liberal all attempt to stand in judgment upon the ethical behavior of God when, if one embraces their position, there is no such thing as an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything right or wrong." --- Dr. Dave Miller

On that note, g'nite for real! FL

Avi said:

Henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

"as real people and events." Try and have an objective and open mind and consider the following. Jesus also implied that Heaven is up above the sky over the Mount of Olives when he ascended and was hidden behind the cloud, correct? Now today we know that i that in light of modern astrophysics and the Theory of Relativity, this cannot be so in the least bit. Directions and time and space are all relative. Therefor if we receive Jesus as being who he said he is, than we must conclude that Jesus was not implying to the apostles that their cosmology was accurate as much as implying to them that he was indeed going back "to the Father" as he had predicted to them earlier. So we can indirectly surmise from this that Jesus simply spoke to the people withing the context of their worldview, as did all the prophets. That being understood, why should we expect Jesus to ever bother tweaking any one's understanding of the myths in Genesis? His references to people and events in Gen 1-11 do not therefor need by default to be an implication that Jesus taught that these people and events were historically literal things. It is much the same as Jesus' frequent rhetorical devices he employed in his teachings. For instance, Jesus once said "We must work while it is day, for the night is coming when no man can work." Now if we do not take this statement utterly as an poetic allusion to the notion that the time of having public favor, freedom to go about and minister, etc, was soon to dramatically end, then our interpretation of Jesus' statement will be numerous, crazy, legalistic whacked out ideas about when one should work and why. Now if one looks at everything that Jesus and Paul said about Adam, we can take all those statements as treating the character of Adam as an archetype and be completely fair to the context and receive the exact same message as if we were to interpret the statements as referring to a literal Adam. Paul drove the point home when he used the character of Abraham as an archetype for any and all believers with faith in the gospel. Paul associated all believers with Abraham. Paul associated all unregenerate people with Adam. That is as far as these things can be taken. Paul also employed the creation myth in an allegorical way in 2 Cor 4:6. And if you insist that Jesus' reference to Abel and Noah, etc must mean that these were literally historical people, than you must also then accept the book of Enoch as accurate history also since Jude and Peter reference it as though it was a fact in their epistles.

henry says This doesn’t seem like a rhetorical device Jesus was using here.

henry said:

Avi said:

Henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

"as real people and events." Try and have an objective and open mind and consider the following. Jesus also implied that Heaven is up above the sky over the Mount of Olives when he ascended and was hidden behind the cloud, correct? Now today we know that i that in light of modern astrophysics and the Theory of Relativity, this cannot be so in the least bit. Directions and time and space are all relative. Therefor if we receive Jesus as being who he said he is, than we must conclude that Jesus was not implying to the apostles that their cosmology was accurate as much as implying to them that he was indeed going back "to the Father" as he had predicted to them earlier. So we can indirectly surmise from this that Jesus simply spoke to the people withing the context of their worldview, as did all the prophets. That being understood, why should we expect Jesus to ever bother tweaking any one's understanding of the myths in Genesis? His references to people and events in Gen 1-11 do not therefor need by default to be an implication that Jesus taught that these people and events were historically literal things. It is much the same as Jesus' frequent rhetorical devices he employed in his teachings. For instance, Jesus once said "We must work while it is day, for the night is coming when no man can work." Now if we do not take this statement utterly as an poetic allusion to the notion that the time of having public favor, freedom to go about and minister, etc, was soon to dramatically end, then our interpretation of Jesus' statement will be numerous, crazy, legalistic whacked out ideas about when one should work and why. Now if one looks at everything that Jesus and Paul said about Adam, we can take all those statements as treating the character of Adam as an archetype and be completely fair to the context and receive the exact same message as if we were to interpret the statements as referring to a literal Adam. Paul drove the point home when he used the character of Abraham as an archetype for any and all believers with faith in the gospel. Paul associated all believers with Abraham. Paul associated all unregenerate people with Adam. That is as far as these things can be taken. Paul also employed the creation myth in an allegorical way in 2 Cor 4:6. And if you insist that Jesus' reference to Abel and Noah, etc must mean that these were literally historical people, than you must also then accept the book of Enoch as accurate history also since Jude and Peter reference it as though it was a fact in their epistles.

The context of Matthew 24 is the coming destruction of the temple, which occurred in 70 AD. The disciples were bragging about the temple, but Jesus told them it will be destroyed. To emphasize the seriousness and the certainty of the coming event, He brings up Noah and the Flood. This doesn't seem like a rhetorical device Jesus was using here.

Avi said:

henry said:

Avi said:

Henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

"as real people and events." Try and have an objective and open mind and consider the following. Jesus also implied that Heaven is up above the sky over the Mount of Olives when he ascended and was hidden behind the cloud, correct? Now today we know that i that in light of modern astrophysics and the Theory of Relativity, this cannot be so in the least bit. Directions and time and space are all relative. Therefor if we receive Jesus as being who he said he is, than we must conclude that Jesus was not implying to the apostles that their cosmology was accurate as much as implying to them that he was indeed going back "to the Father" as he had predicted to them earlier. So we can indirectly surmise from this that Jesus simply spoke to the people withing the context of their worldview, as did all the prophets. That being understood, why should we expect Jesus to ever bother tweaking any one's understanding of the myths in Genesis? His references to people and events in Gen 1-11 do not therefor need by default to be an implication that Jesus taught that these people and events were historically literal things. It is much the same as Jesus' frequent rhetorical devices he employed in his teachings. For instance, Jesus once said "We must work while it is day, for the night is coming when no man can work." Now if we do not take this statement utterly as an poetic allusion to the notion that the time of having public favor, freedom to go about and minister, etc, was soon to dramatically end, then our interpretation of Jesus' statement will be numerous, crazy, legalistic whacked out ideas about when one should work and why. Now if one looks at everything that Jesus and Paul said about Adam, we can take all those statements as treating the character of Adam as an archetype and be completely fair to the context and receive the exact same message as if we were to interpret the statements as referring to a literal Adam. Paul drove the point home when he used the character of Abraham as an archetype for any and all believers with faith in the gospel. Paul associated all believers with Abraham. Paul associated all unregenerate people with Adam. That is as far as these things can be taken. Paul also employed the creation myth in an allegorical way in 2 Cor 4:6. And if you insist that Jesus' reference to Abel and Noah, etc must mean that these were literally historical people, than you must also then accept the book of Enoch as accurate history also since Jude and Peter reference it as though it was a fact in their epistles.

The context of Matthew 24 is the coming destruction of the temple, which occurred in 70 AD. The disciples were bragging about the temple, but Jesus told them it will be destroyed. To emphasize the seriousness and the certainty of the coming event, He brings up Noah and the Flood. This doesn't seem like a rhetorical device Jesus was using here.

Only because that is your presupposition. Jesus' point was that we need to live our lives in a prepared, spiritually aware sense of the coming one day of the Son of Man and the world to come. It would be the same as Jesus saying, "learn from the patient tortoise. The hasty hare was the loser in the end." The moral of the story is truth while the story itself was not the point nor was it being asserted as literally historically true. And you completely ignored all the rest of my evidences that I presented. It doesn't "seem" to me like you are really actually considering anything I said. You must believe that you just can't be mistaken about this. I would ask that you humbly display some Spiritual diffidence, a mark of the presence of the Spirit.

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Take away the Resurrection, and you really, honestly, eliminate Christianity. There's no escaping it Stanton. ******

Since when is a resurrection necessary to have a religion?

Avi said:

henry said:

Avi said:

Henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

"as real people and events." Try and have an objective and open mind and consider the following. Jesus also implied that Heaven is up above the sky over the Mount of Olives when he ascended and was hidden behind the cloud, correct? Now today we know that i that in light of modern astrophysics and the Theory of Relativity, this cannot be so in the least bit. Directions and time and space are all relative. Therefor if we receive Jesus as being who he said he is, than we must conclude that Jesus was not implying to the apostles that their cosmology was accurate as much as implying to them that he was indeed going back "to the Father" as he had predicted to them earlier. So we can indirectly surmise from this that Jesus simply spoke to the people withing the context of their worldview, as did all the prophets. That being understood, why should we expect Jesus to ever bother tweaking any one's understanding of the myths in Genesis? His references to people and events in Gen 1-11 do not therefor need by default to be an implication that Jesus taught that these people and events were historically literal things. It is much the same as Jesus' frequent rhetorical devices he employed in his teachings. For instance, Jesus once said "We must work while it is day, for the night is coming when no man can work." Now if we do not take this statement utterly as an poetic allusion to the notion that the time of having public favor, freedom to go about and minister, etc, was soon to dramatically end, then our interpretation of Jesus' statement will be numerous, crazy, legalistic whacked out ideas about when one should work and why. Now if one looks at everything that Jesus and Paul said about Adam, we can take all those statements as treating the character of Adam as an archetype and be completely fair to the context and receive the exact same message as if we were to interpret the statements as referring to a literal Adam. Paul drove the point home when he used the character of Abraham as an archetype for any and all believers with faith in the gospel. Paul associated all believers with Abraham. Paul associated all unregenerate people with Adam. That is as far as these things can be taken. Paul also employed the creation myth in an allegorical way in 2 Cor 4:6. And if you insist that Jesus' reference to Abel and Noah, etc must mean that these were literally historical people, than you must also then accept the book of Enoch as accurate history also since Jude and Peter reference it as though it was a fact in their epistles.

The context of Matthew 24 is the coming destruction of the temple, which occurred in 70 AD. The disciples were bragging about the temple, but Jesus told them it will be destroyed. To emphasize the seriousness and the certainty of the coming event, He brings up Noah and the Flood. This doesn't seem like a rhetorical device Jesus was using here.

Only because that is your presupposition. Jesus' point was that we need to live our lives in a prepared, spiritually aware sense of the coming one day of the Son of Man and the world to come. It would be the same as Jesus saying, "learn from the patient tortoise. The hasty hare was the loser in the end." The moral of the story is truth while the story itself was not the point nor was it being asserted as literally historically true. And you completely ignored all the rest of my evidences that I presented. Does "seem" like you are really considering anything I said. You must believe that you can't be mistaken about this. I would ask that you humbly display some Spiritual diffidence, a mark of the presence of the Spirit.

henry said:

Mike Elzinga said: Since when is a resurrection necessary to have a religion?

It may not be necessary for other religions, but it is central to Christianity. The Roman and Jewish leaders could have stopped Christianity at the beginning by producing the dead body of Jesus, but they didn't because they couldn't.

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said:

Mike Elzinga said: Since when is a resurrection necessary to have a religion?

It may not be necessary for other religions, but it is central to Christianity. The Roman and Jewish leaders could have stopped Christianity at the beginning by producing the dead body of Jesus, but they didn't because they couldn't.

This is supposed to be an answer? You are simply making an assertion from your assumption that everything you read in your holy book is true. It is essentially and assertion that you think your religion is superior to all others because your holy book says somebody was resurrected from the dead. Why not make a religion in which someone get raised from the dead, ground up in a meat grinder, reassembled, raised from the dead again, thrown into a crucible of molten iron, comes back from the dead again, etc.? Then the religion that has a holy book that "reports" the most improbable sequence of impossible comebacks from every imaginable form of death wins.

It's actually pretty close to the legend of Osiris. The Egyptians were there a long time ago.

henry said:

Avi said:

henry said:

Avi said:

Henry said: Jesus referred to creation [Mark 13:19], Noah [Matthew 24:37], and Abel [Luke 11:51] as real people and events.He recognized Genesis 1-11 as history.

"as real people and events." Try and have an objective and open mind and consider the following. Jesus also implied that Heaven is up above the sky over the Mount of Olives when he ascended and was hidden behind the cloud, correct? Now today we know that i that in light of modern astrophysics and the Theory of Relativity, this cannot be so in the least bit. Directions and time and space are all relative. Therefor if we receive Jesus as being who he said he is, than we must conclude that Jesus was not implying to the apostles that their cosmology was accurate as much as implying to them that he was indeed going back "to the Father" as he had predicted to them earlier. So we can indirectly surmise from this that Jesus simply spoke to the people withing the context of their worldview, as did all the prophets. That being understood, why should we expect Jesus to ever bother tweaking any one's understanding of the myths in Genesis? His references to people and events in Gen 1-11 do not therefor need by default to be an implication that Jesus taught that these people and events were historically literal things. It is much the same as Jesus' frequent rhetorical devices he employed in his teachings. For instance, Jesus once said "We must work while it is day, for the night is coming when no man can work." Now if we do not take this statement utterly as an poetic allusion to the notion that the time of having public favor, freedom to go about and minister, etc, was soon to dramatically end, then our interpretation of Jesus' statement will be numerous, crazy, legalistic whacked out ideas about when one should work and why. Now if one looks at everything that Jesus and Paul said about Adam, we can take all those statements as treating the character of Adam as an archetype and be completely fair to the context and receive the exact same message as if we were to interpret the statements as referring to a literal Adam. Paul drove the point home when he used the character of Abraham as an archetype for any and all believers with faith in the gospel. Paul associated all believers with Abraham. Paul associated all unregenerate people with Adam. That is as far as these things can be taken. Paul also employed the creation myth in an allegorical way in 2 Cor 4:6. And if you insist that Jesus' reference to Abel and Noah, etc must mean that these were literally historical people, than you must also then accept the book of Enoch as accurate history also since Jude and Peter reference it as though it was a fact in their epistles.

The context of Matthew 24 is the coming destruction of the temple, which occurred in 70 AD. The disciples were bragging about the temple, but Jesus told them it will be destroyed. To emphasize the seriousness and the certainty of the coming event, He brings up Noah and the Flood. This doesn't seem like a rhetorical device Jesus was using here.

Only because that is your presupposition. Jesus' point was that we need to live our lives in a prepared, spiritually aware sense of the coming one day of the Son of Man and the world to come. It would be the same as Jesus saying, "learn from the patient tortoise. The hasty hare was the loser in the end." The moral of the story is truth while the story itself was not the point nor was it being asserted as literally historically true. And you completely ignored all the rest of my evidences that I presented. Does "seem" like you are really considering anything I said. You must believe that you can't be mistaken about this. I would ask that you humbly display some Spiritual diffidence, a mark of the presence of the Spirit.

We all have presuppositions and worldviews. We can let the Word of God transform them, or change it to fit them. According to Matthew 24:30 , we know that the Son of man is in heaven when the temple, Jerusalem, and Israel are destroyed. We may not know exactly where heaven is, but we know the Son of man is there.

henry said: That could be a sci-fi movie, or a terminator movie, but it won't be much of a religion. Maybe, a small cult or sect.

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: That could be a sci-fi movie, or a terminator movie, but it won't be much of a religion. Maybe, a small cult or sect.

And just what do you think are the hundreds of sectarian factions in just Protestantism alone? They are all around us, in our communities; and they don’t like each other very much because all claim the others don’t preach the “correct” doctrine. What makes yours the “right” one?

Avi said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: That could be a sci-fi movie, or a terminator movie, but it won't be much of a religion. Maybe, a small cult or sect.

And just what do you think are the hundreds of sectarian factions in just Protestantism alone? They are all around us, in our communities; and they don’t like each other very much because all claim the others don’t preach the “correct” doctrine. What makes yours the “right” one?

I want to say something here. I am a believer. I am not part of any sect or denomination. I worship with others of varying theological views and have done so for years. Our unity is our faith in Jesus and the Bible. We have never gone around claiming that our group or groups or church is the only right one about everything. And some of us love studying theology, science and history, etc too. Yes we are out there. We exist. We aren't going away and we have always been here. We are a faceless generation springing from lines of faithful folks "outside the camp" who have been around since the beginnings of the church in the first century. People are often "religious" and immature when they are divisive against other believers. I hate this and this is usually the norm. I guess it makes it easier to avoid challenges form others when you can just start a group that all thinks alike... and then enforce that unity.... and them demean, demonize and persecute those different than you... then invent a perfect leader/pope and even kill your dissenters who don't fall in line.... then start a denominational headquarters with... and history repeats its self. Now I am new here but I have not seen it yet that people claim that there particular doctrine is the right one? Of course I think I am right about many doctrines I would preach. But my faith and my gospel are not foundational upon any of my own particular doctrines that I believe outside of the basic ones outlined in the creeds rather finely. If one thinks that their particular view on baptism, end times, church structure, etc means that they are the only "saved" ones that it is clear that they are not really understanding the gospel in the first place. SO let it go. There will always be disagreements and divisions as sad as this is. That does not mean that the faith is entirely man made and "wrong." Are we to assume that politics is entirely worthless and meaningless just because there are endless political views and parties? How about scientific theories? Are we to throw out all theories just because here are disagreements, changes, new discoveries and opposing views? Of course not. Now be consistent. Yes it is ridiculous that there are numerous sects in Christianity. But this alone does not invalidate the foundation of Christianity as being a genuine revelation of God in Jesus given to us in the NT. Rogue, nutty "Scientists" supported the holocaust. Rogue nutty politicians participated in communist revolutions and mass murder and genocide. Rogue nutty people do rogue nutty things. Christianity is no different. Neither is any other religion. Buddhism has had a bloody history of violence and murder for crying out loud, and they are not supposed to believe in violence or murder at all. Human nature finds a way.

Avi said: Rogue, nutty "Scientists" supported the holocaust. Rogue nutty politicians participated in communist revolutions and mass murder and genocide. Rogue nutty people do rogue nutty things. Christianity is no different. Neither is any other religion.

Sorry about the blip again above with my double posting. I am still not used to this. AGH!

Hi Mike E

I know that you have likely herd this before. But it is solid and true. The Jesus of the New Testament DID fulfill numerous prophecies about the Messiah found in the Old Testament. He got way too many of them to be coincidence. And the way he related to the Old Testament, to God, and they way Jesus taught about God is absolutely unique and in line with the Old Testament. He was either the world's greatest creative genius who was self deceived, somehow works miracles and successfully predicted things and really fooled people to think he rose from the dead or he was exactly who he said he was.

Its like the great thinker C. S. Lewis said. He is either a liar, a lunatic or Lord.

I meant "heard" not "herd." LOL

Avi said: Its like the great thinker C. S. Lewis said. He is either a liar, a lunatic or Lord.

Avi said: The Jesus of the New Testament DID fulfill numerous prophecies about the Messiah found in the Old Testament.

Mike Elzinga said:

Avi said: Its like the great thinker C. S. Lewis said. He is either a liar, a lunatic or Lord.

C.S. Lewis is interesting to many because of his poetic style in attempting to articulate the religious feelings of some portions of Christianity; but he gets a lot of objective reality wrong in the process. He speaks mostly from within a subset of the Christian religion. There are many other writers who have better insights derived from a broader spectrum of experience and knowledge.

tomh said:

Avi said: The Jesus of the New Testament DID fulfill numerous prophecies about the Messiah found in the Old Testament.

And you know this because... oh, I remember, the Bible tells you so! It seems odd that you can't see a problem with using the Bible to confirm the Bible.

Avi said: ok. like who? references? I will consider...

For a guy who insists on "objective reality", Mike sure has picked some biased, fanatically materialistic folks there. Stenger? Dawkins? C'monnnnnn, people.

(Btw, I'd never accept Mike's opinion regarding CS Lewis either, especially when it comes to a topic such as "objective reality." Mike's opinions are deeply colored by his own non-Christian religious beliefs and pre-suppositions, as you've guessed by now.)

******

Honestly, the only way to know what creationists and ID supporters and Christian apologists/philosophers are actually saying wrt science (and religion as well, and reality too), is to actually READ their books and articles and websites for oneself.

For example, if I wanted to know how Christianity actually related to science, if I wanted to know exactly how to bridge the two domains, then I would (1) find a Bible and read it completely, and (2) find a copy of Wiliam Dembski's 1999 book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theoolgy. Period.

(His explanation is just that good, btw. Even a layman like me could clearly see how Jesus Christ related to the science domain, after Dembski spelled it out. Never saw things the same way again.)

******

There's nothing wrong per se with checking out Mike's sources, but Christians need to remember that people like Kurtz, Stenger, Dawkins, are NOT into "objective reality." They're into Atheism, period. (Lord have mercy, that's so obvious it ain't funny!).

Hence it is critically important to balance out Mike's sources with what Paul Harvey called "The Rest Of The Story."

For example, if I'm going to take Mike's advice and read some David Hume, I'd make sure I had the "Rest of the Story" with me. Stuff like this:

Hume versus the Cosmo argument:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec8.html

Hume versus the Design argument:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec15.html

Hume versus the existence of miracles:

http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/evidences/36hume.html

Or just Hume's overall mess:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html

******

Those are just a few examples. (I'm not even getting into Graham Twelftree's detailed refutation of Hume wrt miracles in Jesus The Miracle Worker.)

(This also includes the comparative religions domain as well. For example, Madasamy Thirumalai's books on how to relate the Gospel correctly to Hindu and Buddist acquaintances and friends. Simply put, you can find "The Rest of The Story" in any of the areas Mike brought up, if you work hard at it.)

Talk about "looking for meat to eat"! How about simply locating and taking advantage of the entire "Grocery Store"?

******

Bottom line: You don't have to be "jolted" by Mike's sources, if you are already properly prepared. Instead, you can:

"Dissect 'em, Diagnose 'em, Disarm 'em."

Some of the wealth of information will be online, some will be in books accessible at your local library and Christian bookstore, but it's there. And that's on top of the Bible itself, which can slice through any and all defenses like nothing else on this planet.

So these are very exciting times for Christians who want to take on the skeptics and atheists and Darwinists (and help the high-school and collegiate Christians to do the same.)

NOW is the time to check out all the powerful, intellectual, Bible-compatible Christian resources that God has provided in these last and evil days, and to make full use of them to dispel and diminish the disease of skepticism, in the power and love of the Spirit of God.

FL

FL said: For a guy who insists on "objective reality", Mike sure has picked some biased, fanatically materialistic folks there. Stenger? Dawkins? C'monnnnnn, people. (Btw, I'd never accept Mike's opinion regarding CS Lewis either, especially when it comes to a topic such as "objective reality." Mike's opinions are deeply colored by his own non-Christian religious beliefs and pre-suppositions, as you've guessed by now.)

Honestly, the only way to know what creationists and ID supporters and Christian apologists/philosophers are actually saying wrt science (and religion as well, and reality too), is to actually READ their books and articles and websites for oneself.

So these are very exciting times for Christians who want to take on the skeptics and atheists and Darwinists (and help the high-school and collegiate Christians to do the same.)

NOW is the time to check out all the powerful, intellectual, Bible-compatible Christian resources that God has provided in these last and evil days, and to make full use of them to dispel and diminish the disease of skepticism, in the power and love of the Spirit of God.

I seem to remember that Dembski has basically "recanted" most or all of his points (on one level or another) he tried to make in his first book. Is that so? I know his whole "You can't build a simpler mousetrap" notion was completely falsified for one. Doesn't he also admit that evolution has taken place? And the Big Bang?

Now I am thinking it is Behe, not Dembski.

Stanton said: This is hypocritical of you, FL, given as how your very first comment on this thread was a segue into inventing inventing fact-free lies with which to slander everyone here with. Besides, why should we trust anything you say about spirituality or reality, given as how you readily bend, rend and discard the truth?

While I enjoy stimulating my thinking with various writers, remember that I am have experienced a few miracles that I will never be able to explain scientifically no matter how much I might even want to. So if I were deluged with reasons not to be a believer, I would have to willfully forget the things I have experienced. And yes I know that for all you atheists, etc out here this all means nothing to you but I said it none the less.

I would also willfully have to forget the depth of sheer genius I have read in the Bible, especially in Jesus. One thing I have learned a lot from is listening to Dr Michael L Brown's debates and reading his Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus books thoroughly.

Avi said: I seem to remember that Dembski has basically "recanted" most or all of his points (on one level or another) he tried to make in his first book. Is that so? I know his whole "You can't build a simpler mousetrap" notion was completely falsified for one. Doesn't he also admit that evolution has taken place? And the Big Bang?

Avi said: Now I am thinking it is Behe, not Dembski.

Avi said: ... remember that I am have experienced a few miracles that I will never be able to explain scientifically...

"Disease of skepticism”? I take it then that you were lying, as usual, when you claimed you didn’t want to gain power over us, then.

How incredibly ironic that the atheist, the agnostic, the skeptic, and the liberal all attempt to stand in judgment upon the ethical behavior of God when, if one embraces their position, there is no such thing as an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything right or wrong.

For example, if I wanted to know how Christianity actually related to science, if I wanted to know exactly how to bridge the two domains, then I would (1) find a Bible and read it completely, and (2) find a copy of Wiliam Dembski’s 1999 book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theoolgy. Period.

Avi said: While I enjoy stimulating my thinking with various writers, remember that I am have experienced a few miracles that I will never be able to explain scientifically no matter how much I might even want to. So if I were deluged with reasons not to be a believer, I would have to willfully forget the things I have experienced. And yes I know that for all you atheists, etc out here this all means nothing to you but I said it none the less.

Avi said: And yes I know that for all you atheists, etc out here this all means nothing to you but I said it none the less. I

Rilke's granddaughter said: And I wasn't offering armchair diagnoses: there are thousands of Christian sects in the world, very few of which demand the bible be literal. To deny this reality would be insane, by definition. And the truth or falsity of the resurrection DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER IT WAS ACCURATELY REPORTED. Got that? 500 people don't have to have seen Christ risen for him to have risen. People are fallible, they misremember, they hear rumours, they write what they've heard - nothing in the NT was written by eyewitnesses; and we know telephone effects happen. By the way, your rebuttal was useless - it talked about transmission of the texts, not the story.

On the other hand, I have personally dissected all the major works of the ID/creationists repeatedly over a period of 40 years and have given talks on these to the public over the years. And I do have far more than enough scientific and mathematical expertise and experience to spot the misconceptions and mischaracterizations that run through ID/creationist pseudo/science.

FL said: So how about it? Would you want to go ahead and take the time to specifically show me where I'm wrong about #3?

henry said: No eyewitnesses wrote the NT? 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Avi said: ...I am have experienced a few miracles that I will never be able to explain scientifically no matter how much I might even want to.

FL said:

"Disease of skepticism”? I take it then that you were lying, as usual, when you claimed you didn’t want to gain power over us, then.

Permit me to ask: Exactly how does employing the phrase "disease of skepticism", rationally translate into me somehow wanting to "gain power over you"? I don't see the connection.

Besides, you said you are a Christian, so you're no longer compatible with skepticism anyway, (or at least you shouldn't be!).

Mike Elzinga said: ... In addition to all the mischaracterizations of science that run through all of ID/creationism, there is a fundamental misconception that percolated through from Morris and Gish. If you could spot that, you might worthy of some “debate”. But most of the scientific community has learned not to lend their coat-tails to pseudo-scientists wanting to leverage respectability and publicity.

You already have demonstrated that you can mud wrestle and bullshit endlessly. But you have never demonstrated an understanding of science even after repeated prodding from the people who post here. Now is your chance.

Dave Luckett said: Using Bible quotations to prove other parts of the Bible is a no-no. It doesn't work that way.

Stanton said: Want to bet 50 dollars that all of the papers FL mentioned fail to explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to work, let alone how it's supposed to be a science?

Want to bet a hundred dollars that FL blows this chance, as usual?

Avi said: I know that you have likely herd this before. But it is solid and true. The Jesus of the New Testament DID fulfill numerous prophecies about the Messiah found in the Old Testament. He got way too many of them to be coincidence.

• The people writing about Jesus knew the prophesies and made stuff up to agree with them,
• The scribes recording the stories twisted them to agree with the prophesies,
• There are multiple conflicting prophesies and one cherry-picks the ones that agree while ignoring the ones that don't,
• The prophesies are so vague that one may always find something to shoehorn into a match.

You’re right. It probably isn’t a coincidence. More likely:

The people writing about Jesus knew the prophesies and made stuff up to agree with them,

Well rather than fit the prophecies so strangely, why wouldn't they have made it all so amazingly crystal clear so that no one would be able to really argue about it?

The scribes recording the stories twisted them to agree with the prophesies,

Again, see my response to the first point. And why would they expect so many people to buy into something that could be so easily checked out being so close to the events?

There are multiple conflicting prophesies and one cherry-picks the ones that agree while ignoring the ones that don’t,

Or many of the prophecies not mentioned are either referring to the final end time to come in the future or they refer to something that happened in the past- i.e. the Babylonian captivity and the return from it.

The prophesies are so vague that one may always find something to shoehorn into a match.

To an untrained eye it sometimes seems that way. But there were some prophecies that were not at all that vague. Malachi foretold that the Messiah, who "owned" the temple, would display the glory of God in public at the temple before the second temple was destroyed which happened in 70 c e. Now that narrows things down.

Avi said: To an untrained eye it sometimes seems that way. But there were some prophecies that were not at all that vague. Malachi foretold that the Messiah, who "owned" the temple, would display the glory of God in public at the temple before the second temple was destroyed which happened in 70 c e. Now that narrows things down.

Get out the Dembski and Marks paper. It is essentially the most concise summary the major misconceptions that Dembski has been operating with for his entire “career.” There is a tactical reason that these are in that paper. When you have convinced me that you understand it, I’ll show you where I have dissected it. It was done here on PT.

"I have personally dissected all the major works of the ID/creationists repeatedly over a period of 40 years and have given talks on these to the public over the years."

—-Dembski’s specific explanations given in chapters 7 and 8 DO successfully bridge the domains of science and theology, —-AND furthermore he bridges those two domains in a totally Bible-compatible, totally Christ-centered manner.

So how about it? Would you want to go ahead and take the time to specifically show me where I’m wrong about #3?/

No eyewitnesses wrote the NT? 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

In the first place, most scholars believe that 2 Peter is pseudonymous, for several reasons. Firstly, because it was one of the last epistles to be accepted into canon, and yet, if Peter actually wrote it, it must have been one of the most authoritative and earliest. Secondly, because the style, grammar and vocabulary is clearly different from 1 The writer of the epistle also says that it was written shortly before the death of the apostle, which is a bit of a giveaway.

Firstly, because it was one of the last epistles to be accepted into canon, and yet, if Peter actually wrote it, it must have been one of the most authoritative and earliest.

More important, there is a good explanation for the neglect of 2 Peter. So many Petrine forgeries were in existence that the Fathers moved very cautiously in separating out 2 Peter from these other spurious books. ---An Introduction to the New Testament, 2005 Zondervan, p. 662.

"What reasons are there to put 2 Peter out of the canon, considering its authentication by the consensus of the 4th-century church?" ---("The Authenticity of 2 Peter", JETS 42 (1999), p. 651).

Secondly, because the style, grammar and vocabulary is clearly different from 1 Peter.

While certainly distinctive, the Greek of 2 Peter is not as distinctive as many scholars have suggested. Several scholars note that the author may be consciously imitating the so called "Asiatic" style, a form of rhetorical speech that was becoming popular at the time. Could not Peter, seeking to create as much common ground as possible with his readers, have adopted just such a style? (Also), The claim that a Galilean fisherman could not have written the Greek of the letter cannot stand without knowing much more than we do about how that Galilean fisherman spent the thirty or more years between abandoning his nets and the date of his letter. Ministry in Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome might very well have furnished Peter with a training in Greek, and even a rhetorical style, similar or even superior to that to be had in the classroom. p. 661.)

But not only are there differences, there are also many similarities between 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Although 2 Peter has more, they both are characterized by repetition of words. Bigg says, “The habit of verbal repetition is therefore quite as strongly marked in the First Epistle as the Second.” There are similarities of thought: the fruits of redemption and testing, the inspiration of scripture, the second coming of Christ. And Bigg adds, “…no document in the New Testament is so like 1 Peter as 2 Peter.” ---J. Hampton Keathley IV, "The Authorship of Second Peter." http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

"Thirdly, because it appears to refer to Paul deferentially, and specifically to Jude. It must be late, for it attempts to explain the delay in the Second Coming - which means that it must post-date the lifetimes of many who heard Jesus, but Peter died about 62 CE, in the Neronic persecution. This is on the face of it barely consistent."

"But the text implies nothing about a collection, referring only to an undetermined number of letters." (p.659) "Peter's appeal to the....letters of Paul(3:15-16) do not imply the existence of a fixed tradition." (p. 662).

And Peter's teaching about the Parousia (the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ) is quite in keeping with the thrust of the New Testament in general: its coming cannot be dated (3:8,10), so believers need to be prepared for that day to arrive at any time (3:9, 11-12) (p. 662).

The writer of the epistle also says that it was written shortly before the death of the apostle, which is a bit of a giveaway.

"One plausible explanation for the differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is that Peter used an amanuensis to do the actual writing of 1 Peter with Peter checking and approving the final product. That this was a common practice is evidenced by Longenecker who states, 'The Greek papyri, therefore, indicate quite clearly that an amanuensis was frequently, if not commonly, employed in the writing of personal letters during the time approximating the composition of the NT epistles.' If Peter himself wrote 2 Peter, this would explain the differences between the two letters." ---Keathley's article

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

FL said: You also directly claimed that there's "absolutely no way" that I "could know anything about the relationship between science and religion", so you've honestly made it very clear that you understood that the topic I was addressing was Dembski's explanation about bridging science and theology.

FL, you're seriously arguing that because the early Church fathers had serious doubts about 2 Peter, and took a very long time to accept it, that it's more likely to be authentic? Really?

You're also arguing that the stylistic differences can be simply set aside by waving the term amuensis around? They can't, you know.

Or that if Peter wrote 1 Peter and an amuensis (in fact, a pseudonymous writer) wrote 2 Peter, this would solve the problem? Surely even you can see that it only introduces new ones?

Or that it's credible that by 62 CE it was already necessary for the head of the church to write an encyclical letter to tell followers that the second coming might be on hold for a while? He talks about a thousand years, so it's pretty plain that by the time it was written, the church had dug in for the long haul. In 62 CE there were still plenty of people alive who'd heard Jesus - but at 3:3-4, the writer implies that that generation had all passed away. This has to put it later than Peter's life.

But even if you ignore this, you're still not off the hook. If the writer was Peter, the letter must predate the Gospels, and therefore Peter could not attest to their truth himself, anyway. Unless, of course, we are to have recourse to your usual solution and call up an uncovenanted miracle.

No. 2 Peter is dubious. But even if it weren't, even if there were no worries about it at all, even if you could reasonably insist that the fourth and fifth century church fathers whose consensus put it into canon were absolutely, definitely, unquestionably right about it, and it certainly is the product of Simon Peter himself, it says only that Peter describes himself and unknown others - presumably the other disciples - as eyewitnesses. He does not say, and does not imply, that the canon of the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses - and manifestly, most of it was not.

Furthermore, you’ve boasted that “I do have far more than enough scientific and mathematical expertise and experience to spot the misconceptions and mischaracterizations that run through ID/creationist pseudo/science,” …

— FL

You also directly claimed that there’s “absolutely no way” that I “could know anything about the relationship between science and religion”, so you’ve honestly made it very clear that you understood that the topic I was addressing was Dembski’s explanation about bridging science and theology.

henry said: We all have presuppositions and worldviews.

henry said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: And I wasn't offering armchair diagnoses: there are thousands of Christian sects in the world, very few of which demand the bible be literal. To deny this reality would be insane, by definition. And the truth or falsity of the resurrection DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER IT WAS ACCURATELY REPORTED. Got that? 500 people don't have to have seen Christ risen for him to have risen. People are fallible, they misremember, they hear rumours, they write what they've heard - nothing in the NT was written by eyewitnesses; and we know telephone effects happen. By the way, your rebuttal was useless - it talked about transmission of the texts, not the story.

No eyewitnesses wrote the NT? 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Mike Elzinga said: You will discuss this at my level of expertise and on my terms.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said: You will discuss this at my level of expertise and on my terms.

Good luck with that, Mike. I"m expecting either a vanishing act or the rhetorical equivalent of throwing sand in your eyes.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said: You will discuss this at my level of expertise and on my terms.

Good luck with that, Mike. I"m expecting either a vanishing act or the rhetorical equivalent of throwing sand in your eyes.

You will discuss this at my level of expertise and on my terms.

Evoluionists can be such wussies sometimes.

Closing arguments, please, people - I can't take much more of this.

Matt Young said: Closing arguments, please, people - I can't take much more of this.

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

Unitarians are Christians. Lying will get you damned to eternal hellfire, FL.

What, you are saying you believe in the existence of eternal hellfire? Riiiiiight. But the fact is, I was there, RG. I went to their services. Like I said, I even knew which person's name went with which person's religion, for many members of the congregation. The only Christians in the UU church, are the UU's who directly tell you they are. Btw, making a blanket declaration that "Unitarians are Christians" actually could be considered offensive by those Unitarians who personally claim to be agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish. You may want to keep that in mind next time you visit a UU service, yes? Musn't step on ecumenical landmines, you know. FL

FL, STFU! The only kind of person that is offensive to UUs like me is bigots like YOU! And that is not about Christianity, but about dishonesty, stupidity, and arrogance.

Like I said, I even knew which person's name went with which person's religion, for many members of the congregation.

Was their "religion" written on their name tags?

Avi said:

tomh said:

Avi said: So I would offer the challenge, where is even one piece of undeniable proof or reason to deny that Jesus is in fact who he claimed in the gospels and that he did not rise from the dead?

confirming my suspicions that there is no evidence about the Resurrection. Other than the assertions made in the Bible, of course.

The first evidence of the resurrection is the eyewitness accounts in the gospels themselves.

The second is the accounts that Paul referred to as being around 500 or so in number.

FL said: Maybe si, maybe no.

Matt Young said: Closing arguments, please, people - I can't take much more of this.

Nothing could be more obvious - FL trying to back out with an air of dignity intact. Of course, he lost any semblance of dignity long ago.

Keelyn said: Nothing could be more obvious - FL trying to back out with an air of dignity intact. Of course, he lost any semblance of dignity long ago.

FL said: Let's imagine for a moment that the biblical passage I offered to Dale is "non-literal."

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. —the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 15

Maybe si, maybe no. The poster “Deadman” (bless his dead little heart), can fill you in on my debating style if you are not already acquainted. Stated simply, I like to be accomodating (as much as possible), but sooner or later I will simply debate on my own terms…usually sooner.

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Maybe si, maybe no.

Apparently you didn’t get the point. And, to repeat, you don't get to change the subject. Or, perhaps you missed where to find the paper. There are no other options.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Wow. That's a really badly-written paper. It's like trying to read sludge. I realize Dembski's math skills aren't very good, but does he have to write so BADLY?