Faith-killing questions from the trenches, and answers
Top 10 Reasons to Not Be a Christian
Q & A Session Audio
- “There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of any miracles ever actually occurring.”
- “The Jesus story just is an accumulation of myths of legendary people, all rolled into one über nice guy.”
- “Science and faith are incompatible ways of thinking. Separate realms that should be kept separate.”
- “The history of science is the story of one religious superstition after another being eradicated by reason and logic.”
- “The Bible is a translation of a translation of tales cobbled together by Constantine in 300AD.”
- “St. Paul invented Christianity by making a nice rabbi named Jesus into a god.”
- “Evolution disproves God.”
- “In their arrogant superiority, Christians think everybody else is going to burn in hell for all eternity.”
- “The Bible is riddled with contradictions and therefore cannot be the perfect word of God.”
- “More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause in the history of the world.”
This story starts with my brother Bryan, a tough-questions seminary student. He got a Masters degree in theology at a very conservative seminary where they work them real good, and he toed the line and he learned all the stuff that he’s supposed to learn, and he moved to China.
He’s in China for a couple of years and he basically turned into an agnostic and came within spitting distance of becoming an atheist, which really shook me up.
Bryan is a very smart guy, and one of the questions that he asked was this.
He goes, “Okay, Perry, I’ve been to seminary. I know Greek, I know Hebrew, I know Aramaic, and when I read the New Testament I do not see any reason whatsoever from the text why we should not have miracles today. So where are they?
1. “There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of any miracles ever actually occurring.”
And I’m like, “Uh…let me ask my sales manager and get back to you.” I hate it when people ask ‘elephant in the room’ questions.
Now, if you’ve been in any strand of Christianity for any length of time, you will encounter miracle stories. For example, “We prayed for my sister Debbie and she had cancer, and all of a sudden she didn’t have cancer anymore.”
Every now and then, I don’t care where you are in Christianity, you will hear those. I’ve heard a few of them, but I was in very short supply of such stories and I hadn’t thought about it much. I had always been taught that those miracles went away and they either don’t exist anymore, or at least never happen “on command.”
And Bryan’s cutting to the chase; he’s like, “Well, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t.” And I knew he was right. So what’s the deal? Let’s start in on this.
I went looking and I’ll teII you that one interesting book that I found along the way was by Richard Casdorph, who is a medical doctor. He wrote a book in the 1970s called Real Miracles. This is an older version of the book. It’s called, The Miracles – A Medical Doctor Says Yes to Miracles.
What this guy did was there was this lady back in the 1970s named Catherine Kuhlman and she would do these healing services. He followed her around and he documented what happened to these people. He documented the “before” and the “after” and he did so with X-rays, medical reports, letters from doctors, all of that kind of stuff. This book is 10 case studies. I’ll tell you what some of the chapter names are:
- Malignant Brain Tumor
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Atherosclerotic Heart Disease
- Carcinoma of the Kidney
- Mixed Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis
And he goes through, one by one, with X-rays, doctor’s reports and everything and says, “This guy had this before and it’s gone now. Here’s the X-ray, here’s the letter from the doctor, and there it is.” This is not by any means the only such book, but they exist.
Another example of this is God and The Sun at Fatima. Catholics will know what Fatima is (probably most Protestants won’t) but I think back somewhere around 1913, just before World War I, some children were playing and they had a vision of the Virgin Mary. She said that something really amazing is going to happen here at this certain date and they told everybody. Everybody showed up and they all saw it.
This book is by Stanley Jaki, who is a physicist and a Catholic priest and a science historian. He goes into 360 pages of interviewing people and documenting all this. This is as close as you can get to a scientific investigation of a miracle.
Another book that I ran across that I found real interesting that isn’t really about miracles but is about the metaphysical world is called Margins of Reality, by Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne.
They worked at the Princeton University Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. The lab was closed in 2007, but for almost 30 years there was a lab at Princeton and they would investigate paranormal phenomena. And they proved to five 9’s of statistical confidence (that’s almost six Sigma) that people could deflect falling objects by concentrating. They proved that they could send and receive telepathic messages.
Now, most of the scientific community does not know what to do with this stuff. It freaks them out, but it’s there. This is a fascinating book. So I started investigating this, and I also started looking for personal experiences.
A couple of years ago I was in India with my friend, Jeremy. He has spent a lot of time doing healing and practicing Biblical healing. We were at a little church service and Jeremy goes up to the pastor and says, “Tell these people that if they want healing prayer at the end of the service, I’ll pray for them.” So the pastor tells all the people and everyone was like, “Well, okay, I’ll go over there!”
Jeremy was like, “Perry, Perry, come over here and help me!” I’d never done this before. There was a woman whose whole left arm was paralyzed. She had had brain surgery a year and a half before. She had an indentation in her head from the surgery. She had been having seizures ever since the surgery and she had no feeling in her left arm. She wanted us to pray for her.
So Jeremy’s like, “Okay, Perry, start praising God, start praying for this lady!”
I’m like, “Okay, me Robin, you Batman, I’ll do whatever you tell me to do,” and we started praying. He would poke her on the hand – “Can you feel that?”
“No, can’t feel that.”
He’d pray some more and ask, “Can you feel that?”
“I’m starting to feel something!” So he would pray some more and at the end of 20 minutes, all the feeling was back in her left arm. She was so excited, she didn’t know what to do with herself.
A guy came in with a broken wrist, holding it like that; by the end, he was jumping up and down, he was so excited.
There was another lady who had a severe shoulder injury and she couldn’t move her shoulder past about here. I put my arm on her shoulder and I could feel this crunching going on in her shoulder and we prayed for her for about 30 minutes. The crunching was all gone and she was moving her shoulder and she was all excited.
Then I go home and I’m like, “I wonder if this actually stuck. I wonder if it did.” So I emailed this guy and I asked him, “How are these people doing, anyway?”
He said, “In the glorious name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Mr. Perry Marshall, I am so excited to tell you, they are telling everybody they can’t wait for you to come back!”
I said, “Wow, this is great!”
Now, I’ve got to cover 10 of these things in 50 minutes, which is kind of insane, so I don’t have time to go any more. The church that I attend, a Vineyard Church, we practice this.
I of all people know what it’s like to sit here and pray for someone and go, “I feel really stupid! What if this doesn’t work?” You know, sometimes there’s no obvious result, but sometimes there is. You know what? It’s less risky than going to the emergency room.
I have a few friends who actually go to the emergency room every Tuesday night and they pray for people, and trippy stuff happens sometimes. If you want to read some more of these stories, go here. You can read the whole India story in more detail.
This brings up another thing. You know a lot of the people talk about Christians living by faith. Well, I totally understand and agree with that, but I also think that as you mature as a Christian, you live more and more by experience. That faith leads to results which gives you experience, and there’s kind of an upwards spiral and it’s not just like, “Well, you know, life is miserable, but by and by in the sky, someday God’s going to make the world a better place.”
No, it can be now. I think the Kingdom of God is now. I think a lot of Christians kind of have this, “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to the higher gifts, and I guess the question that I’d like to raise for people that want to take that approach is, well, if we took the New Testament and took all of the miracle stories out, what would we have left?
I think my brother was right. I don’t see any place in this book that says these miracles are supposed to stop. There’s a little challenge for you on that.
Note: For more information on documented healing events, see my extensive article on miracles which includes videos of live healings taking place, links to mainstream media coverage and recent reports in scientific journals. Read and watch here.
2. “The Jesus story is just an accumulation of myths of a legendary people, all rolled into one über-nice guy.
Let me expand on that a little bit. People say, “The God and the Jesus that Christians worship today are actually amalgams formed out of ancient pagan gods. The idea of a virgin birth, a burial in a rock tomb, a resurrection after three days, eating a body, drinking blood, had nothing to do with Jesus.
“All those things were already in other myths and legends before that, so they just took them all and they kind of rolled them into these Jesus stories. So Christianity is a snowball that rolled over a dozen pagan religions and as the snowball grew, it freely attached pagan rituals in order to be more palatable to converts.”
By the way, I got this verbatim from an email that a guy sent me, so I just went and fished one up, and there you go. This is a very common thing. Well, I would like to reduce this to a question, so let’s look at the logical question behind the question.
I think the question is this:
“If a myth precedes a fact, does that make the fact a myth? Does it logically follow?”
Well, let’s take 9/11 as an example. On 9/11/01, as we all know, two planes flew into the Twin Towers. The Last Jihad by Joel Rosenberg, on the first page puts readers into the cockpit of a hijacked jet, on a kamikaze mission into an American city, but it was written nine months before 9/11.
Does that make 9/11 a myth? Or how about Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy. 1996 – a Japanese 747 crashes into the Capitol, killing most of the top functionaries in the U.S. government.
Or here’s a good one – The Lone Gunman TV series. The pilot episode was about an attempt to crash an airliner into the World Trade Center. It was a government conspiracy to increase defense spending by making it look like a terrorist attack. It aired in March 2001.
So the next time someone tells you that Jesus was a myth, ask them this question: “Name one other resurrection story that stuck. Just one.” I don’t know of any. I think there’s a reason for that.
3. “Science and faith are incompatible ways of thinking. They are separate realms that should be kept separate.”
I’ll tell you a little story. Back in the early 20th century there was a great deal of optimism in the mathematical profession that we were closing in on a theory of everything. What mathematicians were looking for was a set of constructions that made all of the propositions of mathematics form a nice, tidy, complete circle.
Let me explain what I mean by this. How many of you took high school geometry and it was stuff like, “This triangle has three equal sides; therefore, it is an Equilateral triangle.” And then you do all these proofs and you work all this logic from it.
Well, if you take that high school geometry book, there are always four or five things that the book starts with as premises that everybody knows are true but no mathematician has ever been able to prove are true.
For example, “We know this is true, no one has ever been able to prove it. We know it’s true because it works and it’s all consistent, but we can’t prove it.” And they were like, “Someday we’re gonna prove it!”
Well, in 1931 a guy named Kurt Gödel proved that it would never happen. And actually, I think that Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is just as important as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Most people have never heard of it, but let me explain what his Incompleteness Theorem says.
This is the kindergarten version. It says, “Anything you can draw a circle around requires something on the outside to explain it, which you cannot prove.” This applies to everything. It applies to a bicycle; if you build a bicycle, the fact that it’s there relies on something outside of the bicycle.
It’s true of a geometry book, a software program, the English language, or the universe. Gödel’s Theorem was a crushing blow to mathematicians. It was as if they realized, “You mean, we’re never going to make everything flow into a perfect circle?” No. Can’t be done.
Actually, the universe is like an MC Escher painting where you climb up the steps and all of a sudden you’re at the bottom again. There’s a book called Gödel Escher Bach, which takes Gödel’s Theorem, Escher’s paintings, and Bach’s music and shows how they’re all basically the same.
For instance, in Bach’s music the notes escalate and they go up and up and somehow all of a sudden it starts with bass notes again and you didn’t even notice. What does this have to do with the question, “Science and faith are incompatible ways of thinking”?
Gödel’s Theorem says that you cannot do science without faith; it’s impossible. You start with a fact – “I know this because of this, and I know this because of this,” you always go back to some fact that you can’t prove.
Now, what does science do? Science says, “If I drop this cup from my hand onto the ground, it’s going to fall every time. Only past experience shows that to be true. I cannot prove that it’s going to fall again. I always have to rely on some assumption that I can’t prove in science.”
One little extra thing I want to throw in here; the statement that, “Science and faith are incompatible ways of thinking, separate ways of thinking that should be kept separate,” is that a scientific statement?
No, it’s a philosophical statement.
Even a statement about keeping science and philosophy separate requires philosophy. And the statement itself presumes that philosophy gets to say something about science.
That’s exactly what Gödel was talking about.
I’ve written a much more thorough treatment of Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem here: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/
4. “The history of science is the story of one religious superstition after another being eradicated by reason and logic.”
I want you to think about something:
Where did science come from?
If you study the history of science, you’ll find out that it got started in Greece and didn’t go anywhere. It got started in Rome and it fizzled out and didn’t go anywhere. It got started in ancient Egypt and in China – didn’t really go anywhere there either. It got started in Islam, and every time in those places, it stalled.
Why did it succeed in Europe after failing everywhere else? We all know it launched there and took off like a rocket.
Here’s why I think it happened. In the Apocrypha, the part of the Bible that the Catholics read and the Protestants don’t, Wisdom of Solomon 11:21 says:
“Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.”
I submit to you that this verse is where science started. That all things are weigh-able, measurable and countable. That there’s a systematic explanation for what goes on in the universe. So far as I know, no one else in the ancient world made a more definite statement about science than Solomon did right here.
Western Christianity believed that the universe was governed by fixed, discoverable laws, and that’s what gave birth to science. The reason that science succeeded in the West and failed in all those other places was that in all those other places, there was no theological basis to believe this.
If you believe that it rained today because Zeus is in a snit with Apollo, how are you going to come up with a systematic explanation that doesn’t invoke some kind of arbitrary, whimsical source?
Christian theology believed that God could create the world and then on the seventh day that He could rest and the universe would continue to do what He told it to do. Therefore, the great scientists viewed the study of science as a way of studying the mind of God.
I would rewrite the question to say this: “The history of science is a story of faith in a harmonious universe being rewarded in weight, number, and measure.”
1,000 years ago you couldn’t take that for granted. Now we all take it for granted, because we figured it out.
5. “The Bible is a translation of a translation of tales cobbled together by Constantine in 300 AD.”
People make a lot out of this. Constantine got everybody together and they hammered out what they agreed was going to be the Bible. “You know, we just don’t buy these books, we’re going to keep them.” A lot of people have this idea that this is when the Bible that we have today came to exist.
I want to show you a book that will correct that notion. This is called Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens. I have to mention here that this is another Catholic book. I was raised Protestant. I was a preacher’s kid. We were uber-studious Protestants. We took ourselves real seriously. Some of you know what I’m talking about – “Oh, that kind…starchy!”
We thought that Catholics were bad people. You know, “Go tell them how bad they are!” Well, then I grew up and my brother-in-law, Alan, studies church history. He gets a Ph.D. in church history at Iowa State, not some conservative place.
He went to Iowa State because they had the biggest and best library he could find on church history.
It turned out that most of his professors were atheists. To get a dissertation pushed through these guys was a Herculean task. But he and I would talk about theological stuff, and it was kind of funny because every time I would raise some theological question, he would always say something like, “Well, yeah, the first people to probe that question in detail were the monks in Western Italy in 800 AD and what they said was…” and he’d go off on something.
Anything you could come up with, someone had already thought about it and written about 1,200 books on it. I thought Christianity started all over again with Martin Luther after this burned-out period…oh, come on! Heavens, no.
So this is a Catholic book. I have great respect for Catholics and Catholic theologians and all that. I know somebody will probably want to get in a fist fight about that with me at the end, but I’m telling you anyway.
This book is a collection of all of the earliest writings, and actually there’s three of them. I just brought the first one. It starts at about 80 AD and it’s letters from all these guys that ran churches. Letters from pastors to their congregations, and letters to disciples from their mentors, and it ends somewhere around St. Hilaire of Poitier and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. I don’t know what year this was, probably about 400-500 AD, and it starts at 80.
It goes in order, so you can read 80 AD and then you can read 110 AD and then you can read 125 AD and 300 AD and so forth. In every chapter there are footnotes of the Bible verses they’re quoting. It’s exactly the same.
Pastor Bill Hybels at Willow Creek could use this to preach a sermon out of any page in this book and it would be just fine. It would be scriptural and it would be original Christianity, no different than we have today. Most of these early letters sound an awful lot like the New Testament letters that Paul wrote.
Anyone that tells you that Christianity started in 300 AD is just as ridiculous as saying it started in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door.
6. “St. Paul invented Christianity by making a rabbi named Jesus into God. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just later fabrications.”
Obviously, the book that I just talked to you about does speak to that, because you can go all the way back to 80 AD and you have a whole body of literature that’s already telling a consistent story.
What’s usually said is that Paul wrote his letters in 40-50 AD and the Gospels were written in 60 – 90 AD and that’s too long. All of these myths would have accrued, so yes, Jesus was probably just this radical guy and he had these radical teachings and then they wanted him to be God and so they made the story about Him being God, and the people were so desperate and oppressed by the Romans that they found it believable – well, let’s do a comparison.
Paul Tibbetts was the pilot of the Enola Gay, which was the plane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. He wrote a book in 1998, shortly before he died, called Return of the Enola Gay. How many years after 1945 is that? Fifty-three years after the bomb was dropped.
I found this book at my father-in-law’s house because he’s into World War II. You go over there and he always has The History Channel on. I started thumbing through this book, and the reason Tibbetts wrote the book was to correct revisionist history.
Revisionist history said, “If we had just been a little nicer to the Japanese, we should have just gone over there and talked to them, and they would’ve…”
Tibbetts is saying, “No! Let’s get this straight.” He goes into extensive detail about the political situation and all this stuff that was going on behind the scenes. He tells what it was like to get in that plane, what it was like to let the bomb loose and go into a 135 degree angle and feel the shock wave from the bomb and the brilliant flash of light and think, “Oh my word, what did I just do?” and all that.
Now, does anybody doubt that his autobiography tells you more or less accurately what happened? Is anybody going to reasonably doubt that he doesn’t remember what happened, 53 years later? I don’t think so!
So if Jesus died in 33, what’s 53 years out from 33 – isn’t that 86? That’s like getting to the outside limit of when they said the Gospels were written.
Is there any reason to think that the Gospels were any less reliable?
Considering there are four of them and considering they don’t all perfectly line up or quote everybody verbatim the same way, they don’t all tell stories the same way – four independent accounts – can anyone reasonably think that the Gospels are any less reliable than his story? I don’t think so.
And if you compare it to other things in history, a lot of those things were written even further after the fact than that. I would like to point to the consistency of early teachings about Jesus and raise the question: Why do substantially different teachings about Jesus only appear after 150-200 years? Isn’t that kind of what you would expect?
I rest my case.
7. “Evolution disproves God.”
That’s a good one. I like that one. I have a question for you. Who knows what that is? DOS – how many of you have used DOS somewhere in your early childhood? This is a screenshot of DOS 3.0, 3.3, which is about 1985. You all remember DOS:
C:> dir
C:> dir /w
C:> format c:
When you tried to format the hard drive, did it say “Are you sure?” I don’t remember. Early versions did.
Now here we have Windows XP with Internet Explorer, which is about 2005. Let me ask you a question: let’s say that DOS never got modified by the guys in Redmond, Washington and it evolved into Windows XP all by itself.
Imagine that DOS adapted, that it had a capability built in to where it would sense that it needed an Internet connection and it needed a web browser and it needed Outlook, and that it needed a mouse and updates and antivirus software. And let’s say that it would rearrange its code and then test different versions with some version of natural selection until the pieces started to work.
Did that happen? No. If DOS had actually evolved all by itself, off without any exterior tampering, tinkering or code writing from any software engineers, and it had just done that, would you be more or less impressed with the person who wrote the first DOS program?
You would go, “How did you do that?” You could go to China and for $2 you can buy a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of Windows. All those versions, especially the ones in China, they don’t have the little 3D thing on them. It’s grey and it has Magic Marker on it ‘Windows XP’.
Now, the copies of copies of copies of copies, they all had mutations, didn’t they? And the marketplace had a chance to select them. Does anyone know of copies of Windows that were better because of the mutations?
No.
Now, I just tried to apply the usual theory of evolution to DOS and everybody got a chuckle out of it. First of all, everything that evolves that we have any experience with, evolves because of some ability to do so or some kind of design or something acting upon it.
At the very least, if we’re going to even imagine that DOS could have evolved into Windows XP, we have to imagine that it has some kind of special program inside that’s ready and willing to rearrange all the pieces.
You know what? I am totally open to the possibility that God planted a cell in the ocean and that cell had some kind of magnificent program that could eventually evolve into everything that’s on Planet Earth. I am open to that.
And if that happened, then God is even more impressive than the version of God that says, “Well, OK, now we need apes, so let’s put an ape there, and now we need people, so let’s put a person there..”
I’m not trying to get into some debate about Genesis 1; this is simply an engineering argument. If evolution is true, then God is even more impressive than they thought God was before anyone thought of evolution!
8. “In their arrogant superiority, Christians think everybody else is going to burn in hell for all eternity.”
Let’s get the most riling questions out on the table. I want to point some scriptures out to you. Little things are kind of tucked in there that are easy to miss.
John 15:22 – Jesus says, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.” Hmm, that’s interesting.
Luke 11:30 – Jesus said, “The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom and now one greater than Solomon is here.”
Let’s look at this again. “The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them” – so what does this tell you about judgment? This isn’t like some cowering guy staring at God, getting pounded; this is anybody who has anything to say about what he knew, didn’t know, did and what he did not do, and what they did perhaps in a comparable situation.
Let’s look at this one. Matthew 11:21 – “Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”
Well? That’s a statement about two people, now, isn’t it? “Tyre and Sidon would have believed if they had Me.” Do you think that gets taken into consideration? I think so.
Acts 17:29 – Paul refers to idol worship and he says, “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent.”
Now, this always comes up, somebody always says, “Well, what about the guy in Africa that never heard about Jesus?” They’re like, “I have to get this guy figured out before I decide if I’m going to go for this Jesus thing. I’m not sure if this is fair. I think this is all a setup. What about all these people?”
Here’s my concern: If you’re that guy, I’m not real worried about him. Not that the missionaries shouldn’t go talk to him and all that. In the Great Commission – “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” – God told us to do that for a reason.
This is just my opinion, but I suspect that guy in Africa, he has no missionary, Bible, or anything, I think if he looks up in the sky and goes, “Somebody made all this, whoever You are, I’d like to know you,” I think God can respect that prayer.
What I’m concerned about is that guy will rise up in the judgment and testify against the guy who used him as an excuse. If you look at all of these verses, the theme is, “Hey, guys, you knew an awful lot. What did you do with it?”
“If Tyre and Sidon had seen what you have seen, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes.” The people he was talking to saw a lot. They saw the dead raised, they saw the blind see.
9. “The Bible is riddled with contradictions and therefore cannot be the perfect word of God.”
I’m going to take an interesting approach with this. I brought with me three different versions of the Bible. I’ve got a King James New Testament, a New Living Translation Bible and a New American Standard. I could have brought an NIV, but all you guys probably have one, because that’s kind of the popular Bible translation.
Do they all read the same? No.
I had to sign this thing before I came that I understood that Willow Creek has a doctrinal statement. One of the things in the thing that I had to sign was that I understand that Willow Creek says that the scriptures are inerrant in their original writings. That’s a very common thing that you’ll find in the Protestant church, that scriptures are inerrant in their original writings.
Do we have the originals? No. What we have are thousands of Greek manuscripts and there are slight differences with some of them. You could make a whole little tree of this copying error and that. You could put it all together and we could open all three of these Bibles up to John 5 or Ezekiel 34 or Revelation 12 or any book and we could read them side by side.
And rather than getting 12 decimal places of precision, I think what we get is more like there’s an outer edge on one side or the other on how you can interpret something, and then there’s something sort of in the middle.
Maybe the King James seems to be here and maybe the NIV seems to be here, and maybe the Catholic Bible seems to be here. But they’re all kind of within this range of variation. So there’s some wiggle room, not like 12 decimals of precision, but more like maybe two.
No matter what Bible you read, did Jesus rise from the dead in all of them? Is adultery a sin in all of them? Is it not all right to lie, cheat, and steal in all of them? Is there a debate between predestination and free will in all of them? Yes.
I had this realization one day; “Hey, wait a minute! I don’t have to sit here and nitpick every last verse that some skeptic wants to pick a fight with me about and make me explain everything that doesn’t quite seem to fit together, because you know what? This is like a puzzle that you’re trying to put together and some of the edges are fuzzy and I can’t put it perfectly together. And that’s all right.”
I was emailing back and forth with an atheist and he’s quibbling about the different tomb stories of the Resurrection. I don’t think they contradict each other, but in order to make them fit, you have to make a couple of assumptions before they fit.
He’s trying to duke it out and I said, “I don’t feel like defending the idea that the Bible is infallible. I’ll just say for today that I have four stories that were pretty close! So what do you think?”
He didn’t know what to do.
I said, “Well, Jesus died on the cross, you are a sinner, God created the world, 12 disciples went out and preached. The story’s pretty clear. How many of these little nit picky things from the New Testament that you brought up because you found them on some website do you have to get all straight before you get the big picture here?”
Try this on for size; the Bible is the word of God with a lower case w. But if we’re going to use a capital W, what is the Word of God? Jesus! Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible is the written testimony, inspired by the Holy Spirit, testifying to the Word of God. There’s a verse that says, “No one can confess Jesus Christ is Lord apart from the Holy Spirit.”
Let’s not put the Bible above the Holy Spirit.
You realize if you want to sort out all those puzzle pieces, you need the Holy Spirit to help you do it. And a person who does not have the Holy Spirit is not even going to be willing to do that. That’s why they’re arguing with you.
So when I get in these debates, I say, “Let’s just assume that this is like any other piece of history. Someone wrote it down as best they could, and here we have it. Let’s make a judgment from what’s in front of us. So what do you think?”
Did they just make all this up? Like perhaps, Jesus didn’t really die; they pried him off the cross and he was almost dead and then he was in the tomb, and people in the Middle East had these clever ways of reviving almost dead people and then he popped out. He looked so good, he looked like Superman, and everybody said, “Wow! You’re the Son of God!” Yeah, that’s what happened! Sure, that’s what happened!
Guys that are pulled off crosses when they’re almost dead always inspire people three days later to like change the world! That’s what happened!
Sorry, I’m getting a little sidetracked… here’s a fun one:
10. “More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause in the history of the world.”
Let me show you a book, called The Black Book of Communism. How many of you think this is cheery? Oh, yeah, if you’re feeling a little too good today, just read this one. This book documents the genocide of 160 million people in the 20th century alone – mostly by atheist governments.
Remember the Cultural Revolution under Chairman Mao? Well, that was a great period in China’s history, wasn’t it? How about Stalin? Oh boy, Stalin loved children. Yep, that guy just loved puppy dogs and children. He was such a nice man. 160 million people! Do you realize that’s more people than all the religious wars of the whole history of the world put together?
Some people say, “Well, it was just a coincidence that they were atheists.” All right, well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but there does seem to be a correlation. Let’s recognize the question behind the question.
First of all, I don’t think you can overstate just how dangerous a worldview atheism actually is. I’m sure there are atheists here, and I’m glad that you’re here and you’re welcome.
When my brother slid into his faith crisis, I wanted to argue with him and he wouldn’t; and I’m not sure that would have been the healthiest thing if we had argued. I think it was probably a good idea that he declined, but I was ready to go. In truth, he was dragging me with him. I was scared because he was raising all kinds of questions.
I started going to Willow Creek 15 years ago and I started leading Seeker Small Groups. Those groups are where people who do not necessarily believe the Bible or Christianity get together at a table, and so every other Sunday for a couple of years I got seekers in there pummeling me with questions, and I thought I’d heard everything. Well, when Bryan and the Internet came along, I had no longer seen everything!
It was intense. Bryan was asking all kinds of penetrating questions and I was going to all these websites and it was like walking into machine gun fire. One of the things that I did was decide that I had to duke this out. So I started this website, www.CoffeehouseTheology.com, and it has emails that you can sign up for and see what it’s all about, if you like. If people replied to the emails, the emails came back to me.
The reason I did that was that I wanted to know if enough people came through the website and sent me emails, if Christianity cannot stand up to the test, I was going to find out! I decided that I was going to take everyone on and I was going to see if someone can punch a hole in this thing. And there were some scary moments. I was like, “Oh my goodness, these are big questions!”
I probably answered 10,000 emails during the last 6 years. There have been a LOT of people and a lot of conversations. The first thing I’ll tell you is that nobody’s punched a hole in Christianity. I think it stands up very well. If you have a question, there’s a book or website or something that has a good answer to it.
Here’s the other thing; nobody comes out swinging like the new breed of atheist like followers of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and all of those guys. These guys are furious! People talk about Muslims being extreme? Well, I get emails from a lot of Muslims and none of them come out swinging like the atheists do. They’re angry. And Richard Dawkins says things like, “Teaching your children that there is a God who would reward or punish you, people that do that are worse than child molesters.” That’s what he says.
It’s a war. What’s the track record? 160 million dead people. Now, this is not a battle of guns, because the pen is mightier than the sword. This is a battle of the pen. This is a battle of truth and belief systems. I think Christians have a moral obligation to know what’s going on, because if you don’t know what’s going on, you’ll get picked off by a skeptic.
The reason we have science today is because Christianity said there is a logical rational universe that was designed by an intelligent Creator. And the reason we have democracy is because Paul said, “There is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free; all are equal in Christ Jesus.”
The most cherished Western values come from Christianity. Don’t surrender them to someone who has an axe to grind.
Robert Edwards.
Although I admire Oscar Wilde I don’t think he is an authority on the mind boggling complexity of highly specific protein molecule synthesis in DNA or non-physical subjective consciousness from physical matter i.e. brain tissue. Or….. perhaps I had better stop.
The hundreds of brilliant scientists you mention are of course counter balanced by hundreds of brilliant scientists who infer intelligence in the Universe including Steven Hawking, Einstein and so many others too numerous to mention.
The third rate lawyer you mention, in trying to prove the Darwinist’s claim that life evolved without intelligent intervention, using the burden of proof required by the criminal law would have to prove it ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. This cannot be done.
When using reason to support your argument I suggest you don’t use mormonism as an example. Most reasonable people believe that to be the biggest fraud ever foisted on mankind.
Martin Lagerwey.
The bacterial flagellum is a good starting point to try to look at things more simplistically. I will explain that in a moment. I believe the more complex flagellum consists of about 40 proteins. The components are individual protein molecules, i.e. the universal joint, stator rings etc. are single molecules. The molecules are a specific shape so another shape wouldn’t work. Now those who slag off ID say the components of the flagellum previously existed in some progenitor system in the bacterium cell doing some other job and evolved into the flagellum we see today but these molecules have a unique shape for their role in the flagellum. To say they were doing another job sounds a desperate attempt to deny what is apparently designed or at least intelligently programmed to evolve that way. Dr Matske attempted to describe a natural pathway from pre-existing proteins in the cell up to the flagellum. Imaginative as it was there is absolutely no proof that it happened that way. His attempt is referred to as ‘hand waving’ progenitor systems and molecules into the final model and requires enormous faith. And I don’t recall he mentioned the shape of the proteins which surely is crucial. I mentioned a simplistic viewpoint. What I mean is, great scientific minds and the minds of philosophers have argued their views endlessly and the result is a stalemate. Now taking a really simplistic view, if you look at life on earth with its unimaginably complex biological structures and systems and just ask yourself could all that have occurred from blind purposeless evolution without there being some blueprint or guide of some sort, I think the answer is in the negative. It might have done but it demands so much of credulity as to border on the fanciful. Another simplistic view is the human body. If you assume natural gradualistic change produced an alimentary tract, how would sphincter muscles occur at the end to enable waste to be evacuated at a convenient time, why shouldn’t it just run out when it’s full? And who put teeth in the other end to masticate food into a more digestible product. Why does a baby have milk teeth until his head is big enough to accommodate full size teeth? Why is there such an ecstatic feeling in the sexual act and the moment of climax for both the man and the woman? Muscles which ejaculate sperm might just have evolved blindly but what put the accompanying wave of ecstacy there? A mouth might have formed but what about taste buds. These questions and many more pose the question which empirical evidence can’t answer. It’s a gut feeling. How could blind purposeless processes produce all that?
Martin Ward
Imagine God turns up to work one day(Day=4.5 billion years). He arrives at 9AM and waits until 10 AM for the earth to cool down enough and immediately creates algae (primitive cells without nuclei). After lunch at 1 PM he creates bacteria(modern cells with nuclei and flagella) and by 3.30 some multi-cellular organisms appear. At 4 PM there are fish and the Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of many forms). At about 15 seconds before 5 PM God is ready to go home, he creates man (Based on age of genus Homo at 1.8myo) or assuming 10 000 years of modern man he was made 0.1 secs before 5 PM – you cannot blink that fast.
two points; there’s a lot of time for flagella to evolve. The first cells are complex and took most time to evolve. Secondly, at the Cambrian explosion (570mya) organisms were already very complex and if the guided creation model was unfolding, humans could have evolved long before now.
You clearly understand the principles of evolution as applied to the flagellum evolving from other systems such as the ion pump or excretory system. Pro ID sources discount them and traditional science explains them. Either way, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. I cannot find a system that requires design to explain its evolution. The arguments reduce to “it seems unlikely” Structures changing function are well known in biology such as swim bladder in fish becoming lungs in amphibians. Flightless birds use wings for defense, balance or display. Embryonic gill slits in mammals become inner ear, laryngeal nerve, etc.
Kenneth Miller wrote “Darwin’s God”, a book you may like. He explains evolution very well and still believes in God and guided creation to bridge the so called gaps. I don’t see many gaps because I see natural selection as being a powerful force. His explanation of Gods involvement seems to me as clutching at straws but I hope this recommendation does not come across as condescending.
The alimentary canal can be explained in small steps, each aiding survival, such as providing a cavity for digestion and absorption. A smaller exit would help. Exit muscles to control movements would help more. A mouth to chew food would easily evolve sensory cells to aid in detecting suitable nutrition and motivate eating. These questions seem very simple to me and I cannot see a problem.
This argument of design/complexity that you pose is exactly the one that evolution solves. Acquiring complexity is like pushing a ball uphill. If the slope is gentle, it isn’t hard. If God provided the design, the slope is very steep. The designer must be more complex than the whole universe. Your question returns – Where did that intelligence come from? Any answer that I’ve ever heard avoids the question and also removes any method of inquiry. That is of little use to science.
Hello from Lebanon,
I would just like to say thanks for bringing up these questions. i was on a metal website, saw your sponsored link, and wanted to read the 7lies as a personnal challenge. it ended up really strenghtening my faith . its really an awesome website, thanks
Whaat is the real friend of Islam/Muslim/truth?
Answer is The science
exxistance of The God we can prove by the advancement of science
so, after reading the 1st Great Lie email, and coming back
to your web site here, it seems to me that you guys are
actually “promoters” of this old cult, and not actually
critics as your sign out front implies. I lived my life
in this stuff from kindergarten – 8th grade in crazy
church schoolhouses, I have watched all through my childhood
the speaking in tongues, alleged healings, and so called
miracles. I have spent quite a bit of time over the last
30 years ( I just turned 50 ) analyzing christianity as
it is described in the King james and I have amassed hundreds
of serious issues with the cult of christianity. and I will
always seek more. I must admit that your reverse psychology
of the “Great Lies” Of religion is a cool catching method of
misleading REAL critics of religion into listening to the same exact stuff we have been hearing all our lives, but
can putting a new cover on the same book really be paying
off for your recruiting efforts ? I suspect you might get
some of the weak willed fence sitters and that is cool. as
a buddhist I actually desire christians to be restrained by
their fears of torture and their greed of payoffs if it keeps
their raping and pillaging desires at bay. that makes life
safer for the rest of us who do not need bribes or threats
to behave as decent human beings. but I will as a final
sentence regress back to a concept I discovered in third
grade ” there is no such thing as a good deed payed for”.
best luck in your endeavors, and kudos on your clever
fake book cover ! it actually tricked me for a moment.
// Tom\\ Dallas texas
Tom, can you let us in on your #1 BEST of your hundreds of amassed issues with Christianity?
With the new discoveries about how our human makeup is really about energy (SPIRIT/SOUL), and, all living things (NATURE)are full of such energy, then how do you explain the relationship of NATURE to GOD?
If GOD is really a cumulation of all such NATURE, then when we pass over we go back to the nature pot, so to speak, and every time we destroy nature we destroy GOD,then would you agree that Homo Sapiens are truly the devil?
Perry, just a little about your argument that bibles teach the same basic message. Well, you haven’t considered that many modern day bibles are dropping the word hell. And this is for good reason. The word is always a mistranslation and the doctrine is totally unscriptural and makes God out to be a monster. judgment is spoken of often, yet so is the eventual salvation of all. I think understanding this truth will answer some of the biggest questions people have concerning evil of this world. I would suggest you go to bible-truths.com for a better understanding.
OK, there has been a lot said re this post but now is the time to put aside our differences and become part of one human family. I really don’t care what you believe, my only condition to this is, that you apply the same tolerance to me and my beliefs. There is a very simple test – does my belief hurt the belief of others and/or does my belief physically hurt others; if either is a yes then you are not tolerant but a hypocrite. It really doesn’t matter what I believe but what does matter is how I bahave and treat others an dthat my dear friends is all that really matters. Your belief is totally imaterial to me. I am only impressed by your actions not your beliefs.
Hello, people.
Here, an important quotation to think about:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
– Epicurus. Greek philosopher 341-270 BC
Greetings
“Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.”
I submit to you that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Case in point: You and I have both done evil things. Yet do we not both prefer that we are allowed to make mistakes?
God is able, but not willing to prevent evil, because He prefers to give YOU the choice to decide what you want to do.
Carlos, I have a question for you:
If preventing evil means taking away your choices, do you want your choices, or do you want evil to go away? I would like you to respond to this question.
Perry you’re right…first of all questions Carlos..if G-d would take your choice away? then why create you?
Perry & Wolf – 1
Greek philosopher – 1/2
…a half because Epicurus was right in so many things
Hello, Perry Marshall:
Author: perrymarshall
Comment:
“Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.” (1)
I submit to you that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Case in point: You and I have both done evil things. Yet do we not both prefer that we are allowed to make mistakes? (2)
God is able, but not willing to prevent evil, because He prefers to give YOU the choice to decide what you want to do. (3)
Carlos, I have a question for you:
If preventing evil means taking away your choices, do you want your choices, or do you want evil to go away? I would like you to respond to this question. (4)
1) I see you crying desperate, with your clothes in fire -fire I didn’t started-, and I remain calmly drinking my coffee. What do you say I am?
If you don’t know the answer (or are afraid of), please, answer the law. What the law makes to me, if being I able I decide not to help you?
2) Don’t be tricky Perry: doesn’t matter OUR answers because I am reasoning about a god supposedly all love and all tenderness.
3) I don’t mind his motives. I am considering exclusively what he does and what he doesn’t. On that base, Epicure and I conclude he is consciously malevolent.
4) Tricky again. Earthquakes, tsunamis, erupting volcanoes, leper, anencephaly, syndrome of Down, blindness, pain, cancer, insanity, orphan children, paralysis, spina bifida, avalanches, tornadoes, and lots of other things cause pain, tears and sadness from dawn of times, and you are saying they happened because somebody made a wrong choice? You are not being serious!
Besides, it was god’s decision to make us with possibility of choice (Oh, that famous “free will”). Or didn’t he have another choice? The bad thing with it is he didn’t give us possibility of REALLY free choices, because when we choose what he dislikes, something very, very bad, painful or even mortal comes on us.
And, if he is our teacher and all of those already mentioned are his “pedagogic methods”, then he is a really brute, sadistic, poorly gifted teacher.
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos,
You have rejected God in your life. Why do you now complain that he doesn’t help you?
Answer the question I asked you: Do you want your free will, or do you want evil to go away?
You can’t be serious – are you trying to tell me that not having a choice about the consequences means you didn’t have free will in the first place? Surely you don’t believe that.
You can accuse God of being a lousy teacher if you wish. Or could it perhaps be that man is a lousy student?
Re: #4: Let’s put Earthquakes, tsunamis, erupting volcanoes, leper, anencephaly, syndrome of Down, blindness, pain, cancer, insanity, orphan children, paralysis, spina bifida, avalanches, tornadoes on one side of the scale.
Let’s put man’s irresponsibility and inhumanity to man on the other side of the scale.
Which causes more suffering?
Which do you see more of on CNN?
Hello, Perry.
“You have rejected God in your life. Why do you now complain that he doesn’t help you?
((I don’t complain regarding of me. I analyze (“complain” you say), regarding how believing and worshipping people receive no help from “him” ))
“Answer the question I asked you: Do you want your free will, or do you want evil to go away?
((Without the “or” you capriciously put. I want the best of both worlds: free will without evil. Would you say your omnipotent and all loving god is unable to produce a world like that?))
“You can’t be serious – are you trying to tell me that not having a choice about the consequences means you didn’t have free will in the first place? Surely you don’t believe that.
((I say you: “You are free to choose between A and B. If you choose A I kill you”. Would you say your choice is really free?))
“You can accuse God of being a lousy teacher if you wish. Or could it perhaps be that man is a lousy student?
((Don’t joke, please. We are talking about an infinite, all knowing, eternal, ultra-super-experimented, overwhelming, jealous, ultra-hyper-super powerful, deceiver, blood thirsty, homophobic, always-serious-and-never-glad, irascible, vengeful, genocide, macho, not-good-tempered, misogynic, flood doer and not-so-qualified teacher and his limited and more or less talented student, and you dare to suggest the root of troubles is THE STUDENT?))
“Re: #4: Let’s put Earthquakes, tsunamis, erupting volcanoes, leper, anencephaly, syndrome of Down, blindness, pain, cancer, insanity, orphan children, paralysis, spina bifida, avalanches, tornadoes on one side of the scale.
“Let’s put man’s irresponsibility and inhumanity to man on the other side of the scale.
“Which causes more suffering?
((God, of course. Because besides I already mentioned, he is the doer and designer of man’s nature, and the events trigger. Man didn’t created god, but god omniresponsible created man))
“Which do you see more of on CNN? “
((What I see more is results of the absolute lacking of evidence of any kind and loving god))
Greetings
Carlos
An awful lot of worshipping people will literally swear on a stack of Bibles that God helps them. You say God’s not helping them. How do you know you’re right and they’re wrong?
We can have free will without evil when God heals us of sin.
A person choosing between A and B, where A gets him killed, still has a choice that he is free to make. He is also free to decide whether he believes the threat.
In your “Don’t joke please” paragraph you load so much prejudice and insults into your statement that it only derails our conversation. I refuse to acknowledge most of these statements as valid. They’re a straw man depiction of God and Christianity. When you’re ready to have a respectful and fair discussion, you know where to find me.
Hello, Perry Marshall:
Author: perrymarshall
Comment:
“An awful lot of worshipping people will literally swear on a stack of Bibles that God helps them. You say God’s not helping them. How do you know you’re right and they’re wrong?”
((Swearing, by itself doesn’t imply objective truth. Scientific knowledge, for example, doesn’t progress by swearing but proof, experimental as much as possible. Lots of faithful believers receiving medical help, therapies, surgery, and assistance and so, show god doesn’t solve those problems. Hospitals and medicine sole existence shows god don’t solve problems medicine deals with. Poverty, diseases, crime, in religious countries, show god “is” usually mean for helping. Lots of people, innocent children included, dead a “bad” death by many causes. The ugly true is very, very few people pass away placid, painless and calmly after a long and happy live. Your god decreed our death and besides of it, it has to be painful? You can even mention of a disordered person who, after adhere to a religion changes her life and lives better. And you say god helped her. But -simple logic- working, not getting drunken, being honest, respectful of law and so on, necessarily improve your life and diminishes your troubles. But, when I asked you about god healing amputees or people suffering Down syndrome, then you “haven’t any information regarding it” Oh!))
“We can have free will without evil when God heals us of sin”.
((I will not discuss it but you imply it is possible for god to make a world like that without evil, as I guessed before))
“A person choosing between A and B, where A gets him killed, still has a choice that he is free to make”
((I don’t agree. If the person believes that if she dead she goes immediately to heaven, into her loving god’s arms, it is logic (and no free will) to her to choice A. But if her hungry little sons are waiting for her, it is logic, (and not free will) to choose B))
“He is also free to decide whether he believes the threat”. ((As much as I know of it, when an unknown person put a gun onto your head, it is better to catalogue it as a “threat” than as a “joke”))
“In your “Don’t joke please” paragraph you load so much prejudice and insults into your statement that it only derails our conversation. I refuse to acknowledge most of these statements as valid. They’re a straw man depiction of God and Christianity. When you’re ready to have a respectful and fair discussion, you know where to find me”
((OK. Tell me please what of following quotations show my prejudice:
Gen 6 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (Destructor and flood doer)
Gen 6 17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die (Destructor and flood doer)
Genesis 7 21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. (Killer and flood doer, the greatest mass murderer)
Exodo 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. (Unfair. God controlled Pharaoh’s feelings)
Exodus 7:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened; he refuseth to let the people go. (God is a feelings manipulator and controller)
Exodus 9. 14For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. 15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. 16And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. (Violence, death and terror as self publicity)
Exodus 10.1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: 2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD. (Violence death and terror as self publicity)
EX 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. (Violent)
EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt. (Innocent killer)
EX 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. (Daughter selling tolerant . Unfair, macho, misogynic)
EX 21: 20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continues a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. (Acceptance of slavery and homicide tolerant: the killer of a slave can remain without a punishment)
LE 12:2 A woman who has a child, especially a female child, is unclean and purification rites are required. (Misogynic and genre discriminator)
Leviticus 27: 1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. 3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. 5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. 7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. (Misogynic. Females are less valued than males)
JS 8:22-25 With the Lord’s approval, Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who escaped. (Blood thirsty and massive killing tolerant)
JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites. (Blood thirsty, genocide and mass murder helper)
JS 10:28 With the Lord’s approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah. (Blood thirsty, genocide and mass murder tolerant)
JS 10:30 With the Lord’s approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites. (Blood thirsty, genocide, mass murder tolerant)
JS 10:32-33 With the Lord’s approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish. (Blood thirsty, genocide and mass murder tolerant)
JS 10:34-35 With the Lord’s approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites. (Blood thirsty, genocide and mass murder tolerant)
JS 10:36-37 With the Lord’s approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites. (Blood thirsty, genocide and mass murder tolerant)
JS 10:38-39 With the Lord’s approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites. (Blood thirsty, genocide and mass murder tolerant)
JS 10:40 (A summary statement.) “So Joshua defeated the whole land …; he left none remaining, but destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.” (Blood thirsty, unmerciful genocide and mass murder commander)
Judges 21: 10And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. 11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. (Utter destruction commander and girls kidnapping tolerant)
1 Samuel 15: 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (Utter destruction and killing of innocent babies and animals commander)
2KI 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. (Irascible and hot tempered
Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. (Children killing for their father’s iniquity)
Isaiah 34:8For it is the day of the LORD’s vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. (God is vengeful)
IS 42:13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies. (Overwhelming and terrifying)
HE 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire. (Overwhelming furious and terrifying)
Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. (Overwhelming furious and jealous)
Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, (Jealous punisher of guilty fathers and his descendants)
Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.(Jealous and angered)
Deuteronomy 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: (The lord commands to be unmerciful) 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: (Genocide and massive exterminator)
Deuteronomy 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. (God is a furious and jealous god)
Deuteronomy 6:15 15(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth. (Jealous and multi homicide)
DT 9:7 Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the LORD thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the LORD. (Angered, as often) 8 Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you. (Angered)
DT 29:20 The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven. (Irascible, jealous and angered)
DT32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. (Jealous and angered)
Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: (Commanded unmercifulness)
DT 13:6-10 A man is required to slay his friends and members of his own family who are guilty of worshipping another god. (Extremely jealous)
DT 21:10-14 With the Lord’s approval, the Israelites are allowed to kidnap “beautiful women” from the enemy camp to be their trial wives. If, after having sexual relations, a man has “no delight” in his wife, he can simply let her go. (Kidnapping women for sexual services is tolerated by god)
Deuteronomy 7:2: “… thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” (Unmerciful)
Deuteronomy 20:16: “…thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them.” Blood thirsty and unmerciful exterminator)
Deuteronomy 2:34: “…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city. We left none to remain.” (Blood thirsty and unmerciful exterminator)
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (Massive killing is commanded) 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Kidnapping girls as booty is ordered)
NU 25:3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. (Angered) 4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. (Hot tempered and ferociously angered)
Joshua 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. (Commanded to be unmerciful)
Joshua 6:21And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. (Bloodly destruction)
Joshua 8:25, 25And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. (Mass murdering with god’s help)
Joshua 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. (God commands utter destruction)
Joshua 11:8 And the LORD delivered them into the hand of Israel, who smote them, and chased them unto great Zidon, and unto Misrephothmaim, and unto the valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. 9 And Joshua did unto them as the LORD bade him: he houghed their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire. 10 And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. 11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire. 12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded. 13 But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn. 14 And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe. 15 As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. (God commanded killing, burning and destruction)
Judges 14:19 And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father’s house. (More homicide)
Judges 11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, 31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. 39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel(God didn’t reject an offer of human sacrifice and don’t avoid its consummation)Ezekiel 9:5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: (Unmerciful killing)
Ezekiel 6:12 He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that remaineth and is besieged shall die by the famine: thus will I accomplish my fury upon them. (God’s fury)
Ezekiel 14:9 And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. (God is a deceiver)
Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. (Angered)
Psalm 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them. (Ferocious anger, wrath and indignation)
Jeremiah 4:8 For this gird you with sackcloth, lament and howl: for the fierce anger of the LORD is not turned back from us. (Fierce anger)
Jeremiah 17:4 And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever. (Burning anger for ever)
Zephaniah 2:2 Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you, before the day of the LORD’s anger come upon you. (God is angry and his anger is sometimes fierce and overwhelming))
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (Utter Destruction of all of them, even innocent babies)
2 Samuel 22:7 “…I called to the Lord; … he heard my voice; … 8 …the earth trembled and quaked, … because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.”(Overwhelming and terrifying)
Na 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. 6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. (Jealous, furious and vengeful)
NU 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (Commands killing male children)
NU 31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD’S tribute was thirty and two persons. (Human beings “tributed” (sacrificed?) to the lord?)
Judges 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. (Macho and misogynic)
1CO 14:34-35 Women are to be silent in church. If they have any questions, they are to ask their husbands at home. It is a shame for women to speak in church. (Misogynic)
1TI 2:11 Women are to learn in silence (from men) in all submissiveness. (Misogynic)
GE 19:8 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Daughters “sacrificed” instead of men. Misogynic)
KI 1:1-4 David was old, and although covered with clothes, could not get warm. A beautiful, young virgin is brought in to be his concubine and nurse. (A beautiful woman is used as a “warmer”. Misogynic utilitarian)
Isaiah 45:7. “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things”. (God, creator of evil)
JER 13:14 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.” (Unmerciful bloodthirsty)
Jeremiah 4:10 Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats.” (Deceiver)
Jeremiah 20:7 O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me. (Deceiver)
1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (Deceiver)
2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. (Deceiver)
Jeremiah 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. (Deceiver)
2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.(Deceiver)
Ezek. 14:9 “if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel”. (Deceiver)
Jer. 4:10 “Ah, Lord God! Surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reaches unto the soul”. (Deceiver)
2 Thess. 2:9-12 “…God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness”. (Deceiver)
The reason for my criticism is more or less this:
If god is so good as people say, hadn’t he had another way to help his chosen people than as he did? The Promised Land had already inhabitants. Putting aside those people’s rights or so, couldn’t god had inspired in them get bored of the area and wishing move far from there? Couldn’t god get the region become pestilent and bad smelling and those people migrated? If god was able to harden the heart of pharaoh and other people, controlling their feelings, couldn’t he inspire in these peoples a desire to offer the Hebrews the land they were occupying? Couldn’t god had seduced those peoples to wish become Hebrews or as Hebrews? I found it profoundly inconsistent that the same entity that was able to create a perfect and lovely place as the Garden of Eden didn’t inspire friendly feelings in Hebrews and no Hebrews in order to avoid the known saga of violence, cruelty, blood, homicide, destruction, genocide, racial cleaning, etc. Psychologically talking, that Jehovah seems a person suffering a nervous breakdown, lost his center, out of himself, emotionally unstable. He is really obsessive about been constantly worshipped, constantly acknowledged as outstanding and prominent among the other gods, jealous as a little child, furious, vengeful, ill-natured and threatening. I am not talking about how much good, saint, and sublime things and events could god have done, he is infinite and after all that can be expected almost by default. The issue is why so many, horrible, bloody and brutish things, threats and human sacrifice he commanded or accepted. If an infinitely good, eternal, benevolent , omniscient and loving god is guiding his chosen people, I assume he has in mind their low “speed of spiritual evolution” so a certain lot of kind patient could be needed. That god has traits of an overwhelming, terrifying and perverted monster. The only thing he lacks of is eating living people. Being so, that god becomes deformed, unbelievable, self contradictory. At last, that god has so many human traits that he finally reveals the primitive human invention he really is. If compared with the Buda lets say, that Jehovah looks as a dwarf. Finally, saying to you “Don’t joke please” is colloquial and not insulting. I didn’t say an insulting adjective TO YOU. You may complain I was over confident or familiar perhaps, but not an insulter. Your assumptions are biased in excess. Try to hear your own sayings with the ears of a person that doesn’t have your believing, please.))
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos,
You’re flippantly dismissive of the good that people receive from their faith; yet at the same time you expect me to respect you when you complain about the harm that you’ve experienced from people of faith.
Why the double standard? Why do you get to dismiss them while you expect others to take you seriously?
When you grant for the sake of argument that God exists, why do you hold God responsible for all the evil and yet you give God no credit for what is good?
By what moral standard to you declare that God has no right to kill people? Or harden Pharaoh’s heart? Or tell Israel to destroy a nation that burns its own children alive in sacrifices to their gods? (The word immolation is a derivative of the name of the god Molech.)
It’s easy to selectively pull all this stuff out of context and dump it into a screed. It’s a lot more work to understand the context of all this. Do you really think that Jews and Christians are as completely stupid as you make them out to be? Do you really deny that there’s more subtlety to all this than you’re granting here?
By what moral standard do you object to God being angry with the wicked?
When you are sick or tired or lonely, or when you stand before God as your life is judged, with what authority will you tell God He has no right to act?
Are you going to mock theology and say it’s contradictory, and then tell me that because you don’t like it, you don’t have any obligation to critique it from within its own terms?
Question:
What is it that you’re really angry about? I don’t think it’s the Amalekites.
Hello, Perry.
I am answering to you:
“Carlos,
You’re flippantly dismissive of the good that people receive from their faith (like burning people on the stack, Galileo Galilei trial, the Crusades, the massive murdering of Albigenses, the condoning of slavery, and many other goodness); yet at the same time you expect me to respect you when you complain about the harm that you’ve experienced from people of faith.(Respect?? What I positively ask for you and believers are respect for intelligence, logic and truth, and not to argument “I feel it in my soul”, “I experienced his presence”, “God said it to me in dreams”, “I had a vision”, bla, bla, bla.)
Why the double standard? Why do you get to dismiss them while you expect others to take you seriously? (Because I can’t take seriously a book saying that a donkey spoke, for instance. I dare to say you believers “must” to have in mind the effect your creed, affirmations and believes produce in other people with a different line or thinking, like no believers)
When you grant for the sake of argument that God exists, why do you hold God responsible for all the evil, and yet you give God no credit for what is good? (Because he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, omni-this and omni-that and because if that god is the god of love, good things from him are by default, but I find unacceptable he “has to” do evil things like a flood, genocides, wars, plagues, etc. in order to obtain results. Or else he is very lacking of imagination. Or, as Woody Allen said, is an underachiever)
By what moral standard to you declare that God has no right to kill people? Or harden Pharaoh’s heart? Or tell Israel to destroy a nation that burns its own children alive in sacrifices to their gods? (The word immolation is a derivative of the name of the god Molech.) (I don’t say he has or hasn’t right to do this or that. He doesn’t need rights because it is said he is very powerful and will do whatever he liked. But in my personal opinion, he does some things like a homicide monster).
It’s easy to selectively pull all this stuff out of context and dump it into a screed. (Question: What I “selectively pull (…) out of context” IS TRUE OR FALSE?) It’s a lot more work to understand the context of all this. Do you really think that Jews and Christians are as completely stupid as you make them out to be? Do you really deny that there’s more subtlety to all this than you’re granting here? (Mmm, “completely… completely stupid”, in strict sense, I didn’t say that, but all of you believers are missing some points. Points and inconsistencies science and criticism are finding and you believers don’t see)
By what moral standard do you object to God being angry with the wicked? (By mine)
When you are sick or tired or lonely, or when you stand before God as your life is judged, with what authority will you tell God He has no right to act? (With mine)
Are you going to mock theology and say it’s contradictory, (Do I mock it? I find it inconsistent, biased, contradictory, capricious and even –I suspect- lacking of a real object to study) and then tell me that because you don’t like it, (It is not about I like or dislike it. It is about I don’t respect it because of its notorious lacking of value) you don’t have any obligation to critique it from within its own terms? (Yes. You are catching the idea)
Question:
What is it that you’re really angry about? I don’t think it’s the Amalekites. (You’re all right. Read again the previous)
Have a good day.
Carlos
Reply
Dear Carlos,
Please notice this clear logical mistake: “to be willing” is not the opposite of “to prevent”.
I understand there is a planned process (planned by our creator) for human spiritual and mental evolution through his internal and social struggle against devil thoughts and actions. In other words, our positive mental evolution may take place only when a negative alternative exists.
The omnipotent has planned to provide guidance, and not to prevent evil.
Hello, Kooros Hamze:
“Author: Kooros Hamze
Comment:
“Dear Carlos,
Please notice this clear logical mistake: “to be willing” is not the opposite of “to prevent”(1).
I understand there is a planned process (2) (planned by our creator) for human spiritual and mental evolution through his internal and social struggle against devil thoughts and actions. In other words, our positive mental evolution may take place only when a negative alternative exists (3).
The omnipotent has planned to provide guidance, and not to prevent evil (4).”
1) God is neither “willing to prevent” nor is he “willing to remove” the evil. This is clear from evil existence, now as before. Because god is omniscient, he knows of evil existence. So, god condones the existence of evil. And Epicurus and I say it is not a good thing to do.
2) As an atheist, I “know” god can do anything he likes (logic impossibilities too?) Now, using YOUR human mind -not what you suppose is god’s and besides you don’t have- answer please: If god wants a delicious and juicy peach, -let’s say- what would he does, materialize the fruit instantaneously, or start a “creation” process, wait all the history of Cosmos until a peach tree appears and produces a mature peach, and only then he eat it?
Speak of “process” regarding an omnipotent god that can do anything instantaneously is to me a nonsense.
Why did he start with the Big Bang -let’s say- a process of 13.500.000.000 years instead of materializing the “creation” already completed, in its final state? Why did he create us “incomplete”, needing subsequent evolution? Or perhaps COULDN’T he do all of it notoriously better? To me, that idea of process and evolution is a try to “get” your god doing things in a manner that finally conduct to THIS material and evolutionary reality we know and live in. Really, a god who has magic on his side doesn’t need “processes”.
3) OK. Do you feel good? Are you a healthy person? Do you enjoy it? Yes? Well. Then, jump from a 2nd or 3rd story to the floor, and try to break all your bones, if possible. Suffer as much as you can surgery, hospitalization, some amputation – if you try hard-, many months on bed, horrible pain and immobilization, plus heavy doctors’ bills. And don’t worry! Enjoy it!! You’ll be learning in a truly intense manner, how REALLY good are you feeling today.
This is what you are saying. To me it is wrong. Existence doesn’t need of inexistence to be. I admit the issue is complex and I am not a philosopher.
But, being you a believer, have this: If –as church says- god exists because that is its nature, does he need of inexistence in order to exist? From this, god “would” exist even without inexistence. From this, again, good things don’t need the evil or bad ones to exist. Then, if evil exists is because of god’s permission. Or because his malevolence, as my friend Epicurus loves to say.
4) It is you who say that. To me, his supposed guidance –if exists- is very confuse and lost and “camouflaged” against the background of all the existent. If you are talking of Bible, the same thing. Lots of blood, war, punishment, suffering, something of Bronze Era knowledge, and so on. Perhaps it was good then, but not today. It doesn’t seem as authored by an eternal and omniscient being.
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos:
“As an atheist, I “know” god can do anything he likes (logic impossibilities too?) If god wants a delicious and juicy peach, -let’s say- what would he does, materialize the fruit instantaneously, or start a “creation” process, wait all the history of Cosmos until a peach tree appears and produces a mature peach, and only then he eat it?
Speak of “process” regarding an omnipotent god that can do anything instantaneously is to me a nonsense.”
I’m assuming two things are wrong here, one is that allowing is condoning, right now you allowing crimes to happen..do you condone them?…and if you say that you don’t have the power to stop all crime around…go take a walk to the ghetto near you..with whatever “power” you own, you could make a difference but you aren’t, right?(even a small one..but then again, you’re one in 5 billion, talk about small)
Omnipotence means He can…not that he has to do it all the time, say a quality, not a constant activity…G-d has no timeframe, therefore he doesn’t have “needs” like you and I have (remember those billion years before you were born?, you never needed a juicy peach did you), He doesn’t do things to please himself, for he does not need that pleasure.
Now, say for argument’s sake He wants to create a peach…creating something in a billion-year process or instantly?…well we know everything’s systemic, so in a way, before that peach that exists today, it was probably transformed energy (in it’s vast forms) a zillion times that generated from an origin (although you could argument this origin goes against the Law of Conservation of Energy)..and to something or someone who’s timeless, 14 billion yrs is the same as a second (relativity) again..remember before you were born? how fast that eternity went by…so He’d do it instantly..just that instant would be 14 billion yrs…
Hello, Jose:
If “condoning” is not the right word, let I say “acceptance”, “tolerance” or even “indifference”. Being able to remove evil, God is indifferent to it. Omnipotence and omniscience makes him responsible regarding evil. Regarding crime and me, let me say we are not talking about me but about him, and that my faults don’t “excuse” theirs. He is the god, not me.
You say: “He doesn’t do things to please himself, for he does not need that pleasure.”
Doesn’t he need a juicy peach pleasure or absolutely no pleasure, anyway? In this case, what for did he create us? We didn’t need him, because we didn’t exist. So he “needed” us, for “enjoy” “loving” (or punishing?) us? So we are in starting point again: why did he start processes instead of create completed things? Why did he create us incomplete or lacking of “spiritual evolution” and then press us to get it or he punish us if we don’t get enough of it?
Greetings
Carlos
Reply to Carlos comments on September 16, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Hello Carlos
1) Evil is a creature of God and is allowed to affect human mind. Please review my last comment about the reason why.
2) We cannot understand any limitations on God. However, our minds only approves logical possibilities, even for God. I do not know of any case of logical impossibilities attributed to God.
Your example of peach and magician, who instantaneously does his magic, is very helpful. A magician acts very fast, so people think he acts instantaneously. Is it unacceptable to call 13.5 billion year one “DAY”? It is just a time scale. So the question is not time length, it is why going through a process.
I think God Himself should answer why in our world He creates things through a sequence of events (very fast or very slow in our time scale) and Why always there is a cause and effect relation. One of the greatest outcomes of our world is the perfect human, who believes in God and has the ability to sacrifice himself and suffer for the truth and justice for others. This is a spiritual and social evolutionary process. I believe that God do not need this but likes it.
3) There are people among us who believe in God and are ready to jump down(in your example) to save others. They suffer and enjoy from their sacrifice and raise and will be rewarded. God has admired Himself in Quran for creating such a creature, whose internal emotions force him for self protection, and evil misleads him, but his wisdom and love for others makes him go through unfavorable situations . I cannot imagine of any instantaneous magic replacement for such an outcome of the creation.
4) Do you really believe so much good and beautiful acts of mankind is the result of some blind materialistic evolution of biological things? No guidance from outside? I do not.
Regards,
Kooros
Hello, Kooros:
You said
“1) Evil is a creature of God and is allowed to affect human mind. (1) Please review my last comment about the reason why.
“2) We cannot understand any limitations on God. However, our minds only approve logical possibilities, even for God. I do not know of any case of logical impossibilities attributed to God.(2)
“Your example of peach and magician, who instantaneously does his magic, is very helpful. A magician acts very fast, so people think he acts instantaneously. Is it unacceptable to call 13.5 billion year one “DAY”? It is just a time scale. So the question is not time length, it is why going through a process. (3)
I think God Himself should answer (4) why in our world He creates things through a sequence of events (very fast or very slow in our time scale) and why always there is a cause and effect relation. One of the greatest outcomes of our world is the perfect human, who believes in God and has the ability to sacrifice himself and suffer for the truth and justice for others. This is a spiritual and social evolutionary process. I believe that God do not need this but likes it.
“3) There are people among us who believe in God and are ready to jump down (in your example) to save others. They suffer and enjoy from their sacrifice and raise and will be rewarded. God has admired Himself in Quran for creating such a creature, whose internal emotions force him for self protection, and evil misleads him, but his wisdom and love for others makes him go through unfavorable situations. I cannot imagine of any instantaneous magic replacement for such an outcome of the creation. (5)
“4) Do you really believe so much good and beautiful acts of mankind is the result of some blind materialistic evolution of biological things? No guidance from outside? I do not. (6)
Regards,
Kooros”
1) You said before “The omnipotent has planned to provide guidance and not to prevent evil”. You say now “Evil is a creature of God and is allowed to affect human mind”. WHAAAT? Would you say an omnipotent god does this because “he can’t do it in other way”, “he can’t do it in a less painful way”? That is incredible. Epicurus is right: God is plainly malevolent !!!
2) For one and the same criteria, can god be good and evil simultaneously? Can god stop being omnipotent? Can god commit suicide? Can god be omniscient and ignore certain things? Can god in his omnipotence transcend his own nature, go against it or change it radically? Can god create a rock so heavy he can’t move? If answers are “No” then god is constrained by something outside of him (logic, “human” logic, more precisely), then –let’s say- he is not “so” omnipotent, omniscient or infinite. But, if he is able to perform those extra logic doings, he should result, in human terms, illogic, absurd, weird, pervert, somebody with “inscrutable” designs, crazy, and unreliable, etc. Somebody you better run far of.
3) Nope. The question is precisely WHY SO time and WHY SO lengthy processes instead of instantaneous events.
4) But I am not asking your god. I am asking YOU. What do YOU believe is better and most reasonable: get THE SAME result instantaneously or after a long a process?
We human live years and we blink in an instant. So, we have “years” and “instants”. Now, expressed in “human time”: can god make things in years and things in instants? My question is: he made the creation as a process of 12.500.000.000 years; why didn’t he make it in an instant, fully “mature” and developed? If he is omnipotent and can get THE SAME perfect creation (with perfect and moral human beings), equally good in an instant or along a process, why did he do it in a long process (perhaps he can’t because he isn’t omnipotent)? And besides because the creation is not fully developed and we are spiritually incomplete -because the span of the long process- we do bad things and then he punishes us? THE-PUR-EST-NON-SENSE!
5) I can, instead.
6) I do. Good and beautiful acts are evolutionary rewarded with individual and social survival, fitness and happiness. Besides, try this “thoughtful experiment”: guess there is no god. Then, all beautiful, noble, altruist, generous, heroic, sublime, saint, loving, “spiritual” things you mentioned, will be PURE AND EXCLUSIVELY HUMAN, borne from our feelings and mind, without guidance from outside. In that case, human beings will result not as perverted as bible declares. Materialistic and evolutionist point of view say that is what really happen. Humans do many bad things, but much more good ones. That is why we survive, build societies, cultures and civilizations (including to invent gods and to devise religions). That is the way evolution works.
Greetings
Carlos
Dear Perry
Back in the 60’s people were deriding the belief in miracles. The most prolific being the feeding of the multitudes. I keep thinking about this and how nano technology in modern day science is doing similar to what the bible claims Jesus did. (not saying I agree with nano) however it does give credence to that type of miracle from the power of God.
I have not contemplated any persons having gift and power from God to heal illness today in this time period but God will give these powers to some because there will be many requiring healing and loving care when God’s Kingdom comes to power in the near future.
Something shocking has happened in my life just now. In fact my G.P. finds my trauma incredible. I was told by God through a messenger from heaven someone would be directed by dreams to help me. Could you or someone you know be chosen to do this? If God reveals to you through dreams what has happened please contact me and let me know. I will reveal what it is if you can correspond with my truth.
Hello, June:
You are talking about nobody so poweful and gifted as Jesus.
So, excuseme please if I are harsh, but I am curious:
WHY GOD DONT HEAL AMPUTEES?
I mean an amputated leg or arm growing again. Do you know why it never happened?
Greetings
Carlos
Perry, I was involved with another blog recently and arguing the improbability of purposeless random mutation as the basis of biological complexity. My opponent said, ‘But we don’t see the other mutations that lost the evolutionary battle’. Now bearing in mind the vast reaches of time etc. that’s an interesting point. Presumably there are zillions plus mutations which are unsuccessful with the occasional successful mutation. I can’t quite get my mind round that. How would you counter argue that?
What he’s saying to you is that natural selection destroys all the evidence for his argument, so you just have to trust him.
Which is a really lousy argument. That’s not science, my friend.
What he needs to do is produce evidence of species that through experimentation, improved through random mutation.
The best place to explore this is the literature on fruit fly radiation experiments. A good technical phrase to search on Google for this sort of thing is:
drosophila irradiation
If you explore this you’ll find that many hundreds of experiments have been conducted for 100 years now, randomly mutating fruit fly DNA with radiation. With very few exceptions it’s completely destructive. The only time it’s not is if the radiation is kept at very modest levels in which the organisms develop more robust error correction systems to fight the radiation.
No new organs or features have ever been observed from any of these 100 years of experiments.
The positive evidence for my thesis is the fact that
transposition
horizontal gene transfer
epigenetics
genome doubling (polyploidy)
and
symbiogenesis
Are all well documented, well known mechanisms of genetic adaptation. Thousands of scientific papers have been published on these topics. And all are non-random and systematic. They all obey certain rules, and all have been observed to produce new features and sometimes even new species.
Perry, I am having difficulties here. My tricky opponent recently posted this:-
“Naturalistic evolution is not falsifiable.” Sure it is. Go find an organism outside of a nested hierarchy. Or a fossil that breaks geographical or temporal distribution. Or a gene that isn’t homologous. Or observe an organism being created. Or show that random mutations don’t happen. Etc, etc. “No coding and decoding mechanism of that complexity exists without intelligence.” Sure they do. Ever heard of genetic algorithms?
I would be interested to know your views on this.
Martin,
I think naturalistic evolution is falsifiable.
All genetic algorithms are programmed and have some sort of goal. If he’s trying to argue against my statement that there are no naturally occurring codes, GA’s are designed by humans and don’t count. Also you will find that they do not produce very capable programs and have VERY limited use in industry.
Perry, I argued your example of the fruit fly experiments and my opponent rubbished it as follows. I am not a scientist so I was stumped.
“Oh no, the infamous fruitfly experiments! “randomly mutating fruit fly DNA with radiation. Isn’t that wonderful, raising the mutation rate to absurdly high, unnatural levels, then passing it off to be natural RMNS. Oh, did the flies change enviroments where adaptions would actually be possible or beneficial? Were they compared to flies that weren’t exposed to radiation? How much DNA changed? What was the average fitness in that group and the control? Your experiment fails.
Martin,
This person has obviously not read any of this literature and he’s just mocking you. I’m pretty sure he’s not worth your time.
If normal levels of mutation supposedly cause a certain level of evolution, then higher levels (a little higher or a lot higher) would logically cause more. That was the original hypothesis.
There’s a 100 year history of this kind of experimentation, answering all of the questions he asks. And none of these experiments have produced anything resembling evolution. Seriously, do a Google search and start reading papers. There are lots of them.
The reason why this didn’t work is utterly obvious to a communications engineer like me: It’s because noise never improves a signal.
If it’s not possible to somehow accelerate mutations and observe evolution, then evolution is not a testable theory.
It turns out that you can accelerate evolution. And it turns out that evolution is through systematic re-arrangements of DNA through transposition, polyploidy, epigenetics etc.
Challenge him to show you one scientific paper that specifically demonstrates that random copying errors in DNA cause evolution. And hold his feet to the fire.
Martin,
If you look at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog you will find excellent examples of me interacting with all kinds of people like this guy, answering identical questions. If you stick to the material I give you there, you’re bulletproof. The facts do not support his position. He’s being snarky because he’s afraid that’s the case.
Perry
Hi Perry,
Thank you for that. I look forward to ploughing through that link. Finally, I would like your view on this post please. I would like to add one final comment to that forum to close it. I will not trouble you again. I am very grateful for your help.
“Do you at least accept common descent, or are we still stuck up on that. RMNS is supported by empirical evidence and it is the only plausible mechanism. All observations, experiments, evidence, etc, are consistent with the predictions made by evolution by natural selection and it makes far more accurate and precise predictions than ID, so obviously it is correct”.
Martin,
Insist that he cite just one scientific experiment that proves RM produces anything worthy of being selected. Do not let up until he says uncle. He will try and he will fail.
There are no papers anywhere that actually demonstrate the path from one species to another is random (even though there are thousands of papers that make this claim). There is however all kinds of evidence that the path from one species to another is non-random. Like the fact that even radically different species can all have very similar genes which are arranged differently. Just like two newspaper articles can have 98% same vocabulary but be about entirely different subjects. Why? Because words are not random, nor is the arrangement of them random. Words obey the rules of spelling and grammar. DNA has rules of spelling and grammar too.
This guy simply has no idea what he is talking about. I understand he thinks he does and I understand why but there is no evidence for it. This comment is straight out of the atheist pink koolaid machine. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/evolution-untold-story/ and all the papers and videos referenced here. And the comments as well. Everything you need is here.
Thanks Perry, very grateful for your help.
I would like to invite comments on how the cell wall could have happened by Darwinian gradualism or is that one for your other forum? No cell wall means no cell. How can you have half a cell wall? It defies all of the ‘gradual beneficial’ stages which Dawkins labours.
Hello Perry
I think you are making some fuzzy arguments here. Poor Martin will try to debate with this scientist in vain because some facts are not straight.
“There are no papers anywhere that actually demonstrate the path from one species to another is random (even though there are thousands of papers that make this claim).”
NS by definition is not random and the environment selects features that lead to new species. Any paper claiming that speciation is random does not understand the theory. I suspect the atheist by the pink koolaid machine does.
“Like the fact that even radically different species can all have very similar genes which are arranged differently.”
This statement looks like you have not understood the science. DNA mapping shows similar species have similar genes and the more different species DNA vary proportionally. This implies natural selection, evolution and common descent.
Our Koolaid friend and I suspect that mutations are random because evidence does not exist to show otherwise. In your discussions on information theory you admit to it being inference and not proof. I understand why you still call it proof but it is still inference. I question that the inference can be accurately extrapolated to biological systems. I do not see how your pink Koolaid comment adds to your claim that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Martin,
Evolution, natural selection and common descent: Yes. By random mutation? No. Every question you raise here is addressed in detail at this article and/or in the comments:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/evolution-untold-story/
Hello, people:
Here, some interesting quotations.
“Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?”
Robert G. Ingersoll
“The world holds two classes of men – intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.”
Abu Ala Al-Ma’arri
“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” –
Mark Twain
“I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a lack of confidence.”
Doug McLeod
“The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers.”
Denis Diderot
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
Benjamin Franklin
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” – John Adams
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.”
Napoleon Bonaparte
“Creationists make it sound like a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”
Isaac Asimov
“The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I
have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”
Ferdinand Magellan.
Greetings.
Carlos
Carlos,
Magellan never said that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Portugal/Quotes_archive
He couldn’t have said that because the church never, at any time, taught that the earth was flat. This story was made up by Robert Ingersoll. The whole “flat earth” story was invented by Washington Irving in the 1800’s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
Carlos, I request that you stop perpetuating lies about history. I also suggest that you re-evaluate the veracity of your sources.
The usual bromides about religion won’t get you very far here. As far as I’m concerned, most of your quotes are just anti-religious bigotry. You’re going to have to do better than that.
5 years ago I gave a talk “If you can read this I can prove God exists” – see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/proof
This is the most controversial presentation about the origin of life on the Internet. It is referenced on thousands of websites and a debate on Infidels started 5 years ago and is still an open thread. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels. No one has countered my argument with evidence.
If you want to make a case for non-theism, you can start with science. By demonstrating a naturalistic explanation for the origin of information.
Hello Perry:
One more comment.
Let’s suppose I say this:
“I affirm 3 x 8 = 354. If you say I am wrong, show me a counter example. If you don’t show a counter example it stands”.
You don’t agree with me and try to show that counter example but you don’t know to calculate 3 x 8 = 24. So, I am very happy saying that my proposition stands and riddles all my rivals, but the only thing I have is a proposition lacking of any value of truth. Not more. That proposition stands only because your inability to show a counter example, but YOUR INABILITY -OR SILENCE- DOESN’T PROVE MY PROPOSITON IS TRUE. The only chance for it has any value of truth is verily PROVING IT TRUE.
Now, in http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/proof you say:
“Ideas always precede implementation, always, no exceptions. All languages come from a mind. No exceptions. There are no languages that do not come from a mind. So, we know that DNA was designed. A mind designed DNA, therefore God exists”.
Your proposition stands because nobody shows (yet) a counter example, but this fact -or silence- doesn’t prove it’s truth. As unproven, your reasoning lacks of any value of truth and is useless.
Being this claim yours, yours is the burden of proof. So, prove, please, a mind exists who is DNA designer, and that mind is the mind of that being you name “God”.
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos,
Is inductive reasoning valid or not?
Carlos and anyone else who claims the bible teaches the earth to be flat should open any bible at Isaiah 40:22 where it is spoken of God who dwells above the circle of the earth (written before 732 BC) and Job 26:7 where it relates to the earth being hung on nothing Job 26:10 He has described a circle upon the face of the waters. Job lived in the land of Uz where ever that was. Perhaps he was an oriental person he was certainly a good man much loved by God. I believe there is another scripture relating to the earth being round and hung on nothing but this is proving difficult for me to find.
Hello, June:
About a flat Earth:
Matthew 4:8 (King James Version)
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him ALL the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”
This implies there is a high mountain from which ALL the kingdoms of the world can be seen. This implies a flat, concave or convex earth, but never a spherical one.
Carlos
Carlos;
In context, world would mean the “known world” at the time of Christ, assuming that the “kingdoms of the world” were literally shown (and not shown by a vision or some such). That is a very very tenuous thread to base “the world is flat” on. You’ll have to do better.
Cheers
-Andrew
Hello, tireless friend Andrew:
If, as supposed, that is God’s word, I assume he says exactly what he wants to say, no other thing. So, if is said ALL the kingdoms of the world were shown from only one point of view, I take it at its face value. The implication is right and the world Bible describes IN NO WAY is spherical. I read what is written.
Greetings
Carlos
Hi.
Ummm. No. Context is very important. Also, most reasonable Christians understand that the Bible, while inspired by God is never-the-less a translation and an account of what happened which can only make sense in context of itself and Jewish culture and history. Taking the Bible out of context is a sure way to become very confused. As you seem to be.
It nowhere states *how* the Kingdoms of the earth ( which by the way, may have included past and future kingdoms (it did, as you pointed out, say “all”)) were shown. You are making an unwarranted assumption about *how*. In context, this could easily mean the “known world” at that time. Which was fairly small. Context is everything. If I started taking your words out of context, I could quote you, but make you say absolutely anything I wanted you to. Would I then be accurately representing your view? Would you like me to do so?
Consider when the sun stood still (Joshua 10:13). Most people complain that the sun doesn’t move round the earth. The point they miss, is from the context of the surface of the earth, the sun appears to move, therefore the description in valid.
Cheers
-Andrew
Hello, Andrew Lobb
This is my comment:
“Ummm. No. Context is very important. Also, most reasonable Christians understand that the Bible, while inspired by God is never-the-less a translation and an account of what happened which can only make sense in context of itself and Jewish culture and history. Taking the Bible out of context is a sure way to become very confused. As you seem to be”
((I will not say you are wrong but I don’t want to discuss this. But there are many ways to read a book. And bible, IS a book))
“It nowhere states *how* the Kingdoms of the earth (which by the way, may have included past and future kingdoms (it did, as you pointed out, say “all”)) were shown. You are making an unwarranted assumption about *how*”
((It WAS stated how: Jesus was taken to a high mountain, for a high point of vision. It doesn’t say he was taken to an abyss or a cavern. Neither it says that from the mountain they started a fly all over the world))
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him ALL the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”) In context, this could easily mean the “known world” at that time”
((Known by whom? Known by the god inspirer of bible or known by bible writers? If it was god who knew that, he didn’t blow the data to writers)). Which was fairly small. Context is everything” ((In this case, context shows bible writers were not warned the Earth is spherical. You may try to excuse or explain the error, but it still IS an objective error))
“If I started taking your words out of context, I could quote you, but make you say absolutely anything I wanted you to. Would I then be accurately representing your view? Would you like me to do so?”
((Surely, you can do it if you like. But remember I am not claiming I am a perfect and inerrant god. I am a simple atheist.
Now, look what you say:” It nowhere states…”; “may have included…”; “this could easily mean…” But, what does it REALLY states, includes, means? In bible explanations there are lots of “it may be”, “it may mean”, “it is a metaphor” and so. Then, which of them to choose? And WHY a particular one? Believers say the bible is the word of a perfect and omniscient god. So, can you guess he can’t say what he wants to say? And if bible writers were wrong, then the “holy” book will carries their errors for ever (“You shall not change even a comma of it…” isn’t it?). I read what is written and what is written is an absurd because in the mountain “show” necessarily was left out of vision all the reigns of the opposite hemisphere. Besides, how can it be possible that the message of a book purported being so essential and indispensable to be saved had to be deciphered, analyzed and interpreted in order to be understood? Such a book should be absolutely clear, absolutely understandable to every one, without a help. What we have instead is lots and lots of books “explaining” the bible, what implies very bad things regarding the bible and it’s “author”.
And: “…the devil taketh him ((Jesus=god)) and he AGREED? So, Jesus=god and the devil went together in excursion to the mountain? I am confused: WEREN’T THEY ENEMIES?”
I invite you to read online “A List of Biblical Contradictions” (1992) Jim Meritt” ;“Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions?”, compiled by Donald Morgan; “A list of over 700 inconsistencies in the Bible”))
“…the Bible (…) can only make sense in context of itself and Jewish culture and history”
((When they talk of stopping the sun, (what is not an exclusively Jewish astronomical object) or about “the circle (bi-dimensional) of the world”, instead of “the roundness (three-dimensional) of the world”, they go out from a Jewish context to a planetary one. And then it is licit to criticize them from this frame, and from OUR frames.
Besides, this gives support to say that the bible was clearly written BY and FOR Jewish people. This show the bible is not the word of a god for the whole mankind but for the Jews. Because all this history happened in a very, very minuscule region in Asia Minor. It is not that the same bible with the same teachings, the same Jehovah, the same Decalogue, the same Jesus, appeared in China, England, Alaska, Peru, Botswana, the Patagonia, and Polynesia, simultaneously and each of them referring to each of others. What we are talking about is of one people’s writings –written for their own Jews purposes- that were “recycled”, adapted and “exported” to the rest of the world))
“Consider when the sun stood still (Joshua 10:13). Most people complain that the sun doesn’t move round the earth. The point they miss, is from the context of the surface of the earth, the sun appears to move, therefore the description in valid” ((What does mean “valid”? ”Valid”, then “true”? I think it is explainable they were wrong because they were ignorant. But what they say sounds impossible. The point bible misses is if Joshua really stopped “the sun” (the Earth), the Mediterranean Sea -the same for world’s seas and oceans- had advanced eastward over the land, because of tangential speed of waters -due to earth rotation- and water’s inertia. (Tangential speed in the equator is 462 m/sec. This is a more than supersonic speed) Palestine area is 32 degrees north latitude, so few m/sec lesser than equator. This sounds to me the same tale as the talking snake and Balaam’s talking donkey)).
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos,
I am not going to reply to you point by point. Instead, let us start again. Since you failed to follow it last time, I’ll present my point in more formal language, and then maybe you’ll see? Ever done any training in formal logic? I’d highly recommend it if you have not.
Let us start with the verse:
Matthew 4:8 (King James Version)
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him ALL the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”
As you quoted.
Now, formally this means that the devil took Jesus (our witness) up to a place that had the property of height. Then the devil showed our witness ALL(emphasis yours) the kingdoms of the earth. Agree? That is what it says, anything else, we’re adding to it.
Now you assert that the reason (which is not stated) for the devil taking Jesus somewhere high is because you can see further from a greater height. You then further state that since the the passage says “all” it follows that all the kingdoms of the world were visible from this point, and since there is no such place, the passage must be wrong or implying a flat earth? Is this a good enough statement of your argument?
Your argument is fairly easy to deconstruct within context. Let us start with the “high mountain.” For the sake of simplicity, I’ll agree with your assumption that this mountain is on the earth, and not, say for example the moon. Even so, your argument fails.
There is more than one possible reason for Jesus to be taken up to a high place. In context, you will note that many of the prophets and Moses experienced God in high places. Thus if the devil were to get Jesus to worship him in a high place it would have significant meaning, and be of importance to a being like the devil who always wanted to take the place of God. So, in context, your first assumption is clearly bad. Anyone following this, please feel free to comment.
Secondly, in context, Jesus set aside (as described in Paul’s writings) his Godhood, and thus witnessed things as a man of Gallilee. As such, to him, “all the kingdoms of the world” would include the roman empire egypt, and a few others, all visible from a significantly high place. Thus if you were to show a man of that time those Kingdoms, he would agree he’d seen all the kingdoms in the world (though probably not agree he’d seen the whole world, but the passage never says that.)
I have just provided two explanations which are *much more likely* than your “world is flat” explanation. You noticed I did not make a statement (like you did) but spoke in terms of probability, you then went on to tell me why and failed to connect the two. The reason I did not and will not make a statement is because I *unlike you* am not adding *my assumptions* to the bible. You may also note that the passage you quote about not adding or taking away from the bible was certainly originally meant to apply only to the book of Revelations, but I don’t object to you applying it to the whole bible.
Carlos, let me show you what you are doing; you are applying your “positivist naturalistic atheistic” assumptions to the Bible and interpreting it for me. Then you point out it is illogical. I am sure you don’t intend to do this, but what you are effectively doing is creating a “straw man argument”(check wikipedia, it has a good explanation). I, who does not share your world view, am under no obligation to believe what you think I do. Thus your arguments are not useful. Might I respectfully suggest you argue against what most Christians *actually* believe rather than what you *think we should believe*? Unless you can do this we will continue to argue in circles. And I may not bother to answer you next time, as my same counter argument applies ad nauseum.
As for the Bible, I would say treating it as a scientific document is extremely foolish. How about lets treat it as what it is; a collection of recorded witnesses to a series of unusual events (otherwise why would they be worth recording?). There is a gentleman called Dr Keith Mathee (a Doctor of Law, not medicine) who wrote a book called “The resurrection – a lawyer’s view” which would make a good starting point for a discussion about the bible. If you can’t obtain a copy, I can probably obtain his permission to send you a pdf copy if you wish. The book is fairly representative of mainstream Christian views on the bible and how to interpret it. It would make a better starting point for discussion than you telling me what I believe. Then perhaps we can discuss what I actually believe instead of what you think I do?
This is of course up to you, but I do feel I have made my point.
Cheers
-Andrew
Hello Andrew Lobb:
I am not going to reply to you point by point. Instead, let us start again. Since you failed to follow it last time, ((I don’t understand this)) I’ll present my point in more formal language, and then maybe you’ll see? Ever done any training in formal logic? I’d highly recommend it if you have not.
Let us start with the verse:
Matthew 4:8 (King James Version)
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him ALL the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”
As you quoted.
Now, formally this means that the devil took Jesus (our witness) up to a place that had the property of height. Then the devil showed our witness ALL(emphasis yours) the kingdoms of the earth. Agree? That is what it says, anything else, we’re adding to it.
Now you assert that the reason (which is not stated) for the devil taking Jesus somewhere high is because you can see further from a greater height. You then further state that since the the passage says “all” it follows that all the kingdoms of the world were visible from this point, and since there is no such place, the passage must be wrong or implying a flat earth? Is this a good enough statement of your argument?
((Yes))
Your argument is fairly easy to deconstruct within context. Let us start with the “high mountain.” For the sake of simplicity, I’ll agree with your assumption that this mountain is on the earth, and not, say for example the moon. Even so, your argument fails.
There is more than one possible reason for Jesus to be taken up to a high place. In context, you will note that many of the prophets and Moses experienced God in high places.
((STOOOOP, STOP, PLEASE!! You are trying to drive me in the inner and deep facts and interpretations of bible. I don’t agree with that and I don’t buy that ticket. I picked up and evidence and work on it. THE FACT IN QUESTION IS SOLELY A GEOMETRICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL IMPOSSIBILITY in a book supposedly perfect and free of errors. Not other question. My reading is at face value. Instead of admitting that, you came with a “can” of interpretation to “paint it” over))
Thus if the devil were to get Jesus to worship him in a high place ((But this is not either stated in the verse in question)) it would have significant meaning, and be of importance to a being like the devil who always wanted to take the place of God. So, in context, your first assumption is clearly bad. Anyone following this please feel free to comment.
((I neglect all of this. If you like doing deep analysis, go on. It is up to you))
Secondly, in context, Jesus set aside (as described in Paul’s writings) his Godhood, and thus witnessed things as a man of Galilee. As such, to him, “all the kingdoms of the world” would include the Roman Empire, Egypt, and a few others, all visible from a significantly high place. Thus if you were to show a man of that time those Kingdoms, he would agree he’d seen all the kingdoms in the world (though probably not agree he’d seen the whole world, but the passage never says that.)
((I neglect this too))
I have just provided two explanations which are *much more likely* than your “world is flat” explanation. You noticed I did not make a statement (like you did) but spoke in terms of probability, you then went on to tell me why and failed to connect the two. ((If “probability” is mentioned, then, more close and probably, the bible authors were plainly ignorant))
The reason I did not and will not make a statement is because I *unlike you* am not adding *my assumptions* to the bible. You may also note that the passage you quote about not adding or taking away from the bible was certainly originally meant to apply only to the book of Revelations, but I don’t object to you applying it to the whole bible. ((Again: I don’t mind the intended meaning or purpose of that verse. I am focused on what it literally says and what it logically implies))
Carlos, let me show you what you are doing; you are applying your “positivist naturalistic atheistic” assumptions to the Bible and interpreting it for me.
((Question: Why your interpretations and not mine? Things, facts, ideas, books, can be interpreted in many ways!))
Then you point out it is illogical. I am sure you don’t intend to do this, but what you are effectively doing is creating a “straw man argument” (check Wikipedia, it has a good explanation).
((I am not sure if you are right regarding straw man. Let’s suppose you are. Thus, taking aside your laborious and intricate interpretation, which methodologically I don’t have obligation to accept, the undeniable fact is a written impossibility or absurd in a book purported being inerrant. Not for you, logically, but more than enough to me))
I, who does not share your world view, am under no obligation to believe what you think I do. Thus your arguments are not useful. ((You are free to believe what you prefer)) Might I respectfully suggest you argue against what most Christians *actually* believe rather than what you *think we should believe*?
((Do you believe in a god? If you do, you believe in that thing that is the main and basic difference between you and me. I don’t need extra data. I don’t want to be disdainful or rude but particularities of differences in believers are insignificant details to me)
Unless you can do this we will continue to argue in circles. And I may not bother to answer you next time, as my same counter argument applies ad nauseum.
As for the Bible, I would say treating it as a scientific document is extremely foolish. How about lets treat it as what it is; a collection of recorded witnesses to a series of unusual events (otherwise why would they be worth recording?).
(( Then, because that supposed “witnesses” written a book, that book and related “facts” become true? I remember you the bible is not the only book relating notable facts. Words “myth”, “legend” “fable”, “fairy tale” do say you anything? It is very notorious from centuries to now, that the bible is pretty lacking of any “scientific purpose or intention” neither to promote knowledge. But when this book tells of a universal flood, of somebody “stopping the sun”, of a list of birds including the bat, and a high mountain from which all the reigns of the world can be seen, this claims regards facts that are in science domain. Even not being a scientific treatise, “There is a heaven”, “there are cherubims and angels”, “resurrections” and other weird facts claimed can and MUST be scientifically analyzed, basically because today almost every thing can be scientifically examined. And because that book doesn’t have in its first page a disclaimer warning: “This book is a fiction. Any similarity with real facts is mere coincidence”)).
There is a gentleman called Dr Keith Mathee (a Doctor of Law, not medicine) who wrote a book called “The resurrection – a lawyer’s view” which would make a good starting point for a discussion about the bible. If you can’t obtain a copy, I can probably obtain his permission to send you a pdf copy if you wish. The book is fairly representative of mainstream Christian views
((Sorry, but mainstream Christian views on the bible and how to interpret it are for me not important at all. By the way, there are not Christian views about the bible also, that count))
It would make a better starting point for discussion than you telling me what I believe. Then perhaps we can discuss what I actually believe instead of what you think I do? This is of course up to you, but I do feel I have made my point.
((No, thanks you Andrew for your offer, very much. A long discussion about the bible is to me wasting time and effort. I am almost exclusively focused in existence or inexistence of a god and in faith as a delusion. Having neither one evidence nor solid, undeniable, convincing and unquestionable demonstrations of existence of that god, all the building of religions collapses and I am not interested in its debris, really. There is a whole “universe” of new, rich, reliable, verifiable and exciting knowledge science in this century is producing and I prefer to enjoy it))
Greetings
Carlos
Hi Carlos.
Ah, now I think I understand you better. You “neglect” anything to do with context because it *weakens your point*. Might I suggest a little demonstration of the importance of context not in a religious, but scientific setting? I am sure there must be a university near you. If you go and ask a Professor of Physics some questions you may see what I am getting at. Don’t take my word for it, do it yourself.
What I am proposing you do is ask someone like that a fairly simple question, “Was Newton (specifically Newtonian Mechanics) right or wrong?” The answer you will invariably receive is “It depends on context.” At high speed we of course know Einstein provides a more accurate model of the universe, but at low speed Newton’s laws are in fact correct. In any subject (especially science) you may not ignore your assumptions or context. I speak as someone with a lot of formal training in this sort of thing, but feel free to consult others. And no, proof by dictionary definition is not helpful here.
By ignoring context and complaining I am getting “deep into the bible” (not really, but anyway), you show a lack of intellectual honesty. You brought this subject up and you are *yet to give a logical reason* why you arbitrarily “neglect” what I am saying in favor of your *own assumption*. I am afraid that cuts no ice around here. Please sir, if you wish to discuss do so with intellectual honesty or else, be silent.
“(( Then, because that supposed “witnesses” written a book, that book and related “facts” become true? I remember you the bible is not the only book relating notable facts. Words “myth”, “legend” “fable”, “fairy tale” do say you anything?”
Yes. Here I have lots to say. But it is lost on you as you are obviously and completely ignorant of biblical history, the science of textual criticism and many many other things. Rather than attempting to educate you, I’ll just say go and have a look on wikipedia. There is plenty of information there. Come back when you have a clue what you are talking about. And if you “neglect” this too, then stop making statements you have no hope of supporting. There is no nice easy way out, either support what you have to say or don’t say it. Anything else is patently dishonest.
Unless you are willing to have an honest open discussion on this matter, I have nothing more to add, and you may now, if you like, have the final word. All my points still stand.
Have fun
-Andrew
Hello, Andrew Lobb:
Are you saying HOW should I read the “inerrant” word of your “god”? In that book I read what is written. That is my context. And, as said before, what is written is plainly nonsense. End of question.
You are a bible student, isn’t it? So I guess you choose the bible among all the other “holy” books. Well. The reason because you neglect all the other books is the same I neglect them and your bible.
No matter your claims and complaining, I never invited you to engage in a deep, scholar and interminable discussion about bible and bible studies. On October 24, 2010 at 2:03 am I wrote: ((No, thanks you Andrew for your offer, very much. A long discussion about the bible is to me wasting time and effort. I am almost exclusively focused in existence or inexistence of a god and in faith as a delusion. Having neither one evidence nor solid, undeniable, convincing and unquestionable demonstrations of existence of that god, all the building of religions collapses and I am not interested in its debris, really. There is a whole “universe” of new, rich, reliable, verifiable and exciting knowledge science in this century is producing and I prefer to enjoy it))
Even more, I was before in a brief discussion with other person, and you entered as a non invited third person. And now you are being a bit reprehensive and exigent. Please, don’t miss your balance.
I selected only few themes to talk about, basic to me: free will, faith and existence of god. Lacking the religious creed of strong and undeniable proofs of god existence, the rest is to me mere babble, rite and noise.
So if you can demonstrate the existence of a god, or if you can show me that god, do it. But if you can’t do any of two, please be silent.
Good bye
Carlos
Having waded through all the verbage of this give and take, all I can say is that Carlos argues, as I am sure you see, from a false construct: inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. I suspect that he chooses this because he cannot compete with any other stance by Christians
To dabate such a construct is a no-win waste of time.
I enjoyed your commentary with him nowever, and do agree with what you have to contributed. My experienc with bloggers such as Carlos is that they are generally trolls who essentially post in sites solely to intimidate. Again, a waste of time.
Alright Carlos, I apologise as well, unlike the majority of blokes here, I never intended to get into a heated debate here. You needn’t reply any more, we aren’t here to convince other people about our beliefs; I get nothing in exchange for anybody’s change of mind.
I quote: “And to me is like complaining for a bad grain after you have been told many, many times from your childhood and beyond, you will receive only absolutely perfect, top quality and “inerrant” grains.”
Excuse me? Are you saying that as a former Christian, you were told something as a child, and because you never had an epiphany of such events to come (I assume you’re not young anymore), you decided to focus on the bad grain, to justify your alienating from that philosophy? Oh dear sir, I should stop right now, I cannot even write down what I think about that explanation, without being improper. Please refer to my last paragraph, about focusing on the good things, instead of the bad.
“No, it isn’t faith. It is science”
Science? Big bang is science, what happened before it, what fed it, and what detonated it, is NOT science, but mere speculation, it yet cannot be proved, so until it is proven beyond any doubt, it will remain speculation, which sounds like faith to me. I reckon their definitions are very much tied. The difference between a microbe and a whale are so small compared to a bunch of vitamins, minerals and life. There’s a connection/process of converting simple matter into life that, as of today, cannot be proved.
“As worthless as yours, also involved in the same energetic cycle” My life could be as worthless, albeit “mine”, therefore I choose to be grateful for the minimal probability that I was born and not some other one instead of me, and whenever I see this world and all the universe’s phenomena, I cannot say thanks you enough to a higher being (not just blind-“worship” inside a Church as you name it)
Last, I reckon Buddhism is a great philosophy, funny how a “militant atheist” seeks a way of life under certain rules (because, there are rules in it), and I applaud it. The only exchange of living those rules is having a social understanding and living accordingly, call it “peace”. Haven’t you stopped to think whether the Bible teaches the same? Forget if it also talks about honouring a God or if it has blood in it, focus on the New Testament, less blood. That is precisely what I explained in my previous post sir.
But I never invited you to read it over any other book or principle, I said it was a good start, not the ONLY way.
Hi Carlos.
The difficulty arose when you concluded that the reason why the Devil brought Jesus to an extremely high mountain is to let him see all the kingdoms of the world.
But note that in the second temptation Jesus was also asked to stand on the highest point of the temple. The Devil did this to set the stage for something that the Devil would want Jesus to do.
In the first temptation the Devil said “ If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
In both cases there is a 2-part structure which goes like this :
First Part: Devil’s action or statement which sets the stage for the temptation itself
Second Part: The temptation to take a certain action
The third temptation is for Jesus to bow to the Devil and worship him. Bringing Jesus to an extremely high mountain sets the stage for the worship and is most likely not meant to enable Jesus to see all the kingdoms of the world. In the Bible if you will recall, a mountain is a place of worship (John 4:20-21).
Hello, Jun Mahusay:
I have read all the bible before. As an ex-Christian and a militant atheist, I find in it a lot of knowledge, advice and wisdom, yes. But I find also nonsense, wrong things and falsehood.
Rampant falsehood like that of the Second Coming, for instance, that never happened as foretold, in times of that people, before that many of them tasted the death.
Another of those falsehood is this about to see the (all of them) kingdoms of the world from a high mount. It is a geometrical impossibility. No interpretations, no maneuvers, no hidden meanings. Just plain reading of what is written. And what is written is FALSE. End of subject.
If you prefer agree with it, OK, it is your business. I don’t.
Greetings.
Carlos
Carlos: Ok, say that is a physical impossibility. Define “all the kingdoms of the world” in the first place. Isn’t that just trivial? To disregard the heap of social and personal benefits of the rules written in the Bible, for the sake of another bunch of -assuming you regard them as such- nonsense lies like the impossibility of seeing all the kingdoms from a mountain…well, to me is like using time to complain of a bad crop instead of using it to eat the good grain.
We’re all entitled to out own beliefs, like believing God doesn’t exist and this is a result of a huge explosion that created something from nothing? isn’t that also faith in something that cannot be proven? You call it a physical accident, we call it God’s hand.
How worthless is your life if your only objective in it, is being part of an energetic cycle -simple as it is- and leaving behind, say, your offspring (of people that will also die eventually and go into oblivion in a hundred years, like you)
In the meantime, why not use the rules of moral teachings to guide you…the Bible’s teachings are a good start, just disregard the parts that empirically cannot be proven -to you-, take into consideration those that can in an objective manner.
Hi Carlos.Thanks for your gracious reply.
I am no longer going to argue the plausibility and the non-plausibility of Jesus being shown all the kingdoms of the world. Neither will I debate with you on the meaning of the verse because I realized that we’re two people looking at the same thing from two different stand points. You from the stand point of an atheist/ex-Christian. I from the stand point of a believer. Expectedly, we’re seeing two different things. Are you familiar with the six blind men and the elephant? We will be like that if we will proceed.
I will not try to talk you out of atheism as I think there are others who are already doing that, even better than I could ever hope to do.
Let’s move on and let me ask, what brought you to this point, an atheist and an ex-Christian? What was your turning point? I am assuming of course that there was a distinct turning point.
Thanks.
Jun Mahusay
This verse about the world being “a circle” is amusing.
The earth is actually neither flat nor circular although both are true locally. A dinner plate is flat and circular. The horizons from one viewpoint trace out a circle, and is flat. But the whole earth is spherical. Whatever early civilizations or the Bible teach needs to be checked out by observation and ONLY then we can know if they were correct. I’m afraid that neither were very accurate this time.
Reply to Martin
The Prophet Isaiah spoke of God dwelling above the circle of the earth. Looking at the moon from earth it appears circular when in full view. It is therefore in my opinion quite logical to perceive that looking down at earth from above it will appear circular.
I am aware that earth is described by modern day science as an oblate spheroid. The wonder is how it was created to rotate on its axis bringing about day and night etc. I don’t however consider the earth being described as circular as laughable just descriptive.
Greetings Carlos, I know what you are saying. You are not alone. The majority of humans cannot believe or accept anything they have not experienced within their own life empiricisms. I don’t suppose you would consider our milky way galaxy which contains many times more than 100 billion stars. Some astronomers estimate that there are 100 Billion Galaxys with hundreds of billions of stars all working in perfect precision it means not a lot to the physical materialistic person but to the spiritual person it is awesome. Our sun is 93,000,000 miles from earth If earth was nearer or further away life would not be sustainable. The magnitude of its grandeur means nothing to the physical man or woman but to the spiritual person it declares the omnipotence of an awesome creator. The physical person takes for granted having ten fingers and ten toes. Try picking up a cup minus a thumb. Yes it is all taken for granted by the physical person but as for the spiritual person they say as does the biblical writings declaring what King David said. “I shall laud you (God) because in a fear inspiring way I am wonderfully made” . The physical person loves entertainment, football, comedians; things for their houses etc but it is all refuge to the spiritual person. Having said all that even those who claim to be spiritual generally only believe according to pre-supposed perceptions and cannot believe a revelation different from what is their personal conjectural bias. No wonder the Jewish nation didn’t accept the prophets in their day it is no different today.
This comment is so lovely. Thank you. God Bless!
Hello, June:
It is true what you say about believe (and learn from) our empiricisms. Other people believe things only because they have been told. Believing our imagination, our “inner voices”, fantasies, fairy tales or “visions” instead of tangible and objective reality is delusion. And delusion is a bad thing.
What you are talking about life in Earth is known as “fine tuning”. And it is dismissed by science, the same science whose figures and data you appeal to for express you argument.
If your point is true, then God is very mean because in Solar System the Earth is the ONLY planet we can live on. Remaining planets are hostile and inhabitable for human beings, unless WE carry our air to breath, our water, and wear spatial dresses. If not, we dead.
Besides, where are Earth conditions so precise in terms of life sustainment?
Hundreds meters deep in ocean bottom, with high pressure and hundreds degrees of temperature, there are living beings. There are also in obscure caves and in freeze climates, and many meters deep in soil, with no light. Life is present in many different environments.
And we humans are not so exquisitely made, not so “wonderfully made” by the “omnipotent creator”: constipation and varicose veins are because we are bipeds and pain in childbirth is because our head is out of proportion (because of our brain) with our body.
It is not that Earth was created and “fine tuned” FOR our human life. It is life in a variety of forms and types appeared and evolved in a certain band of conditions of Earth. It is about abiogenesis and evolution.
We don’t think and feel the same. But even so, thanks for your words.
Greetings
Carlos
Hiya Carlos, do you not think it is good we don’t have to carry air to breathe, water, and wear spatial dresses to live effortlessly on Earth? You mention constipation and varicous veins I would suggest a better diet to sort these problems and drink more water. Good advice? O.K. Bye for now.
June
Hello, June:
“Hiya Carlos, do you not think it is good we don’t have to carry air to breathe, water, and wear spatial dresses to live effortlessly on Earth?(1) You mention constipation and varicous veins I would suggest a better diet to sort these problems and drink more water.(2) Good advice? OK. Bye for now.
June”
1) I explain it. What I am saying is if we need carry all that air, water, spatial dresses, gamma and cosmic rays protection, means of shelter, etc. to other worlds is because your god made those worlds deadly hostile to human life. God was very mean when he made worlds for human living (just only the Earth in the whole Solar System). It is human lives, science, efforts and courage what allows us living in that environment, not your god.
2) Again. I am not saying a word about therapies. I am saying those problems arose from our evolution to vertical position, to our bipedal standing. Then, if we were “marvelously designed” we weren’t for being biped. Same considerations for childbirth pain. Ask a biologist.
Greetings
Carlos
Dear Carlos
Apologies for taking so long to answer you. Your quote in reference to other planets being uninhabitable.. “your god made those worlds deadly hostile to human life. God was very mean when he made worlds for human living (just only the Earth in the whole Solar System).
God made the earth beautiful and created human life to care for the earth. It would have been essential that we listened to Our Creator and followed his instructions. Only a few have been willing to do that and have generally been persecuted as a result.
If the human race were to listen and obey according to scripture, (and I have in mind here many who consider themselves to be Christian), we would have a beautiful world to live in and we would have no need or wish to consider looking for another planet to live in.
It was not the God who created this world who made it deadly hostile to human life as you have quoted. It was humans who refuse to listen to God’s instructions who have brought mankind to the brink of annihilation, because from the very beginning of time people chose to listen to an evil angel who led mankind into sin, ignoring God’s instruction and guidance and have disregarded truth and destroyed the beauty God created for us.
We all need to take note that we are living in the time of the end of the ignorance of mankind towards God the Almighty and his council.
Revelations 11:17;18 “We thank you Our Almighty God..because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the earth to be judged, and to give reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, AND TO BRING RUIN TO THOSE RUINING THE EARTH.”
There can be no other time but the present when God will act on behalf of mankind Mathew 24:21;22
for then there will be tribulation such has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.
All we have to do is live our lives taking up the banner of peace instead of the opposite and be ready to do all we can to make this world become as God intended. King David told us Psalms 37:11&20 “But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. For the wicked ones themselves will perish.
You don’t have to listen to the word of God written by those chosen to prophesy. If people wish to continue to trust the national groups do they really have any hope?
And what reason do you think God should have in providing another planet when mankind have not and are not listening to his directions for peace on this earth?
The rule of man under Satan’s control has brought our world to ruin should these ones be given another planet to bring to ruin?
You say you don’t accept that God created the earth because in your opinion there is no way of proving this. Even if the massive amount of testimony creation provides was of no relevance to support the inspired scriptural writings. And even if people do not want to believe in Our Creator. If they followed the guidance and kept to the commandments according to scripture in their own right there would not be the suffering and destitution experienced on earth today.
People do not have the will and power to bring about good conditions on earth but God does.
Hello, June:
“Dear Carlos
“Apologies for taking so long to answer you. ((No problem)) Your quote in reference to other planets being uninhabitable.. “your god made those worlds deadly hostile to human life. God was very mean when he made worlds for human living (just only the Earth in the whole Solar System).
“God made the earth beautiful and created human life to care for the earth. ((But, as already said, made the rest of Solar System inhabitable for humans)) It would have been essential that we listened to Our Creator and followed his instructions. Only a few have been willing to do that and have generally been persecuted as a result.
“If the human race were to listen and obey according to scripture, (and I have in mind here many who consider themselves to be Christian), we would have a beautiful world to live in and we would have no need or wish to consider looking for another planet to live in. ((May it be that many people doesn’t listen nor obeys the scripture because it is very hard to believe? Tell me please: what is really more credible, a father in other country who merely phones you once a year and says “Son, I love you” or a father who travels all the way to you, came to your house and says the same, while hugs you kindly staring at you? To me, all this religious claims are as if you, offering me an empty box, said “Choose and take one”))
It was not the God who created this world who made it deadly hostile to human life as you have quoted. It was humans who refuse to listen to God’s instructions who have brought mankind to the brink of annihilation, because from the very beginning of time people chose to listen to an evil angel who led ((all of it happening under god’s looking)) mankind into sin, ignoring God’s instruction and guidance and have disregarded truth and destroyed the beauty God created for us. ((June, please, I am not talking about the Earth. I am talking about Mars, Venus, etc. and the rest of Universe))
We all need to take note that we are living in the time of the end of the ignorance of mankind towards God the Almighty and his council.
Revelations 11:17;18 “We thank you Our Almighty God because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the earth to be judged, and to give reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, AND TO BRING RUIN TO THOSE RUINING THE EARTH.”
There can be no other time but the present when God will act on behalf of mankind Mathew 24:21;22
for then there will be tribulation such has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.
All we have to do is live our lives taking up the banner of peace instead of the opposite and be ready to do all we can to make this world become as God intended. King David told us Psalms 37:11&20 “But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. For the wicked ones themselves will perish.((This King David is the same David who sent Urias to the worst of battlefield to be killed for David had the beautiful Urias’ wife, Betsabe?))
You don’t have to listen to the word of God written by those chosen to prophesy. If people wish to continue to trust the national groups do they really have any hope?
And what reason do you think God should have in providing another planet when mankind have not and are not listening to his directions for peace on this earth? ((Love to mankind, patience, generosity and another chance, perhaps?))
The rule of man under Satan’s ((and Satan allowed by God)) control has brought our world to ruin should these ones be given another planet to bring to ruin? ((Why not? Perhaps we learn at last. I wonder if god is mean and don’t like to share his toys))
You say you don’t accept that God created the earth because in your opinion there is no way of proving this. Even if the massive amount of testimony creation provides was of no relevance to support the inspired scriptural writings. And even if people do not want to believe in Our Creator.(( The real problem with your “Creator” is he remains boldly, constantly and sadistically hidden, even when many people desperately calls him to appear. Why would you accuse me if I don’t believe? After all, when I ask for proofs, I am honoring the brain and intelligence supposedly he gave me)) If they followed the guidance and kept to the commandments according to scripture in their own right there would not be the suffering and destitution experienced on earth today. People do not have the will and power to bring about good conditions on earth but God does.(( June, you keep doing the same: reciting the bible and claiming things, but not proving at least one)
Greetings
Carlos
Hello Carlos
I hope you realise it will be difficult to answer your many questions all at the one time. If I may just take this one 1st “Tell me please: what is really more credible, a father in other country who merely phones you once a year and says “Son, I love you” or a father who travels all the way to you, came to your house and says the same, while hugs you kindly staring at you? To me, all this religious claims are as if you, offering me an empty box, said “Choose and take one”))
Probably both examples. You see love is a two way thing and circumstances and events must come into play within your examples. I have often found myself in dire circumstances and called on my Heavenly Creator and he has activated my mind to know what to do to deal with problems.
I know there are many people in all parts of this world who don’t have the priviledge to know God and exist in awful circumstances. I cry for them and pray God’s day will come soon to rescue them from their suffering. It is wicked people who put suffering on to the poor innocent people in this world and these wicked people cause and implement corruption.
Ezekiel 3:18 tells us to warn the wicked people so the have the opportunity to change their ways. Ezekiel 33:11 “As I am alive” is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord, “I take delight not on the death of the wicked one but, that someone wicked turns back from his way and actually keeps living.
It is the same today as it was back in those days. God doesn’t want any to be destroyed in the comming day of God Almighty at Armageddon but he wants all to turn to repentance.
When God’s day comes there will come an end to suffering because the wicked who deny God and work what is evil will be destroyed. All those calling on the name of God and the poor innocent ones made to suffer will on that day be saved Romans 10:13.
Hello, June:
I am afraid we are going to an unfinishable “deafs talking”.
So, I’ll try to shorten this to its shortest expression.
Please, tell me, what is to you the most important of this two words:
TRUTH of FAITH?
I give you three choices: 1) “Faith”; 2) “Truth”, 3) “I dont know”.
From your answer depends we keep talking, OK?
Greetings
Carlos
Dear Carlos. I would just like to say I too was brought up a Catholic and at the age of 5 yrs I decided that even though the Catholic priests preached eternal damnation to any who did not attend Mass on Sunday and ‘Holy’ days I would risk that fate rather than listen to the threats of a burning hell-fire and watch their rituals but that did not deter me from wanting to know and love the true God. I did choose what I appreciated, believed and accepted from Catholic teachings and rejected what was distasteful to me. I have considered many religious ideologies and choose to interpret according to my own personal understanding in relation to the written word. I believe almost all religions have some insight and truth. But complete truth is found only in the heavens. Scripture says “let God be found true though every man be found a liar”. Romans3:4
Hello, June:
Well, you seem having chosen to build your own creed or religion and that is good for you. Good.
I, instead, ended –after a process of years- throwing away all religions -Christian and others- and got a different and most rich and intense vision of reality. A reality that involves neither unreachable nor “holy” “mysteries”, a reality I am permanently inside of and in touch with, instead one I was separated from before I was born and that demands me to re-link to “again”.
Greetings
Carlos
Dear Carlos
Thanks for your contributions.
I see you are looking for the truth.
Do you think it is possible to prove there is no single creator (I call him God) for our world, (even if every body believe there is no creator).
Regards
Kooros
Hello, Kooros Hamze:
I don’t know if can be proved god don’t exists.
But I have evidence that can’t be proved he exists. From that, the asking for faith (=lacking of evidence)
Besides, today’s cosmologists (as Stephen Hawking) conceive an Universe that started existing from nothing, without a god.
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos, you have entered the arena of the Big Question, how did it all begin. Let”s not go into pages of rhetoric but concentrate on a few very simple fundamentals; First, what did god exist in if there was no universe which the faithful say he created? Second, nothing comes of nothing, so even with the big bang theory there had to be something there (like space)for the bang to occur? (I believe there have been many big bangs as the Universe expands and then contracts.) Thirdly, if god knows everything why put us through all this torture and misery? Therefore, I believe in the force of good and bad and that force is within each of us from the day we are born. The power of self is so strong it has all that is. This is proven by the behavior of humans over time immemorial – there have been in the past great beings that have harnessed this power of self. Today, we are in desperate need of them again. All that is without is within.
Hello, Robert Edwards:
“Carlos, you have entered the arena of the Big Question, how did it all begin. Let’’s not go into pages of rhetoric but concentrate on a few very simple fundamentals; First, what did god exist in if there was no universe which the faithful say he created?
((Religions say “he” exists-ed” out time and space, etc, etc, but they cant demonstrate it. From that, “Have faith, believe, have faith!” and so on. From that, logic and science are in gross disagreement with religions))
“Second, nothing comes of nothing, so even with the big bang theory there had to be something there (like space)for the bang to occur?
((Intuitively I think as you do. BUT it seems REALITY (in capitals) is very “over” or “counter” intuitive. In quantum physics, sometimes, something DO come from nothing. In quantum physics, common sense, causality and time arrow sometimes aims wherever. Try to conceive our “domestic” reality as part of, as particular case of “something” bigger and more complex))
“I believe there have been many big bangs as the Universe expands and then contracts.
((As for I know of it, cosmology rejects that, because the detected percentage of certain type of particles. Read about “oscillating
universe”))
“Thirdly, if god knows everything why put us through all this torture and misery?
((That is one of usual objections against the idea of god, and more precisely against the LOVING god one. It’s absurdity))
“Therefore, I believe in the force of good and bad and that force is within each of us from the day we are born.
((I don’t categorize them as good and bad because they are very relative. You can even reason if good and bad really exist or if they, instead, are “the flux or stream of existent”. I prefer to think about WHAT YOU CAN DO about YOU name “good and bad”. That force inside of us is known as “libido”. Is your psychological energy, is material and not ethereal and is what maintain your self “running”))
“The power of self is so strong it has all that is. This is proven by the behavior of humans over time immemorial – there have been in the past great beings that have harnessed this power of self. Today, we are in desperate need of them again. All that is without is within”
((I wouldn’t say “harnessed”. Remember repression produces “monsters”, crime, insanity, illness, etc. I would say “understood”, “respected”, “fulfilled”, “comprehended”, “accepted”, “satisfied” and so))
Greetings
Carlos
Reply to Carlos comment on September 23, 2010 at 12:39 am
Thank you very much for you good replies.
The basis for finding the truth, is to be honest to ourselves. When you say:
“I don’t know if can be proved god do not exists.”
it means you do not want to accept that “It can not be proved God do not exist”. This is a good point to start to return. If you accept it and stop repeating that God do not exist, then we can discuss about cases of His communication with us and His intervention in our life, (of course as He likes).
I would like to remind that when YOU conclude (not Hawking) that if “the world started existing from nothing” then “no God”, it shows that you think God is existing inside this materialistic world. Otherwise you would conclude that some external non-materialistic cause must have started the game.
Best regards, Kooros.
Hello, Kooros:
“Reply to Carlos comment on September 23, 2010 at 12:39 am
“Thank you very much for you good replies.
The basis for finding the truth is to be honest to ourselves. When you say: ”I don’t know if can be proved god do not exists” it means you do not want to accept that “It can not be proved God do not exist”. This is a good point to start to return.
((I say that because I understand there is some type of logical restriction against that kind of “demonstrations”, at least referred to the whole universe. It is different to have to demonstrate “There is not a prime pair number besides 2”))
“If you accept it and stop repeating that God do not exist,
((I will not stop that because it is an useful “working hypothesis”. “God exists” is an affirmation out of the set of my certainties. Being so, it “works” as “God doesn’t exist” does))
“(…)then we can discuss about cases of His
communication with us and His intervention in our life, (of course as He likes).
((And if you are EXCLUSIVELY rational))
“I would like to remind that when YOU conclude (not Hawking) that if “the world started existing from nothing” then “no God”, it shows that you think God is existing inside this materialistic world.
((NO, no, no! If that happened, then NO God (period). If that was the case I name “him” “reality”, “physical world”, “quantum tunneling” “material world” “cause”, etc, but NEVER “god”. Besides, I wouldn’t worship nor pray “it”, as I don’t pray gravity or Planck’s constant))
“Otherwise you would conclude that some external non-materialistic cause must have started the game.
((A non materialistic (not physic) cause must be proved as existing. And, how could a non-materialistic “thing” cause or have any effect on a materialistic one (the same for spirits, “entities”, geniuses, ghosts, etc.)? For instance, the world of irrational numbers doesn’t interfere with the world of naturals. Each of them “trespasses” the other without a common point. From already said, “universe” is ALL the existent, and “If something exists, it is part of the (physical) universe”))
Greetings
Carlos
Dear Kooros,
Carlos is not referring to faith in his reply to you because faith is backed up by tangible evidence. What Carlos is alluding to is called credulity. That is believing in something without having any basis or ground for belief.
Wishing you well in your enquiries.
June
Hello, June:
I’ll explain my answer:
From Merriam Webster online,
Faith:
2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
That is what faith means to me.
If backed by tangible evidence, it is not faith, it is knowledge: scientific, experimental, objective, undeniable.
What you name “credulity” is what religions are to me. And that lacking of proofs is the reason of ALL this (atheism vs. religion) argument.
I am harsh. I apologize. But I want to be rightly understood.
Greetins for you
Carlos
Dear Carlos, You say you don’t believe in “holy mysteries” neither do I. Holy mysteries belong to mens ideologies these teachings do not belong to God’s truth nor biblical writings. There are many Gods but only one true God who is the progenator of all things. And there is one savior his only begotten son Jesus Christ through whom all else was created.
Hello, June:
“Dear Carlos, You say you don’t believe in “holy mysteries” neither do I. Holy mysteries belong to mens ideologies these teachings do not belong to God’s truth nor biblical writings.
((I don t believe in mysteries, neither any god, teaching or not, nor “holy” books, nor “inspired” biblical writings))
“There are many Gods but only one true God who is the progenator of all things.
((To me there is not even one))
“And there is one savior his only begotten son Jesus Christ through whom all else was created.
((Sorry, I don’t believe that, either))
Greetings
Carlos
Dear Carlos,
I was reading all yours answers and long explanations with people here,and what I want to tell you is that…you are the best thinker,reasonable an inteligent man who sayes allways the truth about religious matters to unfortunately so much ignorant people.I know…because I am in this “bussiness” for myself 50 years.Don´t ever give up.One day,people like you and me will win.Don´t worry.
Yours truly
Robert
Hello, Robert:
Thank you for your friendly words.
I don’t believe I am so intelligent. Perhaps I am very enthusiastic, passionate, no more. If I were really smart, I could beat this squared people with unanswerable arguments and proofs. But I lack that resources. Bad luck.
But I have learnt from them. Their objections and answers are so twisted, poor and biased that I have to admit that a healthy and constructive dialog with them is impossible. So, I find myself with my “message”, alone, facing their rocky deafness and their “faith”. And I “let them go their way”. As if they and me were living in different spacetimes.
And, to me, it is not about winning. It is about truth. And the truth is ruling everywhere, all the time, no matter “holy” books, rites, faiths and so on.
And be happy: as time passes, there are more and more people like you and me, all around the world.
Greetings.
Carlos
Dear Perry all the stories in this page that I have read are inspiring. I know two people who took me to an Evangelical Church. The pastor called for a person with arthritis. Nobody answered. I felt he was beckonning me but I refused to own up. A religious organisation I had previously attended had taught this healing was from Satan. The people who had taken me to the church had been “miraculously” healed. This lasted for a few years, however I was contacted on the phone a few weeks ago and both my friend and her husband are suffering a great deal from their health problems. This does not mean miracles cannot happen. I believe they will at the right time by people chosen by God to do this work. Is this the right time? Why not ask everyone at Coffeehousetheology to pray to God to give rain to India and Africa in proportion to the needs of these countries? We could also pray for enrichened soil so the poor can grow food with a little assistance from the productive countries. Could we all arrange to pray at the same time for this to happen? There is one quite uncomfortable thought we might suffer drought unless rain can be dispersed throughought the whole earth at the same time. If the tables turned on the West we would find it intollerable. These poor people in India and Africa have suffered too long in my opinion but it will be for God to decide if, when and how he will act on behalf of mankind.
Isaiah 35:1 promised the desert would blossom with Saffron and know what the desert is turning into cultivated land today. Look up Abu Dhabi and you will see the cultivation of the desert land.
Look, we could spend weeks on either side of the isle debating the book called the bible which as we know as intelligent beings, is full of half truths. “Where there is smoke there is fire” and its called hell.
Hi Robert,
Really intelligent beings know there is no smoke or fire in hell! If cremation is carried out on deceased persons that is a different story. The scriptures reveal Jesus was in Hell for three days before going to his father in the heavens. Acts 2:29-36; King David spoke about the coming of Jesus and promised that the saviour (of all those who believe in the Father and Son) would be ressurected to the heavens and his flesh would not see corruption.
Hell is the modern day equivelent for the Greek word Hades which means the grave or the tomb.
Replay to Carlos comment on September 25, 2010
Hello Carlos. Thank you for your attention.
1) I should correct my last two comments, as follows. I used the word “evil” instead of “the Devil” in may comments. I am sorry.
“The omnipotent has planned to provide guidance and not to prevent the Devil”.
“The Devil is a creature of God and is allowed to affect human mind”.
Here I add: “All evil acts are done by mankind due to his given freedom.”
So the question is: why God does not prevent us, and why He has created and allowed the Devil affect our thoughts and decisions?
I already wrote On Spet. 15: “our positive mental evolution may take place only when a negative alternative exists.” I explained more on Sept.23.
You replied on Sept. 16: “good things don’t need the evil or bad ones to exist.”
Please consider “evolution” (becoming) too, not just good or bad “things” (beings). “Good” only in contrast to “bad”, means good.
Of course, all these points should be discussed when you accept the obvious simple fact that world may have a creator.
2) We (the very limited creatures) should not waste our time thinking about quality and quantity of the creator of worlds. You may add to your list that “He cannot make us understand the nature of Himself “, if you like. There is no contradiction between being omnipotent and acting and designing according to the (known and unknown) laws of this universe, in this universe. The very interesting question is where and how He directly interferes into our causal world.
3,4,5) “WHY SO time and WHY SO lengthy processes instead of instantaneous events? (Perhaps he can’t because he isn’t omnipotent)”.
For Him the evolution is not lengthy, He is not constrained by our time scale. May be you wonder why our life is so short with respect to the age of the universe. When we enter the next stage of our life, after the death, we will have a new feeling about time. Then, we may find the whole past history of matter very short.
“Because the creation is not fully developed and we are spiritually incomplete -because the span of the long process- we do bad things and then he punishes us”.
I have learned that we may suffer only due to our intentional bad actions, if He, the Most Merciful, does not help us. No punishment for our unintentional incompleteness is planned.
6) ” Guess there is no god. Then all beautiful . . .are EXCLUSIVELY HUMAN, borne from our feelings and mind, without guidance from outside”.
The external guidance is through the human, so one may assume the origin is exclusively human. However, the history of human mental evolution is full of the God guidance through His messengers. This process is continued by their followers and students.
Wish you the best
Kooros
Hello, Kooros:
“Reply to Carlos comment on September 25, 2010
“Hello Carlos. Thank you for your attention.
1) I should correct my last two comments, as follows. I used the word “evil” instead of “the Devil” in may comments. I am sorry.
“The omnipotent has planned to provide guidance and not to prevent the Devil”.
“The Devil is a creature of God and is allowed to affect human mind”.
Here I add: “All evil acts are done by mankind due to his given freedom.”
So the question is: why God does not prevent us, and why He has created and allowed the Devil affect our thoughts and decisions?
I already wrote On Spet. 15: “our positive mental evolution may take place only when a negative alternative exists.” I explained more on Sept.23.
You replied on Sept. 16: “good things don’t need the evil or bad ones to exist.”
Please consider “evolution” (becoming) too, not just good or bad “things” (beings). “Good” only in contrast to “bad”, means good.
((Excuse me but I can’t discuss this. A self-sufficient entity that created the “Creation” for love it (he needed to love somebody) along a thousands million years process (instead of instantaneously) of evolution (or what you like to name it), consciously allows evil and/or Devil affect their loved creatures, which, because “he” created free and incomplete do bad things and then need to be punished in order to learn of good and evil, etc, etc, is an excessive nonsense to me. All of this without a bare and unquestionable evidence of existence of that entity. Sorry.))
“Of course, all these points should be discussed when you accept the obvious simple fact that world may have ((MAY have or HAS?)) a creator.
((Then, these points won’t be discussed because the existence of such a creator is not an obvious fact I accepted. Yours is the burden of proof. Cosmology dismisses the idea of a god in order to explain the universe and I adhere))
“2) We (the very limited creatures) should not waste our time thinking about quality and quantity of the creator of worlds. You may add to your list that “He cannot make us understand the nature of Himself “, if you like. There is no contradiction between being omnipotent and acting and designing according to the (known and unknown) laws of this universe, in this universe. The very interesting question is where and how He directly interferes into our causal world.
((Again: does that creator thing REALLY exist? Demonstrate, please))
“3, 4, 5) “WHY SO time and WHY SO lengthy processes instead of instantaneous events? (Perhaps he can’t because he isn’t omnipotent)”.
For Him the evolution is not lengthy ((I don’t care about “him”. To ME, human, evolution is lengthy)), He is not constrained by our time scale. May be you wonder why our life is so short with respect to the age of the universe. When we enter the next stage of our life, after the death, we will have a new feeling about time. Then, we may find the whole past history of matter very short. ((Stop, please. Demonstrate all of that if you can. If you don’t, let’s speak of another issue))
“Because the creation is not fully developed and we are spiritually incomplete -because the span of the long process- we do bad things and then he punishes us”.
I have learned that we may suffer only due to our intentional bad actions, if He, the Most Merciful, does not help us. No punishment for our unintentional incompleteness is planned. ((More and more nonsense))
“6) ” Guess there is no god. Then all beautiful . . .are EXCLUSIVELY HUMAN, borne from our feelings and mind, without guidance from outside”.
The external guidance is through the human, so one may assume the origin is exclusively human
((And why not assuming that? That’s what I do. What exact and inerrant methodological tools and which epistemologyc criteria do you use in order to unequivocally determine that what a man is doing is not human but divine guidance? Please: faith or “holy book” based answers are useless to me)).
“However, the history of human mental evolution is full of the God guidance ((Again, demonstrate this) through His messengers. This process is continued by their followers and students.
Wish you the best”
((In October 1st 2010 I answered you:
“If you accept it and stop repeating that God do not exist,
“((I will not stop that because it is an useful “working hypothesis”. “God exists” is an affirmation out of the set of my certainties. Being so, it “works” as “God doesn’t exist” does))
“(…)then we can discuss about cases of His communication with us and His intervention in our life, (of course as He likes).
“((And if you are EXCLUSIVELY rational))”
This mean: DEMONSTRATE (instead of only reciting your creed) logical and rationally my atheistic thinking is wrong or incomplete and THEN starting from MY materialistic premises (NOT YOURS) demonstrate your god exists. IF YOU CAN’T DO THAT, this will become very boring and I am not very interested, really))
Greetings
Carlos
(Answering you reply from September 18, 2010)
Hello, Perry Marshall:
“Magellan never said that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Portugal/Quotes_archive
“He couldn’t have said that because the church never, at any time, taught that the earth was flat. This story was made up by Robert Ingersoll. The whole “flat earth” story was invented by Washington Irving in the 1800’s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth.
((OK. It is my fault))
“Carlos, I request that you stop perpetuating lies about history. I also suggest that you re-evaluate the veracity of your sources.
((Please, be specific. What are the lies I am perpetuating?))
“The usual bromides about religion won’t get you very far here. As far as I’m concerned, most of your quotes are just anti-religious bigotry. You’re going to have to do better than that.
((That that bromides about religion are usual is because religion creed, sayings, rites and facts are from centuries inspiring smart people. I recognize I am very anti-religious. I am atheist and a devout anti-religionist because I don’t find valuable nor respectable facts in it. And besides, I find it psychologically harmful and limitative. If I get any believer realize the kind of noxious nonsense he is maintaining it’ll be great for me. But they are free for believe and I am free to express my thoughts or the deep thinkers ones))
“5 years ago I gave a talk “If you can read this I can prove God exists” – see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/proof
“This is the most controversial presentation about the origin of life on the Internet. It is referenced on thousands of websites and a debate on Infidels started 5 years ago and is still an open thread. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels. No one has countered my argument with evidence.
((I read your post. It is good and smart and hard to ignore.
I ask you two things: 1) Tell me please in which prestigious scientific mainstream journals (let’s say about molecular biology, molecular genetics biochemistry, physics and so on), have you published your paper? 2) Can you name which prestigious mainstream journals, scientists, scientific academies and scientific institutions, etc, published a peer review of your paper in the last five years?))
“If you want to make a case for non-theism, you can start with science. By demonstrating a naturalistic explanation for the origin of information.”
((I am afraid I can’t satisfy your asking because I haven’t knowledge enough in that matter, but I am confident sooner or later we can have an evolutionary explanation of it, as already happened with Escherichia Coli flagellum.
But, perhaps I am lucky and you satisfy this asks:
Being your god so loving and omnipotent, and being so prayed, can you offer convincing proofs if he ever grew amputated arms and legs complete again? Or else, if people suffering Down syndrome were ever turned by god into normal people?))
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos,
I’m glad you’re here having this conversation even though you have a lot of negative feelings about religion. Nice to talk to you.
I’m asking you not to tell people that medieval people thought the earth was flat etc etc. People make up all kinds of stuff like this and we all need to check our facts before we present them.
I have not published my findings in a scientific journal. What I can do is point out that every single fact that I base my argument on comes from standard, non-controversial, peer-reviewed scientific literature that is completely accepted. Like Claude Shannon’s paper on information theory. And I have had several million people visit my website in the last 5 years, the Infidels thread has had over 100,000 visitors; this argument is specifically mentioned on at least 1,670 web pages and the majority of them are hostile to me. You can find every single one of them on Google, you can visit each one and you can confirm for yourself that no one has overturned my argument.
You can verify for yourself that no one has ever responded to me with a peer reviewed paper that documented a naturally occurring code.
I think you will find my take on evolution surprising in a number of respects: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/evolution-untold-story/
I am not personally familiar with documented healings of amputees and Downs syndrome. This is what I do have experience with: http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/
I would like to respectfully challenge your assumptions about a few things:
1) Science would not exist were it not for Christianity. Neither would our modern concept of equality. See http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/equality-technology/
2) I often ask people:
“Name 5 protestant Christian countries that have rampant poverty, illiteracy and human rights abuses.”
And:
“Name 5 Buddhist countries… or 5 Hindu countries… or 5 Muslim countries… or 5 Atheist countries… that do NOT have rampant poverty, illiteracy and human rights abuses.”
Of these, the atheist countries have the worst track record. I’ve got a book on my shelf called The Black Book Of Communism. It documents in excruciating detail the genocide of 160 million people under mostly atheist regimes — in the 20th century alone.
That’s more people murdered, butchered, slaughtered, churches burned with congregations inside, women and children sent to mass graves via atheism – during the 20th century – than because of all religious wars in all centuries combined.
Is it merely a coincidence that more people were murdered by atheist governments in the 20th century alone, than by all religious wars in all centuries combined? You decide.
I invite you to reconsider your embrace of atheism. All that glitters is not gold.
I have had intimate personal experiences with God. I have personally witnessed healings. I have been provided knowledge when I needed it. I have had renewal in my emotional life and I have been blessed in many ways. I am thankful for the things God has done for me.
What I personally know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that God intensely, personally loves and cherishes YOU and that He wants to be your loving Father and for you to be His son.
Sincerely,
Perry
Hello, Perry Marshall:
“Carlos,
“I’m glad you’re here having this conversation even though you have a lot of negative feelings about religion. Nice to talk to you”
((Thanks))
“I’m asking you not to tell people that medieval people thought the earth was flat etc etc. People make up all kinds of stuff like this and we all need to check our facts before we present them.”
((OK))
“I have not published my findings in a scientific journal. What I can do is point out that every single fact that I base my argument on comes from standard, non-controversial, peer-reviewed scientific literature that is completely accepted. Like Claude Shannon’s paper on information theory. And I have had several million people visit my website in the last 5 years, the Infidels thread has had over 100,000 visitors; this argument is specifically mentioned on at least 1,670 web pages and the majority of them are hostile to me. You can find every single one of them on Google, you can visit each one and you can confirm for yourself that no one has overturned my argument.
You can verify for yourself that no one has ever responded to me with a peer reviewed paper that documented a naturally occurring code.
I think you will find my take on evolution surprising in a number of respects: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/evolution-untold-story/”
((You quote the long time your theory is lasting and the thousands of visitors it has and the many times it is quoted and yet it remains “undefeated”. But what you don’t quote is mainstream science says neither a simple word about it nor publishes technical comments favorable or against. I am afraid they simply dismiss your point. You do have a real point, but the “strength” of it is based on your challenge, what is hard (but not impossible) to overcome, but not in your supposed “proof”. What you are NOT DOING is to proof the impossibility DNA occurs by natural processes. Your challenge sounds as if you disbelieved of the Big Bang and challenged “Show me a Big Bang occurring naturaly” being that that phenomenon is particularly “unique”))
“I am not personally familiar with documented healings of amputees and Downs syndrome. This is what I do have experience with: http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/”
((Well. The problem is that pretended god’s healings are almost always badly “proved”, controlled, framed, documented, defined, etc. and they generally seem to be related to a kind of “psychosomatic” (or so) trouble. My question aims to notorious and well defined “hard” problems, as lacking limbs or Down syndrome. And those healings don’t happen, as don’t happen proved and certified resurrections of long time dead people, as we don’t find today people 200 o 300 years old, saying: ”Hey, I am the living proof of God” not even being a saint, a priest, a pope, or so. Putting aside things you say your god “does”, I am saying about that perfect and loving being DOESN’T DO))
“I would like to respectfully challenge your assumptions about a few things:
1) Science would not exist were it not for Christianity. Neither would our modern concept of equality. See http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/equality-technology/”
((Let’s suppose it is true and science only flourished in Christian countries. Does that mean Christianity and church loves science and scientific knowledge? How can then be explained Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake by the Christian Inquisition for championing Copernican heliocentricity? What about Roger Bacon, a thirteenth-century English priest, who spent the final fourteen years of his life in a dungeon for writing that in the quest for truth, experimentation and observation are challenges to the uncritical acceptance of spiritual and secular authorities? Galileo was threatened with the stake by Christian church if he didn’t recant. (As an instance of the malicious and inexorable nature of priestcraft, we note the curious fact, that Galileo’s sentence was, in spite of the clearest light, renewed at Rome in 1869!!!” – [From the book Christian Mythology Unveiled, by Mitchell Logan (1862)] The Catholic Church finally acknowledged it’s “mistake” in 1992, only 23 years after man first landed on the moon! See The Catholic Church admits a “mistake”)
Benjamin Franklin’s lightning rod was described as demoniac. And Darwin’s theory is TODAY!! forbidden in some states of the USA by conservative Christian right.
Well from its starting, the Christendom was not precisely prone to knowledge, besides being misogynic, intolerant and aggressive. So, who killed Hypatia?
The following is condensed and paraphrased from chapter 3 of the book “This Hebrew Lord: A Bishop’s Search for the Authentic Jesus” by Bishop John Shelby Spong.
“The Church vs. Science
“By the sixteenth century scientific facts begin to confront Christian theological dogma. God is no longer required to explain what science can explain without God. God becomes a gap-filler God. Wherever gaps in human knowledge or experience exist God is cited to explain it. As science expands, the role of God diminishes. Step by step, from contest to ultimate conquest, in every single conflict of Fact with Faith, the Church has been defeated and has retreated -put to shaming rout. It has been a slow and tortuous progress,–
“For faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast
To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last”!
“The process of adjustment for the Church has throughout a thousand instances been the same: Faith is confronted with a discrediting Fact; it curses it and denies it. It viciously persecutes anyone who sides with science rather than with the Church because the Church desperately wants to retain its power. Any scientific knowledge which diminishes the role of God also diminishes the power of the Church.
“When a scientific fact is finally crammed down the Church’s throat and they are forced to change their dogma they then claim the Bible supported the scientific view all along and they just made a “mistake” in interpreting scripture, oh and sorry for all those people they burned at the stake. ((So, the former six biblical (and now “metaphoric”) days of Creation are now (XXI century) six “periods of thousands millions years long”. Oh, oh. oh, the magic of “metaphor”))
“But the self-inflicted damage the Church does to itself takes its toll. Their ultimate infallible authority is brought into question and the Church is irreversibly humiliated. People loose respect for the Church. People gain respect for science.”
((Or: do you believe our civilization is scientific and technologically centered because the church is constantly encouraging scientific people: “Search, search, search, investigate in all areas of reality!”?))
((The tragic paradox is science, that -as you say- borne in Christian countries, is today the main and formidable critic of bible sayings and religion in general, and that from Galileo DOES exist a war between religion and science, that science is always winning, while ashamed religion “redefine” its previous sayings))
“2) I often ask people:
Name 5 protestant Christian countries that have rampant poverty, illiteracy and human rights abuses.”
And:
“Name 5 Buddhist countries… or 5 Hindu countries… or 5 Muslim countries… or 5 Atheist countries… that do NOT have rampant poverty, illiteracy and human rights abuses.”
((I refer you this work online: “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psycho-sociological Conditions” – Evolutionary Psychology (2009) ))
“Of these, the atheist countries have the worst track record. I’ve got a book on my shelf called The Black Book Of Communism. It documents in excruciating detail the genocide of 160 million people under mostly atheist regimes — in the 20th century alone.
That’s more people murdered, butchered, slaughtered, churches burned with congregations inside, women and children sent to mass graves via atheism – during the 20th century – than because of all religious wars in all centuries combined.
((Can you realize you are talking about RELIGIOUS wars? That you are talking about are the followers of the Perfect God of Love killing each other. If a god really existed, religious wars had been impossible. What really loving and wise father had allowed their son kill each other, by THOUSANDS?))
“Is it merely a coincidence that more people were murdered by atheist governments in the 20th century alone, than by all religious wars in all centuries combined? You decide.
((No, it is not a coincidence. By the contrary, it may be almost unavoidable because atheists are mere intelligent “monkeys” searching for their way. “Monkeys” coming from mud that painful and slowly became conscious, instead of “perfect” beings degenerated and fallen on Earth. But even so it is unconceivable and inadmissible that people of the perfect god kill anybody, less each other. Not to say RELIGION WARS!! Unless…unless the people of the “perfect god” is a band of intelligent monkeys as atheist are, that reject that fact and boldly name themselves “sons of god”. (That’s all, to me)
Besides, you very often contrast doings of that god and doings of men, and show god’s perfections vs. men’s failures. But you seem forgetting you are matching a “perfect by default god” with a limited, borne ignorant and imperfect man. Doing that comparison is childly, biased and plainly unfair, as comparing the knowledge of a Nobel laureate with ignorance of a school pupil))
I invite you to reconsider your embrace of atheism. All that glitters is not gold.
((I agree. There are exceedingly many religions, branches and sects claiming to be the real one, so I suspect something smells very rotten in ALL the business of religions))
I have had intimate personal experiences with God. I have personally witnessed healings. I have been provided knowledge when I needed it. I have had renewal in my emotional life and I have been blessed in many ways. I am thankful for the things God has done for me.
((I instead, have a personal and intimate experience of belonging and be part of a stream of existence and life coming from Big Bang and before, of being part of an eternal and immense being named “Universe” which, being inert is able to generate life and consciousness. I have constant experience of not being an “orphan” and being in real touch with a super “thing” called “reality”, and knowing that death is not a punishment but a part of flow of being))
What I personally know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that God intensely, personally loves and cherishes YOU and that He wants to be your loving Father and for you to be His son.
((What I personally know beyond a shadow of a doubt is the undeniable fact of my own existence, a spark between two nothing, of my self and my consciousness and the extended territory of my own freedom. When you are free of gods, superstitions, fairy tales and the need of an invisible Big Brother, when you face your fears and look at reality at its face you feel more rich, intense and intimately your own existence, and that is that only and really matters))
Greetings
Carlos
In the information theory argument, the burden of proof is on the atheist. We have thousands of codes that are designed and zero codes that aren’t. Show me a code that’s not designed. All you need is one.
You have flippantly dismissed my evidence of miracles. I suggest you go back and read the page. I dare you to get yourself a copy of Richard Casdorph’s “Real Miracles”, read it and then come back here and tell me how all the x-rays, doctors reports and healings in that book are “psychosomatic.”
I am beginning to doubt the honesty of your questions, Carlos.
If you’re just here to grind and axe, go somewhere else. If you’re willing to deal with facts then discuss them. Do not insult me with your accusations of “Psychosomatic” when you won’t even read the evidence I present you.
Let’s examine your logic:
1. Some scientists were imprisoned and killed by the church
2. Therefore the church is universally anti-science
Oh really?
Did Newton feel that way? Did Kepler? Did Boyle? Did Maxwell?
Why did Solomon say, “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure?”
Why the Double standard, Carlos? You’re sounding like a broken record. It’s very predictable. You have an axe to grind. You hate Christianity. So you blame it for everything that is bad and give it no credit for what is good.
It doesn’t really matter what I say, you just come back and say things like
“The process of adjustment for the Church has throughout a thousand instances been the same: Faith is confronted with a discrediting Fact; it curses it and denies it. It viciously persecutes anyone who sides with science rather than with the Church because the Church desperately wants to retain its power. Any scientific knowledge which diminishes the role of God also diminishes the power of the Church. ”
Which is demonstrably and obviously false.
You tell me that religious wars killing 30 million people is completely unacceptable but atheism killing 100 million people is to be expected.
I don’t get it.
Hello, Perry Marshall:
In http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/proof you say:
“1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
“If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one”
OK. Let’s suppose this:
1) I can’t offer an example of DNA naturally occurring, and
a) The DNA was created by a god or intelligence, or
b) The DNA is result of natural occurrence
If 1) a) you can say “I tell you, DNA was created by god or intelligence” and you will be right (but you won’t have means to know that)
If 1) b) you can say “I tell you, DNA was created by god or intelligence” and you will be wrong (but you won’t have means to know that)
2) I can offer an example of DNA naturally occurring, and
c) The DNA was created by a god or intelligence, or
d) The DNA is result of natural occurrence
If 2) c) I can say “I tell you, DNA occurred naturally” and I will be wrong (but I won’t have means to know that)
If 2) d) I can say “I tell you, DNA occurred naturally” and I will be right (but I won’t have means to know that)
Then, in half of cases, you will be wrong and in the other half, right (but you won’t have means to know that)
And for me, the same: In half of cases, I will be wrong and in the other half, right (but I won’t have means to know that)
So, talking in terms of absolute truth, the same kind of truth religion purports work with, providing an experimental example or failing in provide it, doesn’t prove a thing at all.
The only possibility to absolutely solve this issue is god or intelligence appearing and saying:
“Hey guys. Here I am. Do you like the DNA I designed?”
So, try to convince him to appear.
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos,
The point is, if the atheists are right then they should have the means to know that DNA occurred naturally. Why? By the standards of their own practice of science.
I’ve been clear all along, I can only infer a designer, I cannot prove it.
The atheists cannot even infer the lack of necessity of a designer. Because every code we do know the origin of is designed.
I have only claimed to have inference and I have provided it.
Atheists claim inference and in some cases even some form of proof and they have neither.
God did appear, in flesh: 1 John 1:
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Hello, Perry Marshall:
perrymarshall says:
Carlos,
“The point is, if the atheists are right then they should have the means to know that DNA occurred naturally. Why? By the standards of their own practice of science”
((You are a bit obscure to me. If I understand you, I answer you “WAIT”))
“I’ve been clear all along, I can only infer a designer, I cannot prove it. The atheists cannot even infer the lack of necessity of a designer. Because every code we do know the origin of is designed.
“I have only claimed to have inference and I have provided it”
((If I understand you, you have to prove (experimentallly)your claim –designer existence- yet))
“Atheists claim inference and in some cases even some form of proof and they have neither.
((I don’t understand you. Give examples, please))
“God did appear, in flesh: 1 John 1:
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.”
((I can’t believe you misunderstand me. I mean “Convince him to appear TODAY (not in past times), in this technological civilization, under controlled and undisputable conditions, BEING EVIDENT TO ALL OF US AND EVEN TO THE MORE UNBLEMISHED SKEPTICS”. Your quotation doesn’t prove a thing at all, the same as if you offered dreams or visions as proofs. If you are quoting that book that tells about a talking snake and a talking donkey, I can’t take your quotation seriously. I believe I have showed you (October 7, 2010 at 10:14 pm) that you can’t demonstrate god existence. The ONLY possibility you have is to VERIFY god existence. From that, “ask him to appear”))
Greetings
Carlos
Carlos,
Antony Flew said “Wait” back in the 1950’s. For 30 years he was the most respected philosophical atheist in academia and he made considerable contributions.
In 2004 he declared that he believed in God because he had spent 50 years watching the chasm grow – between what materialistic science could explain, and the growing wonders of DNA and the cell. He describes his journey very articulately in the book “There is a God.”
If you are really serious about this conversation as opposed to just arguing for the sake of argument I recommend that you get yourself a copy and read it. Flew takes his audience very seriously and he tackles very tough questions.
Carlos, do you believe the theory of evolution? Do you believe in the big bang? Do you believe in dark matter? Do you believe in subatomic particles?
All of these things come from inference. Why do you accept that inference but you don’t accept mine? I have just as much support for my inference as any of these theories have for theirs.
Why the double standard?