I would recommend joning our ex-christian.net forum.

All we can offer is advice and moral support, but the final decision would always be yours.

There are some open-minded christians on our board, whose faith has been strengthened after coming here.

I know exactly where you are comming from, I had the same answers fed to me when I would ask serious questions as a child. I was even told once that the devil will use logic to trick you!

Forget about talking to xtians or pastors about your troubles, they will only try and make you stay with them because they want your MONEY. It's like you comming to me and asking me about the recording studio down the street. Do you really think I'm going to give you an accurate representation of their abilities when I have my studio right here for you to use? Of course not, I want your biz, and I'm going to badmouth the competition even if they have better gear.

You have to think for yourself, and your on the way to discovering how big of a lie the church really is. My suggestion (besides joining the forums) is too buy a few books about the bible from a secular viewpoint. A great place to start would be "Who Wrote the Bible" by Friedman, and "Who Wrote the New Testament" by Mack. Once you understand how that book came to be, you will be able to read it for what it is, and not some magical inerrent text. Good luck!

Dear Someone,

Gosh, your anger and frustration really comes through strong. I am glad you have been monitoring this forum.

I suspect the religious persecution started in your childhood, as it did with most of us. Along with the books that Marty recommends, I would urge you to read The Family, by John Bradshaw. It's a good explanation about what happens to us in childhood, and how that leads to obsessive behavior in adulthood. Religiosity is just another obsessive, destructive behavior we use to mask what is really going on inside. While Bradshaw's discussion isn't directed at Christianity per se, he talks about unsuccessfully using religion to overcome alcoholism, i.e., substituting one distracting addiction for another.

Information is the key to your happiness. Good luck!

Steve

Christianity is all about "do as I say, not as I do." Even God does that. Ditch the Christianity and look into who God is for yourself. Read everything you can get your hands on and make an informed decision on whether he exists or who he is. Believing something because someone else tells you to is dangerous, always do your own research.

Hi! I'm glad you came here, and I hope this site helps you find some of the answers you're seeking.

As for me, I'm still unsettled on whether there is a god or not - and I probably always will be, because I don't think it's possible for any human to KNOW (as opposed to simply taking it on "faith," which means believing because you believe because you believe ... etc.).

I do agree with gonensane that you won't find god in the christian bible. Like the scriptures of every other of the many, many different religions, it was written by men who were products of their time and many of whom were pushing political or social agendas. And, as I've posted here before, I think if I wanted to start a religious movement (or a cult), the first thing I'd try to do is convince my followers that they must accept what I say on faith or else face a horrible punishment. For me, that alone is enough to avoid christianity.

Keep doubting.

You may be hanging on to faith because you like the idea of the securities christianity promises(?) - but you know it doesn't feel right.

It doesn't feel right, because it isn't.
Nobody truly knows, and whatever people tell you is what some other person figured out for themself anway. They just lazily decided to follow it.

So just figure out your own truth.
You already have some sound principles, re. your opposition to brainwashing and 'evangelising', not wanting to harm others, etc.

I'd say just keep following that path, without the rules imposed by others.

Everything your saying is valid. Unfortunately you've been 'led down the primrose path' so to speak. I know I was a hardcore christian for a long time. The straight truth is what they've taught you is a bunch of lies. What it actually does is put alot of burden on you thats not supposed to be there. The christians will put this burden on you but won't ever lift a finger to help you carry it. That's the way they were taught to do.

It was a great shock to me too to learn that the whole thing is bullshit. Believe me your alot better off without church. It's one of the worst religions out there IMO because it promises to make you free but never delivers. Most people usually get really screwed up from it.

But keep going the direction your heading, it sound to me your about to escape :) You can believe in God without the perversion of religion if you have an open mind.

SWP, We feel your pain bro. we've all been there, done that bullshit dance!

Waltzing for jesus, the donkey chaser!

Listen, before christ what did people do to be saved? Roast animals and drink blood or urine...yuk!!

Now the latest fad to be saved is, to nail a human up on a stick and pork roast the bastard, in the heat of the Sun! Ahh the sweet smell of human flesh on the barbe, saith the Lord!!

Now that smoking habit you got, I used to smoke:-( the best time to quit is when you get the flu, they taste like a smoldering rug when you're sick with the flu. I quit cold turkey, almost two packs a day in 1982.

Anyway, where did smoking tobacco originate? The Native American Indians, they only smoked it after meals, mostly at the evening meal to help them relax and to discuss their previous days adventures, so they never smoked anything in the amount that us Europeans do, because it was hard to process large amounts at one time and they never had rolling papers, they smoked it in a pipe.

The Indians never abused the use of tobacco, like we all do here, we abuse everything until we are infatuated and saturated, we have people that abuse Food, so much that some people have to be cut and carried out of their own house...holy bejesus!!! then there are those that abuse alcohol, so much that they have to go to AA, then there are those that abuse children, and some get caught, and alot never do, then there are some that abuse people, by proclaiming a hereafter life, if they can just convince anyone, then they can sneak out your money by diversion and smoke and mirrors and extraordinary promises, mostly bold face lies, from whom you built a strong trust:-( so sad!

So some people replace the habit called religion, with a physical habit with, drinking, food, drugs, smoking, etc.

So now you know all of the above is abuse, you admitted it yourself, now that thing called a cigarette between your fingers is speaking to you, it is an abuser to you, it wants to manipulate and control you, it smells like a dead corpse, it wants to make you a dead corpse, it wants to get inside you and eat you from the inside with cancer, are you going to let a little cigarette stick manufactured by a man, to control your very being? I should think not! You're much bigger than it is as a human, are you going to let an inanimate object take over your mind and whip and control you?

You! A rational thinking, living human being?

Cigarettes and food and drugs and alcohol and religion are all from the power of sugestion, I would be a better person if I just had a cigarette, I would be a better person if I just had a drink of whiskey, I would be a better person if I had a Big-Mack, I would be abetter person if I had a tattoo, etc.

What would it take to make you a better person? A cigarette? A shot of whiskey? A snort of cocaine? A religious title? A plate full of food, or non of the above?

See SWP, what America has become?

A bunch of mindless Jesus mimicking self-fulfilling couch potato's.

Are you a real human that can think on their own or are you a product of American commercialization brainwashing?

Or would you rather Be one of Them?

I rest my case!

You are correct that eating unhealthy foods is just as bad for you as smoking.

Obviously smoking is terrible for you and I encourage you to quit, but they're being rather hypocritical (or ignorant).

By "creationism," do you mean the idea of a creator God or "Young Earth Creationism" (the Earth is only 6,000 years old, the Great Flood is responsible for all fossils, etc)?

I am a Christian and I believe in the evolutionary process. I believe it was guided by God--after all, where did all the matter in the "cosmic egg" that blew up in the Big Bang come from?

And you are correct that there are a lot of sleazy so-called "leaders" in the church who like to abuse their positions and threaten anyone who challenges them.

However, you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject Christianity altogether. You sound like you need a different church.

mq59 wrote:
"I am a Christian and I believe in the evolutionary process. I believe it was guided by God--after all, where did all the matter in the "cosmic egg" that blew up in the Big Bang come from?"

Dan muses:
mq59 -During the 3 or 4 billions of years that it took us to arrive at the top of the food chain, our ancestors had to prove that they were the best at killing and reproducing, so they could qualify as our progenitors.

Now when "Org" the Neanderthal was bashing out the brains of his smaller weaker brother "Ugg," so he could "DO IT" to Ugg's female, was God smiling, and proclaiming: "Now that's what I'm talking about Org! Now let me see you love that hairy bitch!

Dan (Who believes God created "Natural selection, and enjoys watching the weak being eaten by the strong)

mq,
Where did God come from? If God could be here on his own, why couldn't the matter that exploded by the big bang be here on its own? As far as the advice to try another church, I tried several churches, but could never shake my scrupulosity. There is just too much nonsense in Christianity, it doesn't matter what church you go to. I remained a Christian not because it gave me any joy but because I was afraid of going to Hell. I finally got the courage to start reading skeptical books such as Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not A Christian." That book helped convince me of the unreality of Christianity. I especially liked his analysis of an impossibility of an afterlife. He pointed out how thoughts can no longer continue to exist without a living brain to generate those thoughts. On this basis, there can be no afterlife and therefore no Hell. So I was finally free of all that worrying about religion. I also discovered that I can be a more moral person without Christianity because Christianity promotes intolerance and thus hatred for my fellow man.

The bit about finding another church was mostly for "SomeonewithProblems" b/c most of his objections seem to do more with "church people," not with Christianity itself.

I've read "Why I am Not a Christian." Other than the stuff about "this generation shall not pass," most of its arguments are not that convincing.

And on the matter of "this generation," the Greek can also mean "race"--as in, there will still be Jews when He returns.

Sorry, I didn't see the "11 different churches" bit.

How many different denominations? And were these churches all in the same small geographic area?

I attended Methodist/Baptist churches in one county and a Presbyterian church in another and they were quite different (not just theology, but in terms of what sort of people).

And although it is true that councils decided what would go in the Bible and what wouldn't, the important books (the four canonical Gospels, for example) had always been thought of as Scripture by the churches.

It was lesser-known books like Revelation, Jude, etc. that were disputed.

The inclusion or exclusion of Jude or Revelation won't affect things much.

The inclusion/exclusion of, say, the Gospel of Judas, is what makes a difference, and that had been rejected early on (a 2nd century Church person whose name I forgot--Ireaneus perhaps denounced a gospel that sounded a lot like the GoJ that's making the news these days).

Hope this helps.

Dear SomeoneWithProblems, let me encourage you to read the Bible more. Christianity is about a relationship with God, not about imperfect churches and church people.

It almost sounds like you believe "about" God, but not "in" God. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

I tried out a lot of churches before I found a good, humble group of people who truly love God and worship Him. That type of Church is out there.

Let me correct you and others about how the New Testament was compiled. Eusebius wrote in 324 AD in his "The Church History" (prior to the Canon being put together) that most of Paul's epistles and all of the gospels were already in use by the early church. For the most part, the counsel that put the canon together was really just confirming what the early Church was already using, which included the weeding out of the Gnostic beliefs.

A good book to read on this subject is The New Testament Documents, by F. F. Bruce.

The part about turning the other cheek is about loving one's enemies enough to even be non-violent when they're violent.

It is NOT believing what someone says uncritically.

Note that the Bible says "contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" and I assure you cult-of-personality pastors are NOT that faith.

And on the matter of the "don't be yoked together" with unbelievers, perhaps it could refer to not being married to them.

After all, Jesus Himself hung out with tax collectors, hookers, and even self-righteous obnoxious religions people (the high priests of His day).

Here's an interesting idea on what Paul could have been referring to:

http://www.crivoice.org/yoked.html

Thanks for the back-up, Rob.

You are identified as a liberal chirstian like that of the author John Shelby Spong. You are a symbol of what Christianity should be like. If only there were more of you out there.

It is possible to break away from Christianity and still believe in God or a higher power of some sort...after all, that's what I did...I became a Deist. We could argue on and on about whether a higher power exists or not, an utterly endless philosophical debate. However, Christian fundamentalism (or any fundamentalism, for that matter) is a load of hooey. Fundamentalism is simple: just don't think and do what you're told.

As for those fundies coming here trying to keep this open minded person in a closed minded system, leave him go. Your way truly is a way where you are told never to think...you can think, so long as you don't rock the boat. Once you discover the freedom of free thought, you'll never go back to closing your mind again.

The reason so many such as yourself are easily caught by religious fundamentalism is largely due to the lack of knowledge in the form of history, science and philosophy, especially so, the teaching of 'The classics' which were very much apparent within the curriculum of the affluent levels of society in the earliest parts of the 1900's, even the founding fathers of the United States of America were aware of them and tended towards secular viewpoints, you might want to do a search and key in any search engine phrases such as 'Is America a Christian Nation' and focus especially on Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin(it was Thomas Jefferson who created his own 'Jeffersonian Bible' discarding the myths and miracles for the sound philosophies of Jesus by the way.) Philosophy and ancient history in schools and even colleges is largely un-taught today as a matter of standard curricula and must be sought by the seeker whether through formal education or independently.

Your dilemma is truly the product of ignorance of 'The Classics' of mythology of which you can read a very excellent and informed discourse as regards Christianity at http://www.infidels.org, key in for 'm.m. mangasarian' (see his brilliant 'The Truth About Jesus' at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html
as well as 'Forgeries in Christianity' by Joseph Wheless see: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/
which exposes the role of the early Catholic church in this area.

To be sure, you will find plenty of charlatans and those looking to 'make a fast buck' while using Christianity, I have seen it, why only recently I encountered a real estate agent in a very isolated locale who happens to have over $6Million in real estate listings who is a member of C.R.E.N. an up and coming 'Christian' Real Estate Network. She violated the rules of HUD as well as the Department of Real Estate in my State of California by asking that 'verboten' question:'Are you a believer?' and even 'steered' us away from a neighboring city since it was too 'secular.' To be sure, she has a vested interest in the Christian cause because her part of California is relatively isolated and is the perfect stomping grounds for fundamentalist Christians looking for a place to call 'Home.' There's something like 4 churches within a less than a mile area of Northern California Real Estate and guess what? She's the real estate agent for that area, just wait 'till the California Department of Real Estate 'shops' her and catches her discriminatory practices!

I found a long time ago that education is the 'cure' to the faith which is borne of ignorance, please accept my invitation to join the fray of those who uphold knowledge which requires no 'belief' (belief and believe by the way have 'lie' in the middle of them since that's what it takes to have 'faith' of the depth required by religious fundamentalists) as well as those who realize that no being can accuse you when you simply and honestly do not have knowledge(or special 'powers' for that matter) and are perfectly willing and honestly able to suspend belief in anticipation of honestly demonstrable facts! Other great sites in addition to http://www.infidels.org are http://www.ffrf.org and http://www.atheists.org Enjoy and never forget that it's far better to live a life then a be'lie'f!

Wow Someone with problems, you really put alot of stuff in there-hard to comment or discuss intelligently on all of them. If you are really wanting to have some discussion about this, with someone who does not want your money but who does beleive in the God of the Bible and found it to be true, then give me a hollar (is that how you spell hollar?)

I will say this here, God never intended it to be the way many of you have experienced God. Many of you have said that Christianity is just another obsessive behavior, a farce or a scam, and things like that.

Bottom line is this, no matter what the subject on God, one guy will write the Bible is not true and give all sorts of evidence, and another will write that it is true and give all sorts of evidence.

The bottom line is this, God and following His Word has changed the life of countless people througout history, mine included. I am a pastor, and the luxury of the internet promises you I am "not out for your money or to get you in my church." I have found truth in the Bible. So if you want to have some lively discussion, let me know

"The bottom line is this, God and following His Word has changed the lives of countless people througout history, mine included."

No, the bottom line is that God's existance is NOT obvious(objectively evident), or else we would be having discussions like this right now. I would also argue that if someone said "oxygen doesn't exist", no one would give a rat's ass, let alone, debate them on the matter. And BTW, "truth" is not ascertained by "majority" vote...i.e...."countless people".

So....to start some lively discussion, let's start by hearing/seeing some objective evidence for God's existance, and then, some objective evidence that the Christian God is the "one true God".

Get educated, and the bible will be seen for what it is, a history of warring tribes in the Mediterranean area, and the evolution of religious culture, from the orthodox rabbinical jews to the early Roman Christian movement. After Roman christianity (Catholicism), it divided into many sects, to include the entire movement of protestantism, as many religiously affiliated folk protested the votes that were made at the first council of nicaea, to include the divinity of jesus.

So, bottom line, reading the bible literally is grounds for calling someone an idiot. Anyone, reading the bible literally will never be capable of logically reconciling the mythology of unicorns, dragons, satyrs, arrowsnakes, chariots of fire, god with flames shooting out his mouth, etc. and not to mention the fact of the countless contradictions that exist between the OT and NT, because the NT was written to "counter" the OT jewish laws & culture for the most part. Any religious course at a respectable university would provide as much information.

If one studies on their own, they are going to have to read books from both perspectives, and not biased books, but books on historical facts, so one can piece together the past using reason.

On the matter of a higher power. One must take a Platonic stance in order to make such a stand, and personally, it isn't that hard to dispell philosophically. Actually, its quite easy.

If someone wraps god up in this natural realm, then it gets more interesting at least. Still, one has to consider themselves as part of a hierarchy of sorts for there to be a "higher" power. Who is to say, that we aren't individually just part of the higher power ourselves, if one wants to discuss such matters - we are products of nature, right. Thus, no higher power. Personally, I don't like the term higher power, it connotes the helplessness of humanity and the belief that there is "true" separation between objects of nature, i.e., people, natural energy, etc. It would be interesting to hear an argument for such a separation, using any means possible.

Steve R: "Bottom line is this, no matter what the subject on God, one guy will write the Bible is not true and give all sorts of evidence, and another will write that it is true and give all sorts of evidence."

Actually, you can't define "god" discretely, unless you are claiming to be omniscient - I'll take that silence, as you're not omniscient. Thus, you can't present your "god", from an objective stance, all you have, is your subjective opinion on the matter, a personal god, you have created to make sense of the words in a book, and the experiences you have assigned to a god in your life.

About the bible, the main argument isn't whether the bible is "true" or not, I'll go along and say its really "true". However, I'll say it truly reflects the history of a culture over a two thousand year period, to denote their beliefs, and the beliefs of a god in the bible, change over time. The bible starts out with the jewish god El, without a hell, and before the end of the NT, YHWH becomes the new god in town, and he creates hell, and sub-contracts the job of caretaker to satan. Anyone, who hasn't read the bible, and learned at least that much, really needs to crack the book open.

So, the truth, is seen historically as a reflection of the era in which it was written, and there was just as much non-divine jesus material floating around at the exact same time. To suggest that the bible is "true", as evidence for a "supernatural" deity, begs the question, of how one derives that answer from reading anonymous "natural" material. There's a reason religion requires "faith", as logic and evidence do not support a transcendent supernatural god. The term "transcendent" means, a god doesn't make house calls, and he/she can never be reached while someone is still living in this natural reality. Hence, "faith", in that which can't be proven, not "logic".

Rob said:”Dear SomeoneWithProblems, let me encourage you to read the Bible more.”

Indeed, particularly Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 2:32-34 & 3:3-7, and much, much more...

“Christianity is about a relationship with God, not about imperfect churches and church people.”

Yes, a kinky S&M relationship of submission - or Eternal torture.
Would we want a relationship with the God of the above passages, if we were told his name was Moloch or Baal?
Why would we want a relationship with a God claiming ‘love’ and ‘mercy’, yet who then masterminded the creation of Eternal Hellfire?

He could have set up something like Reincarnation, which would eventually allow Everyone to enter Heaven, but No, he settled for Eternal torture…

It must please him, since we already know from the OT time of sacrifices that he is pleased by the sweet aroma of burning flesh…
(Actually, I love the smell of a good sausage sizzle myself…)

“I tried out a lot of churches before I found a good, humble group of people who truly love God and worship Him. That type of Church is out there.”

Yes, so humbled… except this is exactly what ‘SomeoneWP’ says he is being aggravated by. Good advice…

SWP is not looking to humbly submit, he’s too intelligent for that.
You can't see that the path you've found to work in in your life won't necessarily work for everybody else.
SWP only needs a bit of learning to go with his intelligence (something it seems he's already getting now that he's seeing past the boundaries set by christianity) then he will be beyond your reach, for 'Good'.

”… For the most part, the counsel that put the canon together was really just confirming what the early Church was already using, which included the weeding out of the Gnostic beliefs.”

This sickens me.
It’s the ‘weeding out’ of the Gnostic beliefs that made christianity into the monstrous overbearing cancer of our civilisation that it is today.

Someone already mentioned the Thomas Jefferson bible which had the miracles taken out and the wisdom teachings left in.
It is remarkable how similar it ends up to the Gnostic 'Gospel of Thomas'.

Here's an interesting article, written by an exchristian, on the topic:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Jesus-Without-Miracles1dec05.htm

What a paradise we would live in if only we understood the gospel in a more esoteric sense.

Steve R wrote;

I am a pastor, and the luxury of the internet promises you I am "not out for your money or to get you in my church." I have found truth in the Bible. So if you want to have some lively discussion, let me know


You are a liar sir! If you were not out for the money, you would not gladly receive the money!

You are a theif and a liar! You are stealing money from people by falsely promising them something in return, that you have absolutely no proof of.

If you're not out for the money, then, I suggest you return all that you took, back to them.

Prove to the congregation that you're not out for the money! Give it all back.

Be a witness right here today before God and the world that you're not out for the money, GIVE IT ALL BACK, PROVE TO THE WORLD AND ESPECIALLY TO GOD YOU'RE NOT OUT FOR THE MONEY, YOU WILL NOT! BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN FOUND A LIAR, AND YOU WILL BURN IN BOILING FLAMES OF HELL FOR BEING A LIAR, YOU LYING WEASEL!

I WANT MY FRIGGIN MONEY BACK, ALL OF IT!!!

Did you ever notice that posters like mq59, and Rob, will hang around this site day after day, talking about who said what, two thousand years ago, trying to sound intellectual...

...but if you try to make them wrap their mind around some of the most OBJECTIVE, glaring illogical concepts, of a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being...

... one that supposedly is the synonym for love itself, who supposedly created everything including sin, Satan, and all of our imperfections, and all of the suffering...

...and a system of evolution where the strong survived, and are surviving by conquering and eating the weak, they will dance right by it...

...and guide the conversation right back to their SUBJECTIVE perceptions of how the world really is?

To put it another way. You simply cannot get them to focus on reality!

I have observed this behavior over and over by some (otherwise) pretty brilliant people here, and I am fascinated by it!

Dan (Who would have you pay close attention to the dancing of the preachers, and the Bible scholars!)

I'm still waiting for mq59 to explain to me why jesus condoned slavery in the NT. He left the comment section from my anti-testimony right after I asked him to explain it for me. Ran away like a little school girl! :) I guess there is no stock answer that he can parrot from an apologetic book, and his mind has atrophied from lack of use within the church. Good thing I'm not holding my breath for an answer!!

Hi, Dan! Like you, I always wondered why people who otherwise seem intelligent can talk themselves into "believing" christian mythology. I guess their brains are just wired differently in that they lack the capacity for whatever combination of curiosity and analytical thinking led us to leave the cult.

Take mq59, for example. This person is obviously not a fundie, and not bitter and hateful like so many of the True Believers™ that try to practice evangelism here. She or he has enough brain power to understand that evolution makes sense (although her or his statement that god "directed" evolution shows that she or he doesn't really know a lot about the randomness of the process, e.g., the many examples of failed evolutionary lines that went no where).

Mq59 even makes some intelligent arguments for the possible existence of something that could be called god (though, as another poster noted above, we could go on with the pros and cons of that debate for eternity). Yet, from there mq59 goes on to make the huge leap to posit the truth of the doctrines of christianity. Ask for proof, and what you get are some emotional-based statements that, in the end, simply boil down to blind faith.

Nope. Don't understand how these people think. I'd like to see a logical argument for the christian point of view, but none has emerged in the past 2000 years or so, and I don't have "faith" that one ever will.

mq,

Jesus also said that there were some standing here today who would not die before I come back.

mq,

Did you realize that the Gospel of Luke only made it into the Cannon by one vote?

rob,

How can we trust anything Eusebius ever wrote. He is on record as saying he would lie if it promoted Christianity.

Yes, I too having doubts...my English not the bestest, but what should I do?

OF course I could joing the group, but what books should read I?

danno, I don't hang around this site day after day, yesterday was my first visit. You and Marianna and others seem to wonder why certain of your objections aren't answered, or responded to intelligently.
Speaking for myself, but I suspect mq59 and Steve R are similar, I don't see the point of answering them. For example, I made one encouraging comment to SWP and all I saw were bunch of negative comments and supposed examples of contradictions in the Bible.
It's a little like trying to reason with a mob; it ain't goin' happen.
I could take a great amount of time to answer each person's arguments in detail, but what's the point? Most people hear don't seem to want answers or reasonable arguments, they just want to vent like ben, or misquote scripture, like herb has.

Rob,

Can you prove that I have misquoted scripture? I am at work so I don't have a Bible or a concordance here to show you where the quote comes from or exactly what it says word for word. Perhaps somebody else out there knows the quote and can tell Rob where it is and exactly what it says word for word.

Rob,
Seeing as I am one of those who responded to your post I am open to whatever you want to respond to me with.

It seems that you see christianity as holy, good and pure - so to you anybody ridiculing and mocking it must surely be negative and evil?
But, just because I have no respect for christianity, doesn't mean I have no respect for you as a person.

I deride christianity, and the points you raised in it's defense, but my mocking is only to get you to see how ridiculous it all is.
If my points are not valid please point them out.

Me pointing out the disgusting violence in the OT seems to give you the impression that it is me that is disgusting and violent...?

No, it seems to me that you've only got one eye open, and it is focused only on the fairyland side of christianity - all those claims of love and justice and mercy.

I only want to open your other eye to the rest of your bible -the dark side of your god that you like to ignore - in order that you may get some spiritual depth perception.

I'm not particulaly concerned about historical accuracies, and niggly contradictions but rather the theology behind christianity.

Which is why I brought up Reincarnation.
I say that the mere concept of Reincarnation, whether you actually believe in it or not, is enough to completely debunk the bible-god - because it more perfectly fits all his claimed desires, and is infinitely more loving and merciful than eternal hellfire.

I have yet to see any christian successfully defend 'eternal hell' against Reincarnation.
Even mq59...

If you want to give it a go don't think I won't try to understand what you have to say (or that I won't attack your response...)

ROB,
One little baby is born to wealthy parents, her mother was well nourished, she has no birth defects, she is attractive, intelligent and healthy, she will never be hungry, she will participate in many stimulating endeavors all the way through school, and when she graduates from college she will be offered a job paying a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year.

She will meet a boy with similar characteristics, they will get married and produce a bunch of happy healthy offspring. They may or may not become Christians.

Another baby will be born, whose mother was malnourished, and consequently that baby has several glaring birth defects, caused by the under nourishment of her mother during pregnancy.I.E poor eyesight, and spinal deformity. Because she was born to poor parents, without any education, she will never go to school. She will have to start work at the age of 6 or 7, doing repetitive mind numbing drudgery, for little or no pay.

If she lives to the age of 13, she may be taken as a wife by an older male for a while but will eventually be thrown out like garbage.

She will never in her lifetime even hear or understand anything about the Christian religion, just like her parents before her. If they have any religious beliefs those beliefs are most likely Islamic, or Hindi.

Now here are my questions;
Why doesn't God recall Satan? (Blink his eye and just eliminate him)
What chance does the second girl have of becoming a true Christian?
Where is the "divine justice" in this scenario?
Where is the divine love?
Surely theses poor unfortunate people pray! Where is the prayer answered?
Why are some people born with the intelligence to think rationally, and others just don't get it?

Dan (Who want's to know what's is being argumentative about that?)

Marty,

I don't own any apolegetic books, nor do I refer to them.

Furthermore, the reason I didn't post anymore is as follows.

Soon after the debate I had with Webmaster over whether or not the Bible actually says there are dragons, unicorns, etc (Webmaster cited the KJV to prove it did; I cited other translations saying "goats" or "serpents"), I found I could no longer access the site from the computer I generally use.

On the matter of Jesus condoning slavery, I don't know. You see, I can admit that I don't know something. :)

However, do we know for a fact the person who came to him was a slave or a free servant? Some translations say "slave" and some say "servant."

Picky yes, but still.

Spacemonk,

On the matter of the reincarnation system, I don't know either.

Happy?

Marianna,

Thanks for the compliments.

I know many evolutionary lines have failed--trilobites and dinosaurs are gone, for example.

However, why did any evolutionary paradigm succeed at all? Why didn't life simply burn out early in the process, if it event formed at all?

My_Two_Cents,

Webmaster and I debated this sometime in late April or early May.

The "dragons," "satyrs," etc. are from the KJV. Later translations refer to "satyrs" as goats, for example, while another mythological creature is really an owl.

In short, the presence of mythological animals in the Bible is a translation glitch.

Ben,

Take a chill pill, man.

"In short, the presence of mythological animals in the Bible is a translation glitch."

absolute/possible

acheivable/fantasy

married/bachelor




"perfect being"/"translation glitch"

MQ59 said: "The "dragons," "satyrs," etc. are from the KJV. Later translations refer to "satyrs" as goats, for example, while another mythological creature is really an owl.

In short, the presence of mythological animals in the Bible is a translation glitch."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

No one knows how to translate these "nouns of God." So the modern translators have arbitrarily compromised on more familiar nouns, that's all.

MQ, it's the WORD OF GOD, but no one knows what the HELL God's words are.

Interesting isn't it?

Makes me wonder what else they've decided to fake.

Rob: "Most people hear don't seem to want answers or reasonable arguments, they just want to vent like ben, or misquote scripture, like herb has."

Rob, I am open minded, and need your guidance. It appears you find reason to be quite useful in searching for the truth. I pride myself on my ability to reason, yet I am confronted many times as you on the issues surrounding religion. Recently, I came across a list of contradictions in the bible.

The contradictions that I found were broad, but, easily categorized according to what a person seeks from the bible.

For instance, I read the bible constantly seeking "Literal" insights, but when I entered conversation with some skeptics to point out my view, I am usually asked to click on the following link that lists "literal" contradictions of the bible;

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

There are over 368 "literal" contradictions listed, all taken "literally" from the bible. Like you, I don't want to nit pick over each one, but logically speaking, isn't the only way out of a literal contradiction, to explain who, what, where, when, why and how the person making each of the contradictory statements was "thinking"? I am caught, thinking that that is an impossibility, as I am not omniscient, and all I have are the words in front of me. When I attempt to interpret the words to get the message across, I get pummeled because I am putting my own spin on the words to make the conflicting statements fit the message, according to skeptics.

I tried to tell them god gave "unconditional love", and no matter what a person did in life, they would receive the love of god, because he doesn't require anything from them, they are his children, he created us, he loves us. And then, I get the following link.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

There are over 1,079 topics that contradict the god of the bible, as being "omnibenevolent" and loving his children in an unconditional manner. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, (because I can't use a literal argument, with all of the literary contradictions) how a god could be just and have unconditional love, just as a mother has for their children, with all of the contradictions. Typically, I get told that I am trying to speak for god, when I attempt to present a case, especially when I suggest god, is a god of love and ultimate compassion.

Then, I have tried to seek information in the bible, that is "omni-relevant"... that takes into account topics that are relevant as much today as they were yesterday, as a supreme god's guidance is based on omniscience, and relevant as much today as it is yesterday, but then I get the following link slammed at me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

There are over 986 topics that contradict the bibles' guidance as being "omni-relevant", for all time, as much yesterday as the guidance is for today. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, (because I can't use a literal argument, with all of the literary contradictions, and I can't use an argument that supports a "god" who only wants the best for his children, because of the loss of "omnibenevolence"), why a god would provide biblical statements that are not religiously relevant.

Then, I tried to seek gods' insights in the bible, as god being omnibenevolent, because all humanity was created with fallen natures, and all fall short of the glory of god, thus, god's guidance must support "tolerance" between the brothers and sisters of humanity, but then I get the following link shewn to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

There are over 527 topics that contradict the bibles' guidance for "tolerance", Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, that god is truly omnibenevolent, and tolerant of people of all religions, and beliefs. God doesn't have favored people, that was the message of Paul, right. However, I am constantly challenged on this topic, as it appears that some of the biblical passages support hatred, bigotry, and violence.

Then, I tried to seek gods' guidance in the bible, so that I can lead my family with religiously founded family values, so that I could attempt to bring my family towards the glory of god, even though we all fall short of god by our sinful natures, I felt I needed to provide my family a road-map in life, but then I get the following link shewn to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html

There are over 305 topics that provide biblical statements that would be considered abusive by the A.M.A., and A.P.A. standards today. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, how family values have changed over the last few thousand years, and how god wants us to obey his words, even though prison may be the price we pay, Paul went to prison on occasion, for his beliefs. Still, I find it hard to support such a view, especially when there are passages that condone misogyny, or hatred and mistreatment of women.

Then, I tried to seek gods' guidance in the bible, so that I could bring others to him, by showing his "omnipotent" presence, and his unwavering trustworthiness, by presenting the prophecies that have come to pass, but then I get the following link shewn to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

There are over 194 topics that provide biblical statements that show prophecies that have not come to pass, or have at least conflicted internally within the bible itself. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, how god is trustworthy, and how "all" people need to believe in the words of the bible as the prophecies of the second coming are real, and people should fear for their salvation.

Then, I tried to seek gods' biblical guidance in the bible, so that I could show how holy the words of the bible itself are, and how each of us need to speak the words of the bible in our daily lives, so that we may be a shining example of the true christ, but then I get the following link shewn to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lang/long.html

There are over 169 topics that provide biblical statements that show the apostles of god, calling people "whores, dogs, etc.", things I wouldn't want to hear from children, not to mention the vivid pornography presented in many of those identified topics. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain why a holy person, of god, a messenger of the most holy, would need to present pornography to illustrate divine guidance to the flock.

I tried to use science and historical references, but there are over 255 contradictions, with regard to modern science and historical fact.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Like you, I don't really need to nit pick each biblical topic. However, there are many more contradictions that are presented by skeptics when I try and show them that the bible was written by "god" himself, and that its a perfect rendition of the holy word.

I find that taking the bible literally, creates a nightmare of contradictions, when seeking the morals, values, and ethics that would be expected from a just and loving god. However, if I use my own interpretation, to spread the good news and message of god, that I am placing myself in the position of a "god", and presenting my own case. Can you suggest a way, that I can find divine guidance without placing my own interpretation into the words of the bible, or use the bible in a literal manner? Thanks for any insights you can provide.

MQ59: "Why didn't life simply burn out early in the process, if it event formed at all?"

Gee, I know this is kinda crazy, but, seeing as how I want so much to delve into modern theoretical physics, I find that it would be quite an undertaking. However, lets let you think about this, lets say you start a fire, there MQ, and in some places in the forest the fire burns out, because fuel no longer exists, basically, it hits a dead end, and yet... sometimes the fire continue to burn in different directions as it finds fuel. Now, MQ, I know you aren't currently attending M.I.T., and I am quite sure you are not into the natural or theoretical mathematics, but, why don't you just try to conceptualize that in your mind, using some intuition, and see if that makes sense to you.

MQ59: "My_Two_Cents, Webmaster and I debated this sometime in late April or early May. The "dragons," "satyrs," etc. are from the KJV. Later translations refer to "satyrs" as goats, for example, while another mythological creature is really an owl. In short, the presence of mythological animals in the Bible is a translation glitch."

A translation glitch? That would kind of call into question the whole bible now wouldn't it. And before I go, I read some of the apologist articles regarding the unicorn as somehow being confused with oxen. Here, you tell me.

Psalm 92:10 - "But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil."

Exalt: "laud: praise, glorify, or honor;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I wasn't aware that an oxen's horn held so much esteem, perhaps, a "magical" horn would be held in much "higher" regard, doesn't that seem to make more sense MQ59, of course, I am sure you can pretty much interpret it any way that you want in order to "force" it to make sense with the real world. However, if you want more "magical" moments of the bible, presented, I would be more than happy to please.

The magical moments of the bible!

MQ59: "Later translations refer to "satyrs" as goats"

Isaiah 13:21 - "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

Hey, MQ, ever see a "goat" dance? No, I thought not, only an embicile would suggest that a "goat" could be seen dancing, in glee. How about, a Roman mythological "faun". Yeah, that makes more sense.

Satyr: "one of a class of woodland deities; attendant on Bacchus; identified with Roman fauns"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Fauns: "In Roman mythology, fauns were place-spirits (genii) of untamed woodland. Romans connected their fauns with the Greek satyrs, wild and orgiastic drunken followers of Dionysus."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauns

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe

"Lewis named the faun “Mr. Tumnus.”

Isn't that special.

"What is a faun, anyway? A faun is a woodland deity, rather like the Greek woodland god known as a satyr. The chief among these was Pan, a god who was also part goat and had hooves and horns. Fauns and satyrs are not part of today’s fantasy lives, but Lewis was drenched in Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology. Satyrs have a sexual dimension..."

Well, if you want to read more there MQ59, enjoy

http://www.explorefaith.org/lewis/genesis.html

Thus, its quite obvious that the Satyr in the bible, is either a sexually driven beast, of Roman mythology, or, a "faun", NOT a plain goat there McFly.

A faun, with hoves for "Dancing" with glee, standing upright, on two feet. Yes, that makes sense, there MQ. I suppose we could suggest that a Satyr is a dancing "goat", yeah, that makes all the sense in the world, use a little imagination, I mean, the authors did, and they didn't have a problem with their mythology, why are you so uptight.

Well, let me keep looking, the bible is "ate up" with mythology, I mean, who do you actually "think" wrote the bible, "god", or a bunch of mythologically driven writers of that era. Gee, I'll let you think on that one.

Oh, and here's the site that had a crappy explanation for the "use" of the unicorn. They attempt to "cover" the mythological creatures using a switch between an oxen and unicorn, when they can "contextually" get away with it. They place their own "definition" onto the passages, where an "oxen" makes sense, while totally ignoring and misleading the reader away from the biblical use of the unicorn in the "true" contextual sense. That's called "lying" there MQ, but, just another contradiction, I mean, as someone stated earlier, there are many religious folk who are on the record for stating they'd lie for their religious beliefs. What kind of religion, supports liars?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp

Does the Bible claim to be "omni-relevant"?

I never recall that being the case.

I am aware of what fauns and satyrs are (or, rather, are supposed to be, since they don't exist). The Lewis link you gave me (although it's very nice in and of itself--thanks) does nothing to address the question at hand.

Does the Hebrew word for "dance" in that passage require the goats to be moving around bipedally? They could just be romping around animal-like.

My_Two_Cents,

People can lie in defense of any belief system, religious or otherwise. Just because there are people willing to lie in defense of it does not make it true or untrue.

Erroneous_Bible,

The Psalm you chose does not state that unicorns actually exist. It could be metaphorical. Folks use the metaphor "sowing dragon's teeth" and yet they don't believe in dragons.

Erroneous,

Good point about the fire and fuel. However, if the evolutionary process is the fire, who provided the forest (all the things that contribute to the process)?

Webmaster,

If the translators made the error in good faith, can they be accused of faking? I was under the impression intent to deceive was required.

Two_Cents,

Could you point out in more detail the parts on in the Answers-in-Genesis article you believe are dishonest?

MQ: Error is error is error is error is error is error is error.

ERROR!!!

Not perfect in all it says, there is error!

If there is error in any part, then there can be error in any part. If translators cannot get it right, how can anyone hope to interpret the error ridden translation?

ERROR! ERROR! ERROR! ERROR!

Do you get it yet? THERE IS ERROR!!!

MQ59: "Does the Bible claim to be "omni-relevant"? I never recall that being the case."

Uh, re-read the passage where this is mentioned. "If" a "god" were to write a bible to establish its supremecy so that all mankind can receive the divine message of salvation "equally", then the message itself would have to remain "relevant", and beyond the realm of mis-interpretation.

Hence, when you suggest that the bible may in fact have been misquoted, mistranslated, outright manipulated, etc., its apparent that "god", was only interested in presenting the word once, through multiple anonymous authors knowing as an omniscient entity, that the word would be manipulated, mistranslated, or whatever word one wants to use to reconcile the obvious non-agreeing portions of the bible.

And, regarding "intent", "god" according to many religious people, is the "true" authority for the bible, therefore, if "god" is omnipotent, and omniscient, then "god", is credited for allowing manipulation, either deceitfully or unwittingly of "his" word. Thus, your god is responsible, for his word or he isn't, and if he isn't, according to your particular unique christian view, then the entire bible is then chalked up to literation errors, transcribing errors, etc., and "every" word in the bible is suspect of mis-interpretation.

Especially, since the bible was translated between languages that didn't have matching words for certain ideas, etc. So, if you are willing to suggest that your bible, is the product of mankind and his errorful ways, then, all I can say, is... "there are no original copies of ANY biblical scripture", thus, its all guesswork. Hence, its why many christians appear to want to "make" the bible "all true" according to a "god".

MQ59: "I am aware of what fauns and satyrs are (or, rather, are supposed to be, since they don't exist). The Lewis link you gave me (although it's very nice in and of itself--thanks) does nothing to address the question at hand."

The question my dear friend MQ, is "why" would a "god" put in his "holy scripture", a Satyr which at the time and era, suggested a sexually deviant beast who indulged in orgies on a regular occasion. If you read the "definition" of a Satyr, according to the "greek" understanding, you'd realize that Satyr's were many times thought of as "fauns". And, since you know what a "faun" is supposed to be, then you understand, they dance when they are happy, and "that" is in the context in which the passage was written.

Isaiah 13:21 - "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

MQ59: "Does the Hebrew word for "dance" in that passage require the goats to be moving around bipedally? They could just be romping around animal-like."

Uh, MQ, what does "dance" mean to you? Lets dispense, that some wiener is putting on joyful personalities to animals, and making them human-like. Have you ever seen an animal so happy it was doing the waltz? No? How about the tango? Hmmmm, well, perhaps a jig or two? No?

Obviously, since you don't have the original Hebrew text, and neither do I, then we have to use the words that were placed into the bible, no? If you can't trust what's in there, literally, then you begin to interpret and read minds, for people who lived two thousand years ago, are you capable of doing that MQ? Is "any" person capable of reading the mind of the person, who transcribed the original hebrew into different languages, which didn't have equivalent words many times? No.

Hence, either take the bible literally, and all of its mythological "glory", or attempt to rewrite the historical bible, as is what is happening at this very moment, by those who want to make a more "accurate" bible (removing the original cultural value), or, just create explanations, like, well... god only knows, which totally removes the "use" of the bible, as its tantamount to acknowledging that only a "god" would know, thus, I ain't god, thus, I don't know, and never will.

Human authors can't escape painting and putting their fingerprints onto their writings, we are not "objective" beings MQ. Thus, some author "painted" human like characteristics onto animals. Ever wonder how mythological creatures were created? Uh, painting human like characteristics onto "animals", and throwing in some magical powers, like a unicorns healing powers, etc. So, if you suggest that your biblical author is in fact placing human like characteristics onto animals, they are then, in their "own" personal way, creating mythological creatures of their "own" making. Its called imaginative prose, not "god" deliberated guidance, unless you are going to suggest that god was talking about dancing animals, through this anonymous author.

MQ59: "My_Two_Cents, People can lie in defense of any belief system, religious or otherwise. Just because there are people willing to lie in defense of it does not make it true or untrue."

That's rich. So, you suggest that a persons' words don't make something true or untrue? Uh, if you're talking natural phenomena, I can actually see your point there MQ. However, we aren't talking about natural law are we. The "origin" of the bible, is based on "words", and the credibility of the person who wrote down those "words".

If a person "lied", today, yesterday, or two days ago, all the way back to the original author, then, their "lie" does make the bible "untrue". If there is "one" liar between two thousand years ago and today, or one author who took liberties with rewriting the bible, to make sense to a greek population, or a jewish population, etc., then they are in fact "skewing", the "original" truth, and thus, the original meaning is lost, and is no longer "true" to the original content.

So, yes, a liar does in fact, make something "untrue", if they are passing information in a false manner. Paul, taught a different oral tradition than the Jews, using their own Jewish Authored Tanakh, are you suggesting that Paul wasn't preaching an "untrue" dialogue? Yes, of course he was, he was deliberately teaching against the rabbinical jews and their oral tradition.

MQ59: "Erroneous_Bible, The Psalm you chose does not state that unicorns actually exist. It could be metaphorical. Folks use the metaphor "sowing dragon's teeth" and yet they don't believe in dragons."

Yet, the people who lived in the era in which we are talking there MQ, "DID" believe in Dragons. We aren't talking about your common day attempt to reconcile the past with today, so that it makes sense.

Don't underestimate the primitive natures of the people we are talking of, and their superstitious natures. Everything, had a god behind it, or some mystical association.

"Herodotus, often called the "father of history", visited Judea c.450 BC and wrote that he heard of caged dragons in nearby Arabia, near Petra, Jordan. Curious, he travelled to the area and found two living, winged dragons that had been caught and held in an iron cage. He described them as ferocious beasts that would wipe out all of humanity if released."

Over time, I would accept that the "term" dragon, became more associated with the word serpent, especially in the Latin Vulgate, where Draconis, actually means serpent or snake. However...

"The Vulgate Bible is an early 5th century translation of the Bible into Latin made by St. Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I."

Lets not kid ourselves, that the meaning of the bible, and its very words have taken on entirely "new" meanings, over times, as people along the way interpreted them or rewrote them.

As the need to establish, reality, to the bible became more and more necessary, the term Dragon took on a more "believable" and "symbolic" meaning, i.e., snake or serpent, etc. Hard to tell a bunch of people, that dragons are real, if "none" were ever spotted or known to have existed. Science and philosophy was killing much of the mythology of the day, albeit slowly, thus, the need to make the bible more "RELEVANT" to the time and day, by changing the meaning of the word.

If you don't believe, me, look at the timeline, when the mythical dragons were believed to have existed, and work forward along the time line, checking the stories of the bible. As mythological creatures fall away due to scientific or basic belief systems, the words of the bible take on new meaning. TODAY, MQ, these same words are being portrayed in more "realistic" terms in order to force them into a more realistic sense, while attempting to remove the historical significance of the origins of that word.

Now, again, we don't have the original hebrew, so, its all guesswork. Except, that there are some people who actually believe the bible is the literal written work of a "god", there MQ, and its in that context, we are looking at "Relevance" to modern day, and an "unchanging" bible, which still holds its authority.

A changing of the meaning of the words of the bible, makes the bible "untrue" to the original context in which it was written. We may not have the original hebrew, but we have "plenty" of artifacts that depict "dragons" as flying reptiles, and pre-dating the biblical records on through the time the biblical records were written, and, in that same geographical region the authors in theory lived.

Thus, between you and me, I am going with the "contextual" truth, in the era it was written. If someone wants to place their common day belief onto the words, because "they" don't believe in dragons, then great, however, that's imaginative reasoning, not reading to discern the truth of the past writings, and the "true" meaning of the passage.

MQ59: "Erroneous, Good point about the fire and fuel. However, if the evolutionary process is the fire, who provided the forest (all the things that contribute to the process)?"

Did I say the evolutionary process was the "fuel"? Why don't you define "Evolution" for me MQ, this should be interesting. Do you believe in the laws of conservation, in regards to matter and energy? Hmmmm, do you consider a "soul" to be either matter or energy? Please explain.

MQ59: "Webmaster, If the translators made the error in good faith, can they be accused of faking? I was under the impression intent to deceive was required."

Uh, what is "good faith", as opposed to "bad faith", there MQ59. So, if a person arbitratily changes the words of the bible, during a translation, then they aren't necessarily held to the revelation standards of the bible literally speaking?

Revelation 22:19 - "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Somehow, MQ59, I would like to hear what you have to say from a "gods'" point of view, on how a person will be tried according to revelations. I mean, if a person, ignorantly changes the word, are they going to be held according to the biblical standard or not? If not, then how do you "know" this for sure? If you don't know the judgement of a god for sure, then, it appears your own "god", is setting the standard for absolute acts, with no compromise, not us.

Pointing this out, doesn't reflect my ambitions, it reflects the words you have attributed to a "god", and I have no problem pointing them out. So, lets turn the question around MQ, do you believe your god will fry a person for violating his laws, no "matter" the "intent"?

Ben
If I was "in it for the money" I would have chose to do something easier, and something that pays better.

Oh yeah, I noticed there is a VISA/MASTERCARD link on this site to help pay for it. HMMMMM.....

Someone also mentioned something about miracles. What, there are no miracles anymore? Last time I checked, Thomas Jefferson was not God. Him saying there are no miracles anymore does not mean he is right. Tell that to a lady in the church I grew up in who contracted a disease where her flesh was being eaten by a virus. You could see the boils on her skin. She had this condition for months and it had taken away her ability to walk and function. I know this because my mom took care of her. She was told there was nothing that could be done.

I saw her husband wheel her into church Sundays. I know the countless hours and people who prayed for her. I saw this woman be prayed for, and I saw her jump up from her chair and RUN arond the church. Faking? C'mon-I know her. I saw her the next day when she came to our house to go with my mom to the clinic. Those boils she had before, they were gone. One of the doctors later became a Christian because of what He saw.

If there is no God, expalain that. You can't because science has not been able to explain away the occurance of miracles, although it acknowledges their existence. Logical proof for God's existence? There you go.

Many of you have cited works written by people who supposedly have proved God to not exist, Jesus deity is false, and the Bible is a hoax. Umm...Were these people there? Were they there 2000 years ago? Nope. If the Bible is all a hoax, and if Jesus really did not die on the cross and was not raised from the grave, then where are the writings from contemporaries to debunk this "myth." They definately had an interest in shutting up the early church. The early church was becoming a "problem" for the government. The government and religion was tied together and this radical new sect was causing them to loose power.

What you do have is a movement that was started by a bunch of people who were THERE when Jesus was crucified. The skeptics were not. The idea that the tomb was empty was probably some pretty fast-spreading news, if it was false then why did so many beleive? They would have seen it to be false. We know they beleived because the church is in existence today. The early church started in Jerusalem, the very area where Jesus was crucified. If it was all a myth, then why in the heck would they have accepted it? They were there! Not only that, they died for it. Why would they have done that? How could a group of cowards (the disciples) who were that way up until Jesus ascention suddenly get up the nerve to start a movement whose main figure died a very public death and was claimed to have risen from death if it had not happened?

Further, logic tells me (I can hear you all snear now when I say logic) if I had a leader who made all the claims Jesus did and then the leader failed, I would have chalked that up to a learning experience and gone on with my life. These guys did not. Was for fame or fortune? They saw an opportunity to get rich? These guys were beaten, put in jail, mocked, and ultimately died misrable deaths. If they saw it was a hoax then why did they do it? Christianity should have fizzled out. We have seen parellels of this in our culture with guys like David Koresh (sp?). As soon as it is found a hoax, all you hear about it is in the history books. People are no longer claiming David Koresh changed their life because he was found to be false.

So, where are the writings from contemporaries that this was a hoax? They don't exist. If it was all a hoax, they should exist.