L4T: There is nothing to learn from the Bible if Jesus wasn’t God.

Oh, I wouldn’t say that.

I’m not saying there’s no wisdom in it. I’m just asking why anyone who rejects its main premise would trust anything else it says. If you think the whole story is a crock, shouldn’t you fling it as far from yourself as possible? If Jesus made (in your opinion) such bold but wrong claims, why would you not relegate All his words to “file under nutcase?” If he lied about being God, why would anyone look to Him for any sense of moral direction?

L4t, please re-read what Clive Staples Lewis said and what you said, but take out the ego and reflect on the arguments posted here. Also, with a little humility, you may recognize that ALL the attributes you claim for God or Jesus are anthropomorphic - your attempt to explain God in human terms - how self-defeating is that? Please look up the definition of delusion here:  http://abilify.com/abilify/channels/sch_content.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&channelName=Schizophrenia/Sch_Symptom_ImprovementMay[/url] or in Wikipedia. I leave you with one thought: Any time you make something more sacred than a human being, you devalue human life.

Here’s what CS Lewis said in Mere Christianity:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.� That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.�

As has been pointed out numerous times, this trilemma is false.  That is, there are other obvious possibilities: for instance, that Jesus was incorrectly quoted, or was a great teacher framing his philosophy so that it would fit the expectations of his listeners, or that he simply didn’t exist.
L4t, you make the same error in presuming that our choices are limited:

If you think the whole story is a crock, shouldn’t you fling it as far from yourself as possible?

Not necessarily.  For instance, I think the whole story of the Harry Potter series is a “crock”, that is, fiction, but I enjoy it and even find moral value in it- why should I fling it anywhere?  Just because we often have to decide to do either A or B, doesn’t mean that there aren’t the hidden possibilities C, D, and E, and it doesn’t mean that the world can always be neatly divided up into black and white, true and false, and so forth.  This is a major problem we humans have, and fundamentalism is an acute expression of this misbegotten drive for certainty where none obtains.

Likewise, there are other choices regarding the Bible besides complete acceptance or complete rejection.  I look at religions as more or less successful ways of building societies, which have evolved in the ideosphere, much as organisms have evolved in the biosphere.  They consist of easily understandable stories, with morals and laws attached. And a hook- as Hazlitt has it: “But the long habit of living indisposeth us for dying”.  Wanting to continue living after death provides an opening that religions have exploited, by inventing an afterlife in which we are rewarded, or punished, for how well we followed the scripture.  Supernatural carrots and sticks can be much more enticing and terrible than anything a secular state can offer, at least for the credulous.  And when these stories are passed on for centuries, and pounded into us as children, they are difficult to dislodge, despite any number of contradictions.

But regardless of the fact that these stories and laws do not stem from any Higher Power, they are the accumulated wisdom of centuries of culture; and even if we are now in a position to regard them dispassionately and improve upon them, much of what they say is timeless and valuable, if regarded critically.

One last point.  L4t, you said

My assumption (and I may be WAY off) is that many people have shunned Christ because the people sharing the message have had a hidden agenda (get rich, get power, etc).

Les has already answered this.  I would just add that many of us “shun” Christ for the same reason we “shun” leprechauns and Santa Claus:  there are more choices here than you think.

L4t, I don’t expect you to respond to this- how can you reach out to someone who shuns God?  Don’t feel bad- most of my friends will be in Hell with me, and I bet Lucifer plays a mean game of poker…

Once you let God in the room
He sweeps out Logic with his broom
And occupies that hallowed space
Where Reason had its dwelling place

Short on time as I should be headed out the door, but I concur with what Zilch just said. More later.

I have heard that alluded to, but I’m not really up on it. I know some of those religions had sacrificial figures, etc, but it’s not something I’ve studied in depth. I suspect some of you will dismiss anything I say from this point until I become a scholar of those traditions. What would you recommend I borrow from my library (I ain’t rich)?

You don’t need to become a “scholar” per se but you might want to start off by borrowing or renting the DVDs of the PBS series “The Power of Myth,” which is a series of interviews with Joseph Campbell, and reading his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

World mythology is full of sacrificed gods/kings whose deaths served to make life better somehow for humans, so the story of Jesus is not unique. 

If you’d like to start researching on the ‘net, you might also find Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth informative.  Or borrow any of the books referenced in this article, “The Crucifixion Hoax.”

I can’t speak for my fellow atheists and skeptics, but I know that the only time I can suspend my disbelief is when I’m watching a movie… and even then that suspension isn’t total, because I simply can’t override the rational part of my brain.  As such, it is as impossible for me to read the Bible without skepticism as it is for me to read (to borrow zilch’s analogy) Harry Potter in like fashion.  And, the major difference between the two is that a good number of people insist that the Bible is non-fiction and won’t even entertain the notion that it’s just one of many mythologies in the world, but “truth” that all humankind should accept and live by.  I just don’t have it in me to see the Bible as any better or different than Hindu, Muslim, Norse, Celtic or any other set of myths.

Last Hussar:

I am almost tempted to give you benefit of the doubt, and assume my phasing that indicates that it is an exact replica is what led you to denouncing your personal saviour as Satan.

I didn’t denounce my personal savior. I denounced the cheap replica (your hypothetical situation). The Bible is very clear on the details of the real savior’s return, and it won’t happen at all like the 1st time he came.
Matthew 24, in fact, spells it out.

I am also interested why you avoided the question about the basis of your belief (if I missed this, sorry- I read SEB in the early hours of the morning UK time).

Scroll back. I aslo included a link to my personal testimony if you’re interested.

OB:

thanks for the links. I will check them out - promise.
In return. may I offer you a short slice of 2 Peter. 1:16-21

16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

18 We heard this voice come out of heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.

19 We have the more sure word of prophecy; and you do well that you heed it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star arises in your hearts:

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.

21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

L4T writes…

Since the ant analogy is not yours, I’m gonna feel free to say that I think it’s a crappy analogy. Humans didn’t create the ant, thus have no ability to speak the ant language, know exactly how they’re built, know what their needs are - indeed, know everything about them because he MADE them. I can see how this perspective would make it even more difficult to conceive of a “personal relationship with Jesus.� If we feel God is an impersonal deity that would just as soon trample us underfoot as acknowledge us, what incentive would there be to establish a realtionship?

I’m glad you feel it’s a bad analogy because that’s exactly what it is. Your reply prompts yet another question, however. If God made us and knows everything about us already then what benefit is there in his trying to establish a relationship with us? Part of the joy that comes from any relationship comes from learning about the other half of it and while there may be some of said joy for us mere mortals, there wouldn’t be any such thing for God because he already knows everything there is to know about us. It’s not even properly comparable to a parent/child relationship because while I may have had a hand in bringing my daughter into the world I don’t know everything there is to know about her and I find myself being taught by her as much as I instruct her. What could we possibly teach God? Given that he has the other two aspects of his schizophrenic personality to keep him company it remains difficult to fathom why he’d bother with creation at all.

I guess that’s part of the reason we differ so much. I see God as this creator who is not only all-powerful, but still wants to get to know me.

You just said above that God already knows everything there is to know about you, so what’s left for him to get to know?  In less than a paragraph you’ve just contradicted yourself.

You are perceiving the Christian God as one poised with a hammer, just waiting to smack you with it if you mess up.

Not at all. I perceive the Christian God as one who has set up the rules in a nonsensical and arbitrary way that would appear to contradict his own statements about love, tolerance, forgiveness, and justice. One that has defined punishments that even his own creations would consider cruel and unusual if we were to attempt to use them ourselves.

I still must distinguish between need and want. Maybe we’re just playing with words, but I don’t see God as needing a relationship with us. That lack of need doesn’t preclude enjoying such a relationship if we accept His offer.

You don’t seem to be grasping my point so let’s try starting with a definition. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary the word “want” has the following definitions:

Main Entry:  ¹want
Pronunciation:  ‘wont also ‘wänt & ‘w&nt

Function:  verb
Etymology:  Middle English, from Old Norse vanta; akin to Old English wan deficient
intransitive senses
1 : to be needy or destitute
2 : to have or feel need <never wants for friends>
3 : to be necessary or needed
4 : to desire to come, go, or be <the cat wants in> <wants out of the deal>
transitive senses
1 : to fail to possess especially in customary or required amount : LACK <the answer wanted courtesy>
2 a : to have a strong desire for <wanted a chance to rest> b : to have an inclination to : LIKE <say what you want, he is efficient>
3 a : to have need of : REQUIRE <the motor wants a tune-up> b : to suffer from the lack of <thousands still want food and shelter>
4 : OUGHT—used with the infinitive <you want to be very careful what you say—Claudia Cassidy>
5 : to wish or demand the presence of
6 : to hunt or seek in order to apprehend <wanted for murder>
synonym see DESIRE

As a noun the word is defined thusly:

Main Entry:  ²want

Function:  noun


1 a : DEFICIENCY, LACK <suffers from a want of good sense> b : grave and extreme poverty that deprives one of the necessities of life
2 : something wanted : NEED, DESIRE
3 : personal defect : FAULT
synonym see POVERTY

It’s quite clear that the word “want” and it’s synonym “desire” both deal in “needs” both real and perceived. So, again, I ask: Why would a perfect entity want anything? He is complete and whole unto himself lacking nothing and gaining nothing. We have nothing to offer him that would make him any more perfect than he already is or that could possibly improve his existence in any way. He loses nothing by ignoring us.

Even if we skip over the literal concept of “needing” something (like food) and go strictly to the perceived need for something (like nice jewelry) the argument still stands. When we, as humans, want something that we don’t literally need it’s because we still perceive some benefit from the thing we long for. What possible benefit could God perceive that would incline him to “want” to establish a relationship with us? For that matter, what possible motivation would there be for a perfect being to bother with creation at all?

I don’t know if it’s required by us as part of initial salvation. As I’ve suggested, once you take the leap, I think worship is a pleasant and appropriate response. Jesus, on the other hand, by worshiping anything other than himself, would have been acknowledging that He is not God, which would have been game over, as such a statement would make Him out to be a liar and worse.

I don’t follow that logic at all. Whether I worship something else has no real bearing on the truth or falsehood of Jesus’ claim that he is God. If he is indeed God then his claim is true regardless of what I worship or, for that matter, what I believe. At most you could claim that I consider whatever I worship to be worthy of being worshiped. Additionally, in the Bible God himself admits to being jealous and uses that as his justification for prohibiting worship of other Gods. He doesn’t say you can’t worship other Gods because it makes him into a liar, but because it makes him jealous. You would think a perfect God would be beyond jealousy as that’s another sign of insecurity.

Next time you read some of it, try to read with the perspective that ALL of God’s actions are designed to prevent his creation from trying to find meaning/fulfillment where He knows it’s NOT. Where is it not? Other gods, sleeping with your neighbor’s wife, riches, political power, physical or mental strength, achievement, etc. Ecclesiastes spells this out in the most direct way, but really, the whole Bible tells this story, in many different ways, over and over again.
It’s a subtle shift in perspective, but perhaps crucial. If God is not on an ego trip, but taking extreme measures to have us experience the only true fulfillment there is, his commandments/suggestions are not a set of dictator’s rules, but a kind warning on how not to experience pain.

Been there, tried that. My pastor once suggested the same approach, but it flies in the face of observed reality. There are plenty of people worshiping other Gods who seem as fulfilled as any Christian I know. Mahatma Ghandi certainly seemed to find meaning and fulfillment in his beliefs and he was Hindu:

“Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being ... When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita”.

People find meaning and fulfillment in all manner of pursuits and there are certainly plenty of Christians out there who seem incapable of finding meaning or fulfillment in their own God. Perhaps they’re just not praying properly…

I suspect the words worship and serve are so close together for good reason. Think about the times you’ve done something selfless/loving/kind. Did you not feel a deep sense of fulfillment when you did those things? I’ll go farther and posit that you might even admit that those feelings gave you a deeper sense of joy than purely selfish methods of getting pleasure? If these are the feelings that we get when we naturally follow his ultimate command of “do to your neighbor what you would have him do unto you,� can you imagine an eternity of such great feelings? Worshiping God, in it’s larger sense, probably entails serving in some capacity. If we’ve already established that He doesn’t NEED anything from us, this serving/ worshiping may well be as much (or more) for our benefit than the recipient.

If God’s a perfect being then any service/worship would have to be entirely for our benefit because it’s not going to do a damned thing for him. Yes, I’ve certainly felt good when I’ve done something selfless/loving/or kind, but I can’t say that it felt better or deeper than any of the things I’ve done for purely selfish reasons. Personally I try to maintain what I consider a healthy balance between my selfishness and my selflessness. I’ve found that too much of either can be a bad thing that is detrimental to my health.

As an aside, the Golden Rule (do unto others...) was around long before Judaism arrived on the scene.

Reminds me of the question: “Could God make a rock so big even He couldn’t lift it?�
O.K., that’s a tough one. I don’t have all the answers, so I’ll just give you the best I’ve heard to that question. If God made us in His image, and He is immortal, then we were created to be immortal too. (I’m sure you’re familiar with references to the first and second deaths). So winking any of His creations out of existence would be impossible? I know that explanation is shoddy. Lemme dwell on it. I’m stumped right now.

Yeah, that’s a pretty bad explanation. Simply because we were created to be immortal doesn’t mean we have to be and if it’s impossible for God to wink us out of existence then his power is limited. Seeing as the Bible describes all of Creation being a manifestation of God’s will you’d think he’d have the ability to manipulate his will in a manner to remove anything he wanted to remove.

Assuming for the moment that it’s entirely within the realm of his ability to do such a thing then why wouldn’t her choose that method of dealing with the folks who don’t believe in him? Would that not be a more humane solution that still maintains justice than allowing for an eternity of unimaginable torment?

How so? God states that He never changes (his nature, that is). His methods may vary, but He stays the same.

Prior to Jesus showing up on the scene only the Jews were getting into Heaven. They were the chosen people, after all. When Jesus shows up and dies on the cross he forms a New Covenant that expands the possibility for salvation beyond just the Jews. The “chosen people” went from being the Jews to the Christians. He changed the rules.  Prior to Jesus if you weren’t a Jew you weren’t getting into Heaven. After Jesus the gates were thrown open. Sort of.

Unless He did limit Himself in that flesh. ie, deliberately not give his fleshly form all His heavenly powers. Such an explanation would make His temptations, his suffering on the cross, and praying to himself a little less difficult to understand. Hey, I’ll do my best here, but the best pastor in the world can’t explain the trinity in all it’s ramifications/meanings.

You’ve giving it your best shot and I can respect that. It’s probably time I came clean and admit that, for the most part, you’re giving the answers I’d expect you to based on having had this conversation many times already in the past. To your immense credit, however, you’ve not gotten so frustrated and flustered as to tell me to fuck off and burn in hell like so many of your predecessors have. Not sure if this means much coming from an atheist, but you’re definitely one of the better Christians to come along here and attempt to engage us in a conversation. Your arguments aren’t new, but your approach is refreshing.

These are all good points of discussion, amongst believers as much as between believers and skeptics. Once again highlighting the non-avoidable aspect of Faith, rather than rational proof.
About 10 minutes after I was “saved,� I came across a website you may have surfed. The skeptics annotated bible. It really threw me, and I had to decide right then if I was gonna maintain this faith, and let those contractions get explained as I went. 3 years later, every contradiction I’ve earnestly sought to understand has been explained to me.

I think I have a copy of the Skeptics Annotated Bible around here someplace. Probably still packed away in a box, but yes, I’m familiar with it. I have to ask, though, is it that those contradictions have been explained or that you’ve found a way to rationalize them away? Not meant to offend, but to prompt a touch of introspection.

He’s not being constrained by an OUTSIDE force, but by his own definition of who He says He is. If He contradicts the very rules He set up, He would prove Himself inconsistent, and not be worth trusting.

He’s God. He exists outside of time and space. He could change his mind and make it retroactive to the beginning of creation. He’s also the source of all morals and justice so any decision he makes is, by nature of being God, both moral and just. Where’s the problem?

If he can wipe every tear in heaven, and satisfy all needs, then even the worst set of sins can be forgiven. If he stays true to His nature and plan, not accepting his substitutionary death for your sins before you die is irreversable. We have to believe Jesus was God in order to let him take our debt. If we don’t believe in him, who is it we’re supposedly letting pay our debt?

I have a couple of problems with this argument. First, I don’t have to believe in you for you to sacrifice yourself and save my life. Allow me to use a very simple analogy:

We’re both passengers on a subway train. You’re in the first car not far from the conductor’s booth and I’m in the last car of the train. Suddenly an evil bad guy intent on running the train off the tracks jumps up and manages to wrench open the door to the cab and shoots the conductor in the back of the head. In an amazing display of selflessness you jump up and wrestle with the gunman and manage to incapacitate him foiling his evil plan, but not before receiving several fatal gun shots and you die there and then on the spot. You’ve just sacrificed your life to save a whole train full of passengers and all the while I’m in the back of the train and aren’t even remotely aware that you even exist. My belief in you in no way plays a factor in you having saved me from death through your selfless act. Do you deserve to be recognized for your selfless act? I’d say that it’s a reasonable thing to expect considering your status as an imperfect human, but a perfect deity presumably wouldn’t feel the need for such acknowledgment.

The only reason that belief in Jesus is a requirement in order for his sacrifice to apply to us is because God decided it was a requirement. My belief or disbelief in no way impacts Jesus’ sacrifice (if it can really be considered that what with him being God and all). The requirement of belief is therefore either arbitrary or a matter of ego.

Secondly, the whole concept of being born guilty of sin because of what Adam did way back when is inherently unfair and another example of God’s arbitrary nature. If I go out and murder forty people my daughter isn’t put to death along with me and yet God promises to visit his wrath on several generations of a sinner’s children if crossed. How is it that God’s creation has a more developed sense of justice than he does?

Have I been duped by a bunch of long-dead guys who hatched an impossibly intricate conspiracy plan to suck money and power out of the masses for the benefit of their underlings long after they personally expire? Can’t buy that. Too involved. Too many impossible prophecies, past and future.

I don’t think anyone has suggested this was all planned from the start. I accept the idea that the early founders of the religion believed in most, if not all, of what they were preaching at the time and that they were doing so out of genuine concern. I also think, however, that over the years the utility of religion in controlling the masses and keeping them in line was not lost on those in power and what started off as an honest attempt to explain the world and make it a better place became more of an institution of control, wealth and influence. One need only look at Vatican for Example Number 1. Not that Christianity is alone in that regard. Islam managed to figure out how to get people to blow themselves up in the name of their God. That’s an example of the ultimate power and influence religion can bring to bear.

As for prophecy, that’s nothing new. A parlor trick aided by the benefit of vagueness and hindsight. Most modern prophets are more accurate than what you’ll find in the Bible. Nostradamus still draws big crowds of believers with his act and he’s been dead for quite a while himself.

The C.S. Lewis quote has been tackled by others adequately already…

There is nothing to learn from the Bible if Jesus wasn’t God.

I disagree. The Bible has no small amount of good advice in it regardless of whether or not it’s largely a work of fiction not the least of which is the aforementioned Golden Rule.

I’m not saying there’s no wisdom in it. I’m just asking why anyone who rejects its main premise would trust anything else it says. If you think the whole story is a crock, shouldn’t you fling it as far from yourself as possible? If Jesus made (in your opinion) such bold but wrong claims, why would you not relegate All his words to “file under nutcase?� If he lied about being God, why would anyone look to Him for any sense of moral direction?

In one of the neighborhoods I used to live in there was this old man I often used to talk to. He seemed perfectly normal except for the fact that he had this unshakable belief that he was constantly accompanied everywhere he went by aliens from another planet that only he could see. According to him the aliens had just shown up one day and demanded that he provide proof that humanity was worthy of existence or they were going to blow up the world. By the time I’d met him they’d been on the planet for some 12 years and despite his constant daily efforts they still hadn’t been convinced. He’d often get into arguments with one of them right in front of you.

Most people considered this guy to be batshit crazy, but other than this one (big) quirk he was really quite rational. I liked to talk with him on occasion in part because he seemed to be an incredibly lonely man who didn’t have any family that I could discern and in part because he had some of the best insights on human nature I’ve ever heard. As well he should because he spent a lot of time people watching trying to find positive traits to show the aliens that we were a decent lot worthy of not being blown to space dust.

Now I don’t believe for a second that this man was being followed by invisible world-judging aliens, but I don’t doubt the sincerity of his belief any more than I doubt the sincerity of your belief in your God. Just as many Christians like to claim that their God is an issue of fact as far as they are concerned so too were these aliens to that old man and I have no more ability to disprove the existence of those aliens than I do the existence of your God. For all I know that old man could be telling the truth and through his sacrifice over a couple of decades (by now, assuming he’s still alive) he may have saved all of us from being reduced to our base particles by testy aliens from another world—but I don’t think that’s the case for the same reasons I don’t think your God exists. Just the same I found plenty of value in his fiction that others rejected out of hand as the ramblings of a crazy old man.

Still, I’m curious to know: Do you think I should believe you any more than I believed that old guy and his aliens?

If God made us and knows everything about us already then what benefit is there in his trying to establish a relationship with us?

Simple. His joy at being the gift giver.

You just said above that God already knows everything there is to know about you, so what’s left for him to get to know?  In less than a paragraph you’ve just contradicted yourself.

Yes, I did, but not intentionally. I should have been more careful in my use of the phrase “get to know.” By that, I meant God would enjoy:
-watching our development
-be delighted in seeing us respond more and more to his love and guidance
-showing us more and more the different gifts he has for us,
Yes, He could remain content sharing His love with the “schizophrenic” aspects of the trinity, but perhaps the love is so huge, it simple spilled over outside that trio - thus, creation is just another way for that love to expand.

Not at all. I perceive the Christian God as one who has set up the rules in a nonsensical and arbitrary way that would appear to contradict his own statements about love, tolerance, forgiveness, and justice. One that has defined punishments that even his own creations would consider cruel and unusual if we were to attempt to use them ourselves.

“Would appear to” is the operative phrase here. I don’t disagree that His actions do seem strange. However, that just brings us back to the acknowledgement that faith is faith. Personally, I have chosen to let God’s “seeeming” inconsistencies stand until I can prove that they really are inconsistent. I won’t be the first person in the question line in heaven. The Bible suggests that such questions will become unneccesary upon our first glimpse of Christ.

I don’t know if it’s required by us as part of initial salvation. As I’ve suggested, once you take the leap, I think worship is a pleasant and appropriate response. Jesus, on the other hand, by worshiping anything other than himself, would have been acknowledging that He is not God, which would have been game over, as such a statement would make Him out to be a liar and worse.

I don’t follow that logic at all. Whether I worship something else has no real bearing on the truth or falsehood of Jesus’ claim that he is God. If he is indeed God then his claim is true regardless of what I worship or, for that matter, what I believe. At most you could claim that I consider whatever I worship to be worthy of being worshiped. Additionally, in the Bible God himself admits to being jealous and uses that as his justification for prohibiting worship of other Gods. He doesn’t say you can’t worship other Gods because it makes him into a liar, but because it makes him jealous. You would think a perfect God would be beyond jealousy as that’s another sign of insecurity.

Communication breakdown here. I wasn’t clear enough. I wasn’t suggesting that our failure to worship God makes Him a liar. I specifically meant that if Jesus worshiped anything other than himself (in all 3 schizophrenic forms), it would prove Him to be a liar. He says he is God, and only God is worthy of worship, so if he worshiped Satan, he’d be calling Sata God.
Dang the imperfection of this thing called language! Yet another consequence of the fall/ man’s attempt to reach heaven on his own (Tower of Babylon).

Me:  If God is not on an ego trip, but taking extreme measures to have us experience the only true fulfillment there is, his commandments/suggestions are not a set of dictator’s rules, but a kind warning on how not to experience pain.

You: Been there, tried that. My pastor once suggested the same approach, but it flies in the face of observed reality. There are plenty of people worshiping other Gods who seem as fulfilled as any Christian I know. Mahatma Ghandi certainly seemed to find meaning and fulfillment in his beliefs and he was Hindu:

Once again, I can’t prove Jesus is the only way. As a matter of fact, I read something tonight that makes me ponder. Here’s the spliced quote from the entire article at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/122/51.0.html

What we do know is that Christ the Savior is not only a 33-year-old, 6-foot-high Jewish man, but also the eternal God, the Logos that enlightens every individual (John 1:9). Thus everyone has a fair chance to accept him or reject him, whether implicitly (for all light of truth and goodness is from him) or explicitly. We are not saved by how explicit our knowledge is; we are saved by him. Faith is the glue that holds him fast (or, more accurately, the glue by which he holds us fast, for faith is also his gift).

This is a traditional, mainline Christian position, from the time of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria to the time of C. S. Lewis. It is halfway between the liberal view that one can be saved in other ways than Christ (for example, by good intentions) and the frequent fundamentalist view that it takes an explicit knowledge of Christ to be saved.

Is the Hindu merely duped by Satan? Yours to consider.

If God’s a perfect being then any service/worship would have to be entirely for our benefit because it’s not going to do a damned thing for him.

Even throughout our discussion, I’m leaning more toward the first part of your statement. I still don’t think God won’t be pleased by it.

Personally I try to maintain what I consider a healthy balance between my selfishness and my selflessness. I’ve found that too much of either can be a bad thing that is detrimental to my health.

Yeah, me too. Perhaps in heaven we’ll grasp fully that our selflessness is what’s most fulfilling. The God of the bible claims to know the desires of our heart better than we ourselves do. Maybe He’ll show us how selflessness.sefishness aren’t mutually exclusive.

Assuming for the moment that it’s entirely within the realm of his ability to do such a thing (winking us out of existence)then why wouldn’t he choose that method of dealing with the folks who don’t believe in him? Would that not be a more humane solution that still maintains justice than allowing for an eternity of unimaginable torment?

His declaration of the seriousness of sin was that killing His Son was the only act that could atone for it. He must consider that sacrifice unimaginably horrific, since the only thing He equates it with is eternal dmnation. I’m afraid eternal damnation will be the ultimate reminder of how serious sin is. Any lesser punishment would be God redefining sin as “not that big a deal, really.”

Prior to Jesus showing up on the scene only the Jews were getting into Heaven. They were the chosen people, after all. When Jesus shows up and dies on the cross he forms a New Covenant that expands the possibility for salvation beyond just the Jews. The “chosen peopleâ€? went from being the Jews to the Christians. He changed the rules.  Prior to Jesus if you weren’t a Jew you weren’t getting into Heaven. After Jesus the gates were thrown open. Sort of.

I don’t think you can safely conclude that. Read this: (from http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99744.qna/category/ot/page/questions/site/iiim

How were Gentile followers of God saved in the Old Testament? Did they have to become Jewish in order to be saved?

Answer

In the Old Testament, the Gentile followers of God did not have to become Jewish in order to be saved, that is, they did not have to join the nation of Israel. There were saved people in the world before Abraham, during Abraham’s days, and even after Abraham, who were not part of the nation of Israel (e.g., Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18; and probably Jethro in Exodus 3:1). Once God made his covenant with Israel, however, Gentiles did have to join the nation in order to gain the greatest earthly covenant blessings. And God commanded them to be circumcised since that was the sign of his covenant (cf. Exod. 12:48-49). He also commanded them to keep the rest of the covenant stipulations, namely the Law.

Still, salvation has always been through Christ, and national membership has never been a means of receiving Christ. So, Gentile believers could be saved without joining the nation. But they could not be saved without being part of God’s covenant people (salvation brought them into covenant with God).

In the same way, a modern person might come to faith and not join a local congregation of the visible church. This person would be in covenant with God, and technically would be part of the visible church, though without participating in its ongoing corporate activities. This is less than ideal, but it is possible (cf. Heb. 10:24-25).

I think I have a copy of the Skeptics Annotated Bible around here someplace. Probably still packed away in a box, but yes, I’m familiar with it. I have to ask, though, is it that those contradictions have been explained or that you’ve found a way to rationalize them away? Not meant to offend, but to prompt a touch of introspection.

It’s actually online: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Of course, it has its counterpart at the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - http://www.carm.org/

He’s God. He exists outside of time and space. He could change his mind and make it retroactive to the beginning of creation. He’s also the source of all morals and justice so any decision he makes is, by nature of being God, both moral and just. Where’s the problem?

He has detailed his plan, and shared it with us. If He’s perfect, His overall plan would likewise be perfect, with no need for revision (other than making minor adjustments throughout the game in response to our freewill actions.

The only reason that belief in Jesus is a requirement in order for his sacrifice to apply to us is because God decided it was a requirement. My belief or disbelief in no way impacts Jesus’ sacrifice (if it can really be considered that what with him being God and all). The requirement of belief is therefore either arbitrary or a matter of ego.

Not arbitrary or an ego matter, but again, communication as to the seriousness of sin, and having us acknowledge same.

Secondly, the whole concept of being born guilty of sin because of what Adam did way back when is inherently unfair and another example of God’s arbitrary nature.

It’s only unfair if God didn’t make us aware of our sin nature, and offer us a chance to escape it. As is, it’s even more than our own personal plight. It’s God demonstraing his Glory. As weird as His whole plan looks, redemption is undoubtably a powerful way to show His glory. That touches upon one of your earlier comments: “Why all the high drama?”

I don’t think anyone has suggested this was all planned from the start. I accept the idea that the early founders of the religion believed in most, if not all, of what they were preaching at the time and that they were doing so out of genuine concern. I also think, however, that over the years the utility of religion in controlling the masses and keeping them in line was not lost on those in power and what started off as an honest attempt to explain the world and make it a better place became more of an institution of control, wealth and influence. One need only look at Vatican for Example Number 1. Not that Christianity is alone in that regard. Islam managed to figure out how to get people to blow themselves up in the name of their God. That’s an example of the ultimate power and influence religion can bring to bear.

Yeah, so? People using the Bible for their own selfish means says nothing about the content of the Bible.

Prophecy - A parlor trick aided by the benefit of vagueness and hindsight. Most modern prophets are more accurate than what you’ll find in the Bible. Nostradamus still draws big crowds of believers with his act and he’s been dead for quite a while himself.

Are you serious? Vague? It’s late. I’ll be back another day with examples of impossibly precise prophecy. As for the future, read Tim LaHaye’s Revelation Unveiled. Oh, I know, his brand of doomsday prophecy explanation is particularly scorned by skeptics and belivers alike. All I can say is, be aware of what could soon be coming our way. I wouldn’t wish the end-times tribulation on my worst enemy, but if they arrive as soon as many scholars think they will (no one knows the exact ime or date, but we can be aware of the season), very specific things will happen. The bible says that even non-believers will know these things are coming from God, and many will look up to the sky and shake their fist at God. I pray continually that as many as possible come to the faith before the times of “Jacob’s Trouble.”

Still, I’m curious to know: Do you think I should believe you any more than I believed that old guy and his aliens?

To me, there’s a whole lot more evidence of God’s truth, and internal consistency in the Bible than you believe. That’s why I initially mistook you for someone who hadn’t really read it. All I can say is, keep reading it. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think these matters would fascinate you so much if you weren’t still curious. To me, your posts, and selection of religious blog material seem to be screaming out for someone to explain to you how this God could possibly be true. You’re obviously well read, and have given these matters way more thought than I gave you credit for.
You have my similar respect and appreciation for your civility. It’s truly been a pleasure.
May the best God win.
Tom

I’ll be back another day with examples of impossibly precise prophecy.

If you do, that will be my opening to join the discussion again, L4t.  All this apologetics stuff is impossible to engage- there’s no place to bite, because the notion of an almighty being will support just about any interpretation you want, so we just go round and round.  Now, if you have some ramifications of your belief that are visible in the real world, we can talk- prophecies, the age of the Earth, evolution, miracles, for example.

I appreciate your civility too.  I get along better with civil Christians than with uncouth atheists.  As the Dalai Lama said, “I believe that whether a person follows any religion or not is unimportant, he must have a good heart, a warm heart. This is essential for a happy life, which is much more important than Buddhahood.”

I’m sorry for butting in with obvious dumb shit but:
I read http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/122/51.0.html up there as suggested.
It was fascinAting. A beautiful mixture of wordage: a little logic, lots of leaps of faith cemented with … what’s the word again? Ah. Bullshit.

… we would all be 33

in heaven. Cool.

What kind of bodies will we have in Heaven? Christians say we will have transformed bodies, but real, physical bodies.

Wow. I thought in 1 Corinthians 15:44, Paul said: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. And. In 15:50 Blah blah blah, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god. I guess our current crop of Paulians know better, a?

Will we be able to perform magic and miracles? I think so.

Only think so?

Infants who die prematurely will be given, by God (perhaps through the mediation of their own parents!), all the maturing they missed on Earth.

Give me a break. Perhaps? They’re guessing because NO provisors were made for children … but the sheeple need answers so … Sheesh. What a crock.
I’ve digressed.

Looking4Truth (aka P4Us[a?]) says that GOD is:
- watching our development
- (be) delighted in seeing us respond more and more to his love and guidance
- showing us more and more the different gifts he has for us,

I’m sorry. Have I missed something here?
If he is omniMAX he already knows how all this shit turns out.
Or, is he just having a cosmic joke, like with the dinosaur bones, and toying with us, like a cat with a mouse? Or is he more like one of those gorgeous young fillies we call prick-teasers? Same thing really.

It’s only unfair if God didn’t make us aware of our sin nature, and offer us a chance to escape it.

This is the biggie that I’ve been questioning xians with since I was about ten. Forget about me for a minute, but, what about all the people, especially the children, in darkest Africa or the New Guinea Highlands and all those other places, who’ve never heard of the judeo-xian belief system, and had a chance to be ‘saved’?
Xians usually evade and answer with something along the lines of:
Oh, everyone’s heard of xianity by now, or
god moves in mysterious ways, or
don’t worry about them, they’ll be looked after in some way (that’s not really spelled out in the bible, but we know what the answer is coz we know stuff, coz we’re god-botherers/worshippers/askers and gifted bible interpreters, and, god talks to us all the time).
None of them ever mention the smoke and mirrors used in the illusions.

I wouldn’t wish the end-times tribulation on my worst enemy,

Mate, I don’t think any of us can die in any worse way than xians, using god/jesus as their guide, have killed anyone who didn’t agree with them, in the past.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think these matters would fascinate you so much if you weren’t still curious.

Nah, I’m not curious about the existence of the fairy-god-mother, coz there’s no evidence she exists.
We could just as easily say that spacemen visited and messed with the heads of our ancients.
I’m just curious as to how (I understand why) intelligent people (you don’t sound like someone with a less than average IQ) can, in the 2006th year of the Common Era, still rationalise and swallow myths of invisible beings with their roots in Ancient Egypt.
Please investigate the history which took place in years before Rome and Constantine put your bible together at the Council at Niscea in 325ce so they could Control the people.
It is always the only reason religion is ever put together. Control/Power/Money.
Although Buddhism does offer insights into consciousness, self and many other things that xianity doesn’t as it has nothing to base it on and is really only interested in sin and the threat of hell for disbelievers.
Spin is not something invented by 20th century politicians. It’s been round forever.
I respectfully ask that y’all forgive me for butting in … please … carry on.

I respectfully ask that y’all forgive me for butting in … please … carry on.

Hey John- we’re all only “butting in”, one way or another.  Please carry on butting in.

I, too, checked out that “What Will Heaven be Like?” site, but I missed that gem you quoted:

Infants who die prematurely will be given, by God (perhaps through the mediation of their own parents!), all the maturing they missed on Earth.

One has to wonder- will this heavenly maturing include TeleTubbies?  A little eternity, a little omnipotence, and your imagination runs hog wild...

...we would all be 33…

Okay, I can live with that (hah! Cause, you know, I’d really be dead). That’s over four years older than I am now, but what’s four years? Me, I’d rather be twenty-two again for all eternity, but what do I know? I’m just the Maharishi (bonus points to whoever gets the reference).

Looking4LoveInAlltheWrongPlaces (sorry, man; John’s got the Grassroots playing): Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think these matters would fascinate you so much if you weren’t still curious.

Curiosity takes many forms, friend. I consider myself an extremely curious person, and I always have. Sometimes we are most curious by what repels us most, or by that which we would personally least like to espouse in our own lives.

The Beatles and the original name of the song?

Bravo, Julian!

This site should keep you all in stitches:
http://www.myfortress.org/index.html
Hope to see some of you in Heaven.
Tom
Matthew 10:14

I’m a bit late to this party, but whatever.

A few general observations, if I may. One of the things I learned while killing time on religious forums is that the language barrier makes it more trouble than it’s worth to have an actual conversation. The reason for the language barrier can be gleaned from the exchanges up-thread.

The problem with theologies, even something as basic as Deism, is that admitting additional axiomatic beliefs raises more questions than they answer. The more elaborate the theology and the more anthropomorphic the deity, the more cracks to paper over.

The way I see Christian theology is that it sounds great until you start to run with it. There are some very profound assumptions buried right at the core of that theology that don’t make any sense at all when seen from the outside. It seems to me that the one way religious believers can rationalize these problems away is by redefining common language, hence the language barrier arises.

As far as apologists are concerned, there’s often a malicious debating tactic involved. They make a statement using common terms. When objections are raised, they point out that if one defines this or that common term like so, it all makes sense. If this is grudgingly granted, they trumpet to the world that their opponent has agreed to their original claim - using the common meaning instead of their own tortured definitions.

This site should keep you all in stitches:
http://www.myfortress.org/index.html

It would be funnier if some people who believe this stuff didn’t have the power to make war on the rest of us.
For something really funny, check out this.

Hope to see some of you in Heaven.
Tom

Oh, you hope to see just some of us in Heaven, eh?  Which of us don’t you want to see in Heaven, Tom?

Zilch, heaven and hell are overrated. Same difference if you exist long enough

L4T: This site should keep you all in stitches:
http://www.myfortress.org/index.html

Well, the graphics at the top of the page are cute, I’ll give them that.

As far as leaving me in stitches, I especially liked the “Christianity is Logical” page. Seems to me that one shouldn’t have to take on faith that which is logical.

Translation: You have to take it on faith that Christianity can be justified by reason.

Oh, you hope to see just some of us in Heaven, eh?  Which of us don’t you want to see in Heaven, Tom?

Based on the smiley, I figure you’re joking. Just in case though, it was just a reflection of the faith that says not all will be saved. That’s all it meant.
Regards,
Tom

Yes, I did, but not intentionally. I should have been more careful in my use of the phrase “get to know.� By that, I meant God would enjoy:
-watching our development
-be delighted in seeing us respond more and more to his love and guidance

Hmmmm, an omnipotent being that is so obsessed with something that he created that he would “be delighted” to see his creations respond to “his love and guidance”.  The flip side is that he would be pissed off if his creations ignored him.  One thing that movies and TV programs show us is that we NEVER want to piss off an omnipotent being.  An omnipotent being getting pissed off because his creations didn’t respond to him sounds like a great plot for a made for Sci-Fi channel movie.

Maybe not everyone will be saved, L4t, but that doesn’t logically exclude the possibility that all of us here at SEB will be saved.  How can you be sure?  Elwed says

You have to take it on faith that Christianity can be justified by reason.

I would add: or just discard reason in the first place.  I once argued with my fundie friend (the one in whose name I found the number 666) about evolution and the age of the Earth.  When she was backed into a corner, she finally said “I don’t know the answers, but God can take care of that stuff”.
Looking a little further into the fortress site, I found many similar logical dingers, and this standard pathetic falsehood:

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics basically means that everything runs inexorably from order to disorder and from complexity to decay.

Uh, no.  It basically means that in a closed system, the total amount of entropy within the system increases with time.  Open systems, such as crystals, sand dunes, and people, can decrease their entropy and thereby increase their complexity, at the cost of increasing entropy elsewhere, by extracting energy and order from their surroundings.  Crystals rely on chemical energy, sand dunes on wind, and people on eating and breathing, to reverse entropy locally.

This has been explained so many times to fundamentalists that one sometimes has the nasty suspicion that they are simply sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “la la la, I can’t hear you”.  But that’s an unworthy thought, I know…

Doesn’t Genesis cotradict both the first and second laws of Thermodynamics anyway?