See other Religion Articles
Title: The Christian Paradox
Source:
Harpers
URL Source: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
Published: Sep 28, 2005
Author: Bill McKibben
Post Date: 2005-09-28 23:36:45 by crack monkey
Keywords: Christian, Paradox
Views: 2829
Comments: 197
The Christian Paradox How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005. What it means to be Christian in America. An excerpt from this report appeared in August 2005. The complete text appears below. Originally from August 2005. By Bill McKibben. SourcesOnly 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up. Asking Christians what Christ taught isn’t a trick. When we say we are a Christian nation—and, overwhelmingly, we do—it means something. People who go to church absorb lessons there and make real decisions based on those lessons; increasingly, these lessons inform their politics. (One poll found that 11 percent of U.S. churchgoers were urged by their clergy to vote in a particular way in the 2004 election, up from 6 percent in 2000.) When George Bush says that Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher, he may or may not be sincere, but he is reflecting the sincere beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture. * * * Ours is among the most spiritually homogenous rich nations on earth. Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish. It is true that a smaller number of Americans—about 75 percent—claim they actually pray to God on a daily basis, and only 33 percent say they manage to get to church every week. Still, even if that 85 percent overstates actual practice, it clearly represents aspiration. In fact, there is nothing else that unites more than four fifths of America. Every other statistic one can cite about American behavior is essentially also a measure of the behavior of professed Christians. That’s what America is: a place saturated in Christian identity. But is it Christian? This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion—say, giving aid to the poorest people—as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then? In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it’s not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It’s also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it’s that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention. And it’s not as if the numbers are getting better: the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that the number of households that were “food insecure with hunger” had climbed more than 26 percent between 1999 and 2003. This Christian nation also tends to make personal, as opposed to political, choices that the Bible would seem to frown upon. Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers. We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations (which at least should give us plenty of opportunity for visiting the prisoners). Having been told to turn the other cheek, we’re the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest. Despite Jesus’ strong declarations against divorce, our marriages break up at a rate—just over half—that compares poorly with the European Union’s average of about four in ten. That average may be held down by the fact that Europeans marry less frequently, and by countries, like Italy, where divorce is difficult; still, compare our success with, say, that of the godless Dutch, whose divorce rate is just over 37 percent. Teenage pregnancy? We’re at the top of the charts. Personal self-discipline—like, say, keeping your weight under control? Buying on credit? Running government deficits? Do you need to ask? * * * Are Americans hypocrites? Of course they are. But most people (me, for instance) are hypocrites. The more troubling explanation for this disconnect between belief and action, I think, is that most Americans—which means most believers—have replaced the Christianity of the Bible, with its call for deep sharing and personal sacrifice, with a competing creed. In fact, there may be several competing creeds. For many Christians, deciphering a few passages of the Bible to figure out the schedule for the End Times has become a central task. You can log on to http://RaptureReady.com for a taste of how some of these believers view the world—at this writing the Rapture Index had declined three points to 152 because, despite an increase in the number of U.S. pagans, “Wal-Mart is falling behind in its plan to bar code all products with radio tags.” Other End-Timers are more interested in forcing the issue—they’re convinced that the way to coax the Lord back to earth is to “Christianize” our nation and then the world. Consider House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. At church one day he listened as the pastor, urging his flock to support the administration, declared that “the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.” DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.” The apocalyptics may not be wrong. One could make a perfectly serious argument that the policies of Tom DeLay are in fact hastening the End Times. But there’s nothing particularly Christian about this hastening. The creed of Tom DeLay—of Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind books, of Pat Robertson’s “The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today”—ripened out of the impossibly poetic imagery of the Book of Revelation. Imagine trying to build a theory of the Constitution by obsessively reading and rereading the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and you’ll get an idea of what an odd approach this is. You might be able to spin elaborate fantasies about presidential succession, but you’d have a hard time working backwards to “We the People.” This is the contemporary version of Archbishop Ussher’s seventeenth-century calculation that the world had been created on October 23, 4004 B.C., and that the ark touched down on Mount Ararat on May 5, 2348 B.C., a Wednesday. Interesting, but a distant distraction from the gospel message. The apocalyptics, however, are the lesser problem. It is another competing (though sometimes overlapping) creed, this one straight from the sprawling megachurches of the new exurbs, that frightens me most. Its deviation is less obvious precisely because it looks so much like the rest of the culture. In fact, most of what gets preached in these palaces isn’t loony at all. It is disturbingly conventional. The pastors focus relentlessly on you and your individual needs. Their goal is to service consumers—not communities but individuals: “seekers” is the term of art, people who feel the need for some spirituality in their (or their children’s) lives but who aren’t tightly bound to any particular denomination or school of thought. The result is often a kind of soft-focus, comfortable, suburban faith. A New York Times reporter visiting one booming megachurch outside Phoenix recently found the typical scene: a drive-through latte stand, Krispy Kreme doughnuts at every service, and sermons about “how to discipline your children, how to reach your professional goals, how to invest your money, how to reduce your debt.” On Sundays children played with church-distributed Xboxes, and many congregants had signed up for a twice-weekly aerobics class called Firm Believers. A list of bestsellers compiled monthly by the Christian Booksellers Association illuminates the creed. It includes texts like Your Best Life Now by Joel Osteen—pastor of a church so mega it recently leased a 16,000-seat sports arena in Houston for its services—which even the normally tolerant Publishers Weekly dismissed as “a treatise on how to get God to serve the demands of self-centered individuals.” Nearly as high is Beth Moore, with her Believing God—“Beth asks the tough questions concerning the fruit of our Christian lives,” such as “are we living as fully as we can?” Other titles include Humor for a Woman’s Heart, a collection of “humorous writings” designed to “lift a life above the stresses and strains of the day”; The Five Love Languages, in which Dr. Gary Chapman helps you figure out if you’re speaking in the same emotional dialect as your significant other; and Karol Ladd’s The Power of a Positive Woman. Ladd is the co-founder of USA Sonshine Girls—the “Son” in Sonshine, of course, is the son of God—and she is unremittingly upbeat in presenting her five-part plan for creating a life with “more calm, less stress.” Not that any of this is so bad in itself. We do have stressful lives, humor does help, and you should pay attention to your own needs. Comfortable suburbanites watch their parents die, their kids implode. Clearly I need help with being positive. And I have no doubt that such texts have turned people into better parents, better spouses, better bosses. It’s just that these authors, in presenting their perfectly sensible advice, somehow manage to ignore Jesus’ radical and demanding focus on others. It may, in fact, be true that “God helps those who help themselves,” both financially and emotionally. (Certainly fortune does.) But if so it’s still a subsidiary, secondary truth, more Franklinity than Christianity. You could eliminate the scriptural references in most of these bestsellers and they would still make or not make the same amount of sense. Chicken Soup for the Zoroastrian Soul. It is a perfect mirror of the secular bestseller lists, indeed of the secular culture, with its American fixation on self-improvement, on self-esteem. On self. These similarities make it difficult (although not impossible) for the televangelists to posit themselves as embattled figures in a “culture war”— they offer too uncanny a reflection of the dominant culture, a culture of unrelenting self-obsession. * * * Who am I to criticize someone else’s religion? After all, if there is anything Americans agree on, it’s that we should tolerate everyone else’s religious expression. As a Newsweek writer put it some years ago at the end of his cover story on apocalyptic visions and the Book of Revelation, “Who’s to say that John’s mythic battle between Christ and Antichrist is not a valid insight into what the history of humankind is all about?” (Not Newsweek, that’s for sure; their religious covers are guaranteed big sellers.) To that I can only answer that I’m a . . . Christian. Not a professional one; I’m an environmental writer mostly. I’ve never progressed further in the church hierarchy than Sunday school teacher at my backwoods Methodist church. But I’ve spent most of my Sunday mornings in a pew. I grew up in church youth groups and stayed active most of my adult life—started homeless shelters in church basements, served soup at the church food pantry, climbed to the top of the rickety ladder to put the star on the church Christmas tree. My work has been, at times, influenced by all that—I’ve written extensively about the Book of Job, which is to me the first great piece of nature writing in the Western tradition, and about the overlaps between Christianity and environmentalism. In fact, I imagine I’m one of a fairly small number of writers who have had cover stories in both the Christian Century, the magazine of liberal mainline Protestantism, and Christianity Today, which Billy Graham founded, not to mention articles in Sojourners, the magazine of the progressive evangelical community co-founded by Jim Wallis. Indeed, it was my work with religious environmentalists that first got me thinking along the lines of this essay. We were trying to get politicians to understand why the Bible actually mandated protecting the world around us (Noah: the first Green), work that I think is true and vital. But one day it occurred to me that the parts of the world where people actually had cut dramatically back on their carbon emissions, actually did live voluntarily in smaller homes and take public transit, were the same countries where people were giving aid to the poor and making sure everyone had health care—countries like Norway and Sweden, where religion was relatively unimportant. How could that be? For Christians there should be something at least a little scary in the notion that, absent the magical answers of religion, people might just get around to solving their problems and strengthening their communities in more straightforward ways. But for me, in any event, the European success is less interesting than the American failure. Because we’re not going to be like them. Maybe we’d be better off if we abandoned religion for secular rationality, but we’re not going to; for the foreseeable future this will be a “Christian” nation. The question is, what kind of Christian nation? * * * The tendencies I’ve been describing—toward an apocalyptic End Times faith, toward a comfort-the-comfortable, personal-empowerment faith—veil the actual, and remarkable, message of the Gospels. When one of the Pharisees asked Jesus what the core of the law was, Jesus replied: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Love your neighbor as yourself: although its rhetorical power has been dimmed by repetition, that is a radical notion, perhaps the most radical notion possible. Especially since Jesus, in all his teachings, made it very clear who the neighbor you were supposed to love was: the poor person, the sick person, the naked person, the hungry person. The last shall be made first; turn the other cheek; a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle. On and on and on—a call for nothing less than a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of love. I confess, even as I write these words, to a feeling close to embarrassment. Because in public we tend not to talk about such things—my theory of what Jesus mostly meant seems like it should be left in church, or confined to some religious publication. But remember the overwhelming connection between America and Christianity; what Jesus meant is the most deeply potent political, cultural, social question. To ignore it, or leave it to the bullies and the salesmen of the televangelist sects, means to walk away from a central battle over American identity. At the moment, the idea of Jesus has been hijacked by people with a series of causes that do not reflect his teachings. The Bible is a long book, and even the Gospels have plenty in them, some of it seemingly contradictory and hard to puzzle out. But love your neighbor as yourself—not do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but love your neighbor as yourself—will suffice as a gloss. There is no disputing the centrality of this message, nor is there any disputing how easy it is to ignore that message. Because it is so counterintuitive, Christians have had to keep repeating it to themselves right from the start. Consider Paul, for instance, instructing the church at Galatea: “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,” he wrote. “‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” American churches, by and large, have done a pretty good job of loving the neighbor in the next pew. A pastor can spend all Sunday talking about the Rapture Index, but if his congregation is thriving you can be assured he’s spending the other six days visiting people in the hospital, counseling couples, and sitting up with grieving widows. All this human connection is important. But if the theology makes it harder to love the neighbor a little farther away—particularly the poor and the weak—then it’s a problem. And the dominant theologies of the moment do just that. They undercut Jesus, muffle his hard words, deaden his call, and in the end silence him. In fact, the soft-focus consumer gospel of the suburban megachurches is a perfect match for emergent conservative economic notions about personal responsibility instead of collective action. Privatize Social Security? Keep health care for people who can afford it? File those under “God helps those who help themselves.” Take Alabama as an example. In 2002, Bob Riley was elected governor of the state, where 90 percent of residents identify themselves as Christians. Riley could safely be called a conservative—right-wing majordomo Grover Norquist gave him a Friend of the Taxpayer Award every year he was in Congress, where he’d never voted for a tax increase. But when he took over Alabama, he found himself administering a tax code that dated to 1901. The richest Alabamians paid 3 percent of their income in taxes, and the poorest paid up to 12 percent; income taxes kicked in if a family of four made $4,600 (even in Mississippi the threshold was $19,000), while out-of-state timber companies paid $1.25 an acre in property taxes. Alabama was forty-eighth in total state and local taxes, and the largest proportion of that income came from sales tax—a super-regressive tax that in some counties reached into double digits. So Riley proposed a tax hike, partly to dig the state out of a fiscal crisis and partly to put more money into the state’s school system, routinely ranked near the worst in the nation. He argued that it was Christian duty to look after the poor more carefully. Had the new law passed, the owner of a $250,000 home in Montgomery would have paid $1,432 in property taxes—we’re not talking Sweden here. But it didn’t pass. It was crushed by a factor of two to one. Sixty-eight percent of the state voted against it—meaning, of course, something like 68 percent of the Christians who voted. The opposition was led, in fact, not just by the state’s wealthiest interests but also by the Christian Coalition of Alabama. “You’ll find most Alabamians have got a charitable heart,” said John Giles, the group’s president. “They just don’t want it coming out of their pockets.” On its website, the group argued that taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor “results in punishing success” and that “when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual.” You might as well just cite chapter and verse from Poor Richard’s Almanack. And whatever the ideology, the results are clear. “I’m tired of Alabama being first in things that are bad,” said Governor Riley, “and last in things that are good.” * * * A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America—founded in 1989 in order to “preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history”—proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be “making permanent President Bush’s 2001 federal tax cuts.” Similarly, a furor erupted last spring when it emerged that a Colorado jury had consulted the Bible before sentencing a killer to death. Experts debated whether the (Christian) jurors should have used an outside authority in their deliberations, and of course the Christian right saw it as one more sign of a secular society devaluing religion. But a more interesting question would have been why the jurors fixated on Leviticus 24, with its call for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They had somehow missed Jesus’ explicit refutation in the New Testament: “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” And on and on. The power of the Christian right rests largely in the fact that they boldly claim religious authority, and by their very boldness convince the rest of us that they must know what they’re talking about. They’re like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track. But their theology is appealing for another reason too: it coincides with what we want to believe. How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep, instead of insisting that we had to share. How satisfying it would be if we were supposed to hate our enemies. Religious conservatives will always have a comparatively easy sell. But straight is the path and narrow is the way. The gospel is too radical for any culture larger than the Amish to ever come close to realizing; in demanding a departure from selfishness it conflicts with all our current desires. Even the first time around, judging by the reaction, the Gospels were pretty unwelcome news to an awful lot of people. There is not going to be a modern-day return to the church of the early believers, holding all things in common—that’s not what I’m talking about. Taking seriously the actual message of Jesus, though, should serve at least to moderate the greed and violence that mark this culture. It’s hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85 percent of us who are Christians woke up to that fact, then the world might change. It is possible, I think. Yes, the mainline Protestant churches that supported civil rights and opposed the war in Vietnam are mostly locked in a dreary decline as their congregations dwindle and their elders argue endlessly about gay clergy and same-sex unions. And the Catholic Church, for most of its American history a sturdy exponent of a “love your neighbor” theology, has been weakened, too, its hierarchy increasingly motivated by a single-issue focus on abortion. Plenty of vital congregations are doing great good works—they’re the ones that have nurtured me—but they aren’t where the challenge will arise; they’ve grown shy about talking about Jesus, more comfortable with the language of sociology and politics. More and more it’s Bible-quoting Christians, like Wallis’s Sojourners movement and that Baptist seminary graduate Bill Moyers, who are carrying the fight. The best-selling of all Christian books in recent years, Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life, illustrates the possibilities. It has all the hallmarks of self-absorption (in one five-page chapter, I counted sixty-five uses of the word “you”), but it also makes a powerful case that we’re made for mission. What that mission is never becomes clear, but the thirst for it is real. And there’s no great need for Warren to state that purpose anyhow. For Christians, the plainspoken message of the Gospels is clear enough. If you have any doubts, read the Sermon on the Mount. Admittedly, this is hope against hope; more likely the money changers and power brokers will remain ascendant in our “spiritual” life. Since the days of Constantine, emperors and rich men have sought to co-opt the teachings of Jesus. As in so many areas of our increasingly market-tested lives, the co-opters—the TV men, the politicians, the Christian “interest groups”—have found a way to make each of us complicit in that travesty, too. They have invited us to subvert the church of Jesus even as we celebrate it. With their help we have made golden calves of ourselves—become a nation of terrified, self-obsessed idols. It works, and it may well keep working for a long time to come. When Americans hunger for selfless love and are fed only love of self, they will remain hungry, and too often hungry people just come back for more of the same. About the Author Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, is the author of many books, including The End of Nature and Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape. His last article for Harper’s Magazine, “The Cuba Diet,” appeared in the April 2005 issue.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 192.
#6. To: crack monkey, rowdee, Zipporah, Elliott Jackalope, Moldi-Box, Tauzero, christine, *Bereans* (#0)
The author reasonably identifies a number of contradictions between how Christians act and how the Bible says they should act. But the author touches on a number of incorrect explanations and never seems to address the core reason. The answer, I believe as to what is the reason that underlies the seeming contradiction in the beliefs and behaviors of so called Christians, is that they're not all genuine Christians. Many may think they are Christian because they've been told (incorrectly) all they need to do is attend a Christian church, or just read the bible regularly, or "do" something Jesus said to do (give to the poor, visit the imprisoned etc). Some may claim to believe in Jesus, but if they were honest, they might admit they actually inwardly, silently doubt His existence, teachings and promises. But Jesus himself said (emphasis mine and all cites NASB): Mat 7:17-23 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. (18) "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. (19) "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (20) "So then, you will know them by their fruits. (21) "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. (22) "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' (23) "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' Jesus himself pointed out that there will be those who have a mistaken expectation that they were His followers. So what actually is the difference? To reinforce that there is an actual disconnect, a cognitive dissonance among those who have a mistaken understanding of their belief in Jesus, here are some anecdotal surveys that illustrate how much difference exists in what some believe and what the bible teaches: Research continues to reveal a steady theological collapse among professing Christians in America. SECULARISTS, LIBERALS, AND MUSLIMS DO NOT need to fear conservative Christians, says Dave Shiflett in The Wall Street Journal. Christians, he says, are not all that interested in converting the heathen. They don't really believe that there is such a thing as the heathen, tending to believe instead that every religion is equally valid. "Even the most feared of Christians52;the dread 'born-agains' who have cost the high priests at People for the American Way so much sleep52;often embrace the modern orthodoxies of tolerance and inclusion over the traditional teachings of their faith." He cites poll data from Christian researcher George Barna that 26 percent of born-agains believe all religions are essentially the same and that 50 percent believe that a life of good works will enable a person to get to heaven. He goes on, though, to cite data that cast doubt on whether some of these born-again Christians will be there. More than one in three (35 percent) born-again Christians do not believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead. Isn't that a rather important thing to believe in? Especially in light of Romans 10:9: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord" [that they do] "and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead," [this they do not do] "you will be saved" [so are they?]. Over half of born-again Christians (52 percent), according to Mr. Barna's data, do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a living entity. In Acts 19, the Apostle Paul came across a group of people who said that they were Christians, but they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. They had to be reevangelized and rebaptized. Slightly more born-again Christians believe in the devil than believe in the Holy Spirit, though 45 percent do not believe that Satan exists. Ten percent believe in reincarnation. Twenty-nine percent believe it is possible to communicate with the dead. As for moral issues, one out of three born-again Christians (33 percent), according to Mr. Barna's numbers, accept same-sex unions. More than one out of three (39 percent) believe it is morally acceptable for couples to live together before marriage. And, significantly, born-again Christians are more likely than non-Christians to have experienced divorce (27 percent vs. 24 percent). Mr. Barna defines "born-again Christians" as those who report having made a personal commitment to Christ and expect to get to heaven because they accepted Jesus. He has a subcategory of born-again Christians52;"evangelicals"52;who meet more stringent criteria of biblical faith. But these amount to only 8 percent of American Christians, with 33 percent being the less-orthodox "nonevangelical born-agains." Is this rampant unbelief among people who have accepted Christ an example of biblical illiteracy? Or is it a positive conviction that faith is a purely subjective experience rather than an appropriation of objective truths? Either way, this is strong evidence of how American Christianity is conforming to the dominant secular culture. It is all right to be religious, according to the dictates of postmodernism, as long as your faith exists just in your head. If you start claiming that your beliefs are more than just a private mental state that makes you feel good, asserting instead that what you believe is objectively real and valid for everybody, then you are an intolerant menace to society. Many Christians apparently agree, feeling solace in their own private mental decisions and mystical experiences, without reference to the God outside themselves who is revealed in His Word and in His slain and risen Son. Preachers sometimes exhort people to "invite Jesus into your heart" without proclaiming who Jesus is and what He has done for sinners. This is evangelism that forgets to preach the gospel. The result will be " nonevangelical born-agains." New Christians, like babies, need to be fed, taught, and cared for; otherwise, they will die in their cribs. They need intensive nourishment from the Word of God. At least Christians are not the only ones addled by their culture into holding contradictory beliefs. Atheists are just as confused about their theology. "Half of all atheists and agnostics say that every person has a soul, that heaven and hell exist, and that there is life after death," reports Mr. Barna. Moreover, "one out of every eight atheists and agnostics even believes that accepting Jesus Christ as savior probably makes life after death possible." They believe that accepting Christ can bring eternal life, even though they don't believe in Jesus Christ. Just like "nonevangelical born-agains." See also Barna's survey report at: Americans Describe Their Views About Life After Death The seeming contradictions between professed Christian action versusbiblical Christian action are resolved when one understands the distinctions between the two and what the Bible teaches is the experience of true Christian believers. A Christian is not someone who attends a Christian church, or gives money to Christian charities, or reads the Bible or much less, merely says they're Christian. A Christian is someone whom Jesus Christ "knows", who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, and believes in Jesus Christ the person and all His commands and teachings. Jesus has taught and promised that when such a person believes in Jesus (and it obviously must be a sincere belief - God knows who is lying or self-deceived) they will be saved and among other things, receive the Holy Spirit: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 14:16-17 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; (17) that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. This is important because it is the indwelling Holy Spirit (the promised Helper) that is the proof in God's eyes of a true believer - such a person is said to be "sealed with the Holy Spirit": 2Co 1:21-22 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, (22) who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. Eph 1:13-14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, (14) who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. A sincere believer in Jesus Christ is given the Holy Spirit as a seal (like a King's wax seal or royal mark) - a kind of spiritual"branding" to mark adoption by God into His family and that an inheritance is set aside for them. It is the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit that transforms the person, gradually making them more Christ-like. In the passage below (Paul is writing to Titus) the phrase "by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" is this transformation. Titus 3:5-8 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (6) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (8) This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. The above is the theological underpinning of the phrase "born again" to which Jesus referred: John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' Inwardly, a "born again" person who is indwelt with the Holy Spirit knows it. It is an undeniable, recognizable, nearly tangible change in attitude. A surprising compulsion to stop swearing, bingeing, lying, cheating, etc. Suddenly, there is a desire to know more about God and to understand God's plan and to obey God, to be lead by the Holy Spirit. And there is an emotional, spiritual peace that defies the intellect; circumstances which logically should cause extreme upset and stress, instead are taken in stride. These changes are often "discernible" by other true believers who are likewise indwelt. Sometimes the Holy Spirit also gives "charisma" - spiritual gifts - intended to be used for furtherance of God's plan under the Spirits leading. But outwardly, there are signs as well. The fruit of the Holy Spirit: Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. People who know true believers have observed a behavior change about the time they were "born again". They begin to see the peace, the desire to know God, the beginning to abstain from sins, and the gradual increased expression of the fruit of the Spirit. True believers go from their former spiteful, materialistic, selfish, scheming behaviors to being patient, thoughtful, kind, giving, honest... etc. An observable change if one has the opportunity and knows the believer both "before and after" they were " born again". So, the point of all that above was to provide some anecdotal background in the survey data and establish the biblical basis to say there is very clear difference between people who think they are Christians and people who are transformed, Holy-Spirit indwelt, born again believers exhibiting the fruit of the Holy Spirit - ie, genuine Christians whom Jesus Christ will in turn confess to God: Mat 10:32-33 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. (33) "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. Once this distinction is understood, then the distinction in behaviors between false professors of Christ (for example those who claim to be Christian but don't believe Jesus Christ really was physically resurrected) and the behaviors of true believers makes more sense. The true believers behave and believe like genuine Christians, not in their own power or ability but because the indwelt Holy Spirit is actively transforming them. Whereas the false professors are similarly human with all the human foibles, but lack the Holy Spirit's functioning within them. The difference is God. The difference is the presence or absence of the Holy Spirit, as a result of belief or disbelief in Jesus Christ.
Plenty of theologically correct Christians are jerks. A number of these are folks with essentially fascist personalities, and Jesus is their fuhrer. It is these folks in particular that Ben Franklin had in mind when he wrote "if men are so evil with religion, what would they be if without it", and warned against unchaining the tiger. People with "indwelt Holy Spirit" are noticably different, mostly in good ways, some mildly annoying. However, this is not unique to Christianity (and no offense intended at all, but those that have been newly infused with the Holy Spirit have the same look in the eye as a lot of gay guys. "These changes are often 'discernible' by other true believers who are likewise indwelt" sounds like gaydar.) Ecologically speaking, that the path is straight and narrow and only a few will be saved is tautological.
Throughout the Ages every religion offered its believers the same reward, to "live on after death". In ancient Egypt priests initiated "Mummification" as a passport to the "Afterlife". Hindu prelates promised "Nirvana" as a way for piety to escape the tedium of re-incarnation. In short, each faith pledges to cheat death by giving the faithful the prize of living on forever, and Christianity is no exception. This premise has become one of the most tenacious and unsettling concepts ever invented by man. The fear of death is so pervasive in the human mind that men will believe almost anything to deny the reality of ceasing to exist. Faith's objective is achieved by postulating that a Spiritual essence exists in the heavens above and a demonic phantom resides in the earth below. This fantasy is heightened by the promise of being "saved" in Paradise or the threat of being "damned" in Hell and each culture achieves its end with the aid of a book written by men who claimed they "knew" all about God. Fortunately, we live in America where freedom of religion gives us choices and if one chooses to believe this myth it is this prerogative. But if we invest a good deal of ourselves in a book, shouldn't we be certain that it represents God, as we believe God to be? Shouldn't that book portray a Being of the most pure moral and ethical qualities for man to worship? It should but as we've seen, our Bible fails to meet that objective. Instead, it presents a punitive god who is quick to anger, filled with terrible rage and showing little compassion for human fallibility. I have done my duty to God, as He is portrayed in the Old Testament, by refuting the accusations of biblical authors who falsely accuse Him and I feel satisfied that He has received due process. However, defending the deity of the New Testament will require a different presentation because the gospels depict a Personality that is the antithesis of Jehovah in compassion, love and tenderness. Still, I feel a defense is necessary in light of certain disturbing precepts that are incompatible with the sweet and forgiving nature of Jesus. I have therefore chosen to defend the "Son of God" by creating an imaginary trial held in ancient Rome after the Crucifixion. All of the testimony presented can be verified by a careful analysis of the four gospels. The Trial of the Apostles. [Two years have passed since the Crucifixion. Four of Christ's Apostles have written gospels, which surfaced in Rome and caused a furor. The four were arrested and taken to the Forum to stand trial. All Rome fears the possibility of more crucifixions] Clerk: The Honorable Senators, Cassius, Marcus, Dimitrius and Augustus presiding. Be seated. [Cassius bangs his gavel and calls for order. The spectators become hushed. The Prosecutor Libus and defense council Marcellus are seated in their respective places] Cassius: Good morning Libus. Libus:Good morning Senator. Cassius: Good morning Marcellus. Marcellus: Good morning, Senator. Dimitrius: The Tribunal will hear opening statements. Libus: The State is ready Your Honor. Marcus: Is the defense ready? Marcellus: Senator, before we begin we must settle a matter of the oath. Augustus: The oath Marcellus? We have a problem? Marcellus: My clients are not Romans, Sire and in all good conscience they cannot swear an oath to Jupiter. They recognize Jehovah as God of the Jews. Cassius: Hmm. They are heretics. Then have them swear an oath to their god and let's get on with it. Marcellus: Thank you Senator. The defense can proceed. Marcus:The clerk will administer the oath. Clerk: "Do you swear to your god that the testimony you give this court shall be the whole truth? All: We swear in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Dimitrius: We'll hear opening statements now. Libus: Citizens of Gaul, the State will prove that the prisoners are traitors to Rome. They committed treason by trying to place the Jew, whom our Emperor Tiberius crucified two years ago, on the throne of the Roman Empire. These four men wrote gospels claiming that he was the Son of God, which raised a furor among the faithful. In addition, they claimed to be eyewitnesses to all the events they reported. In the interest of brevity, the State requests that the four prisoners testify together. Marcellus: Objection! The request challenges protocol. Augustus: Overruled Marcellus, we'll decide that. Request granted. Escort the prisoners into the witness box. [The spectators murmur as soldiers herd Mark, Matthew, Luke and John into the witness box. Their feet are shackled making it difficult for them to walk] Dimitrius: Let's have your opening statement now Marcellus. Marcellus: Noblemen and good citizens of Rome. The charges presented by the State are false. No witnesses have come forward to corroborate the allegations. The defense will prove that the prisoners acted in good faith as Apostles of the man from Nazareth. [As Marcellus concludes, Libus approaches the witness box] Libus: State your names and occupations. Matthew: Matthew. Tax collector. Luke: Luke. Doctor. Mark: Mark. Fisherman. John: John. We are fishers of men, Sire. Libus: Fishers of men, how quaint. Let me start with Luke whose gospel claims that from the beginning you all were eyewitnesses. He goes on to report that in the sixth month--let me quote: Chapter 1 verse 26: "The Angel Gabriel was sent from God to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph". In Verse 32: the angel tells Mary she will bring forth a holy son "and his name shall be Jesus". You say she was espoused to this Joseph and still a virgin? Luke: Gabriel appeared to Mary before she and Joseph came together. Libus: Really? Just how long had the two been-espoused? Marcellus: Objection to the snide innuendo Your Honors. Cassius: Sustained. Libus: Who else reports this Angel Gabriel visiting Mary? (No reply) Only you make this report Luke? None of your colleagues mentions this visit? Luke: No Sire. I alone reported Gabriel telling Mary. Libus: Your Honors, please notice that Matthew remains silent yet he too reported the incident. Matthew: Yes, but I stated the angel told Joseph not Mary. Libus: Told Joseph? Hmmm. Allow me to quote from Matthew Chapter 1-verse 20: "Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying Joseph--".(stops) Joseph was not awake at the time? Matthew: No sire. He was asleep. Libus: This angelic visit that you report, occurred in a dream? Matt: That is correct, Sire. Libus: How can one man know the content of another man's dream? Marcellus: Objection. That calls for speculation. Marcus:Sustained. Libus: But Senator, my question has great relevance. This event is the very cornerstone of Christianity. If, as Matthew claims, Mary did not receive the angel's visit and Joseph was asleep, can Matthew's report be considered viable evidence? Marcus: Dreams do not qualify as evidence Libus. Therefore, Matthew's report is considered "Hearsay". Only Luke's testimony is deemed relevant. Libus: Then I ask the tribunal to note we've only just begun and already we have discrepancies. Cassius: So noted. Continue please. Libus: Which gospel reports the birth of Christ in the manger? Luke: I report that glorious event, Sire. Libus: Only you again Luke? Matthew: Excuse me Sire. I report the star of Bethlehem and the wise men called the Magi. Libus: Yes Matthew, but you state that Jesus was born in their house not in the manger and Luke makes no mention of a house or of this-Magi. Now which version is correct? Luke: Mine Sire. As God is my judge, it was in the manger. Matthew: I disagree, Sire, Jesus was born in their house. Libus: Senators, another discrepancy for the record? Dimitrius: So noted, Libus. Continue. Libus: Were either of you present at the time? Matthew: I was not present. Luke: And I was not born yet, Sire. Libus: Then, Your Honors, is this not also considered hearsay? Marcus: If neither man were present, I would say it is. Libus: But, neither man was present at the angel's visit either. Augustus: Then "Hearsay" would also apply in that case unless-substantiated by another witness. Libus: I see. John, does your gospel report these events? ? ? John: No Sire, mine does not. Libus: Mark, does yours? Mark: No Sire. Libus: May I ask why not? Aren't they crucial to Christianity? Mark&John: Oh, most certainly, Sire Very important indeed. Libus: Then why have you two failed to mention them? Mark & John: (Silence) Libus: We'll come back to this. Matthew, I'm fascinated by your report. You write that the moment Jesus died, wait-let me quote this exactly: Matthew verse 50: "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many". Extremely powerful images you have described. Who else witnessed what Matthew reports? Luke? Mark? Luke: Not I Sire.? ? Mark: Nor I Sire. Libus: Come, come gentlemen, corpses strolling through the city? These are no everyday occurrences. (Silence) Senators, surely they must have noticed these walking cadavers. Marcus: You've made your point Libus. Now move it along. Libus: Mark. Tell us your recollections of these amazing events that Matthew describes. Mark: I recall seeing nothing like that Sire. Libus: You're testifying under oath that you recall no dead saints walking about the city? But Matthew claims they were "seen by many". Were you watching something else, Mark? Marcellus: Objection, he's badgering the witness. Dimitrius: Sustained Marcellus. Marcellus: Thank you Senator. Libus: But Senators, none of the witnesses corroborates Matthew's claims. Dimitrius: John has not testified to that effect. Libus: John, tell us what you recall about these unusual happenings. John: ( Silence) Libus: John? Senators, instruct the witness to respond. Cassius: The witness will answer the question. John: I say unto thee Senators, if what Matthew describes had occurred, I most certainly would have reported it. Libus: Then none of you corroborate Matthew's claims? John: Who knows Sire? Perhaps it did happen, perhaps not. I simply do not recall. Libus: Really? John, do you know your Ten Commandments? John: Verily I do. Libus: What is the fifth? John: Honor thy father and thy mother. Libus: Then let me read how Matthew quotes Jesus: 10-37, "He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me". Does that sound like honoring father and mother? Matthew: But Sire. What the master meant by that-- ? ? Libus: A simple yes or mo will suffice. ALL: But the master was only- Libus: Yes or no! Marcellus: Objection! He's being hostile. Marcus: Sustained. Libus: Did Jesus ever write a word himself for his followers? ALL: No Sire. // The master wrote nothing himself. // He instructed us to do so//We wrote everything that he said. Libus: Then we have no alternative but to accept your words do we? Luke: But we wrote what he taught. Libus: Perhaps you wrote what you thought he taught. Marcellus: Objection! They have already responded. Augustus: Objection sustained! Libus, our patience is being strained. Libus: Mine as well Your Honors. Just listen to Mark's report that Jesus rebuked a fig tree for being bare out of season-then cursed the tree for having no figs. Are we to believe that an intelligent being acted in that manner--toward a tree?? ? Mark: Tis the truth Sire. We all were present and observed it. Libus: You then write, "The tree withered away and died". Mark: It, it did, Sire. We watched it happen. Libus: What did your master say after that? Mark: He said, "Have faith in God". Libus: Hmm, perhaps it was only a fig-ment of your imagination Mark? (The spectators laugh) Marcellus: Objection! Senators, this is a court of law not a theater for amusement. The prosecution is making a mockery of this trial. Cassius: Sustained! Libus: Senators, he says I make a mockery? Then listen to this one. When the Apostles needed money to pay the tax collector, Jesus instructed Matthew in: 17-27: Here Matthew, since you wrote this you read it to the Tribunal. Matthew: (reads) "Lest we offend them, go thou to the sea and cast a hook and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: Take that and give it unto them for thee and me". Libus; Do you expect this learned body to accept such an inane story? Are we to believe a wise teacher that Christ was supposed to be, actually told you to do that? Matthew: T'is the God's truth Sire. I swear it! Libus: Of course, you swear it. You also swear he was the Son of God don't you? And John, you state that while Jesus was on the cross, one of our soldiers thrust a spear into his side and blood and water gushed out. John: Thou art correct Sire. That is what I wrote. Libus: I notice your three colleagues make no mention of that. Anyone care to substantiate John's testimony? All Three: Sire, I recall no spear // neither do I. // Nor I Sire. ? ? Libus: The three of you stood right next to John and neither of you saw blood and water spurting from the wound? Matthew, Mark and Luke: I saw no wound // Nor a soldier thrust a spear, Sire// I saw no blood or water. John: On my honor Senators, I saw it. God knows I do not lie. Libus: Your friends don't seem to agree, John. Marcellus: Objection. My client has implied no falsehood. Cassius: Sustained. Libus, it might be wise to leave this now. Libus: But Senators, this event cries out for confirmation. Marcus:Abandon it!! Libus: Yes Sire. Matthew and John, both of you report that eight days after the Crucifixion, Jesus walked through your closed door-and asked for food? Matthew: Verily Sire. Thou art correct. Libus: You're testifying that you actually saw him? John: Yes Sire. He came to us in Galilee. Libus: Then why have Mark and Luke failed to mention such an amazing happening? Luke and Mark: er, Our only concern Sire, was with his hunger. Libus: And that's why you didn't mention it? (They nod) Did you feed him? Matthew and John: That we did Sire He brought us a fish // We had some honeycomb and a bit of meat. He was famished Sire. Libus: Are these Senators to believe that after being dead for eight days he re-appeared and craved real food? John: Tis true, Sire. He said unto us "Handle me and ye shall see I am flesh not spirit". Libus: Wait. Let me understand this. He was flesh yet he walked through a closed door? He ate real food and Matthew says after eating he vanished right before your eyes. Was this the "Ascension" that you speak of? Mark: Not right then Sire. But both Luke and I reported the Ascension of Christ. Libus: The Ascension is a crucial tenet of Christianity isn't that so Matthew? Matthew: Oh yes, verily Sire. Verily. Libus: Do you agree John? John: Indeed I do Sire. Indeed. Libus: Then please explain why both you and Matthew didn't mention it? Matt & John: Oh, I believe we mentioned the Ascension. // Did we not, Sire? Libus: No. Not one word from either of you. Luke and Mark are the only two that reported the Ascension. Senators, isn't it amazing that that Luke and Mark continue to report issues vital to Christendom while John and Matthew fail to even mention the Ascension of Christ? John claims that Jesus bore his own cross while Matthew, Mark and Luke all identify Simon the Cyrenian as the bearer. We continue to hear one conflicting report after another. Whose testimony can the Court possibly believe? Cassius: That is for us to decide Libus. You know your role. Now move on. Libus: Yes Your Honor. John and Matthew, I've read and re-read your manuscripts with great care and noticed that both of you constantly talk about Hell and damnation. John: T'is true Sire! For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to save man from going to Hell. Matthew: And he that believeth on Him that sent Christ shall not be condemned to Hell but shall receive everlasting life. Libus: That's precisely what I mean! You two go on and on allegedly quoting Jesus about Hellfire and Damnation. For example, (flipping through the pages) here! "If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out (mumbles) whole body be cast into Hell" And here again "Hell" again "Hell", "Hell". (stops) You men are Jews; in fact all the Apostles are Jews and your master as well. You were raised with the Mosaic Code so where would Jesus have learned about Hell? There's no mention of Hell in the five books of Moses. These aren't Christ's words they're yours' aren't they? Be honest; he's not here to defend himself. Both: Sire, we simply report what the master------- Libus: Yes of course you do. And here again you make him say (reads) "Hell, Damnation, Hellfire, Hell where the worm dieth not. Again Hell, Damnation, and again! (he stops) Both you and John quote Jesus, constantly dwelling upon Hell and Damnation. You make him seem obsessed by it, consumed with it. (pause) It hardly seems reasonable that one who loved and sought only to do good would want to frighten those who believed in him. You said he wrote no word of his own so we only have your gospels to rely upon. These are your words aren't they? There's still time to recant your testimony. Marcellus: Objection! This is despicable! I have never seen such obvious intimidation. Libus: Senators, hear me out. When Pontius Pilate handled the Christ matter, I assumed the problem was resolved but when theses gospels surfaced in Rome their blasphemy created such a firestorm I had the prisoners arrested and brought this trial to the Forum. I was convinced they were heretics and traitors to our Emperor, Tiberius Claudius Nero. But now I feel impelled to uncover the truth before we act too hastily once again. The whole purpose of this trial is to separate fact from fiction and to be frank I am finding it hard to believe that a Being of such love and compassion could have this duel side to his nature. A man who forgave Sinners during life does not become a tyrant after death and pursue them beyond the grave to damn them to Hell. I reject the notion that Jesus was the author of Hell and Damnation and suggest that John and Matthew are the ones that created the concept. Senators, grant me a moment more and listen to the words of the man we crucified. (He reads) "Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. Blessed be them that mourn for they shall be comforted. Blessed be the weak for they shall inherit the earth. If I, thy Lord and master, wash your feet ye ought to wash one another's feet. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am meek and lowly of heart and in me ye shall find rest unto your souls. The son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and give his life as a ransom for many. Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also and if a man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Judge not and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned, forgive and ye shall be forgiven. Whosoever shall speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him. Love one another as I have loved you". ? ? Ibus: Senators, there have been so many inconsistencies in the testimony we've heard today that we don't seem to be talking about the same man. Matthew and John depict Jesus as a split personality, which I find completely inconsistent with the words I've just read. I may be Rome's Prosecutor but my concern is with the truth and I intend to uncover it before we act too hastily and make another mistake! Can any of the prisoners name the original twelve Apostles of Christ? Can any of the prisoners name the original twelve Apostles of Christ? Mark: Oh, yes, Sire, with the greatest of pleasure. ? (Alternating as they help each other) All four: Let’s see, there was: 1. Simon known as Peter Libus: Each one of your gospels contains a list of the twelve names you’ve just mentioned and one other gospel called “Acts” also lists those twelve. ALL: True, Sire true. Libus: Do the names Luke or Mark appear on any of those lists? John and Matthew: (startled) Why no, Sire they do not. ? Libus: In the gospels that Luke and Mark themselves wrote, do their names appear on those lists? Matthew and John: No Sire. They do not. Libus: I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this crucial evidence.? ? ( (The four Senators rise) "The Tribunal takes judicial notice. Libus: Then would it be fair to say that both Mark and Luke were not members of the original twelve Apostles and therefore could not have been eyewitnesses to the events they reported? Matthew & John: (reluctantly) Yes Sire. It seems so. Libus: Members of the tribunal. In light of this incontrovertible evidence, the State moves that all the testimony of Mark and Luke be stricken from the record and declared to be "Hearsay". Now, only the testimony of Matthew and John is relevant in this trial and they scarcely agree on anything. John reports Jesus bleeding on the cross and Matthew sees no blood; Matthew reports dead saints walking and John sees none. There can be only one resolution to this matter and that is for Your Honors to decide. Cassius: The Tribunal revues these proceedings and will render its decision tomorrow morning. Take the prisoners away. [Everyone is shocked into silence as the soldiers lead the four men out of the witness box].? The End I need not defend Jesus now since Libus did it so eloquently- but let me repeat his words:"A Being of such love and compassion who forgave Sinners during life does not become a tyrant after death and pursue them beyond the grave to damn them to Hell". ? A Final Word Over the years the Bible has gone through numerous revisions yet each time the anger and threats of the deities have never been mollified. Religion would remain just as effective if the offensive portions of Scripture were expunged and no harm would befall the faithful if gods were portrayed with greater tolerance of man's weakness by transcending the pettiness of their own too human emotions. Depicting the Jews as "God's chosen people" offends the sensibilities of other ethnic groups and we know in our hearts that the Lord is not biased for we are all His children. And I believe we would feel more kindly towards one another if the violence and cruelty were culled from the text. We protest over violence in television, violence in movies and even violence in computer games but does religion truly need a god that commits mass murder, destroys a country, kills Egyptian babies, sends plagues that torment thousands, betrays Hebrews and drowns their pursuers? And that's mild compared to drowning the entire world because He was sorry He made man. How can man be happy feeling that God believed he was evil? To make matters worse the Creator of the Universe is portrayed as an insecure, almost paranoid Being who believes in witches and is obsessed with other gods. At the very least, isn't some of that text expendable? I'm past eighty now and fairly certain I won't see ninety but I'd like more of a choice than Hell or Paradise when I go. Now that we now know the Bible was created by a vote of Emperor Constantine's Cardinals, wouldn't we all be better off if other options were offered - or is fear of what happens after death the glue that holds it all together? I hope not because I believe better of God.
This is a rather loosely, if not deliberately contrived series of strawmen. I've seen it before. There is not a lot of point in refuting strawmen, but just to demonstrate, lest there be any doubt, I'll address a couple: The Trial of the Apostles. Two years have passed since the Crucifixion. Four of Christ's Apostles have written gospels, which surfaced in Rome and caused a furor. This is the beginning of a strawman argument. Winchell sets up the four defendants Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as if they were all apostles. They are not. Next, Winchell stuffs a little more straw in, the noble defense likewise misrepresenting the four as all apostles: Marcellus: Noblemen and good citizens of Rome. The charges presented by the State are false. No witnesses have come forward to corroborate the allegations. The defense will prove that the prisoners acted in good faith as Apostles of the man from Nazareth. This particular defense is doomed from the start (but then defending strawmen always is), because having never been apostles, Mark nor Luke can't very well be proven to be apostles, can they. Neither Mark nor Luke were ever apostles, though they did write gospels. But there is no inconsistency in non-apostolic gospel authorship. There is no "rule" or biblical admonition that one must be an apostle to have chronicled Jesus mission and write a gospel. For example, much is made, needlessly, of Mark and Luke seeming not being cited as apostles when they never were in fact apostles. And John knew that, but it makes for better "courtroom drama" other wise, doesn't it. Here then are the passages in which Jesus appoints the twelve apostles (all cites NASB): Mat 10:1-4 Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. (2) Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (3) Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; (4) Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him. Mar 3:16-19 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), (17) and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder"); (18) and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; (19) and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him. Luk 6:13-16 And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: (14) Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James and John; and Philip and Bartholomew; (15) and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; (16) Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. Consistently then, the twelve are: Mark and Luke were saints, not apostles. A saint is a believer in and a follower of Jesus Christ, whereas an apostle is a person chosen by Jesus to represent Him in authority (like an ambassador). Mark and Luke can write their two gospels (and Luke can write Acts as well) and Mark can (possibly) be a scribe for Peter without needing to be chosen by Jesus to be apostles as well. Other non-apostolic, yet canonical writings include the epistles of James and Jude. Neither Mark, Luke, James (half brother of Jesus) nor Jude (brother of James, same half brother of Jesus) were apostles, but regardless, Mark and Luke were followers of Jesus and His apostles (they were "followers", believing members of Jesus' entourage, without being apostles) and they chronicled the events in their two respective gospel books. Note further, that of the apostles, only John and Matthew wrote gospels (good news), while Paul and Peter wrote epistles (letters). Libus: Then would it be fair to say that both Mark and Luke were not members of the original twelve Apostles and therefore could not have been eyewitnesses to the events they reported? Matthew & John: (reluctantly) Yes Sire. It seems so. And there we have it. Mislabel them as apostles and then argue with no biblical basis whatsoever that only apostles can be eyewitnesses and write gospels. QED. Depicting the Jews as "God's chosen people" offends the sensibilities of other ethnic groups and we know in our hearts that the Lord is not biased for we are all His children. This likewise is a misinterpretation of what God intended and what the Bible demonstrates (given a full reading). That being, God chose the Jews not for special privilege but for a special responsibility - to bear witness to God in heaven, and to bring forth the Messiah. Do the Jews often presume too much themselves about being "Gods chosen people"? Yes. Does that change what God's intended or expects? No.
Have you read the Homeric epics like most of us? Have you read about the exploits of it's heros and dieties. The miracles and journeys and hisorical sites? Have you thought about the nuances of the personalities and how they reacted to one another, fought and played together? Have you carefully studied the validity of the texts and speculate on the differences in interpretations? Of course you haven't because, although it's good literature and highly important to cultures past at the end of the day it's bullshit. Something to think about.
Here's something for you to think about. The Bible contains a prophecy given from God and written over 500 years in advance that foretold of the Messiah Prince that would come 483 years following a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, a Messiah who would then be "cut off" and have nothing. That 500+ year-old prophecy was fufilled with the baptism of Jesus Christ in 26 AD (exactly 483 years after Artaxerxes I decreed in 458 BC that Jerusalem be rebuilt) and with His subsequent crucifixion (being cut off and having nothing). And unlike fictional literature, it is true and verifiable. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
What do you think of Matthew 27:52-53, where it says "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Do you believe that happened? Because that's a really tough act to ignore. Walking resurrected saints would tend to make quite an impact on a society, yet nobody else reported that happening. Not even the other authors of the gospels. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?
Yes, I take it on faith as true because I have no evidence of the bible being false (just miraculous) and I have other compelling evidence that some of the key bible teachings are verifiable and true - so I take as all true. It is a reasonable question. But there are many instances of something miraculous only being reported by one gospel writer: And all of it did make an impact on society. News of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth changed the world.
I just wanted to say that, speaking for myself, the lack of contemporary references to some of the miracles supposedly done by Jesus is a major reason why I am not a believer. There were a number of historians and writers who lived around that time, some pro-Rome, some anti-Rome, some Jewish, some Gentile, yet none of them recorded dead saints being resurrected at the time of the crucifixion. Doesn't that concern you even a little bit?
I just wanted to say that, speaking for myself, the lack of contemporary references to some of the miracles supposedly done by Jesus is a major reason why I am not a believer. There were a number of historians and writers who lived around that time, some pro-Rome, some anti-Rome, some Jewish, some Gentile, yet none of them recorded dead saints being resurrected at the time of the crucifixion. Doesn't that concern you even a little bit? As you are obviously aware, outside the Bible and the writings of the church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there is scant historical record of Jesus, let alone any miracles. I've listed below what I consider to be the best historical sources but they are references to Jesus' historicity rather than any miracles. Regarding your specific issue with no historical references to: Mat 27:52-53 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Drawing some insights from other bible passages, chiefly the resurrection of Lazurus of Bethany (John 11:1-44) and the account of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), I would suggest a couple things: The point being, as stunning an event as it is, it would only be recognizable as such if one happened to see a tomb open and a body rise or if one happened to recognize someone known to be deceased. It isn't clear either how many such saints arose. Does "many" means a few dozen, a few hundred, thousand, ten thousand...? What does puzzle me (and the bible is silent on this) is what happened to those risen saints later? Did they live out normal lives or did they " ascend" when Jesus ascended? I dunno. But if they lived out normal lives after having been resurrected, then the lack of any further mention or historical reporting of their experience would be very puzzling. One assumes the risen saints would spread the story themselves if they had an opportunity to do so. OTOH, the Pharisees (and Romans) were discrediting Jesus as it was, and after His crucifixion only His true followers continued to believe, assemble and speak out (and some were martyred for it). So perhaps the rest of the unbelieving population was cowed into silence. Again, I dunno. Considering also that in the 1st century, there were no printing presses or typewriters, news papers, internet blogs; there were just handwritten letters and books, so it is not surprising there are so few contemporaneous records at all beyond the Christian and Jewish writings. Keep in mind too that Jesus' ministry (and miracles) only spanned about 3.5 years and were spread over an area less than the size of New Jersey, and for the 1st year or so Jesus was trying to keep a low profile. While I understand your desire for proof (and you seem to have hung a lot on this particular event) if, for example, Josephus had written that there had been reports of deceased people visiting families shortly after Christ's resurrection, is that all it would take for you to believe or are there yet many more evidentiary hurdles? What evidence is enough? That is a sincere question. I'm trying to gauge how far you need to take this evidentiary requirement until you believe. Below then are the extra-biblical historical records I believe are reliable. Josephus, Jewish Antiqities (english) (18,63) SEDITION OF THE JEWS AGAINST PONTIUS PILATE. CONCERNING CHRIST, AND WHAT BEFELL PAULINA AND THE JEWS AT ROME, [63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (english) 20, 200 CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA. [197] AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, 1 who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Mara bar Sarapion (see page 21-22) 60;What good did it do the Athenians to kill Socrates, for which deed they were punished with famine and pestilence? What did it avail the Samians to burn Pythagoras, since their country was entirely buried under sand in one moment? Or what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king , since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on? God justly avenged these three wise men. The Athenians died of famine, the Samians were flooded by the sea, the Jews were slaughtered and driven from their kingdom, everywhere living in the dispersion. Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera57;s statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law he has given.61; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1:25. (this letter is supposedly in the British Museum) Pliny, Governor of Bithynia: Letter to the Emperor Trajan ...These first said they were Christians, then denied it, insisting they had been, "but were so no longer"; some of them having " recanted many years ago," and more than one "full twenty years back. " These all worshiped your image and the god's statues and cursed the name of Christ. But they declared their guilt or error was simply this---on a fixed day they used to meet before dawn and recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god. So far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, they swore to keep from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and not to deny any trust money deposited with them when called upon to deliver it. This ceremony over, they used to depart and meet again to take food---but it was of no special character, and entirely harmless. They also had ceased from this practice after the edict I issued---by which, in accord with your orders, I forbade all secret societies. Suetonius (see pp 17-18) He expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of the riots in which they were constantly indulging, at the instigation of Chrestus. "Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44) If you're interested in further study, you might consider the following. I suggest them not because their content is particularly compelling, but because they are balanced discussions of the differing viewpoints, but what I always find most useful are the footnotes and bibliographies which identify where to get more details. Theissen, Gerd & Merz, Annette Merz; The Historical Jesus - A comprehensive Guide; Fortress Press, Minneapolis - 1996. (read a review here) Bruce, F.F. New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable? 6th Ed.; Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids Michigan - 1981 And here are a couple websites with similar (but far less) bibliographical information. Intellectual Foundations of the Christian Faith Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus Existence (pp 15-29)
The risen saints would (like Lazarus of Bethany after being resurrected) have normal physical bodies and accordingly would not appear odd to anyone. Bullfeathers. If nobody knew they had been dead, their appearing to many would have little significance and sure wouldn't require that special qualifier. I mean what good is Ancient Near-East fanfare if nobody bows in somber humility? The risen saints would likely have gone to see friends and family, either to those who disbelieved that there was a 'place of torment' for which they were destined (as the rich man wanted to warn his brothers about), or to those who would be comforted knowing eternal life in Jesus was true. Comfort knowing Jesus is the true redeemer? You mean there are people who could disbelieve such a solid testament? The fuck you say. Maybe it's the lack of modern day miracles like the stopping of time, animals with human voices and personal appearances of the almighty. While I understand your desire for proof (and you seem to have hung a lot on this particular event) Translation: How dare you keep questioning one of many highly doubtable points of my religion. People can live inside whale stomachs for an extended period of time, a darkness covering an entire land can exclude itself from chosen people's dwellings and the creator can appear in person and order Ezekiel to eat doo-doo. is that all it would take for you to believe or are there yet many more evidentiary hurdles? Why, you trying to gain converts? You have one right here if you can prove meat-eating animals did not precede humans and thus giving validity to the concept of original sin. Go!
Just a quick observation on libertarians (god, i despise political labels).
I find it amusing that Libertarians are tolerant of most things; one can
crawl across the border and be given full access to our system. Drugs? No
problem, take them as needed. Moral standards? No thank you, they aren‘t
necessary. But when one mentions religion and the bible, libertarian toleration
stops dead in its tracks. I have no idea if the bible is the word of god or
not, but I don’t disparage those who believe it is. Hell, for all I know they
might be right. Right?
Agreed. They're not terribly useful or informative, not even "Christian" labels. :-/ Agreed again. While the Bible does make radical claims that jar ones human preconceptions, one would think "libertarian toleration" would explore those claims with less hostility.
What universal need is met by the almighty all-compassionate creator ordering Ezekiel to eat doo-doo?
Because, no doubt, in His compassion He uses your silliness to induce others to read Ezekiel, and thus learn the truth for themselves, and expose your illiteracy and deception for all to see in the process.
4:9 Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.
Here is a more accurate (and obvious) NASB translation: Your illiteracy is in your inability to understand that when one bakes with "dung" it is like baking with electricity or gas, it doesn't mean one has added electricity or gas to the cake, let alone dung. But then perhaps your tastes vary. Your deception is in your deliberate trying to find the worst possible way to assert your viewpoint, and ignoring hundreds of years of commentaries that could have enlightened you, were that possible.
I C&P'd that directly from the KJV. But let's see what's more common with google returns: search terms: ezekiel "4:12" "over human dung" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ezekiel+%224%3A12%22+%22over+human+dung%22&btnG=Search for 101 returns search terms: ezekiel "4:12" "with dung" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ezekiel+%224%3A12%22+%22with+dung%22&btnG=Search for 1,380 returns So who's being dishonest now, Starvind? Even if I concede the point (which I don't need to since "eat it with dung" is over 10x more common), why would the almighty have people playing with, on or around doo-doo whilst cooking?
Because excrement is commonly used as fuel in the Mideast and Africa.
Dude they're not cooking with it, their using it in their food. Why else would Ezekiel have said this in the next passage: Ezekiel 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
what he was saying was that he didn't eat animals that died by themselves.....nor did he eat ones that had been killed by other animals.....NOR did he eat abominable flesh, i.e., pigs and other unclean animals.
Nope Ezekiels response explained thusly doesn't stand to reason if all God was asking was for him to eat cakes composed of the following: (from Starvind's translation) Next I want you to take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, dried millet and spelt, and mix them in a bowl to make a flat bread. This is your food ration for the 390 days you lie on your side. 10Measure out about half a pound for each day and eat it on schedule. Except for the last ingredient noted later (If dung were the only fuel available, the lord wouldn't need to make special mention of it. It would go without saying) there's nothing that would prompt that response from Zeke out of the blue about a totally different topic altogether (preparing Kosher by Rowdee's interpretation) What gives?
Moldi's posts are the typical crying out of one for an immaculate secular proof of the existence of the Biblical God so that there'll be hope of something on the other side of a miserable existence (which I infer from the nasty attitude, correct me if I'm wrong...) other than extinction and rotting in mud or possible damnation. It's not as if any of us who number among believers are going to have a crisis of faith from the ramblings, particularly ones so poorly executed, disingenuous, and bereft of logic (ironic, coming from someone who touts "science" and "rationality" as their foundation to boot...). Moldi, you need to get a life, and as my 93 year old grandfather would say, regardless of your current spiritual underpinnings, DON'T take the mark! When that comes along, there's no going back after that.
the typical crying out of one for an immaculate secular proof of the existence of the Biblical God That's a far more noble pursuit than you might realize. At least grant that. so that there'll be hope of something on the other side of a miserable existence Actually, that's where Christianity started. Miserable slaves who needed hope of something better. Jesus taught reward was in the next life, not this one. Anyone who lives in luxury in this life should have no expectation of reward in the hereafter. Now think about your & my standard of living versus even kings of those days. We have it pretty good, did we forfeit our reward by so doing? Are you one of those folks with the Shiny new chromed Toyota Sequoia with the Jesus fish on it, just assuming the salvation applies to you. After all it only applies to 144,000 people in all human history (if we are to believe Revelations). (which I infer from the nasty attitude, correct me if I'm wrong...) other than extinction and rotting in mud or possible damnation. Damnation is not a part of my system of beliefs. It's too miserable a creed, but some of you like to make threats of such when ridiculed. I picture Jesus the same way too, btw. It's not as if any of us who number among believers are going to have a crisis of faith from the ramblings, particularly ones so poorly executed, disingenuous, and bereft of logic (ironic, coming from someone who touts "science" and "rationality" as their foundation to boot...). If I was getting my ass handed to me like you said earlier then you and your clique would be enjoying this and having a good old time. The way I see it, someone's getting rubbed the wrong way. What really bothers you? Should I have phrased my questions more cordially? Fine, then why, sir did bloody warring animals, insects and organisms precede man if the concept of original sin is correct and applicable? (Badeye would say it's too late, can't answer, we already got off on the wrong foot)
Actually, this type of thread isn't a "having a good old time" thread for me, and I couldn't care less if you think you're "winning". Your debate style proved your credibility was near zero. Starwind actually took the time and effort to meticulously respond to you, and you were, to put it coarsely, a dick. As I stated early on, I personally don't see the Genesis story absolutely precluding the pre-existence of some prior world construct. Similarly, while many Christians fret and worry over timing of the return of Christ, AFAIK, that could be at the heat death of the universe. I'm thoroughly convinced of the life, death and ressurection of Christ as the redeemer of man. Any other of the details I can sort out by study, or they'll reveal in time. What does what Badeye think have to do with the price of tea in China? Did he chase you off of LP?
Starwind actually took the time and effort to meticulously respond to you, and you were, to put it coarsely, a dick. All Starwind ever does for the first 3 or so posts is put up a link and tell you to read it. Bullshit. I don't link to http://athiests.org to refute anyones point. And then if they don't read it I start calling them an idiot. I break it down in pithy, readable points. I play on my terms. I know that makes me a dick and I give no apologies. As I stated early on, I personally don't see the Genesis story absolutely precluding the pre-existence of some prior world construct. And this interested me. Prior to original sin, everything was in harmony. Green Herbs were as meat unto all creatures. Notwithstanding the Malthusian problems of creatures that go forth and multiply and never die, fight or kill in a finite space (the borders of Eden are referenced in Gen), the point is man (which "man" btw, Sapiens who are the dozenth type of hominid) created the dischord and thereby cursed everything. So if this pre-existence did contain warring creatures then the world wasn't so perfect and original sin doesn't hold water. Unless someone can reconcile it for me. I'm thoroughly convinced of the life, death and ressurection of Christ as the redeemer of man. Good for you. I was once thoroughly convinced of the existence of Santa Claus until my intellect developed and could sort out the problems of one man delivering goodies to all of humanity (roughly Jesus' gig too, btw). What does what Badeye think have to do with the price of tea in China? Did he chase you off of LP? Because a number of 4umers were acting like textbooks bots: they see a buddy under fire, drop in and deliver a few blows on his behalf and leave. You are the only one, Starvind included who has even attempted to address the "Original Sin" point and I'm still waiting for that reconciliation that has you convinced. Out of curiousity.
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link, but even when it is broken down into "pithy, readable points" 2 or 3 times for you, you still don't read it! LOL! The problem is not that you're an admitted dick who plays by his own terms, the problem is you're an illiterate, lying admitted dick who plays by his own terms. And since your terms preclude reading more than 2 or 3 pithy points in front of your nose (and being honest about what you've read), your whining isn't taken seriously. You've demonstrated you're simply sucking bandwidth and trolling for a flame war.
Not true. I have read and absorbed your last link and deduced that when one "snaps a brown-eye" then one should listen carefully for the voice of God. For this is one vehicle in which he's chosen to teach the faithful. That's the purpose behind the whole "human poo vs. cow poo cooking fuel" parable, correct? And nothing but the poo-challenge would have driven the point home.
You lied in your post #34: You lied again in your post #40 Then in post #91 your were given 1 pithy, readable proof that you had misread Ezekiel, but you ignored it. Then in your post #92 you lied about what Ezekiel said. You ignored again the 1 pithy readable correction in post #95. Then in your posts #135 & #136 you continue to ignore those 1 pithy readable corrections. You ignored the entire chapter and commentary in post #138. You were given another 1 pithy readable explanation in post #139 which you again ignored in your post #140. And in your post #148 you ignored having all that laid again for you in post #142. Your ignore or distort the answers you'r given and then you lie about it. e It wasn't until your post #152 that you finally gave up and stopped denying that Ezekiel wasn't eating dung. No. You still don't get it. God isn't using Ezekiel to teach the faithful. God is using Ezekeiel to warn the faithless.
Schroeder is an unmitigated quack, let link to reviews of his works at http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html Schroeder claims that Genesis 1:1 refers to the era prior to quark confinement, i.e., the first hundred-thousandth second of the universe; and he claims that this era precedes the first day of Genesis. Moreover, he claims that the line which says that the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters (RSV) refers to the inflationary expansion of the universe prior to the era of quark confinement. The interpretative links here are incredibly tenuous: any one-time phenomenon which occurs before the era of quark confinement could, with equal plausibility--or better, with equal implausibility--be taken to be under description: for example, according to standard theory, at the end of the Planck era, gravitational radiation comes out of thermal equilibrium with the rest of the universe; and there is also a symmetry-breaking phase which shatters the electroweak force well before the era of quark confinement. (Of course, there are also delicate questions about the correct translation of the original texts which need to be discussed: if--as my RSV version of the Bible has it--Genesis 1:1 is committed to the existence of water in the earliest phase of the universe, then there is no question of trying to reconcile this with Big Bang cosmology. Given the role that water played in other early cosmological myths and speculations, it seems very plausible to suppose that the references to water in Genesis 1:1 and 1:6-1:7 are intended literally. A similar problem arises with the very first sentence of Genesis: if heaven and earth really are created in the beginning--i.e., in the era prior to quark confinement--then they exist at that time. On p. 8, Schroeder reads the opening sentence in a way which makes it clear that he takes 'the earth' here to refer to our planet. Yet later, when he gives the mapping onto Big Bang cosmology, it is clear that he can't understand the reference to 'the earth' in the opening sentence in this way. If you allow yourself unconstrained and inconsistent interpretation of a text, you can read anything you like into it.) Schroeder claims that Genesis 1:11 tells us (correctly) that life appeared immediately after the appearance of liquid water. (The most recent evidence is that life appeared 3.8 billion years ago, almost immediately at the time that liquid water appeared.) Even by his lights, this claim must surely appear dishonest. After all, it does not say in the account of the third day that God made vegetation immediately after he made the dry land appear; all that we are given is a list of things in the order in which they were done on the third day. On his account, the third day covers a time span of 2 billion years; as far as I can see, his interpretation leaves it open that vegetation could have appeared at any time in that 2 billion year period. Note, in particular, that there is just as much reason to hold that God made the birds--or, as Schroeder would have it, the flying insects--immediately after he made the sea creatures on day four--but that is in sharp disagreement with the evidence. (The same point also applies to the creation of man on day five; that it would be inconsistent with other aspects of Schroeder's interpretation to say that God made man immediately after he made the other animals is surely evidence that he should not say that Genesis 1:11 tells us that life appeared immediately after the appearance of liquid water.) Schroeder claims that dinosaurs are mentioned in Genesis 1:21, since there is a reference there to big reptiles. (The RSV says 'great sea monsters,' but I'm prepared to accept that Schroeder has the translation right.) How is this a reference to dinosaurs? Well, "the biggest reptiles were the dinosaurs"! This is pretty dire. Why not argue as follows: there are references in Genesis to animals; dinosaurs were animals; so there are references to dinosaurs in the Bible?! Or as follows: throughout the Bible, there are references to the things of this world; dinosaurs are among the things of this world (in the relevant atemporal sense); so these are references to dinosaurs in the Bible?! (Surely it is far more plausible to think that the 'big reptiles' which the writers of this text had in mind are crocodiles, large lizards, and the like! Indeed, a list which seems to say exactly this is given in Leviticus 11:30.) Schroeder's claim that archaeopteryx is mentioned at Leviticus 11:18 and Leviticus 11:30 is no more plausible, but also for a different reason: why on earth would anyone bother to proscribe the eating of something which had been extinct for around 150 million years? Schroeder claims that prehuman hominids are referred to--or, at any rate, alluded to--in several places in the Bible. Questions about interpretation come up in every case. At Genesis 12:5, Schroeder takes "Abraham took ... the souls they had made..." to entail that possession of a soul requires belief in a universal, noncorporeal God. (Why not just read it as "Abraham took ... the people they had converted..."? This is much closer to the RSV version, and would surely fit within permissible bounds of translation.) Schroeder notes that Genesis 1:26 talks about 'making' mankind, whereas Genesis 1:27 says that God 'created' man, and insists that, since both verbs characterize our origins, there must be an essential difference in their import. (But why not think that the words are interchangeable, and chosen for purely stylistic reasons, or for no reason at all? After all, it is not unusual for many words to be interchangeable in a given context.) Schroeder notes that an exact translation of Genesis 2:7 would give "man became to a living soul," and then observes that Nahmanides speculated that the redundant 'to' might indicate that the addition of soul transforms one kind of complete creature into a quite different kind of complete creature. (But why rest weight on Nahmanides opinion? There are, after all, other possible explanations of the origins of that redundant 'to' during early transcriptions of the text. Why suppose that it has any significance at all?) Schroeder claims that a careful reading of Genesis 4:25 and Genesis 5:3 reveals that there was a period in which Adam had sexual relations with nonhuman creatures. The allegedly crucial point is the appearance of the word 'again' in Genesis 4:25: "Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son." Isn't the "again" superfluous, and doesn't it tell us that Adam had been playing the field? (I can't see it. We might just as well infer that they'd been struggling for 130 years to have a child to replace the one they had lost. They tried yet again.) And so on. It is very hard to resist the conclusion that Schroeder is trying desperately hard to find anything at all which can be twisted to support the case that he wants to make. So much for the kinds of questions which I might raise about Biblical interpretation. Since I have no claims to expertise on these matters, I shall not put any more weight upon them. At the very least, I think that it is clear that many of Schroeder's claims stretch credulity--and also that it is hard to find a good motivation for them. Given the concession that the text cannot be given a straightforward literal interpretation--not least because, as Schroeder points out (pp. 10-11), it is multiply inconsistent--what harm could there be in supposing that much of it is best interpreted as myth? Reconciling science and Bible does not require finding science in the Bible; rather, it requires reading the Bible in ways which generate no inconsistencies with the well-established teachings of science. Moreover, this position is consistent with--though it does not require--the further claim that the teachings of the Bible are morally authoritative. (Schroeder assumes without argument that morality must have a Biblical foundation--see, e.g., pp. 1, 2, 4, 18, 40, 81-2, 137. This seems to me quite wrong; but I shan't try to dispute it here.) No. You still don't get it. God isn't using Ezekiel to teach the faithful. God is using Ezekeiel to warn the faithless. Through the vehicle of filth and in a way that certainly could have been done in a more eloquent manner. But then, look at the types this mythology appeals to.
Proof that you are a moron and don't read a link and continue to lie about it. No where on this thread did I mention Schroeder or his writing about Genesis, nor did I offer that in my first post to you. I offered an essay about a verifiable prophecy of Jesus Christ: Here's something for you to think about. The Bible contains a prophecy given from God and written over 500 years in advance that foretold of the Messiah Prince that would come 483 years following a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, a Messiah who would then be "cut off" and have nothing. That 500+ year-old prophecy was fufilled with the baptism of Jesus Christ in 26 AD (exactly 483 years after Artaxerxes I decreed in 458 BC that Jerusalem be rebuilt) and with His subsequent crucifixion (being cut off and having nothing). And unlike fictional literature, it is true and verifiable. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news) Starwind posted on 2005-09-30 21:20:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#10. To: Starwind, Elliott Jackalope (#6)
#11. To: Tauzero, Starwind (#10)
Here's an essay I think you'll find interesting. I apologize for the extra question marks you'll find throughout the essay. Some weird formatting took place somewhere along the line.
Copyright Dr. Paul Winchell 2003
2. Bartholomew
3. James, brother of John
4. Simon the Canaanite
5. James, or Jude
6. Andrew Son of Alpheus
7. Philip
8. John
9. Matthew
10. Simon called Zeloites
11. Thomas and
12. Judas Iscariot
#17. To: Elliott Jackalope (#11)
Copyright Dr. Paul Winchell 2003
#21. To: Starwind (#17)
#27. To: Moldi-Box (#21)
Something to think about.
#31. To: Starwind (#27)
#33. To: Elliott Jackalope (#31)
Do you believe that happened?
Because that's a really tough act to ignore. Walking resurrected saints would tend to make quite an impact on a society, yet nobody else reported that happening. Not even the other authors of the gospels. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?
It wasn't ignored. It was written down once. But the real issue is would you believe it if only it had been written down four times?
#35. To: Starwind (#33)
#53. To: Elliott Jackalope (#35)
#54. To: Starwind (#53)
Mat 27:52-53 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
#56. To: All (#54)
#60. To: Jethro Tull (#56)
god, i despise political lables
But when one mentions religion and the bible, libertarian toleration stops dead in it's tracks.
#81. To: Starwind (#60)
While the Bible does make radical claims that jar ones human preconceptions, one would think "libertarian toleration" would explore those claims with less hostility.
#86. To: Moldi-Box (#81)
What universal need is met by the almighty all-compassionate creator ordering Ezekiel to eat doo-doo?
#90. To: Starwind (#86)
and thus learn the truth for themselves, and expose your illiteracy and deception for all to see in the process.
4:10 And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it.
4:11 Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.
4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
The floor is yours Starvind. Point out my deception.
#91. To: Moldi-Box (#90)
What universal need is met by the almighty all-compassionate creator ordering Ezekiel to eat doo-doo?
Eze 4:12 "You shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung."
#92. To: Starwind (#91)
Your illiteracy is in your inability to understand that when one bakes with "dung" it is like baking with electricity or gas, it doesn't mean one has added electricity or gas to the cake, let alone dung.
#123. To: Moldi-Box (#92)
Even if I concede the point (which I don't need to since "
eat it (you didn't even use that in the search!) with dung" is over 10x more common), why would the almighty have people playing with, on or around doo-doo whilst cooking?
#135. To: Axenolith (#123)
Because excrement is commonly used as fuel in the Mideast and Africa.
#139. To: Moldi-Box (#135)
#140. To: rowdee, Starwind (#139)
what he was saying was that he didn't eat animals that died by themselves.....nor did he eat ones that had been killed by other animals.....NOR did he eat abominable flesh, i.e., pigs and other unclean animals.
#147. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee, Starwind (#140)
#150. To: Axenolith (#147)
#165. To: Moldi-Box (#150)
If I was getting my ass handed to me like you said earlier then you and your clique would be enjoying this and having a good old time. The way I see it, someone's getting rubbed the wrong way. What really bothers you?
Fine, then why, sir did bloody warring animals, insects and organisms precede man if the concept of original sin is correct and applicable?
#168. To: Axenolith (#165)
#169. To: Moldi-Box, Axenolith, rowdee (#168)
All Starwind ever does for the first 3 or so posts is put up a link and tell you to read it. Bullshit. I don't link to http://athiests.org to refute anyones point. And then if they don't read it I start calling them an idiot. I break it down in pithy, readable points. I play on my terms. I know that makes me a dick and I give no apologies.
#170. To: Starwind (#169)
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link
#174. To: Moldi-Box (#170)
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link
Not true.
Liar. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
The only thing I saw on that link was you tap-dancing around legitimate questions that hoist doubt onto the creation story. If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)? Yes it did. Uh oh. That's a big f**cking problem. I read more of the link and if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned. One poster brought up repeated questions about the creation
For this is one vehicle in which he's chosen to teach the faithful. That's the purpose behind the whole "human poo vs. cow poo cooking fuel" parable, correct?
#175. To: Starwind (#174)
You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
#176. To: Moldi-Box (#175)
Schroeder is an unmitigated quack, let link to reviews of his works at http:/ /infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html
#27. To: Moldi-Box (#21)
Something to think about.
You lied in your posts #34 & #40 that you had read the link I gave you. You're still lying.
The proof of your lies are in your above post #175 wherein you erroneously refute work done by Gerald Schroeder. But nowhere in the link I gave you is either Schroeder's work discussed, nor anywhere in that essay nor it's sublinks, but that hasn't stopped your fixation on Schroeder and Genesis and your blind arrogance.
Had you actually read God's Signature of Authenticity and the thread, you'd know that. But like the liar you are, you're just blowing more smoke and hoping no one will notice.
You have assumed God's Signature of Authenticity is about something else. You have assumed (without checking your facts, as you inevitably forego) that my link was something about Schroeder's work on Genesis 1. when in fact (had you checked) my link was about Dan 9:25-26.
The Daniel 9 prophecy about the Messiah is not the Genesis 1 account of the 6- day creation.
And this is now the 3rd time that has been pointed out in several pithy readable posts (which you claim is all you need, on your terms no less - lol).
You lie and you're too incompetant to recognize the difference between words like Daniel and Genesis or Prophecy and Creation, and you're too lazy to read, think or even do a simple search to see what is or isn't on a thread.
You are a lying, illiterate, admitted dick.
#177. To: Starwind (#176)
No where on this thread did I mention Schroeder or his writing about Genesis, nor did I offer that in my first post to you. I offered an essay about a verifiable prophecy of Jesus Christ: Ah, you'll forgive me (WWJD?) for confusing that with your other link: http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=6940&SC=1&EC=40#C1 In fact I didn't regard the "God's Signature" link because I don't see anything to corroborate the Baptism, except the Bible itself and maybe the Jews for Jesus faq page :) Oh, and a link to http://www.jeramyt.org/ who appears to be some sort of ecclesiastical gay-rights activist. I would note your own web page http://star.wind.mystarband.net/ has all of 13 hits which is pretty sad considering such important material, but I digress. Despite the pissing contests and theories, I think if you were as secure in your position as you think you are you wouldn't be getting so upset at people asking questions. I'm perfectly calm despite posters like Red and Assnolith chiming in to say what a fuckhead I am. It funny how quickly a devout Christian like you can disregard all the tenants of your impossible to follow religion. Let's take a look: Matt 5:22 "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (you failed this one) Matt 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (this one too) Luke 6:29 "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;" (hate to tell you) Matt 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (to be fair, you might have heard "Blessed are the Cheesemakers") So for all you're high minded ideals, your are a belligerent and impatient hypocrite and I've amply pointed this out through your own behavior. I've seen you insult other posters on similar threads too, btw. But if you can live with the glaring discrepancy between what you claim to believe and how you really act, fine. But "No man can serve two masters" (Matt 6:24) and if you serve the Lord as vigorously as you serve your own ego then you must be doing fine. Kindest Regards, MB
Proof that you are a moron and don't read a link and continue to lie about it.
http://www.jeramyt.org/pride-rt.gif
#178. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee, axenolith (#177)
Right. You didn't read it. You assumed you knew and then you lied, repeatedly, to cover up your assumption. Its only taken what, a few dozen posts for you to finally figure that out and admit it? And now the excuses for your lying about why you didn't read it, but you did lie repeatedly that you had read it, and your reasons for lying don't matter one wit, because they can't be believed, now can they. And you're still wrong. The corroboration is there. But because you didn't read it, you're still lying about having looked. The issue, as you well know, is not that you ask questions, its that you lie repeatedly, knowingly, deliberately, even calmly about the facts and the answers. You are a liar. The fact that you lie so calmly suggests you are a pathological liar. When you stop lying and start being genuine in your questions, you'll get respect. Not before. Probably say something like: Pro 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly. Only you and Dude Lebowski. And we both know why, don't we Dude. It's in the thread above, and the other threads where you boastfully backed yourself into a corner.
Ah, you'll forgive me (WWJD?) for confusing that with your other link: http:/ /www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=6940&SC=1&EC=40#C1
In fact I didn't regard the "God's Signature" link because I don't see anything to corroborate the Baptism, except the Bible itself and maybe the Jews for Jesus faq page :)
I think if you were as secure in your position as you think you are you wouldn't be getting so upset at people asking questions. I'm perfectly calm despite posters like Red and Assnolith chiming in to say what a fuckhead I am.
WWJD?
Do you not know that it is written?
So for all you're high minded ideals, your are a belligerent and impatient hypocrite and I've amply pointed this out through your own behavior. I've seen you insult other posters on similar threads too, btw.
#185. To: All, Moldi-Box, Dude Lebowski, Rowdee, Axenolith, Elliott Jackalope, Steppenwolf, Tauzero, Jethro Tull, christine, Zipporah, Flintlock, Red Jones, lodwick, crack monkey, Phaedrus, TommyTheMadArtist, Jhoffa_, Dakmar, scooter, tom007, Mekons4, *Bereans* (#178)
I want to apologize, to God especially, and everyone on this thread for my contributions to the unseemly flame war into which it devolved. The Bible teaches (Pro 15:1) "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger". This simple truth was very much in evidence on this thread. This thread could have been an enlightening, informative discussion of viewpoints both pro and con, but instead became a non-discussion of the ridiculous and meritless, and my harsh words perpetuated the rancor. As a professed believer in and follower of Jesus Christ I should set a better example than I did. I should and could have made the same points in exposing Moldi-Box/Dude Lebowski's erroneous Bible interpretations and other misrepresentations, but done so without being caustic and vitrolic in my language. I encourage all to *not* follow my example above. I have often said to others, "it isn't what you say so much as how you say it". In this regard I failed to follow my own counsel. In the future when the situation warrants, I will likewise expose error and deception, but I will be more gracious in the process. Again, I apologize to all.
#192. To: Starwind (#185)
Frankly, I see nothing to apologize for. However, I am not your conscience-- God and you will handle that. My problem is having very little patience, since my youngest daughter forced me to use them all up. I think I learned that in struggling to grow some more patience that one way for me personally to deal with such as this is to refuse to respond. The other way, of course, is to merely tell them to go F* themselves. :( Not a smart or wise choice--especially on a thread like this. Folks like this delight in jerking chains, trying to break that last thread of patience, etc., and then jump one's ass for stumbling. Whatever ya do, Starwind, please keep posting. :)
Replies to Comment # 192.
There are no replies to Comment # 192.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 192.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest