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: 2937
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
Comments (1-9) not displayed.
.
.
.
#10. To: Starwind, Elliott Jackalope (#6)
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.
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#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
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#12. To: Elliott Jackalope (#11)
Preaching to the choir, as the saying goes. Two minor points though: 1) We don't have to restrict ourselves only to those beliefs that are provably true. 2) Even a false belief may still be useful, to those that believe it and those that do not. In my misspent "yout" I tried to unconvert some folks, pointing them to Ingersoll and other authors. Most were impervious, and it wasn't really worth the energy. Over the years I've come to agree with Franklin. Their belief does me far more good than harm. "Remember thou art mortal", and with mortal reason. Beware of unintended consequences in this sphere, as you would in the sphere of state action. Let the tiger be. Especially this one which, compared to those of earlier ages, is rather tame.
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#13. To: crack monkey (#0)
I hate it when leftist Christians cite this. It may be true, but the context of the passage from which it was taken is worry about your own goddamn sins, not your neighbors', rich or not.
a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle.
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#14. To: Tauzero (#10)
No offense taken. I've seen it many times myself, and often it seems to be a contrarian indicator - that the "decision for Christ" was more an emotional binge in someone who has a tendancy for emotional binges, this time merely for a different cause. They seem to fall away (apostasize) later on and seldom seem to consistently bear the fruit of the spirit. My conclusion: though there was a "burst of fervor" it was emotion and not a considered, informed, commited decision. It is hard (if not impossible) to humanly know a true conversion from a false - only God knows the heart. But in later years, more often than not, there are significant, indicative telltales that are observable. It is actually a combination of what the biblically-informed intellect assesses in someone's behavior, viewpoints, explanations, etc, combined with an inner spiritual intuition that someone else is a spiritual brother/sister. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit "testifies with our spirit": A tautololgy nonetheless can be true. The problem is a tautology can't be proven or disproven on logic alone and by itself a tautology offers little useful information. The distinction I would point out about salvation and the Bible versus a tautology is that the Bible is testable in some regards (historical/ archeological record, and fulfilled prophecies). What is often the stumbling block (and one I anticpated in this discussion) is that God has seemingly required faith (in God the Son, Jesus Christ) as a prerequiste to further provision and affirmation of the hidden spiritual things. A very unsatisfying answer, I understand. It was for me as well for a long time. I used to be a skeptic, what the Bible calls a worldly scoffer. For decades my life was about factual science, engineering, material/corporate success, etc. If it couldn't be measured by science it didn't exist in my worldview. I called people like me "bible thumpers", "holy roller", "misguided" etc. I could not tell (and didn't care) the difference between Christian, Morman, Hindu, Muslim, Buhddist, etc - they were all mislead - like flat earthers, it didn't matter which direction of the compass they had traveled. But I was always a 'truth seeker', in that I always wanted the most accurate honest correct understanding of any particular subject or problem that interested me and I didn't care where the truth was found, provided it was in fact the truth. I did not want to be deceived or stupid about something. I had always been honest with myself about what I knew or didn't know. A day came (to make a long story short) when a woman had said some things about what the Bible taught that I did not believe and I set out to prove her wrong by reading the Bible for myself to see what it in fact did say. Over a period of 10-months or more I read it all cover to cover and some parts repeatedly. I had a stack of notes an inch thick of "contradictions" I wanted to resolve. I hadn't understood all of it, but I did understand enough to know the woman had told me the truth, and that God had a large plan to correct human failings that all made sense to me - to me it was (and still is) "logical" from God's point of view. Another aspect of my personality is that in addition to being a 'truth seeker' I was always willing to take responsibility for my mistakes. I never expected someone else to fix my mistakes, pay my way, or take my punishment - I always expected to be accountable for my actions. What I realized upon my finishing reading the Bible, was that I had made mistakes (sin) for which I could never take responsibilty and live (eternally) to tell about it. Unbidden my me, Jesus Christ had sacrificed his royal surroundings to take the punishment that was intended for me, and all He wanted from me was my genuine gratitude and willing cooperation. I can't describe the moment I realized this, but I knew it was true and I knew Jesus had done, out of love, something for me I could never repay. Why did I believe this when so many others disbelieve? A) I was always a truth seeker and I really wanted to know the truth of God and the Bible even as I read it. Because I was really, sincerely seeking the truth about God and the Bible, as I read it, the Holy Spirit helped me understand how it was in fact true. Because I then believed that Jesus had in fact taken my punishment, something I never expected and never could repay, I genuinely wanted to honor His sacrifice for me. Because I sincerely believed Jesus had died for me, rose again, etc, etc, and I sincerely wanted to make amends to/for Him, my acceptance of Jesus Christ was sincere and real. And at that moment (what I later learned about the transformation I described above) began in me. I was surprised to experience it, but it was very reaffirming that yet another aspect of what the Bible teaches was true. The problem for this discussion is that, as I described above, my unprovable to you faith in Jesus preceded my likewise unprovable to you indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God wants us to operate on a trusting faith in Him. After we are adopted into His family, the proof that trust as well placed becomes evident. By analogy, you don't prove to the neighborhood kids that you can be trusted as a father. Your children (being in your family) already know that but likewise would have some difficulty proving your trustworthiness and your character to their friends in the neighborhood. But suppose in a moment of desperation, a local dirty, cold and starving orphan were to come to your door and say "Mr. Tauzero, your kids said you offered that I could come and live with you and you would take care of me, and I'm trusting you - if you'll say yes?". And you open the door, and file the adoption papers to make that child a legitimate member of your family. Contrast that with suppose they (in their same decrepit condition) had said "Yo, Tau dude, ma man. If you'll prove to me you're a good guy, I might let you take care of me" You're not likely to extend yourself proving what is already evident to your kids, and already evident to anyone observing your household and reading your essays about fatherhood. Accepting their untrust does not engender their continued future trust of you. They either trust or they don't. When does the proving stop? If your family is based on trusting you, a trust you have never betrayed, adopting an untrusting child would be a departure from your plan, and perhaps that untrust is merely indicative of a child that is always demanding that you appease their will and do things their way according to their expectations not yours, and you are after the all, the one putting the roof over their heads. Neither you, nor God, work that way. So, while that remains likely a less than satisfactory answer, hopefully is offers some insight into what appears a tautology about salavation is true nonetheless and God has His reasons, though they aren't always comprehensible by us early on, if ever.
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.)
Rom 8:14-17 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (15) For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" (16) The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, (17) and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
So, yeah, sorta like gaydar, but actually God's Holy Spirit confirming truth or falsehood. that the path is straight and narrow and only a few will be saved is tautological.
B) I had never convinced myself there was *not* a God, and I had been going through a period where it seemed God kept stepping in my path in subtle ways. I had even asked at one point, "OK if you're real, help me see it and understand". It was a few years later that I read the Bible.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#15. To: Starwind (#14)
Like the funny man said, I wish He'd cough, or something. In the past I've wanted to believe. While I view proof as sufficient but not necessary, I do require (as much as I can ferret out my own errors) that my beliefs be internally consistent, and Christianity doesn't cut it. The story of Jesus makes the most sense to me as god, having realized how screwed up the world he made was, came down to suffer as we suffer, i.e. died not just for our sins but his own sense of guilt. He couldn't live with himself. < /bat-a-ching>
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#16. To: Tauzero (#15)
The truth of something would be internally (as well as externally) consistent. So, inconsistency is a pointer to either a misunderstanding (in whole or in part), a lack of information, or perhaps a falsehood. And one studies and evaluates to what the inconsistency points to ferret out the error. You do this with technical analysis. I daresay you suspected EW and/or socionomics as being true (or at least having merit) without understanding every nuance or facet of it, or the theoretical fractal math that underlies it and you use it (trust it to a degree) without your understanding being fully internally consistent, right? But while you don't understand every nuance of it, it shows predictive value, it was believable in part even if not yet believable in whole (because you don't yet understand it in whole). The important part that was believable (that human emotion drives systems/ markets and not vice versa) does not prevent you from trusting wave theory in general or prevent you from seeking to understand wave sequences, shapes, probablities, etc in detail. God's plan is similar. Simple (but genuine) belief in Jesus Christ is the only important part. Everything follows gradually from that. You can wonder how could the red sea part, or how should Revelation be interpreted to make sense, or why did God allow ____, without invalidating a belief that trusting Jesus is prequisite and overriding - in a sense trusting Him thereafter to explain the details. Yes, you should expect the Bible and Christian theology to be internally and externally consistent. But while you acquire a consistent understanding gradually in other aspects of your life, you require a complete consistent understanding of God upfront? Is that not an inconsistent treatment? Where else in your studies do you require complete knowledge and comprehension upfront before you'll utilize a tool or principle in application?
I do require (as much as I can ferret out my own errors) that my beliefs be internally consistent,
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#17. To: Elliott Jackalope (#11)
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.
Copyright Dr. Paul Winchell 2003
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#18. To: Moldi-Box (#2)
..."Good thing you made the NT distinction because it was certainly in the OT. Joseph, after shaking down the Egyptians levied a tax of 10% grain to be paid henceforth IIRC. And moved the rural dwellers into the cities :( "... I must be missing the point about 'shaking down Egyptians'. He was put in charge of planning for the 7 years of famine that were coming; he was the right hand man of the Pharoah. ..."That's right. The Lord smote Er and Onan, the sons of Judah for being wicked in his sight. Kinda makes you wonder why he offered humanity free will if he just uses it as a justification to smite. And then will they not face judgement in the afterlife since they faced it once in the mortal life?"... There was lots of smoting and smiting going on in the Old Testament. God often used opposing tribes to execute judgment against the idol worshippers. And what is interesting is it doesn't matter whether it is his chosen people or not...they get punished for false god worshipping. Or for things like presuming or pride. I was just reading today about the Judean King Uzziel/Araziah. He and the nation prospered incredibly well...but 11 years before he died, he decided he could be a priest as well as the king (something that God had kept separate). He entered the Holy Place to burn incense--something only consecrated priests were to do. When he became enraged at the priests who were trying to get him out of the forbidden to him place, he developed an instant case of leprosy as judgment. The last ll years of his life were spent as a co-king---one with leprosy who had to live separately--and when he died could not be buried in the tombs of the kings because of the leprosy. The way I see it, in order to be God, God can be, and is, anything he wants to be. He can be meaner than a junkyard dog, or as gentle as a breeze from a baby's breath. He can be tender or wrathful. He cannot be put in a box or any other container. I belive what people need to get away from is all the man-made hoopla, rituals, etc., and get back to reading, and actually understanding scripture. ..."Good thing Yahweh is entirely a literary construct, otherwise this could get confusing."... Obviously, we disagree hugely in this regard.
#19. To: Elliott Jackalope (#3)
..."Let's get to brass tacks: If you want to understand God and the universe and everything, it is absolutely necessary to totally discard absolutely everything about Christianity, and ALL Middle-Eastern religious fictions. It is a non-philosophy for non-people (i.e. "slaves") who can't hack it in this world so they spend their entire lives fantisizing about the next. It's pathetic, it's worthless, it's a mental virus designed to disarm freemen and render them into easily looted slaves"... I will never 'understand' God, yet I'm thankful He's there for me. I will also never understand the universe, but then outer space never interested me. And it's a given I won't understand everything--and thank goodness for that because if I did, I wouldn't need anyone else to be around. I certainly don't spend my life fantasizing about the next life. I'm too busy living today. I believe that much of what is being foisted off today as 'christianity' is worthless, unfortunately.
#20. To: Starwind (#6)
Thanks for inputting, Starwind. You speak so well for the topic, and explanations in general.
#21. To: Starwind (#17)
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.
#22. To: christine (#8)
Me, too.....very surprised.
#23. To: Starwind (#16)
It would be, if that's what I was doing. ( And I'm not really interested in discussing it further, because, well, I like you. )
Is that not an inconsistent treatment?
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#24. To: rowdee (#18)
God often used opposing tribes to execute judgment against the idol worshippers. And what is interesting is it doesn't matter whether it is his chosen people or not...they get punished for false god worshipping. So the builder of perfect balance and sublime creation has a preference of one tribe and makes it's enemies his own? Sounds like something they wrote about themselves, justas every tribe of that day glorified themselves. In Exodus (somewhere in 12 I think) the Lord made mention of how the gods of Egypt would be judged harshly. Not idols mind you, but gods. Nobody these days believes in Ra, but Yahweh seemed to. That seems to mirror what the pre-scientific scribes would have thought far more then it would reflect the creator. Then he goes on to give instructions on how to properly keep slaves (perfect compassion and love anyone?), to arbitrate crimes involving oxen, how to build a synagogue with a proper tabernacle having the right amounts and forms of gold (which on the molecular level is nomore special than granite) and finally how to keep it lit with clean olive oil (I guess he didn't foresee Edison). Not to mention proper burnt sacrifice offering, not to plant diffeent crops in the same field (despite crop rotation being a proven method of increasing yield), and to keep ones hair long in the temples (Starvind might have an edge over you here). So thinking critically (I know it's hard, but try anyway) we see that this doctrine is not scalable, applicable or relevant to anyone outside of that time and region. The scientific misconceptions from the creation story hence are as laughable as any archaic mythology with monsters and talking animals and superhuman exploits. But many take this one seriously. Why? Out of habit.
#25. To: Moldi-Box (#24)
Interesting handle you've got there..
"When the government FEARS the People, there is liberty, but when the People fear the government, there is tyranny."
#26. To: Starwind (#17)
No,but it's up to you to explain how they got the material for their gospels ,since they weren't present at what they write about ;Their writings must be heresay and not eyewitness accounts. Is heresay admissable in a court of law ?
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.
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#27. To: Moldi-Box (#21)
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.
Something to think about.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#28. To: Steppenwolf (#26)
This is, of course, an unsubstantiated assumption on your part, unless of course you have some proof to post that they weren't ever eyewitnesses at any of it? Your proof for example they weren't in the crowd at the feeding of the 5,000 or the healing of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' robe, or the demoniac boy, or in the crowds who were shouting to Pilate for Barrabas to be exchanged for Jesus, etc? And, FWIW, yes there are instances where "heresay" is admissable in a court of law. And you're free to dismiss the argument as unproven.
since they [the gospel writers] weren't present at what they write about
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#29. To: rowdee (#20)
Thank you rowdee for your encouraging words.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#30. To: Starwind (#28)
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived. But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.
This is, of course, an unsubstantiated assumption on your part, unless of course you have some proof to post that they weren't ever eyewitnesses at any of it? ......No the writers of the Gospels were GREEK and wrote in greek. Enlighten yourself..... http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#31. To: Starwind (#27)
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?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#32. To: Steppenwolf (#30)
Disciples (followers) are not Apostles, and no they were not all fishermen: The Romans were occupiers of the country for several decades, and before that Alexander the Great in 332 BC conquered the country and began the Hellenization of the Jews which included imposition of Greek language and culture. So by Jesus day the culture was a mix of Jew, Greek and Roman, but Greek had become the universal and nearly international language in Palestine and elsewhere as a consequence of Alexander the Great's Hellenization program. Well considering John was the only Jewish Gospel writer and the imposition of the Hellenistic period and Romans, that's not terribly surprising. Further in Jewish culture, the writing skills (Aramaic) were predominantly found among the educated Pharisees and scribes and used largely to copy the Jewish religious scrolls and transcribe the teachings of the Hebrew sages. So given Aramaic was largely written by Pharisees and scribes, none of whom were Jesus' disciples, and that the gospel writers were all steeped in a Greek- language culture due to 300+ years of Hellenization, and except possibly for John, the gospel writers had "professional" as opposed to fishermen's backgrounds, it is quite natural the gospels were written in Greek. There is also the likelihood that because when the gospels were being written, Christ had already been crucified and resurrected and had commanded them to "make disciples of all nations", such discipling of all nations would be more effective in Greek than Aramaic.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen.
His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age.
But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#33. To: Elliott Jackalope (#31)
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.
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?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#34. To: Starwind (#27)
Verifiable. Now I'm interested. What corroborating material confirms this except the bible itself wihch could have been written to make the pieces fit? And even Yahweh seems to have misconceptions as to what a year is. He told the Israelites a year begins on Passover, in Abib which would be late April right? Ask any farmer if he can consider April 25th the be the beginning of the year for planting purposes. Again science trumps baseless faith. And thanks for bringing up Jesus who taught that one shouldn't collect wealth in this life because this world is of the devil and that anyone who is rewarded here shouldn't expect to be rewarded in the kingdom of God. But OT Yahweh made Abraham, Isaac, Laban, Joseph, Jacob et all exceedingly rich. Did the devil inherit the world sometime after that point? And why does this world belong to the dark prince when God created it and allowed sin to enter against his (omnipotent) will? 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.
it is true and verifiable.
#35. To: Starwind (#33)
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?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#36. To: Starwind, Elliott Jackalope (#33)
And the stare of Medusa turned men into stone. And the minotaur truly existed and was terrible to behold. And the sirens called unwary sailors from their charted course to be forever trapped. And I know Zeus is real because we have conversations every Thursday following prime time t.v. etc... etc... Mythology = mythology Yahweh has all the characteristics of what you would expect from a tribal diety - craving for burnt altar sacrifices, advice for situations of the day, a keen eye for pretty shiny things like gold, a wrathful temperment, a ornery disposition toward the lesser gods which he made note of many time (and whom created these lesser gods BTW). And why did this ostentatious diety stop making appearences in person and in burning bushes and pillars of fire and thunderous clouds at some point? Why did he send his son (which some fruitloops claim is really him) to do his talking for him in the NT, you know, the book where he ceased being an angry, warring, partial-to-one-tribe ruler and instead became perfect love, forgiving and compassionate?
Matt 9:27 Jesus heals many blind and mute Mark 7:31-37 Healing the deaf and mute man Luk 22:50-51 replaced the ear of the high priest's servant at Jesus arrest John 5:1-9 healing the paralyzed man at Bethesda pool
#37. To: Moldi-Box (#34)
You didn't read the link. Most of the essay is cites of extra-biblical historical records of kings that verify and corroborate the timeline of the biblical prophecy. lol - you definitely didn't read the link. If you would please, post exact quotes, from that link, wherein I danced around questions about the creation story, Adam naming creatures, Neanderthals, or dinosaurs. I know those questions aren't there, but you don't know that because you didn't read the link. You assumed and you're blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice.
Verifiable. Now I'm interested. What corroborating material confirms this except the bible itself which could have been written to make the pieces fit?
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.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#38. To: Starwind (#37)
Let's try again with less interference: 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)?
you're blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice.
#39. To: Moldi-Box (#38)
lol - what happened to your interest in verifiable corroborative material. That presumption that the bible was no different than mythical literature. When given a link to something verifiable and substantive, you didn't read it, and when called on it, you're changing the subject. 'smatter? Did you finally read the link and realize what a blunder you made, asserting that I had therein danced around questions that now you finally realize aren't there and never were?
Let's try again with less interference:
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#40. To: Starwind (#39)
No. The bible cannot corroborate itself. What other piece of contemporary record refers to Jesus' baptism. That's what I was asking for. You raised a dust could with your link thinking it would placate me. 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 which made you angry, defensive and evasive. Like you're doing now when I asked similar questions which require answers to prove the validity of the OT and NT alike. (And which you want to divert the subject away from BTW) Go ahead now, floor's yours.
When given a link to something verifiable and substantive, you didn't read it, and when called on it, you're changing the subject.
#41. To: Moldi-Box (#40)
Man, what the hell are you smoking? You are undergoing a rhetorical ass kicking that, if real, would have you in an ICU...
if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned.
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#42. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#40)
By the way, I'm not trying to "win" or "prove" anything, my objective is to figure out the truth. I'm a big fan of truth, and I really like intelligent debate purposed towards finding the truth. I'm a lot less interested in "winning" or "proving" anything than I am in finding the truth. Starwind, I have a question for you. Have you ever heard of Abdul Bahá'u'lláh? He founded a faith called the Bahai. The reason I mention him is because of several things, first because his writings were actually written by him, within the last hundred years or so, there's no problem with translation errors or second hand accounts, what he wrote is what he wrote. Secondly, there are a number of miracles attributed to him that were witnessed by many people. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, his writings are very inspirational and seem to have a great amount of wisdom behind them. The Bahai's that I've met have been extremely nice people, what could be called "salt of the Earth" types, generous, kind and wise. No, I'm not a Bahai, and I'm not trying to promote that particular faith. But if I were to embrace a faith, I'd be a lot more inclined to follow something where the words written down were actually penned by the prophet in question, where the teachings are filled with wisdom and inspiration, and where the idea is not to terrify people into believing by threatening them with the undifferentiated absolute of total awfulness for not prostrating themselves before the deity in question, but pointing out the wisdom of living life in accordance with Godly principles versus living life in the pursuit of selfish desires. Simply put, I refuse to be cowed by fear, I refuse to cringe before my maker, eternally apologizing and begging forgiveness for my sins, when I'm guilty of nothing more than being a man. I'm not perfect by any means, and I freely admit that I fall far short of any Godly ideal. But I love truth, I hate lies, I love kindness and generosity (people who know me say I'm generous to a fault) and I hate greed and selfishness and cruelity. I'm also someone who deeply loves nature and animals, who will take the time to escort a bug out of my house to gently put them outside. Yet, according to Christianity, because I reject Jesus I'm going to spend eternity burning right next to sadists and Satanists and murderers and pederasts. Now doesn't that sound just a bit out of whack to you? Furthermore, does anyone, even the worst of the worst, deserve eternal punishment? Please don't use the ol' "God has his standards, we are not to judge them" argument. That is nothing more than intellectual prostration before yet another undifferentiated absolute, and I'm not going to go for it. Eternal punishment is infinite punishment is infinite cruelity. Should I worship God as a tyrant? Because to be perfectly honest, Christianity led me to hate God. Abandoning Christianity has allowed me to begin contemplating God again, and has allowed me to consider the possibility that perhaps God is not an evil tyrant after all, but a source of light and love and life. But then I go to read the Bible, and after just a few pages I find myself hating God again. Why is that? Why should a decent person find themselves hating God from reading the Bible? Could it have something to do with the cruel behavior and standards imposed by the God of the Bible? Perhaps the most "true" religion of all is the one that leads a person to God, and the most "false" religions are the ones that drive people away from God? Perhaps Christianity works for you, but it doesn't for me and for many others. Do you really believe God wants his children to hate and fear him? I don't, and for me Christianity leads me to hate God. Therefore I reject Christianity, because I would much rather have good feelings towards God, and aspire to grow nearer to Him than to push myself ever further away. Therefore I reject Christianity, and I reject Judiasm and I reject Islam, so there's at least two Hells waiting for me, simply because I'd rather like God and want to please him, instead of hating and cringing and fearing Him. P.S. You want to know my real opinion on "life, God, the universe and everything" (TM)? Here's what I think. Religions have real power because they start with real experiences that people have, experiences that through whatever mechanism or method allow people to momentarily see beyond the veil of reality and perceive the larger reality that this world is a subset of. These experiences change these people profoundly, and change the lives of people around them as well. Then others begin to move in on the action, creating ritual and legend and mythos surrounding the original revelation, and after enough time the ritual and legends and mythos become institutionalized religions, with all of the politics and statecraft and intrigue and generic human grotesqueness that comes along with the behavior of those more interested in power than they are in truth. And so the original power of the vision becomes diffused and dimmed and distorted, and the institution becomes more corrupt and oppressive and worldly. This is why people who are religious have the depth of faith that they do, because when you unwrap all of the nonsense piled on by people over centuries you'll find a core of real truth there, and this is also why those who disbelieve any particular religion have the convictions they do, because there are very good reasons to not believe once one has seen what the original vision led to. Well, that's my essay for the evening. Apologies to all who waded through all of this and found it lacking in value. At least know that I did my honest best to speak what I think is the truth.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#43. To: Axenolith (#41)
Okay Dudley, if you say so. But out of curiousity, what point(s) specifically is Starvind winning? The one where he dodges explaining why man-like hominids are on the fossil record? Maybe you can pick up for him there.
You are undergoing a rhetorical ass kicking
#44. To: Elliott Jackalope (#42)
Excellent post EJ. Near as I can tell there are only ever two impetuses for being Christian: self-preservation (avoiding hell) and for gain (glorious afterlife), rarely if ever for any other sake. How noble is it to live life simply to stay out of jail or flatter a wealthy benefactor in hopes of an inheritance? To the philosophic mind there must be something more. Of course, maybe this is why per Revelations only 144,000 names will be written in the book of life - because the other hundres of millions of Christians really arent?
Eternal punishment is infinite punishment is infinite cruelity. Should I worship God as a tyrant?
#45. To: Elliot Jackalope, Starwind (#35)
EJ. the apostles nor disciples were joined at the hip, thus each seeing everything exactly the same. Recall that after the crucification that a number of them saw the resurrected Jesus, and doubting Thomas said he wouldn't believe it unless or until he could put his fingers in the nailprints. When Jesus next appeared, He encouraged Thomas to do so. Additionally, there can be tons of witnesses to an event. Some will say they didn't see anything. Others saw a dark blue car, for instance, while another swears it was black, and yet another would say it was red. Or that a perp was wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, when he was wearing khaki shorts and a polo shirt. Did any of the witnesses write down what they saw? Chances are there is at least one that would have--because they figured they would need it to refresh their memories should they be required to testify in court. I did this a whole lot when I was younger. I was trained in stenography. From when I first began training, I would write down things I observed or listened to--all in the chickenscratching called Gregg's shorthand. It got to be a habit. Would resurrected saints appear to non-believers or skeptics? I personally doubt it.
#46. To: rowdee (#45)
Would resurrected saints appear to non-believers or skeptics? I personally doubt it. Question: Since this event is supposed to have happened at the time of the crucifixion, the total number of believers in Christianity numbered what, less than a hundred? Maybe less than twenty-five? So your argument is that these saints were resurrected, but didn't appear before any non-believers? So they were resurrected for the behalf of a tiny group of people, but stayed hidden (or were non-visible) for everyone else? Hate to say it, but that just doesn't make any sense, and your argument is actually a good example of the kind of mental and logical gymnastics people go through when trying to make sense of the nonsensical. Yet another reason why I'm not a fan of religion, because every belief system comes with a set of shared beliefs and shared denials, and I'm just not willing to turn a blind eye to inconvenient facts.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#47. To: Elliott Jackalope (#46)
Jesus Christ had more followers, it seems, than 100. It isn't recorded how many saints, or which saints, resurrected, nor to who all they appeared. I could speculate that some saw them for the purpose of uplifting spiritually the new Christians. Why would you believe resurrected saints would appear before non-believers? Would they have recognized them as saints? I could also speculate that resurrected saints could have included the likes of Daniel, King Hezekiah, Aaron, etc. It's my understanding that a 'christian' is a follower of Jesus Christ. I personally believe the word has been bastardized in the modern times due to the many who use and abuse it---sort of like the bastardization of the word 'conservative'. However, just because this has been done doesn't mean that I am going to throw away my core beliefs. I certainly don't march in lock- step with any religious sect or demonination. And I definitely don't play the 'to be a christian you do do this and don't do that' routine. I'm still very new at this. While I grew up in a protestant church, shortly after my teen years, I was out of it and stayed away and out of it (a long story). I know the events I've been involved in over the last 7 - 8 years are real, not some fignment of my imagination. I'm the first to tell you that I am weak, I am a long ways from perfect, that God really has his work cut out in trying to perfect me as a saint. It seems like I go 2 steps forward, and then somehow fall back a step. My falling back may be different than yours or someone elses'. I'm not your judge....hell, I'm not even my own judge. He'll handle that. But in the mean time......when it is all said and done, living a christian life isn't bad or not fun. There's lots of people that try to make it that way, but they are wrong.....they are sticking man-made rules out there to live by. I refuse to do that. Ya know, growing up we were not allowed to dance. Never had a legit reason as to why we couldn't, but some bullshit about it being sinful. Well, la te dah, Mom and Dad.........King David, the beloved of God, DANCED! And how he danced, and sang, and played music! And celebrated! And threw a party! Why do christians have to be painted as mournful, dour, miserable people? Others may feel somewhat differently than I. I'm comfortable in my shoes, though I have some issues to work through with Him. I need to get off here and into MY bible study.......I'm behind already. Will check in later.
#48. To: Starwind (#33)
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
And all of it did make an impact on society. News of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth changed the world.
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#49. To: Moldi-Box (#43)
The part where you enter the fray with a stick up your ass for Christians, and then wander aimlessly off topic to try to change the subject of the discussions original intent. You could have entered the fray intelligently, but you reeked of disingenuity. AFAIC, the creation story of Genesis doesn't specifically preclude the preexistence of the earth. Understanding Genesis is not a prerequisite to believing or accepting the New Testament and the sacrifice of Jesus. That event is easy to understand, and the occurances and characters within the event are also described by extra-biblical sources. When you read a description of the history of the earth from the standpoint of the fossil record, your reading a distillation of a hell of a lot of information. As in any materially physical subjects operating theory, the ones constructing it tend to collect the supportive data and discard the non supportive. There's nothing wrong with that if the resultant theory works (i.e. you can find oil with it, or construct a continental evolutionary model which concludes with accepting plate tectonics). You still have periferal data (like finding penecontemporaneous fossils which are generally accepted to not have existed at the same time or mineral asseblages in which different components date differently) that doesn't fit in, so it's not like the secular model of the Earth is set in stone...
Okay Dudley, if you say so. But out of curiousity, what point(s) specifically is Starvind winning?
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#50. To: Elliott Jackalope (#42)
Just a few words -- this is exactly and precisely where I come from. And Western Culture knows a great deal less truth than it thinks it does.
... I love truth, I hate lies ...
.
.
.
Comments (51 - 197) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest