Hi Dennis, The bible is merely a poor documentation, nothing more. Any who place their trust in a book or another human being gets the gifts of confusion and suffering. This is because those things are not where one is to put their trust. The Apostle's and Paul especially were confused. Christians do not understand that those guys are the poster boys for "don't let it happen to you". Only Judas understood and he was sovereign. It is a secret, you know. One religion has kept for a long time to make us all slaves. I am no longer a slave and thankfully, no human being has the power to make me one. Warm Regards, Roage

by Roage (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Jun 15, 2007 at 5:09:21 PM

  (0+)

Judas was sovereign? What does that mean?

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 15, 2007 at 5:12:33 PM

  (0+)

So.... where does one put there trust? You've got me interested.

And.... what were the apostles so confused about?

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 15, 2007 at 5:15:18 PM

  (0+)

Gormely,

There are a few secrets that have been kept from us for thousands of years. Those that intend to make us slaves try desperately to conceal these truths. Someone outed these truths and our nation was born only to be stolen from us through deception.

There is a holy grail and it is the only thing worth having.

The concept of Sovereignty has been concealed and clouded. You can bet they do not teach us what it actually is.

It is a concept taught by Jesus Christ but only understood by few. Unfortunately for us those few are the ones running the place and this fundamental law is being used to enslave us.

The Truth shall set you free.

"They that think the rule" would very much that I go away. They would like to kill me and be done with it. They do not have my permission to do so and they do not have that power. They are not it control here and THEY KNOW IT!

Here are some links that will help you understand:

http://www.roage.com/main.asp?Page=25

http://www.roage.com/main.asp?Page=34

Here are the contents. All the important answers are here and it is time people learn and it is time for them to be free.

Scroll down into my blogs and pick an article at random. It is the "Red Pill". are you ready to know the Truth?

http://www.roage.com/main.asp?Page=1

The world is a wonderful place when you figure out how things work and until one knows the Truth they live in the world of misery. We complicate things. It is easier then we could ever have imagined.

Cheers,

Roage

When you are done then you will know what to put your trust in. 

by Roage (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 53 comments) on Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 at 7:10:46 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for replying.

I'll check it out.

Bob

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 at 7:47:54 PM

  (0+)

I already know this stuff, but a refresher course is always good.

I was able to extract the same information from reading the Bible.

I was unable to access the last link in your reply, but read the first two.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 at 8:02:00 PM

  (0+)

That's Great!

Isn't the holy grail wonderful?

So you are unable to sin also, that's great!  We need more people to like you out there spreading the secret and truly freeing people of their misery.

Why aren't you teaching this specific mechanism?

Roage 

by Roage (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 53 comments) on Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 at 8:33:13 PM

  (0+)

[Mr?] Gormley,

I felt that your comment required a more cogent response:

What you say is that much of the mechanisms I describe on my site can indeed be found in scriptures. However our problem is we have a distorted perception of reality and when this error is woven into the framework of the law then we are left only to assume that God is somehow either cruel, illogical or a mystery that remains unknown to us. Seldom do we consider that perhaps the fallacy lies in the fact that nearly all people place themselves in the spectrum of either fate or absolute potent freewill.

To do so is folly as it keeps us from pondering a third option. Our experience is subjective. Even if we are to switch bodies with another person we are still trapped in a body of deliberately limited sensory capability. Our individual and group experience is completely subjective. Why would God go to the trouble of creating a physical universe if we as human beings are unable to distinguish it from a virtual universe? It is not logical to waste the effort to create a universe and because God is fully capable of projecting a bulletproof simulation then it is more reasonable to assume that is the case. Provided the simulation is consistent we would be unable to tell the difference. If we have only "virtual" free will then all expressions of power in the virtual universe are done for us by through God’s omnipotent will, by proxy. God drives this simulation.

How would we be able to tell that our virtual free will is not real and potent? The truth is we can’t. These are the same dubious assumptions that science makes. Just because we are all made to see a rock does not me we can objectively and logically conclude that the rock is there. We can only logically conclude that we all see a rock and again we do know if the rock is actually there.

This then creates a reality quite different from the one that it foisted on us by modern thought. Now we believe that we live in a universe that is ever-expanding and will come to an end therefore: one might as well kill himself or herself. It is a cold place where we are at the mercy of chaos and probability. The kind of reality that we face in our “modern” world is fatalistic, brutal and truly without logical purpose. In this reality God is rendered an impotent bystander and people are pawns of those who have mastered material power.  We muddle through lonely, confused and with only blind faith as little comfort.

No thank-you, by reading the same scripture and altering my perception, as nothing can be concretely proven in either case, I am able to live in complete happiness side-by-side with my brothers and sisters in misery. Even more strange is because my perception differs from those in misery they have no idea how good I have it. They perceive that I am subject to the same forces that dominate their existence but happily that is not the case. They are completely unaware of how little control over my existence they have, not to mention, the total lack of control over their own existence. My universe is a friendly place where all events have purpose. Everything is logical and I am taught the law as I need it.

As a simulation, this universe is used by God to teach human beings how to use their potent freewill when it is granted. This universe is merely practice and we can suffer no permanent damage by our failure here. This teaching tool has both positive and negative incentive and comes with a logical teacher/parent that has our best interest in mind. More importantly because I have a contract with God then God has removed my ability to sin. I can tell you I do not miss it.

In my universe God is not an ethereal concept but a real tangible force. A force of such immense power and I have not encountered anything so humbling. I have a real appreciation for God and what he does for me. He loves me enough to give me a personal level and has no trouble communicating with me. I do understand now what it means to be “God Fearing”.

I am made to do his will and do so happily because I trust him completely. I am here now only to serve his purpose and the tasks he has for me are fun and deeply rewarding. It is merely a series of wonderful surprises and I have no expectation. I want for nothing and “bad” things do not happen to me.

More importantly my universe is logical and when I need the law and the reason for an event then God gives it to me personally. I am inviolate and that is what “Divine Grace” really means. I see the Truth because God give those who ask for their sovereignty a tool to perceive him. It is a level of spiritual maturity and responsibility that I have not witnessed expressed in the Church. I am protected from myself. Forgiveness for sins is not enough. Having them removed from your behavior is true freedom.

I am afraid you can read the scripture as many time as you like and you will not see the lesson. Why? Because unless you are able to truly do as God commands then he is happy to allow you to learn the lesson of your confusion.

What is real is actually defined by what God makes real. I “realized” that my “reality” deprived me of a tangible relationship with HWHY. I even know how to utter his name and it is not “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”. His name has no vowels and is the very breath of life.

Any can say I am insane.  It does not bother me because God has not and will not break his promise.  God has continually reinforced in a real, logical and tangible way since my experience.  If total peace bliss and satisfaction is the measure of insanity then I am completely insane.  Go ahead and try to lock me up I'll be you'll have an encounter with something you really don't believe exists.

I have no reason to hate another human being and I can forgive in endless measure.  It is easy to forgive one who is confused.  One cannot forgive one they think is evil.  There are no evil human beings in my universe.  They are merely confused and all who still breath can have what I have.  I am not special. 

It does not suck to be me and I wish you were here! All of you!

And there is no reason why you can’t be.

Cheers,

by Roage (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 53 comments) on Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:59:06 PM

  (0+)

There are always unanswered questions.

    So.... after 26 years of being a pastor where do you stand in your

spiritual walk/search?

     I myself have become disenchanted with organized religion or "churchianity". I'm much more interested in spirituality.

     As you pointed out we are often given "pat" answers to our questions.

I'd rather have someone tell me "I don't know" then just repeating the

"party line".

       I would agree that there are discrepancies in the Bible, but from a

spiritual viewpoint I think the message is pretty clear. I meditate on the

words of Jesus as I believe he was the perfect example of how to live.

Such things as love,faith, truth,generosity, compassion, mercy,patience,etc. are spiritual

things that need no verification. I choose to focus on these.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 15, 2007 at 5:09:59 PM

  (0+)

After Cain killed Abel, he took his wife and went to the land of Nod. From where did his wife come? If she's the daughter (unmentioned) of Adam and Eve, then she's Cain's sister, and they are incestuous by default. If she's not their daughter, then who are her parents?

While I was researching this, I found out that "Nod" means wandering in Hebrew. Interesting what you find on your way to other things.

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 at 3:50:42 AM

  (0+)

God is referred to as a "HE", as god the "Father" etc. and the bible says man was created in God's image....

by sooner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 at 9:09:43 PM

  (0+)

thanks for the wonderful article Dennis!

gormley, i may have a way to ease your quandry.

the sources require some reading, but i promise you'll not be dissapointed.

Deism

http://www.deism.com/

http://moderndeism.com/

by k kelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 182 comments) on Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 at 9:29:04 AM

  (0+)

I have no quandry, I was just trying to get "roage" to explain what he

meant. I read the info. about Deism and I reject it.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:59:33 PM

  (0+)

Hi, I enjoyed your article and found it delightully amusing as well as salient and direct in pointing out such questions, too long neglected. If you haven't already read them, you might enjoy the latest two books by Joseph Chilton Pearce - "The Biology of Transcendence" and "The Death of Religion and the Rebirth of Spirit", both of which are inspiring and stimulating. I've never read anyone who is so deliciously scathing about the mysogynistic tendencies of St. Paul. Best of luck to you, Christina Stafford

by Christina Stafford (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 at 5:30:28 PM

  (0+)

I can't believe the sheer ignorance revealed in this op-ed. And the writer is supposed to be a former pastor?

First of all not every pastor will "hate" these questions. Many Churches, like the Catholic Church for example, have no problem with the concept of evolution.

Keep in mind that the Bible was not intended to be a scientific textbook. If Genesis was written to explain DNA, the Hebrews wouldn't understand it. They wouldn't even have the word "DNA" in their language, or any words to cover most of the concepts.

 I don't have time to cover all your problems here, but just to point out a few:

Exodus doesn't say all the horses die twice in the plagues, although many do die. Check your translation; some say "all livestock died", some say "all kinds of livestock died"

Paul didn't discuss Jesus' life because he wasn't there!! That's what the gospels are for, and the gospels may not have even been written yet. As a Jew, he did quote the Old Testament extensively and he also spoke about Jesus' revelations to him. It's obvious that you think Paul was a fake, but the Apostles accepted him.

What do you mean: "the twelve who knew him vanished into thin air and wrote nothing"? Have you ever heard of some men named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? And as far as Judas goes, I think you can understand why he wrote nothing.

The children that Herod killed didn't "die for Jesus". They were killed on Herod's order after Jesus was born. Herod didn't know anything about the star until the wise men told him. So Herod told the wise men to find the child. I don't think Herod was a "hands on" type of guy to go chase down rumors himself. The wise men were also guided by dreams, not just the star.

In regard to warning others about Herod's order. Did you ever read the book of Matthew?? First of all, the angel spoke to Joseph, not Mary and second of all, the angel didn't tell him that Herod would kill all the children. The angel just said that Herod was looking to kill the child king.

That's about all I have time for right now. You obviously seem to have some real issues with Christianphobia. I wish you well and hope you get over it.

by JR (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 at 6:16:39 AM

  (0+)

Not to rain on the parade, but these questions are just stupid. You'd have to be incredibly ignorant of the bible to think you're going to stump anyone with these. They all depend on willful misreading of the text or simply ignoring context.

Just to pick one of these at random - the one about John 9:2: 

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

In context, the disciples are being taught by Jesus. In this case, they're indicating an incorrect belief that all illness is caused by sin.  Jesus' answer is in the next verse:

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Every one of these questions is just as flawed. I'm not arguing your point that a lot of christians are idiots, I'm just pointing out that you need a bit of scholarship on the subject to be able to speak intelligently about it. You're just showing you're as dumb as they are, the only difference is you're on the other side of the argument.

by Bob Rivers (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 at 3:02:57 PM

  (0+)

I  hate to bust one of your bubbles, There is only one location on the entire earth where dino remains have not been discovered, and it is the middle east, So dinos not being mentioned in the bible are likely a result of them not being able to survive there, not enough plant life to support the plant eaters and therefore resulting in the others not being there to eat them.

Quite simple huh?

For a pastor( or x pastor) not doing his research, you have now just destroyed not only your faith, but others also.

I could answer all of the questions you have, but will not waste the time to do so here.

If you actualy use criticle thinking instead of asuming, you would already have the answers.

as far as the epistles, which is most of the new test. These letters were sent to church groups to address local problems, not to give a step by step guide, it was to clear up a few problems, so why would you go over common ground issues over and over, like the deity of jesus, if they were already believers, why would he have to mention Jesus's father if it was already common knowledge. They were already believers, they already knew this.

Your shallow mindset is overwhelming.

Get a grip!

by jcorkern (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 at 7:31:19 PM

  (0+)

What a great collection of questions. I wish I'd started carrying a notepad everywhere with me earlier than I did, because so many questions of my own have drifted into eternity.  But many remain.

 Already in the comments you can see the same responses trickling down through the Christian Mouthpieces. From remonstrations that Christianity IS a progressive religion, to bumbling about evolution. Was evolution mentioned in this article? The question was about how Dinosaurs got on the ark. Well?  And if Dinosaurs didn't exist in the Middle East, then how did they survive until they were later wiped out? Beacuse the only port Noah was sailing from was Port Jerusalem. Or didn't the flood really cover the whole of the earth like the Bible says? Was it just a bit of an exaggeration?

But if you concede that exaggeration exists. What else is exaggerated?

Oh! But the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. Who decides which parts are fantasy, and which parts are the non-literal fairytale stuff?

 And the gospels are proven almalgams of earlier base gospels, assigned letters like L, rather than being the actual single work of one author. And the first of those wasn't written until 70AD. In Greek (not Hebrew). If I remember my Year 9 religion class.

 So the time wasters bluff comes about. "This is all nonsense and infuriating and I won't diginfy it with a response" is the generic response. Go on. Just humour all us pitiful little atheists. Respond. In full. And don't allow your agrument to revert down to:

The Bible is credible because God says so. God is good because the Bible says so.

Great Article.

by Michael Bruno (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:06:43 AM

  (0+)

You are speaking out of ignorance my friend, and im sorry you did not get correct answers from your questions basically because you've been asking ignorant pastors,

why dont you check bro eli's blog

http://esoriano.wordpress.com
http://www.truthcaster.com/
http://angdatingdaan.org

People ask questions and he answers it directly from the scriptures, and so far he has proven that there are no questions that can't be answered by the bible. 

You see, its just proper to question pastors, to see and to test if they are speaking the truth or just lying and speaking out of ignorance, the bible do tell us not to believe everybody but test them,

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I John 4:1

King James Version

Answering questions is commanded to Christians,

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I Peter 3:15

King James Version

Let's ask the bible and answer one of your questions,

"Why does the Apostle Paul, who writes most of the New Testament, NEVER quote Jesus, tell a story of his life or death, discuss a miracle or teaching?"

You claimed that Apostle Paul NEVER qouted Jesus, but what does Paul tell us about his writings,

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

I Corinthians 14:37

King James Version

 See! He said that the things that he write actually comes from the Lord!

 To prove that again Paul wrote in another verse,

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.     Galatians 1:11-12 King James Version

 and another one,

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

I Corinthians 15:3

King James Version

 Please do check the sites i've posted, bro. eli is currently answering the questions of atheists, and prove for yourselves that those who do not believe God are fools!

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalms 14:1

King James Version

Arthur Abogadil

by arthur_abogadil (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:07:13 AM

  (0+)

by porscheguy19 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Jun 18, 2007 at 3:39:50 PM

  (0+)

I wanted to address one thing that has always bothered me. How come everytime God's apparent command of genocide is brought up Christians say "But those people were sacrificing babies!"? To me it doesn't seem that the best thing to do to rescue babies from being sacrificed is to kill them (along with everyone else). I mean, seriously, that's like if you were getting whipped I'd come along and rescue you by whipping you AND your father and mother. It doesn't even make sense.

And the horses DID all have to die twice...Exodus 9 verses 2-6 you'll see that it specifically mentions that all the livestock died (and mentions that the livestock includes horses, donkeys, camels, cattle, sheep and goats).

by foxtrot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:06:01 AM

  (0+)

Your answers are all conjecture. You don't know who Cain was afraid of, so you have decided for yourself that by that time there had to have been ALOT of people on Earth since they all lived so long. Is there any evidence to back that up? I've never even heard that excuse! You had to have come up with that one all by yourself.

You claim that there are historical accounts of the day being prolonged and you bring up ancient accounts to prove it, but those cultures are either older or far younger than the Hebrews, so how did they all experience the same day?

You mention emphatically that the Cannanites were sacrificing their children and that is why the Israelites had to do away with their heathen nation. Can you please explain to me then why God did nothing to stop Jephathah from sacrificing his daughter and said nothing regarding this despicable act? Can you also explain to me why it is okay for God to sacrifice his own son to himself, but it wasn't okay for the Cannanites. Another thing: Do you have any historical evidence of the Cannanites sacrificing their children or are you simply excusing the Israelites actions, because they claim that's what was going on?

You said: "How did dinosaurs fit on the ark?
-How did elephants?
-How did dangerous carnivores?
-Your question implies that evolution is true, and that man and dinosaurs did not coexist.
-Maybe the ark was big"

Are you serious? Are you implying that man and dinosaur DID live together? If that is the case, then by your own admission, man HAS to be older than 6 thousand years, as fossil evidence CLEARLY shows dinosaurs to be MILLIONS of years old. You have just argued an old earth for us. Thank you.

You said: "What are you talking about? What promises did God break?"

What promises have actually come true? I guess Jesus was just kidding when he said that he'd be back during the lifetime of his followers. I guess he was just kidding when he said that the church would be doing more miraculous things than him (still haven't seen the fruits of THAT). I guess he was just kidding when he said that whatever we ask for in his name will be done for us by the father. I already know what your apologetic answer to THAT one will be- if it's in HIS WILL, right? Then why don't we all just pray, "Dear God, do what you want since you're going to any way?"

You said: 'Why does Paul only say Jesus was born of a woman like everyone else?
-This may also be hard for you to follow - Jesus' mother, she was a woman.
-Everyone else? What are you talking about?
-I have a sneaking suspicion that if Paul had affirmed the virgin birth of Christ, you still wouldn't believe it."

I say: Are you even aware of what the Hebrew word for "virgin" is? It is bethulah. The Hebrew word for young maiden or young woman is "almah". When Matthew tries to use the Isaiah 7:14 scripture "proving" that the OT prophecied of Jesus' "virgin" birth, he makes the mistake of translating the word "almah" into virgin. Dennis' point is that the OT NEVER prophecied that Jesus would be born of a virgin. The virgin birth of gods DID NOT originate with Jesus. It was an old myth perpetuated by the Babylonians, the Hindus, the Sumerians, the Persians, the Buddhists, the Syrians and the Greeks. Much older accounts of virgin-born gods exist than the Christian one, so can you clear this little discrepancy up? Go ask your pastor. I'll be waiting.

I will admit that Dennis did an incomplete job of proving Biblical contradictions, but there are just too many for him to address here.

I have a few myself, since you are so well educated in theology and have a pat answer for all of our questions:

Why did God command David to take a census, but then punish the Israelites for it by sending a plague to kill 70,000 of them?

Why does god claim we shouldn't commit adultery, but do nothing about the taking of many wives and concubines throught Hebrew history? On that note: why is it that God seems to only consider adultery as such when one man was taking another man's wife or if a woman was doing it? The only reason god punished David for "adultery" is because her husband was still alive, NOT because David was already married to Abigail.

Acts 9:7 claims that the men with Paul heard the voice but saw no one. Acts 22:9, speaking of the same event claim that they saw a light but heard no voice. Please clear this up for me, I'm confused.

Matthew 27:5 states: "And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself" while Acts 1:18 claims: "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Once again, I am confused. I know that in order to make the Bible true, you will claim that obviously BOTH of these things happened, but someone as educated as yourself would have to admit that these two passages give a glaringly contradicting account of what actually happened. If the Bible were inerrant and inspired, why didn't God make it easier for laymen such as myself to understand? Why do I have to ask you for the answers? Why isn't my immediate response to such a contradiction the same as yours? Why can't I see clearly that obviously BOTH of these things happened?

I will give you some time to formulate your response to my questions. I hope that your answer will not be as condescending as your last, as your religion does not afford you the right to be cruel. Please be patient with those of us who are not as wise and discerning as you

by foxtrot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:08:06 AM

  (0+)

We already know how big the ark was, remember? And it was not large enough to hold dinosaurs, even peaceful, coconut eating T-Rexs. Unless uh, the bible is wrong about the size of the ark (Heaven forbid!).

"It is reported by historians that records of the Chinese during the reign of Emperor Yeo, who lived at the same time as Joshua, report "a long day."

The emperor that you quote lived some 1100 years before Joshua was "supposed" to have lived. In addition, the tale does not describe a "long day" but a day with ten suns. The emperor had a subordinate shoot down 9 of the suns, there by showing his divine right to rule, which all leaders seem to need (Prez Bush comes to mind). It is easier to rule the uneducated and ignorant poplace when you are the god's represenative on Earth. In addition, these other myths do not say a long day, some say several days. Such tales are common to most cultures. It does not lend them credence. The myth of dragons is a common theme in history, but there is no truth to it. As for stating that these various accounts happened at the same time that your Joshua lived I would have to ask how you know that? Does the bible say that he lived in 1278 BC? You are presenting wishful supposition and trying to pass it off as fact. Do you remember the super nova a few years back and how bright it was? Science shows that they can and are even brighter than that. What would primitive man make of such a thing? The nova referenced was certainly not the first the human race would have seen and would have been taken by earlier humans as a "long day", second sun, the gods warring, a sign of impropriety, etc. Anything but for what it was.

You would have more cred here if you quoted knowledge that could be confirmed, not some religious document ("Bible-Science Newsletter," DAILY READING MAGAZINE - Supplement, Vol. VIII - No. 5, May 1978, Caldwell, Idaho.) that tells either half the story while ignoring pertinate facts, or changes the facts to suit the doctrine.

by foxtrot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:10:31 AM

  (0+)

Hi Dennis, thanks for your article, which was witty and entertaining and which was actually the reason why I signed in to this discussion forum, just to be able to comment upon it.

My original comment, which I never posted, was maybe a slight bit condenscending. The general thrust was: yes Dennis, well spotted, but do you really think these questions are important? What is there to add, except an eloquent shrug, for an adult outstared by a clever little kid whose universe seems to hinge on whether or not dinosaurs walked along with humans...

But then I read the comments and was surprised, I did not expect things to be so bad. I didn't realise there were Christians who would expend so much effort and ingenuity on defending a literal interpretation of the scriptures, and would waste so little love in the process.

If I had asked the pastor of my (fundamentalist) childhood church these questions, he would have smiled sadly and said: I keep praying to understand these questions myself, but I don't have the answer to everything. However, I think the most important thing is that Jesus loves us, all this is second... When I get to Heaven I'll ask God all of this, I'm sure he can explain. This gentle old man has probably found out by now if God can create a stone so big that he cannot lift it, and other even more problematic questions...

The pastor of my (liberal) adult life church would have smiled sadly and said: Yes and imagine there are still people who waste their lives discussing inconsistencies like this, when there is a whole world out there, crying out for their help...

I wonder if literalism can/should be fought with literalism. It is terrible to hear the all or nothing arguments raised by fundamentalists, for whom the entire structure of faith could fall if a single detail was proven to be wrong, and the lenghts they can go to, to defend their world view. I wonder if anything even remotely useful can be found in the arguments they develop under pressure? Maybe the best strategy is simply peaceful coexistance...

by Frida (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 19, 2007 at 6:02:53 PM

  (0+)

Wonderful comment Frida.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

All the rest is vanity.

Peace 

by Bob Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:34:32 AM

  (0+)

I loved your article! Along the same lines, here is an excerpt from a letter I wrote in response to a Christian friend asking me why I identified myself as an ex-Christian. I hope you enjoy mine as much as I enjoyed yours! Loren (Letter to a Christian friend follows) Why I’m not Christian. Sometime in my youth I took what I was told from the pulpit seriously although a lot of it seemed strange or disjointed from real life. I didn’t really question it too closely; I just thought that it was too complex and esoteric for me to understand. I don’t remember exactly when I became a Christian, but I have taken a number of alter calls, usually out of a sense of “Uh oh, what if it’s really true?” I was never a devout believer. Rather, I was one of the many who proclaim Jesus publicly in order to avoid going to Hell, but it never really impacted my life beyond that. My sense of what Christianity is was pretty vague. I’ve always loved theological and philosophical discussion, but even there, it was just an interesting intellectual exercise which didn’t have much to do with my life. Now, there are a great many reasons why I am no longer a Christian, but many of them are peripheral, (although they are still important) and I won’t dwell on them in order to keep this as brief as I can. Being a Christian always felt strange and, well, kind of icky to me. It just never felt right or good. But of course, due to my Christian indoctrination, I just assumed that these feelings were a result of my own sin and sinful nature. Then I came to a point where I thought, “Oh, crap!! This wimpy Christianity can’t be pleasing to the Lord! I better get my ducks in a row and start being a real Christian before something hits the fan.” So I started doing my best which was still a pretty sad and pathetic example, but it got me to read my Bible more. A funny thing happened. The more I read the Bible, the more I felt wrong when I claimed to be a Christian. I don’t mean wrong as in “I’m too sinful to be a Christian” or “I’m not sincere enough” or any other version of those old chestnuts. I mean wrong as in “Hey, I think there’s something wrong with my Bible!” And I found more and more things that “God has said” which just made absolutely no sense to me. No logical sense, no moral sense, and above all, no sense in light of what I saw of God’s actual behavior in my life and the world around me. Now, from the beginning I have always understood that there is a difference between God’s truth and church doctrine. I have always known that there are eleventy-seven sects of Christianity who disagree over doctrine, and many who are perfectly happy to claim that those who disagree with them are “not true Christians”. I never took such things too seriously, and felt that God really didn’t give a rat’s behind whether a baptism was done by dunking or sprinkling. I also understood the variability of such things as the fallibility of translation, interpretation, and the transmission of meaning across the boundaries of cultural context. I knew that such human factor things (and others) would unavoidably lead to weaknesses in the text of the Bible. I have never been a literalist because I was too aware of such things. So I began by thinking that perhaps my discomfort with being Christian was the result of my assimilating some erroneous or relatively unimportant doctrine(s) which might not be sitting well with my intuition or conscience. I started to examine various tenets and doctrines from the standpoint of this assumption: If I can excise this particular tenet from my Christianity and still be a Christian, then that tenet must not be central to what Christianity really is. I would not even worry about whether the tenet in question was right or wrong. I would just remove it and see what that left me with. By this method I went through a process of elimination in order to find out what really constituted Christianity. I was looking for a thing (or things) which, when it was present in Christianity, then Christianity could rightly be called Christianity, but when it was absent, one could no longer call what remained Christianity. This method was the best that an uneducated screw-up like me could come up with at the time. My problem with taking these questions to pastors and scholars was that they tended to the old circular proof-texting mambo which those of us in the real world call lifting himself off the ground by his boot straps. It was like watching dogs chase their tails. While I often learned a great deal about the honesty of the clergy, I never was left with the feeling that I was getting closer to the truth. So I continued this process of culling. It was like taking a deck of cards and throwing them in the trash one by one in order to find the joker. By the same method, I did a parallel search for anything which was genuinely unique only to Christianity. As to this second search, it has never really ended and I have not found any item which is not available elsewhere. I always knew that some of Christianity is an amalgam of other things, but I never expected to find that it is nothing but an amalgam of other things. This did not lead me to conclude that Jesus was entirely fictitious so much as it discredited a huge number of claims made by Christians about the nature of the religion itself. Likewise, I have no problem with syncretism; much of my own spirituality is a mass of things from other systems which made sense to me. As to the search for the true core of Christianity, I found that it came down to this: Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection as a propitiation or atonement. I realized that I could discard every single bit of Christian doctrine but that one and I still felt wrong about it. I’ve been around and around with that thing and here is what I’ve come to: It is not genuine forgiveness in any form which I can find morally intelligible. If my debt was truly forgiven, then why did it still need to be paid? And why in such a brutal manner? What kind of a person would demand such a payment? If payment is still required, then the debt has not been truly forgiven in any way that I can understand. If Bob owes me ten dollars, and can’t pay me, I then may choose to forgive the debt. If I do, then that debt is not owed by anybody. Even if Bob’s brother offers to pay the money on Bob’s behalf, I should not take it if Bob’s debt has been forgiven. If I do accept payment from Bob’s brother, then the debt was not forgiven, it was just shifted. Of course, this does get Bob off the hook, but I would never be able to say that the debt had been forgiven. If any court in the land finds a person guilty and then declares that they are forgiven, that court cannot then punish the person. Is forgiveness what is being paid for? Forgiveness is not a commodity. I have never charged anyone a fee for forgiving them. Not even fifty cents. And most especially, I have never had to kill someone in order to forgive someone else. What kind of a person would do such a thing? Furthermore, if I am to accept that I truly deserve eternal damnation and that Jesus has, out of love for me, taken my place, then Jesus should be spending eternity in Hell in my place. If he doesn’t, then he has either not truly taken my place or my place is truly not in Hell. If Jesus did not go to Hell for me, but paid the debt of my sin by dying on a cross and being dead for three days, then I should also be able to avoid Hell by dying on a cross and being dead for three days. If my salvation from judgment hinges on Jesus’ sacrifice, then I’d have to say that there was no real sacrifice at all. The qualification that makes sacrifice a real sacrifice is that something is being given up permanently. If gambling is wrecking my marriage, I may have to sacrifice gambling. That means I give it up forever, not just for three days. To try to redefine a short-term loan as a sacrifice is just insulting. If Jesus’ death on the cross had been a real sacrifice, in order for it to have had any meaning and power he would have had to have stayed dead. Sacrifice is to give something up permanently, not for just a few days and then get it back again. What kind of moral lessons am I to learn from the whole “death on the cross” thing? I am told that these things are all part of the “mystery” and humans just couldn’t understand it. I used to accept that, but the time came when I just couldn’t anymore. If I did, it made too many other things meaningless or nonsensical. Telling me that I can’t understand God’s morality is just not a good enough answer, considering that that whole event is the central lynchpin of the religion. Also, it flies in the face of the fact that the Bible is full of attempts to explain just what God’s morality is and just why it is moral, as well as the fact that the Bible tells us to emulate God to the best of our ability. I’m told to emulate God’s morality and that it’s impossible for me to understand God’s morality. What the hell good does that do? Then there is the comparative element to the whole “sacrifice” thing: There came a time when the light went on in my head, and I thought, “Hey, wait a minute. How is Jesus’ death on the cross morally different from throwing a virgin into a volcano?” What kind of a god would demand such a thing? Human sacrifice is human sacrifice. I don’t see any way to get around that. It is what it is. Even if it is all true, how could I ever respect a god like that? Isn’t one of the clergy’s favorite whipping boys in the OT the religion centered on Baal Melqart? Obviously, the example is of a religion which is manifestly evil due to the followers of that religion sacrificing innocents (children) to their god. The Christians in the pews are clearly meant to understand that such actions are vile, evil and totally ungodly. Yet they are never given a theologically cogent explanation of just how killing an innocent in order to gain favor with a deity is morally different from the same action done for a different deity. How can I ever believe God would want such a thing? This left me squarely in the position of knowing that in order for me to be a Christian, I would have to lie in some way. I mulled these things (and others) and struggled with them for a good while, as well as praying desperately for guidance. Then I reached a decision. That night I went outside and burned my Bible. At first, for a while, I felt a bit giddy. Also, I felt guilty and frightened. As time went on, it seemed emotionally and logically clear to me that if God was real, then He still loved and forgave me and that God would not have deserted me, in spite of the fact that I had committed the one sin that Christianity had told me was unforgivable. As an aside, this was one of the many Christian notions which I shed: the logically deceitful assertion that God’s forgiveness is absolute followed by the placing of any number of conditions on it. Despite my decision, God did not pinch my head off, or in any other way show any particular displeasure with me for my decision. Since that time, some interesting things have come to light for me. My fascination for any kind of religion, spiritual system or description has only increased, especially my interest in Christianity, although it has become something akin to morbid fascination. It’s a bit like watching a major train wreck in slow motion. It’s hard for me to look away. Nevertheless, I am always interested in Christian apologetics, and it is my digging in these areas which brought the following interesting things to my attention. It has always somewhat baffled me that if Jesus fulfills prophetic scriptural requirements for messiahship as thoroughly as Christians claim, then why didn’t more of the hundreds of thousands of devout, scholarly rabbis examine the story and shout “Praise G*d! The messiah did come after all!” Paul’s assertion that the reason was that “they are all a bunch of stubborn, stiff-necked so and sos” started to look thinner and thinner. I wondered more and more why the few times I did hear Christian clergy address this issue from the pulpit, that they just quoted Paul and pretty much left it at that. They often didn’t even seem to be really interested in a real, cogent answer to this conundrum, while it seemed to me to be highly important. If anyone would be qualified to recognize the messiah, it would be a rabbi, yet the Christian clergy acts as though it is a complete non-issue. I found it very difficult to accept the premise that in two thousand years, almost all of those rabbis had been hypocritical, insincere or too ignorant of their own scriptures to recognize the very one they were waiting for. Why did the Christian clergy never seem willing to turn to rabbinical sources, but always fall back on that old, inadequate thin ice of Paul’s? Increasingly, I found this to be very suspicious. So I started seeking my own rabbinical sources. As an aside, I do know that some of the material attributed to Paul generally accepted at scholarly levels to not be truly Pauline (if there ever was such a person). The point is not that those passages are or are not Pauline; my point is that they are the passages which are most relied on by apologists and that this is what got me looking for answers elsewhere. I found some very interesting things. All these centuries, the rabbis have not “rejected” Jesus. What actually has happened is that they have tested Jesus according to scriptural requirements and found him wanting. He did not fit the job description. For one thing, his lineage is wrong. If Mary was a virgin, then the lineage from David was broken at that point. If one uses Mary’s line, the problem is that while some versions say that she was of David’s line, Jewish society never would have justified kingship through a matrilineal line. If one abandons the virginity of Mary (and there are some very good reasons for doing so, but they are unrelated to this), and traces Jesus’ line through Joseph after all, there is the problem of Joseph being a descendant of Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah by saying that none of his line would ever sit on the throne of David. Then there is the problem of the second coming. The Hebrew scriptures are extremely clear that the messiah will come once and once only. When he comes, there will be no need of faith. It will be very clear who he is. Among other things, he will sit as king of Israel, bring world peace and a number of other things which will be completely obvious once they happen. The very fact that Jesus came and then left again without doing the things the messiah will do clearly disqualifies him for that role. Also, it was well understood by rabbinical scholars that the messiah would be a man sent by God and that to worship him as God would be the worst sort of idolatry. Then, there is the problem of Jesus being the sin offering. The Hebrew scriptures, like the Bible, have many ambiguities which scholars have always loved to argue over. However, again like the Bible, there are some things which are blunt, simple and unequivocal. The importance of the proper way of making the sin offering is one of these. If Jesus was the ultimate sin offering, then the rite was so inadequately performed as to be an insult to God. One of the essential parts of the ritual was that the blood must be sprinkled or sprayed on the altar. Jesus’ blood never made it anywhere near any altar, let alone the rest of the ritual being done properly, such as G*d finding it acceptable for the place of the Priest performing the sin offering ritual to be some randomly chosen Roman centurion. Does that sound like something a perfection-demanding God would be happy with? Another thing about the sin offering which God was very clear about was that it would never, ever be acceptable to use a human being as the sacrifice. Oh, look. There’s that thing again. Imagine that. One last item about the sin offering: Christian doctrine says that Jesus was the ultimate sin offering once and for all. Thus, through Jesus, we have our reconciliation with God. Christian doctrine also states pretty clearly that the offering of Jesus’ sinless life is the only method of atonement which is acceptable to God. HOWEVER, in the Hebrew scriptures, (again, very unequivocally) God states clearly that there are not one, but three methods of atonement and reconciliation. Furthermore, the sin offering is the least important of these in God’s eyes. God clearly says that the sin offering is only adequate to cover small sins, for instance, when one sins without realizing that it is a sin. The sin offering is inadequate to cover larger sins, such as a deliberate lie. For the moment I’m going to be a stinker and keep you in suspense as to what the two most powerful methods of reconciliation are. But you can now see what I saw, that there was a lot more going on in the Jewish “rejection” of Jesus than we are told from the pulpit. If God was so lax as to accept such an inadequately performed sin offering ritual, then it pretty well shoots down the idea that God demands perfect obedience to the law. Then there is the business of being judged on the basis of having “fallen short of the glory of God.” Why is it not considered an obvious blasphemy to say that it is right and proper for God to judge me by the standards that God holds for Himself? The God of the Jews does no such foolish thing. The God of the Jews makes it abundantly clear that He knows perfectly well that humans are human and not able to achieve the kind of moral perfection that only God could achieve. He does not hold them to such a ridiculous standard nor does He punish them with eternal damnation if they fail to meet it. Also, God definitely does not tell the Jews that the only way to be with God is to be a member of “the right” religion. He just tells the Jews what their religion should be. He definitely makes it clear that gentiles are welcome, as well. So much for “only one way into heaven”. Port, I hope you’ll forgive me, but I’m going to postpone an answer to your second question regarding what I think a Christian is. Are you absolutely sure you want me to answer that? ;-) All right, okay. You’ve been patient with me. Here are the other two more powerful and valid ways of reconciling with God according to the Hebrew Bible. Ready for it? Here they are. Repentance & Charity No special “one true religion” required, no supernatural help needed and no demands for human perfection. All that’s required by Jewish scriptures is a willingness to admit when we’re wrong and to make a real effort to not repeat that error. Whether Judaism is true or not is unimportant to me. What I came to see is that the Christian claim that the OT is the foundation of Christianity is pure deceit and ignorance. If one takes even a cursory look at Jewish doctrines, it becomes clear that Jesus’ death on the cross is totally irrelevant and pointless. Everything it was purportedly meant to address is already taken care of in their doctrines. There is so much more I could say but I’ll let it go for now. I hope this letter answered your question to your satisfaction. Loren

by Loren Cunningham (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Jun 22, 2007 at 1:10:01 PM

  (0+)