How wonderful;I think I will buy the book.

I hope people start moving away from the commercialization of Christmas and move towards the true meaning of Christmas: the Celebration of the Birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Yeah, Hitchens' book is great.

Hey, this is one of the books I've given my husband for Christmas. As soon as he opened it, I said, "Can I read it next?" !!!

Quell, why don't you read "What's So Great About Christianity"? You'll probably learn a whole lot that you didn't know. Hitchens simply regurgitates every objection to Christianity since Time began, with no grace and very little wit.

Check out his brother, Peter Hitchens', blog. Now there's an intelligent Hitchens.

Jesus Christ is the greatest man who ever lived. He looked into the face of God, and saw something so wonderful, so great, and so overwhelmingly awesome that he willingly agreed to offer himself for the sins of the world.

When we stand before God, no one will deny his greatness. My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be.

Before I head out to join family and friends for a feast in celebration of the birth of the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Almighty God, Prince of Peace, I feel the need to point something out to the Christian naysayers:

The problem with their arguments is that they are old, stale, unoriginal, and ineffectual against the Creator God who makes all things new, all the time.

The God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the God who came to us in human form as Jesus ben Joseph, is the God who makes harmony out of chaos, forgiveness out of shame and sin, peace out of enmity, life out of death.

There is nothing that this Mighty God and Everlasting Father cannot do, and just when the atheists think they've cornered Him, He jumps out of their teeny, tiny, little box by a life-changing Word, act, or miracle.

Perhaps atheists, and I mean those mean-sprited ones who wish to deny the existence of God or, if they in a niggardly way posit that He MIGHT exist and IF He does, He's a nasty entity, need to open their eyes and hearts.

Seek and ye shall find.
Knock and the door will be opened unto you.
Ask and it shall be given.

Those are God's promises to ALL men, women, and children, and He doesn't break them.

Merry Christmas!

Richard Bell, ("He looked into the face of God, and saw something so wonderful"). Do you believe Jesus was merely a enlightened man? Jesus is God, at least according to the Bible.
He is the human manifestation by whom the Father inherits the world.

"He the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth...All things were created through Him and for Him...For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell." - Colossians 1:15,16,19

God who in various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these least days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the worlds"
-Hebrews 1:1,2

"I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of me and I will give you the NATIONS for your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for your possession.'" - Psalm 2:7,8
(NKJV)

I am not sure what is meant by "the true meaning of Christmas." It seems to have actually been a pagan festival adopted by the Christians for propaganda purposes. In fact, even the meaning of the word propaganda comes from Christian sources.

A little Christmas gift for my openly and proudly Christian friends at sda:
Christopher God-is-not-great Hitchens being really dumb on slavery. Also read a good piece by Hugh Fitzgerald (jihadwatch or dhimmiwatch) on Hitchens being really dumb (and sickly sentimental) on Edward Said.

ENJOY
Hitchens simply cannot be this stupid

Christian doctrine and teachings are not the problem...never were...this is a philosophy of heroic humanism anchored in love of mankind and the divine spirit.

There are many religious orthodoxies with similar non violent humanism.

The problem starts when we get "false prophets"...self serving dick heads who claim they speak for God or interpret divine will... some proclaim their God-anointed agenda through religion, other's through political or military vehicles and others a mix of all three.

Some of the most murderous regimes in history claimed divine guidence...but none passed the simple test Christ left us to discern false prophets from divine inspiration:

False prophets want you to believe in lies...there is only one entity who rules the world with lies...THAT is their inspiration, not God.

"Do you believe Jesus was merely a enlightened man?"

Stephen: Certainly not.

Jesus Christ was God incarnate, the Word made flesh, the actual son of the living God. As such, he is to be believed, worshipped, and obeyed.

But I do believe that he was genuinely human, that he had to learn how to speak, how to read, etc., and that the Father revealed himself to Jesus as a lad, as a youth, as a young man, and that Jesus' self-realization was probably progressive. Consider: would it make sense to believe that the infant Jesus "knew" that he was the Son of God and understood that he must die on the cross?

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.”

-- Albert Einstein, column for The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1930 (reprinted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)

Richard:
Perhaps not as an infant, but at the age of 12 (Luke 2:49) Jesus knew that He was the Son of God. The gospel of John, chapters 8 - 10 for example, also make His relationship quite clear where in many places Jesus speaks of God a His Father: Jn 10:15: "As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father ... "

WL Mackenzie Redux says, "a philosophy of heroic humanism anchored in love of mankind and the divine spirit.

There are many religious orthodoxies with similar non violent humanism."

The bible says...

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

I guess those lying false prophets must be the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally. Cause I really don't feel the love, non-violence or any of those other warm fuzzies when I read this.

richard ball said

"""" My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be.""""

if you could just understand what you said in that phrase, could start to grasp why I converted to atheism as a teen

With regard to the Christ-as-human issue, there were two early-Christian controversies regarding it. The first was settled at the Council of Nicea, which gave us the standard New Testament as sacred scripture and marked all other gospels as acryphocal. It was decided by an almost unanimous vote of the bishops that Arius' claim that Jesus Christ was like God was wrong, and that Christ was God - specifically, of the same essence as God.

The second was decided in the Coucil of Calcedon. A group of then-Christians, called "monothelites," claimed that Jesus Christ was not Man-as-God but fully divine, and thus above the human race but not of it. This interpretation was deemed heretical, and the monothelites were hunted down and even persecuted until Justinain's empress Sophia put a (temporary) end to it.

These issues may sound like quibbles, but they had implications that would have changed Christianity forever, and would probably have weakened it. Had Arius' doctrine (now known as the Arian heresy) prevailed, it would have made Jesus potentially appear as "just" another prophet, implying that another one may come along in the future.

The second one was more lethal to Christianity. Promoting Christ to beyond-human status makes him the equivalent of the Greek demigods. If that interpretation had prevailed, then anyone who got persecuted for living in Christ need not be honoured for doing so - (s)he could have simply been cast as someone whose hybris had impelled him/her to aspire to join the Gods...and whose Nemesis was simply deserved. Revering the persecuted would have been a mere option.

These things do matter, believe it or not.

One postscriptual note: theologically, Islam builds upon the Arian heresy by claiming that Jesus was just another prophet, and denying the Miracle of the Cross through claiming that Christ was [lucky/smart] enough to escape (crawl down) from his cross. Ironically, though, the areas where Islam moved in like wildfire were the old monothlite strongholds in the Middle East.

[The information in this post, though not the conclusions, come largely from A & E's "Rise of Christianty: The First Thousand Years." One more note: if you strip away the sacred status of the Councils, they were a lot like parliaments.)

richard ball said """" My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be."""" if you could just understand what you said in that phrase, could start to grasp why I converted to atheism as a teen"

Response:

I have a very good understanding of what I said.

God both loves us, yet punishes sin -- as the Cross makes abundantly clear. His punishments are just, and deserved. He has created us for himself, is not willing that any should perish, and has made a generous and costly provision for us, but he is still God; disobedience and rebellion cannot be tolerated forever; it will come to an end, and he honors the choices we his creatures make.

The fact that you may not like the terms that God lays down does not mean they are not true; and it certainly is not evidence that God does not exist. Your conversion to atheism was a choice you made. That choice has eternal consequences for you.

Herman: I agree with you. Still, let's not discount the genuine humanity of Christ. We need to affirm that he was (is) both truly God and truly man. Athanasias' creed is helpful in this regard.

JESUS SAVES!

AND TAKES HALF DAMAGE!

I got a kick out of this story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=503920&in_page_id=1770

You don't believe in Jesus so no visit from Santa for you. Because celebrating the birth of christ is all about getting stuff from the Jolly old Saint Nick. LOL

Farmer Joe: "...the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally.."
Regarding 'hate' in the passages you quote, one needs to study the language in which the Bible was written. We cannot interpret in English and with the western mind set and not misunderstand much of what is in the Bible. Go to the Hebrew. It isn't necessary yourself to learn it, but make sure you have consulted books written by others who have. One concordance isn't necessarily sufficient, but certainly preferable to making judgments based more on emotion than fact.
See the context in which the Hebrew word has been used. It is possible that what is intended in these passages (spoken in a Jewish context by a Jew)is a matter of preference, rather than 'love' and 'hate' as we Gentiles understand it. The lesser preferred = the 'hated' one. The English language lacks the subtleties necessary for a more accurate interpretation. But, 'lesser preferred' does not mean 'not loved', even though the English word used is 'hate'.
(Consult online The Westminster Theological Wordbook of the Bible)

There is no doubt Christianity gave birth to much that is good about Western Civilization; unfortunately in its core Christianity also holds the seeds of its own destruction. Of course this is just another tired argument,so it is must not be credible ;)

Re: Farmer Joe's post -The bible says...

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

Come on there farmer Joe. By using these particular passages so far removed from any context you are only demonstrating that you really havn't given serious study of the Christianity you criticize, and thereby draw an unsupportable conclusion.

Not one of these passages was ever used by Jesus, His disciples, the apostles or any writers of the early church, to support or promote any hateful, violent, or harmful action to anyone.

Remember, historically the early Christians were recognized for precisely the opposite, their non-violence and their unwillingness to take up arms, even against their own persecution. They understood clearly their master's example of quiet suffering in the face of injustice.

The first verse, I think has already been clarified by Gellen - they are words intended to reflect the seriousness of following Jesu
s, not a call to cruel or callous behaviour.

Your second selection is not even a direct quote of Jesus, it is the words that He puts into the mouth of a character in a parable, or fictional story used to illustrate a lesson. It reflects pretty accurately how the potentates of that day would deal with political opposition, but doesn't represent any form of a commandment or instruction by Christ to His followers.

Your third example is not much different. Making a point about the importance of faithfulness and obedience to God, Jesus provides an illustration relevant to the culture of his day, in which servants were little better than property of their Master who could and often did administer corporal punishment. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus intended to prescribe or condone such behavior while warning that disobedience always carries consequences. (Today, He might use an illustration of an employee being fired)Again, the historical example of the early church shows this with New Testament and extra-biblical examples of injunctions to treat slaves and bond-servants kindly, or even grant them freedom as brothers in Christ. It seems strange that you appear unable to give these facts an objective assessment.

Farmer Joe, if this out of context interpretation is what you mean by "literal" then I am afraid I don't know any Christians now, or historically who have ever believed the scriptures "literally". It is only the atheists and destractors of Christianity who I hear making all these literal quotes, and I must believe that if they are intelligent people that they are being ingenuous. Yes, most evangelical Christians do believe the bible is literally true - meaning that what it says is true, not what someone tries to make it say by playing a version of a naughty child's word game.

Assorted religionists are attacking one another about their religion.
Christ said in one episode, ‘you who are without sin throw the first stone’.
And then he said to the woman, ‘go and don’t sin any more’.
He did not say ‘if you sin again, you will be in trouble’, did not say ‘if you sin again, there will be hell to pay’.
He said no such thing as much as some would like to tell us. He said ‘go and don’t sin anymore’.
Christ did not say anything after that, as much as some would like to put words in His mouth.
The punishment some talk about is not from the Almighty, it is more self inflicted than anything else.

Oh, so now it's all those holy people who "translated" the bible that are the "false" prophets spreading all the lies. Riiiigggght.

I love it when people argue that what is written in the bible is not really what is written in the bible. What a nice way to open the door to -it can mean whatever I bloody well want it to mean. Including two totally different things all at the same time like Richard Balls "Jesus was truly man and truly God".

By the way, the quotes I gave were from the -new testament- which was originally written in Greek not Hebrew. But nice try anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Lets dive a little deeper into the Greek then shall we?

The word 'hate' here comes from the ancient Greek word 'miseo' which means hate (from the primary 'misos' [hatred]). If any synonym could substitute for this word, it would come from a word like 'detest,' 'loath,' or 'despise.' More to the point though, virtually all bibles translate the term as hate. To deny this intent means to deny the bible and the alleged word of Jesus.

But hey you guys keep arguing that the whole package is both true and false all at the same time. That's a real winning strategy.

If I might weigh in here, Christianity is not about rules of conduct or even solely about beliefs. Christianity at its core is a transformation.

The Transformation began when the Reason of God (the second Person of the Trinity) took on human flesh, was killed and rose again immortal. That same Reason of God gave humanity both forgiveness and ultimately the Divine Nature that we too might become as He now IS.

Our challenge as human beings is to do the Will of God by following the Logic of God in the sure ability of the Nature of God. This at its core requires that we set aside our egos and agendas. Only when we fully humble ourselves we by His Grace (giftedness) fulfill His will.

The beginning,humility, is something the atheists among will never understand. I say this because as a former atheist my failure to realize there was a God came from my pride. It was only when I humbled myself or more precicely God humbled me that I came to realize there is One who has revealed Himself as Yahweh (I AM). As I came to realize, you can't learn if you know everything already. You will never realize the existance of God until you truly admit you don't know everything. Many make a faux confession of modesty saying with their mouths I don't know everything but in their hearts say I don't want to know.

There are two great dangers. One is when we seek to accomplish our will in this life and the other is when we seek to accomplish His will in this life without His Reason and without His Nature. Hitler and Stalin were prime examples of the former, the Protestant/Catholic religious wars of Europe are prime examples of the latter.

Thanks Kate
That was an excellent debate.

One of the other contradictions that gives me a chuckle is all the "peace on earth and good will towards man" stuff we get this time of year. When the man himself said...

" Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

-Luke 12:51-53

Must be another one of those out of context, translation\ lies put out by the false prophets who just can't get "the logic of god"(whatever that is supposed to mean)because they have yet to be 'humbled'.

Farmer Joe

You are half way there!!! You admitted you don't understand. Now seek Him who is able to give you understanding. Since you have a Bible near you look up the Gospel of John 1 verse 1. In the beginning was the Word (Logos - Logic, Reason, Consiousness). You see now you have begun to humble yourself you can now ask Him who grants illumination so that you too might understand.

God Bless

I think theists and atheists need to (at least temporarily) bury the hatchet and focus on the more immediate philosophical debate: (forced) collectivism vs. individualism... but that could be the rum & eggnog talking... ;)
Cheers!

One of the arguments Dinesh made was that Hitler was an Atheist. Funny in this speech here(and there are many more examples) it looks like the opposite.

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

I thought that when the debate was down to the hard slogging Dinesh D'Souza made the best argument against atheism that it is possible to make.
He quotes Christopher Hitchins line "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence"
Dinesh agrees that this statement does apply in the empirical domain, in the world of human experience. There are however many questions affecting our lives that are not in the empirical domain and he gives the example " is there life after death".
Dinesh admits that he cannot know the answer to that question. It is outside of the domain of verification. He says that in this point the believer shares the agnosticism of the atheist.
The believer however,in the absence of knowledge, choses to believe that there is life after death.
Dinesh asks why is it any more irrational for the believer to take this leap of faith than it is for the atheist to deny the possibility on an issue for which there is no empirical evidence on either side. The atheist's position can be no more than a belief itself. In the end it comes down to a personal choice to hold one belief over another.
I think that Dinesh can't go past this point without danger of a trimming by Occam's razor. Dinesh's Christian beliefs are elaboration and justification for his personal choice.
These elaborations and justifications, expressed as religious doctrine, created and implemented by imperfect and fallible humans, are what Christopher Hitchens is objecting to as an anti theist.

revelation 22, 18;19

One of the princlples of argument is to select something you both agree on, then show this leads automatically to something else you may agree on until you have a chain leading to your proposition.

A person who does not believe in God or Jesus obviously does not accept the Bible as authority so it is self-defeating to quote the Bible as authority in an argument.

It would help if Christians could show some evidence of God or Jesus rather than just quoting what is obviously ineffective.

Farmer Joe sez:
"I guess those lying false prophets must be the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally. Cause I really don't feel the love, non-violence or any of those other warm fuzzies when I read this."

Just exactly WHO is making negative interpretations of gospel here? I think I hear another false prophet, contorting the scripture to justify his own purposes.

Nobody can really know how we got here. (Not yet at least.) Athelists will admit that we don't know. Christians make the choice to believe the Bible is the answer. Nevermind the utter implausibility of the events depicted in the Bible. I doubt Mr. and Mrs. Kangaroo made the hop up from Oz to the Middle east to secure a spot on the Ark. I would have welcomed Jesus when the booze ran out last New Year's to turn water into wine, but no thinking person can think that really happened at Cana. I think Jesus was a real person, I believe he had excellent ideas, but the whole "Son of God" thing was pure marketing on the part of the disciples and St. Paul.

Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?

@Lev at December 26, 2007 1:15 AM

Either you haven't read much of the New Testament or you have forgotten what it says.

Christ said, "except you repent, you shall all likewise perish".

He said that he who was angry with his brother without cause was in danger of hell fire.

He said that it would be better to go into eternal life maimed if necessary rather than to enter whole into the fires of hell.

To one who had been healed of a disease he said, "go and sin no more - lest a worse thing happen to you".

The consequences of sin are all too real -- or Christ would not have had to suffer on the Cross.

I suggest you wander over to Biblegateway.com, enter in the word "hell", and see what Jesus actually said about it.

"I am not sure what is meant by "the true meaning of Christmas." It seems to have actually been a pagan festival adopted by the Christians for propaganda purposes. In fact, even the meaning of the word propaganda comes from Christian sources."

To the smug atheists that came here to ridicule the faith of others...I have but one thing to say: I feel deeply sorry for you.

Your arguments are pathetic (or fallacious), your emptiness so apparent, and your NEED to wound those of faith reveals a deeply troubled psyche.

That said, I wish all of you would at least take the time to read of the historical frame in which Christ's ministry and the gospels were written...at least be informed agnostics...and make some relevant arguments....at least be an knowledgable agnostic/atheist...know what it is that you condemn instead of offering wild conjectures that basically hinge on a condemnation made on faith alone.....which has to be the ultimate hypocrisy...faith-based atheism.

BTW: I'm not particularly religious, I subscribe to no organized church/denomination but I do read and think for myself. I personally take the teachings of Christ to be a good everyday philosophy for understanding the purpose of existence.....but this is my own belief and I have NEVER forced it upon anyone, nor do I need anyone to validate my personal faith with a seal of secular piety approval.

Coming to a spiritual realization and finding a faith is a personal thing and I really have never understood the dark hubris which would make someone feel the compulsion to attack a faith simply because they do not hold it.

Following Farmer Joe's example of out of context quoting, I can quite clearly state that Farmer Joe is just being a prick, because he said:

"I love it when people argue"

Folks, Farmer Joe doesn't want to be enlightened. He just wants to beat people down. There's no point in "debating".

The NT is written in Koine Greek, not classical Greek.

The word miseo, in the context of Luke 14:26 means love less. The writers of the NT wrote in Greek but were Hebrews.

If Farmer Joe were commanded by scripture to love his cat, would it mean in the same way as he loves his wife? Or would he automatically understand the nuances to the meaning of the word?

Anyway, scripture defines itself;

Luke 14:33 "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

What colour were Adam and Eve ?

How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims.

Why don't you believe in Zeus or Apollo ? Do you think the ancient Greeks built their temples cause they knew modern tourists would arrive ? No, this was their religion, one that you would have believed had you lived then.

"How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims."

That statement defies reality.

There are, and were, many Christians in Muslim lands....and the godless realms of communism...they are an persecuted faith there....just as they were in the 1st-2nd centuries...not much changes where a true faith exists in the midst of errant orthodoxies.

From WL Mackenzie “keep the Jews out of Canada” King:

"To the smug atheists that came here to ridicule the faith of others...I have but one thing to say: I feel deeply sorry for you.

Your arguments are pathetic (or fallacious), your emptiness so apparent, and your NEED to wound those of faith reveals a deeply troubled psyche."

......

And are you feeling the NEED to wound atheists using words like "pathetic", "emptiness", "deeply troubled psyche"? Good god what a hypocrite you are.

Atheists don't want or "NEED' to wound Christians. Most of us were brought up religious, so from a family point of view, we are often expected to defend our atheism with religious family members. It's a debate, so let's try to keep it that way.

-Sea Salt

I had a chance to listen to most of the debate yesterday and I am thinking of getting d'Souza's book. Indeed, try to imagine a world without Christianity (oh too bad we aren't all still pagans worshipping moon and sun gods and maybe doing some human sacrifice - wow those were the good old days).

Think of the Bible from God's perspective - God wants to be known to humans and humans have Free Choice (you can choose not to know God). How will God make himself known to people? As Moses says in Deuteronomy, if you want to know God, study history.

Think of God moving in history. God made himself known at Mount Sinai. The nation of Israel was picked (chosen) to spread this message to the rest of the nations (people who hate Jews generally hate God and the idea of one Judge for all). God made promises to the Jews and for evidence that God keeps his promises, check out the existence of the modern state of Israel.

To further spread awareness of God, see Jesus and Paul (God moving in history, His Story). Thanks to Jesus and Paul, the entire world reads the five books of Moses, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiates, etc. I think it is Paul who talks about being grafted on to the root. In today's world, it is observant, Bible reading Christians who are the strongest defenders of the state of Israel (God moving in history).

There is no proof of God that one can present to atheists to convince them. But here is something that may help:

http://www.aish.com/shavuotsinai/shavuotsinaidefault/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$_.asp

Who did God give the Torah to at Mount Sinai? Most people reply, "God gave the Torah to Moses."

And what were the Jewish people doing while Moses was receiving the Torah? "Worshipping the Golden Calf."

Correct answers -- but NOT according to the Bible.

The above answers come from Cecil B. DeMille's classic film, "The Ten Commandments." Amazing the impact one movie can have on the Jewish education of generations of Jews. It's a great film, but DeMille should have read the original.

The version found in the Torah is quite different. The Torah's claim is that the entire people heard God speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. God did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous; He appeared to everyone, some 3 million people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.

...Could the revelation at Sinai have been a brilliant hoax, duping millions of people into believing that God spoke to them?

Let's imagine the scene. Moses comes down the mountain and claims, "We all today heard God speak, all of you heard the God's voice from the fire..."

Assuming Moses is making it up, how would the people respond to his story?

"Moses! What are you talking about?! Boy, you sure had us going there for awhile. We may have even believed you if you came down and claimed that God appeared to you personally. But now you blew it! Now we know you're lying because you're claiming an event happened to us that we know didn't happen! We did not hear God speak to us from any fire!"

If the revelation at Sinai did not occur, then Moses is claiming an event everyone immediately knows is an outright lie, since they know that they never heard God speak. It is preposterous to think Moses can get away with a claim that everyone knows is lie.

...There are 15,000 known religions in all of recorded history. Given (the) inherent weakness, why do all of them base their claim on personal revelation? If someone wanted their religion to be accepted, why wouldn't they present the strongest, most believable claim possible -- i.e. national revelation! It's far more credible. No one has to take a leap of faith and blindly trust just one person's word. It is qualitatively better to claim that God came to everyone, telling the entire group that so-and-so is His prophet.

Why would God establish His entire relationship with a nation through one man, without any possibility of verification, and still expect this nation to obediently follow an entire system of instructions, based only on blind faith?

Yet, Judaism is the only religion in the annals of history that makes the best of all claims -- that everyone heard God speak. No other religion claims the experience of national revelation. Why?

Furthermore, the author of the Torah predicts that there will never be another claim of national revelation throughout history!

'You might inquire about times long past, from the day that God created man on earth, and from one end of heaven to the other: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fires as you have heard and survived?' (Deut. 4:32-33)

Let's consider the option that God did not write the Torah, and its author successfully convinced a group of people to accept a false claim of national revelation. In this book, the author writes a prediction that over the course of history no one will ever make a similar claim. That means if such a claim is ever made at some future time, the prediction will end up being false and his religion is finished.

How could the author include in the book he is passing off as a hoax the prediction that no other person will ever attempt to perpetuate the same hoax when he just made that exact claim? If he could do it, he can be certain that others will too, especially since it is the best possible claim to make. If you are making up a religion, you do not write something you know you cannot predict and whose outcome you would think is guaranteed to be exactly the opposite.

(read the whole thing if you find this interesting. also good on this subject and I have linked to it before in these types of conversations: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3007/jewish/How-Do-We-Know-that-We-Heard-G-d-at-Sinai.htm

"Why don't you believe in Zeus or Apollo ? Do you think the ancient Greeks built their temples cause they knew modern tourists would arrive ? No, this was their religion, one that you would have believed had you lived then."

He he ...your timeline is a tad distorted and you knowledge of theology is also a tad distorted...

A)If you were born to an Israelite family between 2000BC and 22AD you would be Monothistic ( a belitver in the one spiritual God of creation) and reject polytheistic paganism (popular in the rest of the world)...naturally ypur true faith made you a repressed religious group and you would be persecuted as a "jew" in all the pagan nations of Europe and Asia. So after 2000BC there was a choice to reject pagan polytheism for spiritual monotheism....but it took faith and guts to do so.

B) After 33AD there was a spiritual enlightenment that came from Judea...a monotheist humanitarian sect of Judaism called Christianity...it was instantly adopted in pagan Greece but Rome took some centuries to reject pagan polytheism and the cruel social justice such orthodoxies promote...so after the 1st century there was a choice....but it took faith and guts to do so.

"One definite way to prove that we are half a chromosome away from being chimpanzees is to look at our religious practices."-Richard Dawkins

@john at December 26, 2007 9:28 AM

"How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims."

Although I was raised in a nominally Christian home, I studied 20th century existentialism, Buddhism, Islam, the Old Testament, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and the New Testament prior to becoming a Christian.

The fact that we live in a country where Christianity has been the dominant faith does not mean it is untrue. The fact that many people believe it does not mean they lack critical thinking skills. How many people are atheists because they were raised in an atheistic family?

I've just watched the whole debate: many thanks, Kate.

Up front, I'm an observant Christian. In my day, as a proponent of traditional values—make that virtues—the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, and the value of the natural family, I've had many debates with people like Christopher Hitchens. Although the comment I'm about to make doesn't prove or disprove his arguments—though I reject most of what he said: he sure doesn’t speak for me!—I believe my observations provide a context for his credibility.

Christopher Hitchens comes across as an angry, self-satisfied, graceless prig. Of course, he's altogether free—as I am—to believe what he wishes, but why can't he present his ideas without the posturing, the put-downs, the prattling—what a lot of hot air!—and the preening? I found his certainty about what I believe—as a Christian, I’m obviously the worst kind of deluded idiot, liar, and hypocrite—and his obvious, very undisguised disdain for people like me most offensive.

And, from long, verifiable experience, this arrogant presentation appears to be the default position of many of those who reject traditional belief systems, e.g., Judeo-Christian teaching. If these people could present their arguments with a respectful attitude toward their opponents—they keep saying they’re all for freedom, tolerance and diversity—they would greatly enhance their credibility. But they seem incapable of doing so: once out of the starting gate—or even before: try making pleasant small talk with radical, pro-abortion feminists—their lips begin to curl and the ad hominems begin. (In a debate about the topless issue—women in Ontario now have the dubious “right” to walk bare chested in public—one of these “progressives” actually ended up publicly attacking my daughters, who don’t think much of the idea: “How stupid,” they both said, including the one with the [in those days] multiple earrings. “Your daughters are obviously ill adjusted and out of it,” the lawyer representing the “go topless” woman said to me. In the present debate, Christopher Hitchens filled this juvenile, unattractive bill to a “T”.)

I’ve defended the Judeo-Christian gifts to the West many times here. I believe that Dinesh De Souza did a fine job on that score, BTW, IMO, with more wit and grace in his presentation than Mr. H. Like some here, C.H. trots out his altruistic tendencies—I believe he has them—as if they arrived full blown out of his head, like the adult Venus out of the clam shell. Bollocks! As D.D. rightly pointed out, having been brought up in a culture strongly underpinned by Christianity, C.H. was bequeathed many of its attributes. To deny this—as some here do—but take the credit is, as D.D. pointed out “parasitic”.

On the issue of original sin and children, C.H. hideously misrepresents the issue. Even the Globe and Mail had it right: a couple of years ago, it asked the question, “Who are the most dangerous people on the planet?” Conclusion? Toddlers! Their utter lack of self-control, total self-absorption, and “live-only-for-me-in-the-moment” attitude, coupled with their blistering anger when things don’t go their way, makes them very dangerous indeed. The article pointed out that they haven’t destroyed the planet, only by virtue of their small size. C.H. seems to be under the impression that these “mini tyrants” just magically—I thought he rejected such things!—transform into responsible, caring individuals. No, Mr. H., the transformation takes the long term, dedicated love and discipline of committed, civilized adults. (These days, mature adults appear to be at a real premium. I've coined the term "adult toddlers" which, sadly, fits far too many so-called grown-ups these days. E.g., Check out the NDP, Green, Bloc, and Liberal parties!)

D.D. was absolutely right in pointing out the travesty—Mr. H. chose to avoid a response—of abandoning our children to the tender mercies of the atheistic public school system. (And C.H. thinks Christian formation was bad!) Our civilization is now in the unenviable position of abandoning a critical mass of our children to no discipline at all! I’ve been in public school classrooms for 36 YEARS and have personally experienced a precipitous decline in student behaviour: a critical mass arrives at school with no manners at all and the system hasn’t found a way to appease them that it won’t try. Those children who don’t act like actual barbarians, comport themselves with a self-referential entitlement, which is scary to witness. Altruism? What’s that? The spread of the selfish, me-for-myself attitude is making our society a less civilized place at an alarming rate. An observation: when Canada was a country where the tenets of Christianity were honoured by most people, even those who didn’t attend church, our society was more polite, more modest, more honest, more peaceful, and more safe. (Now, with the Charter dispensation, it's more safe all right: for the bullies.) Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but, the more Christianity has been ridiculed and marginalized in the West, the less civilized we become. (Also, as I’ve pointed out many times—and it’s empirically verifiable—Christians give away by far the most of time, talent and treasure to others.) It would seem that a man, like Christopher Hitchens, who demands evidence, might be a little more observant.

But, C.H. doesn’t care to be observant if it doesn’t fit his thesis. As D.D. rightly pointed out, Mr. Hitchens is guilty of the very “crime” of which he accuses Christians: he’s a “true believer”! So, I’ll add “hypocrite” to my description of C.H.

Re his many utterly gratuitous insults directed at practising Christians: C.H. said that going to church more than once a week was “morbid and ritualistic”. How would he know? On the advice of my spiritual director, a wise and humble man, I now go to Mass at least once during the week. It is an oasis of peace, quiet, and contemplation of the Other/other (the first two Commandments: BTW, Hitchens’s comments about those were ridiculous.). Of course, I could be mistaken, but I believe that this time apart, where I learn, bit by bit, to humble myself to the Prince of Peace, is making me a better person. (This may be a figment of my imagination, but what does C.H. know of it? His arrogance at [mis]interpreting the motives and fruits of my actions are not only astonishingly arrogant, but smack of the totalitarianism he thinks he detects underneath every pew.)

From the arrogance, small mindedness, and “smelly little orthodoxies” (George Orwell) of such intolerant and misguided people as Christopher Hitchens, good Lord deliver us!

@ lookout 11:31 am

"Re his many utterly gratuitous insults directed at practising Christians:"

and in the very next paragraph:

"From the arrogance, small mindedness, and “smelly little orthodoxies” (George Orwell) of such intolerant and misguided people as Christopher Hitchens, good Lord deliver us!"

.....

Man, do you read your stuff? Are these not gratuitous insults on your part? Let's get away from this garbage. My goodness, ad hominem shots like that are not a reasoned argument.

sea salt,

you can choose not to know God, but may I suggest that you might want to read the Bible (the Written Torah) with the commentaries
(the Oral Torah) - then you will be sure about what you are dismissing.

you might also want to check out Noahides

As Michael Coren says, it is atheists that help me see, God bless them.

lookout, Richard Ball, WL Mackenzie Redux - enjoying your comments

Sea Salt asks "Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?"

Quite easily actually. When you read the Bible there are many books written by many authors over thousands of years. Each author adds without taking away from the other. There is a consistency that leads people to think that they are reading one book and not 66 books. In other words many witnesses. We even have four accounts of Jesus earthly ministry. Each account is different yet consistent with the others.

The Qur’an is one book written by one man. Its history is inconsistent with other much older historical accounts. Its practices often counter other codes of conduct consistent with other Abramic religions, of which it claims to be one. It claims to be Abramic in its theology but is alien to older Abramic theologies and the character and lifestyle of the author would lead one to doubt the claim of the author's self proclaimed prophetic ability.
Finally through out the Bible are accounts of God’s direct intervention in events (miracles) that bolster the basic theology and the people’s claims about their God. There are no such accounts in the Qur’an. Mohammed did not miraculously feed the hungry, turn water into wine, open the eyes of the blind and raise the dead.

Thanks, Me No Dhimmi, for the "Christmas present" of the article outlining the history of slavery and Christianity's leading the charge to abolish it. One thing the author of the article said which was telling and chilling as it affects what has happened in Canada:

"Hitchens isn't this stupid, and neither are his readers. But they have not troubled to learn this history, and no one is telling them about it."

Over ten years ago, when my children were in the elementary public school system, I caught wind of a new history curriculum the Board of Ed., under the auspices of the Ministry of Education (then NDP), was proposing. There was a general invitation to all parents to come to an information session one evening at the Board Office.

A friend and I drove the 80 kms (round trip) and found ourselves in a room with about 20 other "interested parents." Not exactly an overwhelming show of curiosity on the part of parents about what history their children were going to be taught which, of course, is one of the reasons Canadians are so ignorant of so many things, especially the history of our country.

I was not particularly surprised, though I was extremely alarmed, to discover that this so-called "Common Curriculum" (in keeping with the change in our designation of time from "AD" to "Common Era") was proposing that Canadian history, essentially, begin in the here and now--being the early 1990s--with very little reference to either our British or Judeo-Christian heritage which, if one is being accurate and/or honest, had a huge impact on Canada's democratic institutions.

Both Christianity and Britishness were being summarily airbrushed from Canadian history. Very few people mounted an objection, though I did that night, getting odd and hostile glances from the Board officials on the panel.

I think the so-called Common Curriculum was deep-sixed when the Conservatives got back into office, though Canadian students are still in the dark when it comes to the actual history of our country. Most young people have no concept of the positive role played by both the British rule of law and order and the Judeo-Christian foundations of our public institutions in the making of Canada as the liberal democracy it is today. In fact, most of them would take Christopher Hitchen's uninformed and rather nasty view that faith--in particular, the Christian faith--is a positive ill and evil which is responsible for many of the problems in our world today.

All one can continue to do--aside from rent one's garments asunder and tear one's hair out--is to speak truth into lies wherever possible. This Dinesh D'Souza and a few others eloquently do, but not in the numbers I'd like to see.

This is what I and a few others, like lookout and Joe Molnar, try to do on forums like SDA. I kind of see it as the drip, drip, drip, effect, which eventually wears down the stubborn hardness of the rock...but probably not in my lifetime!

Anyway, great food for though. Thanks again, MND!

@ Joe

Sorry man, that wasn't an easy refutation. The alledged Judeo-Christian miracles, one has to take on an article of faith. (Faith being, I'm willing to accept the implausibility of it, but I still believe it.) So they might not have happened, and in all likelihood didn't. And as for Islam, wouldn't you say God giving personal dictation to Mohammed constitues a miracle?

-Sea Salt

Sea Salt (as in "stinging" I guess: ouch!), I actually WRITE that stuff!

Speaking of reading, did you read anything else I said? Based on the empirical evidence of my long-term experience with people like Hitchens (including his prima donna posturing in this debate), I think I made a reasonable case for his being an insufferable bully/bore bantam.

So, just what is your point? (BTW, not just off-the-top-of-your-entitled head, toddler-so-far: I'm mad! opinion, please, but some engagement with the facts I've presented. Maybe you can fill in the blanks Hitchens refused to—or couldn’t—do.)

Go for it, SS!

lookout said:
Christopher Hitchens comes across as an angry, self-satisfied, graceless prig

See the sheer venality of the man who after all was a Trotskyite well into his 50s.
Hitchens being a a**hole at Reason Magazine

d'Souza: Haven't had a chance to look at the debate, but do search jihadwatch for his nutty apologetic theories for Islamofascism -- revenge against Brittany Spears. No really.

One of the more interesting arguments that Dinesh used was when he talked about Hume and scepticism in general. It was the notion of absolute scepticism and the example used was the speed of light but could have been any one of a number of things. An absolute sceptic will say that no matter how many times you see or measure something there is always a chance that next time it will be different. As Karl Popper, another famous sceptic would say it is not that the exact speed of light has been proven to be true again it has just once again failed to be proven false.

Christians like Dinesh leap on this as evidence that miracles are then 'theoretically' and even scientifically possible.

Absolute sceptics have an answer for this, but I am not an absolute sceptic, a healthy one yes but not an absolute one. I believe that one can know the truth about something, be absolutely certain about it and it does not require faith. 2+2=4 it always has and it always will it is absolutely true and there will never come a time when it will equal something other than 4.

Using the same methodology it is safe to say no one has ever risen from the dead in the manner that Christ supposedly did, you can not create something(like the Universe) out of nothing and there is no afterlife. Its not that there is little evidence of any of this, it is that there is NO empirical evidence to back any of this up.

I don't have faith that 2+2=4, I don't have too, it is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality.

Either something is part of the natural world(Universe) or it is not, it cannot be both.

And as doug Newton said earlier, "The believer however,in the absence of knowledge, chooses to believe that there is life after death." This is not an absence of knowledge it is an absence of evidence, there is no evidence to back up the claim, hence the leap of "faith". As an Atheist who follows the evidence I don't have faith that death is final, the evidence shows me that it is. And every person that has ever died and will die in the future is the verification. Hitchins is right when he says, "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

And yes I am a "prick" thank-you for noticing.

I have a deep and profound philosophic question:

At every opportunity she tells us over and over that she is an atheist. So where is she now? Of course I mean ET. I would like to hear from her even if I have to listen to her telling us she's an atheist seven or eight times in a single posting.

I don't like to put words in people's mouths, but I have a deep suspicion that ET is cringing at what Christopher Hitchens, fellow-atheist, puts forward as "reasoned (and reasonable?) debate."

In his debate with D'Souza, I don't think Hitchens answered one question. He reframed them, danced around them, twisted them, ridiculed them--in short, he did everything but answer them.

It was rather hilarious to watch his contortions, both physical and metaphysical.

I've come to the conclusion that Christopher Hitchens is not to be taken seriously. He, rather, is a comedian, bent on entertaining rather than enlightening his audience. He doesn't seem to care a hoot at what an ass he looks (c'mon, beer to wet his whistle?). And I'm sure there's good money in playing the fool, a role he plays admirably well.

That's funny I thought the same thing about D'Souza.

Isn't it strange that the NT - despite the dark ages, the hegemony of the Catholic Church, the Crusades, the inquisition and the desires of 'Christian' Princes - was not rewritten to sanctify and justify immoral, political, imperialist and violent actions?

Now contrast the above fact to the Quran.

On top of that, science claims its source to be fact based on observation. The Christian doctrine has some 25,000 credible, accurate, eyewitness and factual texts that support it.

Furthermore, how can an athiest know that nothing exists after life? For that to be proven true, 'nothing' would have to be observed. The required presence of an observer proves that nothing cannot exist.

"One of the other contradictions that gives me a chuckle is all the "peace on earth and good will towards man" stuff we get this time of year. When the man himself said...

" Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

-Luke 12:51-53"

Farmer Joe. Are you simply moonbat stupid, or willfully ignorant? To make any criticism valid, you must first fully understand the message that you are attacking. Furthermore, you must validate your objection based on the actions of the messenger.

"I was not particularly surprised, though I was extremely alarmed, to discover that this so-called "Common Curriculum" (in keeping with the change in our designation of time from "AD" to "Common Era") was proposing that Canadian history, essentially, begin in the here and now--being the early 1990s--with very little reference to either our British or Judeo-Christian heritage which, if one is being accurate and/or honest, had a huge impact on Canada's democratic institutions."

A walk through any cemetary will prove the 'new' curriculum to be false.

Farmer Joe says, "I don't have faith that 2+2=4, I don't have too, it is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality."

So far, so good. But, wouldn't the opposite end of the same stick be that "the verifiable and absolute facts of reality" for the West are that a great civilization came to be, based on the radical idea of equality before God (from Judaism) and the altruistic beliefs of Christianity? As a direct result of Christian belief, its followers produced among the greatest works of art, including music, as well as great feats, never seen before, in the areas of education, medicine, care for the downtrodden, jurisprudence, and democratic government. Those of us who live in the free countries—for now, sort of—of the West are all the beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian dispensation.

Farmer Joe and his ilk recognize the obvious where they wish to and disregard it at will, it seems to me, when it doesn’t. Where, Farmer Joe, do you think the West would be without Christianity?

I suggest you watch a series, such as HBO’s Rome, in order to see what pagan life was like: the pagans didn’t lack belief. They did lack belief in gods with compassion or grace, though. Their sacrifices were blood sacrifices, not the sacrifice of “a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51: check out Allegri’s sublime setting of this), which is all that the Christian God requires—as a free will offering: neither He nor I will make you or Christopher Hitchens fall in line.

Please note that the changing dispensation in the West is towards paganism and coercion: e.g., Christians are now marginalized and hauled before Human Rights (sic) Commissions, where the right of due process is denied and re-education, ridicule, fines, and loss of livelihood are all part of the punishment. Right here. In Canada. I’m not making this up. This observation “is based completely on verifiable and absolute facts of reality."

Farmer Joe, what do you think of that?

Personally, the “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” of the country Canada is fast becoming show that Christians like me could lose our jobs, not because we’re not good at them—some of us are exemplary—but because our thoughts don’t meet the state mandated “group think” (Orwell’s “doublethink” and “duckspeak”).

Farmer Joe, what do you think of that?

As I started out by saying, “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” cut both ways. But, regarding the positive fruits of Christianity, are the Farmer Joes, Christopher Hitchens, Sea Salts, and ETs of this world willing to be real? Unfortunately, the “verifiable and absolute facts of reality” seem to indicate the negative.

(People, like Me No Dhimmi, do not fit this category.)

Sea Salt

Leon Uris wrote in his book Exodus about the Six Day War and had the characters speak of that war as being miraculous. Then one of the characters said words to the effect that in the future someone is going to say that the war wasn't 6 days it was 6 years and that the number of hostile enemies faced by Israel was much lower than the number given in the historical account. Denying an event because it doesn't fit your preconceived idea of how things work is a mugs game played by fools. The earth was flat and you would fall off the edge - until someone sailed across the ocean and discovered not only land but people living on that land. Proving the flat earth believer doubly foolish.

One other incident that reminds me of how ignorant is the atheist's position. For many years serious scholars doubted the existence of Sodom. There was no archaeological evidence showing that such a town ever existed. Then one day an ancient Egyptian library was discovered and in that library was an extant contract between the leader of Sodom and the Pharaoh of Egypt.

I've never seen a virus but because they make me sick I know they exist. I have seen miracles, and through interaction with Him I know that Yahweh exists.

My Father would often say that the two things we should never argue about, were religion, and politics. i don't know where the quote came from but it is true.

bart, as Scout in "To Kill a Mockingbird" would say, "What in TARNATION are you talkin' about?"

My dear, how about taking some smelling salts?

This is obviously no place for you. Why not head out to one of those churches where the last thing they'll talk about is religion? I could supply you with a list of "safe spaces".

@Farmer Joe (1:03 PM):

If I wanted to horse around with the "2 + 2 = 4" bedrock, I could say that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11.

To get more serious: are you the type who believes that a politician out hustling votes on the stump is at his/her most truthful? If not, then why would you supply a quote from 1928 Hitler which only shows, prima facie, that he was vote-grubbing? The leader of a party that could at the time garner only a small minority of votes, and yet seriously intended to govern Germany, would have had to have been a bloody fool to say anything to alienate the majority faith.

That's why the anti-Christian Table Talk quotes are typically considered to be solid evidence of the 'real Hitler' with respect to Christianity. His power was secure at that point, so he didn't have to worry about ticking off the majority all that much by then.

If you want to brandish Hitler around, kindly consider the point that the antidemocrat can do so far more credibly. What was National Socialism, if not a program of setting the majority against a stigmatizable minority? (Of course, this particular argument fails because it assumes that human beings, as voters, are group-chained monads that don't sympathize with others from different walks of life. 'Democratists out of their skulls' like Hitler are so rare because that assumption is false.)

"It would help if Christians could show some evidence of God or Jesus rather than just quoting what is obviously ineffective."

Posted by: Jim Pettit

In the Bible is the testimony of men and what they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears....you'll need a heart to believe though as stated in the Bible. Prophecy abounds in the Bible, of which has come about in all cases to present, except for the prophecies still to occur. History is a wonderful thing, and the Bible is a record of the past and a record of what is to come in the future. There is plenty of proof in the Bible; it is one's choice to believe it or not.

>He he ...your timeline is a tad distorted and you knowledge of theology is also a tad distorted...

No, the point is, which you seem to miss, that people's religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country.

If you had been born a Greek in the ancient times, you would believe in Zeus and Apollo, if you had been born in ancient Egypt you would believe in Ra and Horus.

Do you really believe that you would still believe in Jesus if you were born to Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia ? The odds are very slim. Too bad you don't seem honest enough to yourself to admit that. You did not address the point at all.

The bible is so prophetic yet jesus didn't even know enough to tell us to wash our hands before eating and that this simple commandment could have helped prevent all sorts of disease.

Nostradamus and daily horror-scopes have as much true predictions as the bible.

The problem with "faith" should be all clear to us by now, it is dangerous. Faith means believing in things with no evidence and once you accept that this is ok, then you have no basis to complain about anyones else faith.

The muslim who kills infidels because it is his faith, the jewish settlers who think god 'gave' them the west bank, the people who have doomsday suicide cults, or the utterly stupid Christian-Zionists who cynically ally themselves with Israel to format war because they believe this will bring the end times, these are the end results of "faith"

There are many miracles in the Bible that were doubted in the past and used as examples of why the Bible cannot be true, such as:

- virgin birth; and
- Christ arising from the dead.

With the wonders of modern medicine, both can and have been achieved. Funny, that.

The Bible said that the stars in the sky were as numerous as the sands on the beach...absolutely correct and unlikely to be in keeping with contemporary thought. The Bible spoke about currents or rivers in the sky, leading to the discovery of the jet stream. There are many such examples.

Now, there are other accounts that I find much harder to believe, such as the account in the Old Testament of Moses (or was it Aaron) holding aloft his staff and causing the sun to stand still in the sky.

Many scholars said there was no evidence of Pontius Pilate existing...until they found evidence finally.

Funny, that. No proof of veracity necessarily, but very interesting nonetheless.

As for Farmer Joe slamming Christianity during Christmas...very, very tactless and in poor taste.

>Sea Salt asks "Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?"

> joe : Quite easily actually. When you read the Bible there are many books written by many authors over thousands of years. Each author adds without taking away from the other. There is a consistency that leads people to think that they are reading one book and not 66 books. In other words many witnesses. We even have four accounts of Jesus earthly ministry. Each account is different yet consistent with the others.

Gee Joe, you must have a read a totally different book then the one I read.

Please google "bible contradictions"

You claim above is completely false.

Christianity is the only religion which has seen God in his human form.

Christ said he was the Son of God and if this were not true, then it would be insane to believe the rest of his message of redemption, which is also different from all other religions.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... the Divine Tri-Unity is clearly articulated in the Old Testament by the experience of Abraham, considered to be the inspiration of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Gen. 18:1: And the Lord appeared unto him at the Oaks of Mamre ...

2: And he lifted up his eyes and, lo, three men stood by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground.

3: And said, My Lord ... (Notice, not my LordS)

Therefore, is God one as the Jews through Isaac and the Moslems through Hagar claim? Is he just the creator or does he bring, through Jesus, a way to redemption?

Isaac himself was born of an older mother, sterile and in old age against the laws of nature, in much the same miraculous way Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin.

John writes, ". . . people's religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country."

John, this is hogwash. There are/have been MILLIONS of Christians whose parents aren't/weren't Christians and there are probably millions—and certainly will be after the atheist brainwashing of our public schools—whose parents are/were Christians whose children aren’t. Dinesh D’Souza’s forbears were Christianized by missionaries. I know people—here, in Canada, I’m not making this up—who became Christians as adults, even those who grew up in other religious faiths—or none.

John, where have you been, that you could make such an outlandish claim?

To quote an ancient Scottish prayer, followed by my addition: “From ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties, and things that go bump in the night” and, from John’s invincible ignorance, good Lord, deliver us!

lookout 2:30 pm "Psalm 51: check out Allegri’s sublime setting of this.."

This will help him out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x71jgMx0Mxc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgZ0K8vCdbo

Sublime and ethereal.

fc

Many thanks, fc. I hope Farmer Joe will give it a listen. (I've sung this sublime music many times.) IMO, the most beautiful music I know was inspired by the love of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. For those who don't believe, this is no proof that Christianity is true, but it sure leads one to suspect it might well be!

"The bible is so prophetic yet jesus didn't even know enough to tell us to wash our hands before eating and that this simple commandment could have helped prevent all sorts of disease."

This statement is the product of an idiot IQ equal to that of a baby seal after being clubbed.

And worse,

". . . people's religion is based on what they were taught by their parents. You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country."

Soooooo, how do you 'splain the emergence and quick growth of Christianity in pagan countries?

It's amazing that John has even the mental capacity to perform mechanical tasks like breathing.

What is this, the radical athiest 'B' team?

John are you that dense as to think that I haven't read the Biblical contradictions? Let me give you but one example. One Gospel account says that Judas went out and hanged himself. Another Gospel says that Judas fell down and the fall caused his intestines to fall out. Inconsistent, yes? Actually, no. Tradition has it the Judas hanged himself from a tree on the edge of a cliff. When he hanged himself the rope or the branch holding the rope broke and he fell to his death.

Now why don't you look up fulfilled prophecy of the Bible and be amazed. For example there is a passage that says that the power of the King of Israel shall not fail until the Messiah comes. That power was often interpreted to mean capital punishment. In fact during the early first century one Jewish sage commented that the sceptre had departed the King when Rome removed the power of capital punishment from the king of Israel. Funnily enough it happened when the Messiah (Jesus) was living in Nazareth.

As an atheist, I WOULD be interested in hearing a defence of some of the "facts" as presented in the bible as part of the "proof" of Jesus' "resurrection"; for example, we're told that Mary Magdalene "discovered the resurrection" when she went to "anoint Jesus' body" after it had laid in the tomb for three days.
There are several reasons why this could not have happened under Jewish law, including the fact that it is not permitted to interfere with a body after it has been placed in a tomb. Under Jewish burial rituals, a body must be ritually cleaned, have prayers recited, etc., and it must be accompanied from the moment of declaration of death until that body is interred (the Jews have official "accompaniers" who do this, called "shomerim", who themselves follow certain rituals while they watch over the body). After that body is interred, it is anathema to touch or interfere with it, so the idea that an observant Jew in Judea would have gone to "anoint" a body that had already been buried for three days is plainly ludicrous. Second, because much of the ritual behind preparing a body for burial under Jewish law involves cleaning that body, only males are allowed to perform those rites on males, and only females are allowed to perform those rites on females; therefore, "Mary Magdalene", being a woman, would not have been ALLOWED to perform these rites on a male body. It may certainly be an interesting story, but I don't see anything that approaches "proof" that someone was a "messenger from god" 2000 years ago.

lookout,

More examples of the sublime, in case the last wasn't enough to soften the heart of the Farmer. I would guess you've also sung at least one of these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBYLNbKoPP0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL9TXRzXt_0

fc

SDC

Let me get this straight, because a woman who followed Jesus wanted to annoint His body which she believed was improperly prepared before burial in a heavily guarded tomb therefore Jesus couldn't be the Messiah. Sorry but I don't quite follow your logic. The actions of the woman have no bearing on the Person of Jesus.

There are several reasons why this could not have happened under Jewish law...

Christians aren't under "Jewish ordinances" (rituals).

Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Colossians 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Colossians 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

...and

"Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" - Romans 10:4 (NKJV)

We sinned. Christ died in our place. Game Over. No more law.

"having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it away, having nailed it to the cross." - Colossians 2:14 (NKJV)

SDC -

Okay I just lost my entire post, so instead of being able to read Bible passages, you'll have to look them up, if so inclined.

St. John 19:38-42

Herein states two men prepared Jesus's body according to the manner of the Jews with a hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes.

St. Luke 16:1

Mary Magdalene went with two other people with sweet spices so that they might anoint him.

SDC - I would suggest you actually read the Bible and not rely on heresay.

Stephen - when Christ was crucified, he was the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind. The laws and statues still exist.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18).

I should also point out the Mary Magdalene went to anoint Jesus after he was already wound in linens and prepared according to the manner of the Jews by Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus.

The laws and statues still exist.

Yes, only the ordinances (rituals) were done away with.

[quote]SDC

Let me get this straight, because a woman who followed Jesus wanted to annoint His body which she believed was improperly prepared before burial in a heavily guarded tomb therefore Jesus couldn't be the Messiah. Sorry but I don't quite follow your logic. [/quote]

The only logic required is to know that the story as presented in the Bible COULDN'T and WOULDN'T have happened as presented, because if these people are who the Bible says they were (Jews), their actions would have been prohibited under Jewish law. That means that there is a hole the size of a Cat D50 in the story.

[quote] Christians aren't under "Jewish ordinances" (rituals).[/quote]

Ol hoss, you DO realize that the people being written about in the Bible were Jews, don't you? Christianity is an ofshoot of Judaism, just as Protestantism is an offshoot of Catholicism, and Mormonism is an offshoot of Protestantism. Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Apostles, and the other primary characters in the story were all Jews, who lived according to Jewish laws (except, we're told, in this particular case).

[quote]SDC - I would suggest you actually read the Bible and not rely on heresay. [/quote]

Joanne, I HAVE read the Bible, but this issue is only one of the many loose ends and contradictions that means I can't force myself to believe in this particular version of an invisible man in the sky. My above points (Jewish law prohibits interfering with a dead body after it has been buried, and allowing a female to have anything to do with preparing a male body for burial) aren't simply "wouln't haves", they are "COULDN'T HAVES". It's not a case of "Mary Magdalene wouldn't have gone to anoint a dead body that had already been buried for 3 days because handling a dead body in the desert is icky and a pretty good recipe for catching a number of gruesome diseases" (though that is the likely explanation for the Jewish prohibition in the first place), it's a case of "they COULDN'T HAVE served ham sandwiches and lobster bisque at the Last Supper, because observant Jews are prohibited from eating pork and shellfish". The same Jewish laws that cover these aspects of Jewish life also cover things like burial, and those laws say that any preparation of a body (including "anointing") for burial has to take place BEFORE a body is placed in a tomb (you can't come back 3 days later and say "Ooops, I forgot something" and do it then), and only males are allowed to have anything to do with preparing male bodies, and only females are allowed to prepare female bodies. Both of these stand out as not making any sense in the story as presented. The OTHER aspects of the story likewise depend on which specific version of the story you decide you want to believe, such as who we are told went to perform this "anointing". John 20 only says that it was Mary Magdalene, Matthew 28 says TWO women did this (Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary"), Mark 16 says THREE women did this (Mary Magdalene, Mary "the mother of James", and Salome), and Luke simply says "women" without specifying how many.

SDC

You know how many different kinds of ways there are to be a Christian today?

That is how it was among Jews 2000 years ago when Judea was occupied by Rome. Rabbinic Judaism, as it is known today, did not exist yet - the Talmud, Mishna, had not yet been written. There were Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, and many other smaller sects. It was a very intense period and Jews thought that End Times were near. This tension built and built until the Jewish Revolt broke out in 66. The Romans had to send several Legions to put down the revolt which lasted 4 years and ended at Masada.

The reason that I say all this is that for you to pick a few Jewish laws and put down the whole of Christianity based on your speculation that no Jews would have broken the law/commandment to not go back to the body, is well, kind of silly. There were of course many Jews at the time, breaking many commandments (eating non-kosher food with their Roman neighbours and overlords for instance).

Something obviously happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, something that changed the world for the better. For you to dismiss Christian belief just because you think some Jews would not have broken a few mitzvot/commandments/laws is not rational.

[quote]Something obviously happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, something that changed the world for the better. For you to dismiss Christian belief just because you think some Jews would not have broken a few mitzvot/commandments/laws is not rational.[/quote]

I don't DOUBT that something happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, what I don't see any evidence for is that this "something" was "the execution and resurrection of the son of god". If these people followed the codes of behaviour that the Bible TELLS us they followed, the story falls apart under its own weight. Since the story the Bible tells is an extraordinary claim to begin with, should we not expect some sort of extraordinary PROOF to go along with that claim? Well, rather than offering any sort of extraordinary proof, the best that the Bible has to offer is four conflicting accounts of who, what, where, when, and how (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). I don't believe any OTHER religion when it has inconsistencies like this, so why should I make some sort of exception in this case?

SDC

So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn't know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote.

Lets put it this way if no one ever broke the tradition of the elders then Mary would not have been there to begin with. Until Jesus drove out her demons she was a prostitute. What Jewish Rabbi would have anything to do with prostitutes.

"So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn't know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote."

exactly Joe

It's called "inconvenient history" and there is plenty of it in the Bible.

- would you create a history of your nation that says you used to be slaves, unless there was no way to ignore that this happened?

- if you were trying to claim the land of Canaan, would you admit that your ancestors actually came from Mesopotamia (Abraham is from Ur)unless they actually did come from there, and everybody knew it?

- if you were a group of temple priests writing up a saga to convince your people to restrict their diet, their sex life, take a day off work, not mix linen and wool in their clothing, etc., would you actually admit that the ancestor of the priests, Levi, was involved in a terrible mass murder?

SDC says: "If these people followed the codes of behaviour that the Bible TELLS us they followed"

SDC everything we know about Jews back then, indicates that they were much the same in their temperament, outlook, observance patterns etc as the Jews of all times - argumentative, loving debate and dialogue, idealistic and ranging in their observance levels of the mitzvot/laws. Try to imagine Jews arguing and differing from each other? Not too difficult right. Peter and James the brother of Jesus had a big difference of opinion recorded in the Book of Acts. Both Jews. Peter advocated abandoning the dietary restrictions and need for circumsion for the followers of Jesus. But according to you, all of the Jews were monolithic in their outlook and observance levels. Yup, that makes sense.

SDC you mention the execution of Jesus - the Romans crucified thousands of Jews, especially those that might cause trouble for the Roman Empire. If you doubt the resurection, whatever. Jesus lives in the deeds, ideals, and accomplishments of those who established a religion in his name.

Kate thanks very much for posting that. I enjoyed both debaters.

I find there is a good deal of hypocrisy within the Christian community. The most obvious and simple example is the politician, who states for example that he is a Catholic, and who then proceeds to pass laws which directly contradict his purported faith.

Unfortunately Christianity is too riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisy for me to take it very seriously. Nothing against Christians per se, I know many a good Christian, but I find religion as whole, Christian or otherwise, logically flawed.

It is so sad how almost every internet debate on christianity I have witnessed degrades into an US vs THEM session.

I hope by sharing some of my views and feelings,I can help broaden the base of understanding here.

Personally,I regularly congratulate my christian friends on their faith,but only those I see actually living what they preach.I understand it's a damn hard path to stay true to and have deep respect for them when I witness the integrity and bravery it often demands.The problem being for many of us non-religious folks is that we regularly witness much hypocrisy by many who claim to be deeply christian but often ACT anything but.That actually goes for ANY religion.

You see,I have been a christian,so I have some understanding of their faith and what it entails.On the other hand,most life long christians have no idea what it is like being an athiest and struggling with the areas that belief takes you.
You see,the big problem with forums like this is that one or two anonymous assholes claiming to be athiests come along to take some potshots at christians,then the next thing I know,I'm being labelled anti-christian because I have athiistic beliefs.That is simply bigotry,and I get frustrated when I witness that hateful behavior from a few who claim to believe in the message of God.It is further disturbing when those hateful remarks go UNCHALLENGED by other christians posting on the same thread.

The biggest myth I see generally fed on sites such as these is that athiests are somehow organized and have an agenda.

First of all,I don't have an agenda and don't like being pidgeon-holed with a group of others who I don't associate with.I do understand however that many who frequent sites such as these can only think in simplistic terms of left/right,black/white,good/evil and have nary a clue that any shades of grey even exist in our reality.

Secondly,I can't imagine any atheist,who has seriously thought through the truth of his convictions,who would not GLADLY be proven to be wrong.Just think about the how honest someone has to be with themselves to decide that their beliefs are actually the LAST thing they want to believe.It took me 25 yrs to make the transition from agnostic to athiest because of the fear and guilt I was taught in a Catholic household.

No intelligent individual WANTS to commit himself to mortality.

I am often left wondering...."Would I be the person I am today if I wasn't brought up as a christian?"I guess I will never know.

What I do know now however,from raising my two fine daughters,is that it is entirely possible to create good,honest,empathic and moral citizens outside of religion too.

The bottom line to me is.....

Anyone,no matter their spirituality,can be taught moral character.
I see far too often religion used as a force to seperate as opposed to bring together.

Just like partisanship...race...economic status,etc.

Finally,to those trapped in that sad "us and them mentality",my intentions here are NOT to tell anyone what to think,but instead to help them understand what others may think.

To my many christian friends and family members...

Merry Christmas and may peace be with all of us some day.

teddy, thank you very much for a thoughtful, charitable post. I appreciate what you have to say and respect your obvious intelligence and goodwill.

I do have a concern, however, which you allude to when you write:

“I am often left wondering....’Would I be the person I am today if I wasn't brought up as a Christian?’ I guess I will never know. [I think I have an idea . . . ]

“What I do know now however, from raising my two fine daughters, is that it is entirely possible to create good, honest, empathic and moral citizens outside of religion too.”

teddy, probably most of the assumptions of “the good”, by which you live a good life and have raised two fine children, are based on the Christian civilization which formed you. So, in reality, I don't think you have raised your daughters "outside of religion". You've passed on to them the moral understanding inculcated in you by your Christian upbringing.

How long do you think the Christian assumptions, well summed up in The Golden Rule, will survive, outside of a specifically Christian society? I posit, not very long. As I’ve mentioned many times, I see a precipitous decline in civil behaviour in the public school system and in society as a whole. Believe me, we’ve now spent most of the moral capital of Christian civilization and, without a refill—none on the horizon that I can see—we’ll soon be a much more pagan, coercive, superstitious society than we’ve been under Christianity.

Interestingly, the same theme was discussed in the pages of the National Post today: Barbara Kay, a Jewish columnist—whom I greatly admire—also posited that, although she does not believe in a personal God, she loves Judaism because it promotes moral behaviour.

A letter writer says, “Thousands of years of adherence to the Jewish religion has presented Ms. Kay with the cultural richness she now enjoys. But what about her children and grandchildren—and theirs? Without belief, there will be nothing to sustain what she is now benefiting from.” I say Amen.

It seems to me that the many difficult sacrifices—delayed gratification, fidelity, etc.—that belief gives one the stamina to uphold (imperfectly) over the long run become quickly watered down when belief is sidelined. The idea that the fruits of faith will long outlast actual faith itself is, I believe, a delusion. teddy, you and your children are the beneficiaries of centuries of Christian belief and practice. I think you fool yourself if you think The Golden Rule will prevail in a secular society.

Power is a constant: when it is subordinate—always imperfectly—to a higher, benign power, such as the Judeo-Christian God, it is modified. When there is no such restriction—note the 20th century Communist regimes—tyranny and slaughter prevail.

“The wages of sin is death.” Yes, we are altogether free to reject faith: indeed, no one can coerce us to believe. However, believe me, once the Christian faith no longer has a prominent place in the public square, that vacuum will be filled—it’s already happening. IMO, secularism is not a pretty sight and a terrible threat to the good as we perceive it.

P.S. fc, many thanks for the sing-along Allegri: I love it! The Bryd Ave Verum is an old friend; the Verdi I haven't sung: wonderful to listen to.

Different apostles stating the version of the same events differently is absolutely and utterly normal and expected. If, we wanted no 'inconsistencies' and I use this word loosely, there would be only one or two books in the New Testament, if the apostles were to tell the exact same chain of events. An apostle naming the names of the people who went to anoint Jesus or an apostle just stating women went to anoint Jesus is not an inconsistency, it is just a different version of events.

Jews in the Bible refers to the people of the tribe of Judah, not the religion of the Jews of the modern day Jew who denies Jesus as the Son of God. Many people of the tribe of Judah believed and believe Christ to be the Son of God.

Who cried out for Jesus to be crucified? The Jews cried out for Jesus to be crucified; those who denied Jesus as their King. It is no great wonder Jews of today and yesteryear have been persecuted throughout the ages. There has never seemed to any great logic to the continued persecution of Jews even unto this day, unless you take into account the sins of their fathers and their present continued denial of the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I realize the Bible's writings sound rather 'bogus' to the unbelievers, but to walk in the word of God is a journey, not an event, and the truth will be revealed to those who seek it with all their heart.

lookout at December 27, 2007 2:32 PM

Bravo - excellent post.

Joanne, I agree with you about lookout's post at 2:32, bravo lookout.

But Joanne you may want to reconsider your idea that Jews are persecuted because they do not recognize Jesus as the son of God - are you actually saying that God punishes people who deny the birth and resurrection of Jesus?

By the way, Jews do not deny that Jesus lived. Jews just do not think that Jesus is the son of God. Big difference.

Also the Jews living at the time of Jesus (yes from the tribe of Judah, the other tribes having become the lost tribes of Israel after loosing to the Assyrians and being dispersed around 800 BC)were doing exactly the same things that Jews do today, and that they had been doing for approx. 1300 years before that: ie. Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, kosher food laws, Shabbat, etc. The difference is that at the time of Jesus the Temple still stood in Jerusalem. There have been two Jewish Temples in Jerusalem - one destroyed by the Babylonians in about 500 BC and the other destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Jews living at the time of Jesus practiced Temple Judaism with animal sacrifices.

ex - liberal

Hebrews 12:6 "If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?"

It is best to read verses before and after verse 6 for further clarity.

Matthew 5:45 "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

I believe God disciplines those he loves and regards as his sons. I know God loves me and has disciplined me; I do not believe the Jews would be exempt, and if God did not punish the Jews for their transgressions, and let's face it - calling for Jesus to be crucified would be the ultimate sin - then I may be led to believe that God no longer regards them as sons and their salvation is naught. I believe Jesus is all but pounding on their door to be let in, but to little avail. I understand many Jews - the religion - are accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour these days.

Yes, I believe people were punished throughout the Bible for their transgressions, as we are being today for our transgressions. I believe denying Jesus is the Son of God certainly has negative ramifications; there is no salvation for those who deny the same since our salvation is through Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, collateral damage is extensive and the greater our nations' sins, the greater the collateral damage.

Joanne,

for Jesus to be the Saviour, did he have to be crucified? shouldn't Christians then be thankful to Judas, Pontius Pilate, and the Jews shouting for his crucifixion?

are future generations guilty for transgressions of their ancestors?

Jews who accept Jesus as son of God, will not have Jewish grandchildren (ie children who identify as Jews)

I support you in your Christianity, but God has not abandoned the Jews for not becoming Christians, in fact the opposite is true. For instance the promise of the ingathering has occured and Jews are once again sovereign in Jerusalem. I understand that this is something that some Christians cannot accept, because they think that Jews were sent into the diaspora for not accepting Jesus as their Lord and therefore they are against Jews being in control of Jerusalem. It goes against their (replacement) theology.

(thank you to Kate for indulging in this exchange)

lookout: "P.S. fc, many thanks for the sing-along Allegri: I love it! The Bryd Ave Verum is an old friend; the Verdi I haven't sung: wonderful to listen to."

And in return thanks for your great post today at
2:32 PM. I also read the Barbara Kay column, and thought on it for awhile, but until your post today, I wasn't able to complete those thoughts.

If you live in or near a major centre, eventually your arts community will decide to produce the Verdi Requiem and you will have your chance to sing in it. Here in frigid Winnipeg, practices begin next month for the performance Easter Saturday. Plenty of "diei irae" between now and then. But a wonderful feast of sound for Christians and lovers of Italian opera.

fc

lookout,

Thank you for obviously putting some effort into understanding my thoughts and offering your own.

As per the point you raise...thus my use of the words "I am left wondering..."
I did not want to write a novel on the topic,but had I no respect for Kate's bandwidth,I would have extrapolated on where some of these points were taking me.Let me see if I can communicate this now efficiently and briefly.

I have been quite frustrated for some time now,as I eluded to before,that our religions,races,political beliefs,etc.are being used to drive people apart,not closer together.
For example,I have found many religious people to be quite hostile towards members of any other belief system.

Thus,we face a very fragmented society here in Canada.The result of this,which I would think most people would agree with,is that we have a general lack of kindness,empathy,respect and personal responsibility in our society today.

My point being....Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading,writing and math in our schools?

Surely their are some basics we could ALL agree on,no matter our backgrounds.

ex-liberal - I too believe God has not abandoned the Jews; I just believe a people will be brought to their knees where they will feel compelled to pray for forgiveness and salvation. I do not believe the Jews are an exception; they are just hell-bent on their traditions.

Did God force the Jews to call for Jesus to be crucified? No, the evil was in them. The Jews called for the slaughter of Jesus, and no sin was in him.

Jesus came to save the sinner.

I hope my points are a little clearer now. I certainly do not believe Jesus will abandon the world of sinners.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

teddy -

"Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading,writing and math in our schools?" by teddy

If believe you would need a consensus on the matter of what morality and personal responsibility entails first.

I appreciate your comments, teddy.

You ask, "Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading, writing and math in our schools?"

Well, teddy, that’s really the parents’ job (a job too many have abdicated), but the schools try—and are an abject failure: morality and responsibility cannot be taught on a foundation of relativism and equality (socialism), which is the creed of the "progressives", who have taken over nearly every institution in this country. Having those people teach morality is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house: carnage! I know: I've been IN the system and seen the abysmal failure of instilling accountability and responsibility in the children the schools have to deal with, too many of whom come from the same kind of “at sea” families, which do not teach their children manners or respect. The family and school "boats" are leaking badly, but too many families, and certainly the school system, don’t do what needs to be done. Instead of rebuilding the boats to make them seaworthy, using the tried and true blueprints of our Judeo-Christian belief system, they try to bail the boats with thimbles, all the while saying, “What a good job we’re doing!” It can’t and doesn’t work.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, it is the ABSENCE of a respect for Christianity and Judeo-Christian values, which presuppose order—there IS a right and wrong— justice, hierarchy, and respect that, IMO, is responsible for so much of the ethical breakdown we see just about everywhere in our society. Yes, with Christianity, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy. (“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” Francois de La Rochefoucauld) I’d rather see that, however, than a shrug and, “It’s OK to do what I feel like doing—with no shame—because what I want is what I want and I’m entitled to have what I want”: that’s the new morality. And I don’t see a sea change here any time soon.

You say, “Surely their are some basics we could ALL agree on, no matter our backgrounds.” One would think so. But the Charter has “entitled and empowered” everyone to have their own version of “the good”. It’s now like the Tower of Babel. We all speak our own language and are supposed to. Hypocrisy again—getting rid of the old teachings does not get rid of hypocrisy! Although the new dispensation SAYS that all of us and our beliefs are equal, that’s not true. Notice that those being hauled before the Human Rights (sic) Commissions are generally believing Christians, whose beliefs are much more benign than those of other religious groups which get a free pass.

As I’ve pointed out, when Christianity is flushed out, the baby goes with the bathwater too. We should be very careful what we wish for—and think very carefully about what’s worth standing up for. (It would be nice if the Christopher Hitchens of the world had the sense to understand this.)

Joanne, you quoted Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I come to destroy the law...but to fulfill"

This verse proves my point that the law is over.
Jesus fulfilled the law Himself by leading a sinless life and then dying in our place - the just consequence for sin. If Jesus fulfilled the law, there is no more law to condemn those who believe on Jesus.

Paul did not contradict the Corinthians' entirely when they said "All things are lawful". He corrected them by saying "all things are not helpful" (1 Cor. 6:12). Don't get me wrong, sin is still bad.

Jesus did not die just to save us from rituals and annoying ceremonially rules, he took the teeth out of the law entirely. The rituals were there to remind people of their sin. When Jesus came, we saw the very image of God and they were no longer neccessary.

In Matthew 5-6, Jesus articulates a law far more severe than the Mosaic one - and impossible to keep. He did this to prove to those pompous individuals who thought they were clean by keeping some 613 ordinances, that the law was something much deeper than that.
His sacrifice became the only solution.

The law is over for Christians, we do not realize it though because we are saved by hope and not a full reality in the present (Romans 8:23-25). The law is still tutoring us to a certain degree (Gal. 3:24) because we still have a sin nature.

If Jesus fulfilled the law, there is no more law to condemn those who believe on Jesus.

Without repentance the Law still applies.

Even with repentance, the Law still applies to criminal homocide;

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

"SDC

So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn't know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote."

This is an interesting attempt to square this particular circle, Joe, because it assumes that the observant Jews who believed that their "prophet" was dead KNEW that said "prophet" would turn out to be resurrected when they went 3 days later to do something that is prohibited by their law (something that was their law THEN, and remains their law TODAY). This is an awfully "convenient" story, of the sort that EVERY religion has, and I can't help but wonder why people don't take an objective look at their own religion in the same way they look at others'; if another religion has holes in it the same way that Christianity does, the instant Christian reaction is "See? It doesn't make sense because of the inconsistencies in the story, so it CAN'T be true.", yet they are perfectly willing to gloss over the exact same sort of inconsistencies in their own religion. (Eg. the story of Joseph Smith being "given a new book of the Bible engraved on golden plates by an angel", but those plates being taken back by that "angel" when people wanted to see them; everyone who is NOT a Mormon can instantly recognize this for a first-class con job, but Mormons believe it JUST as strongly as YOU believe the stories that YOUR religion is founded on. The same can be said for every OTHER religion as well.)

"Different apostles stating the version of the same events differently is absolutely and utterly normal and expected."

The problem, Joanne, is that these stories are presented as "proof" of some sort of "miraculous event", when (as presented), they wouldn't normally be considered as "proof" of a NON-miraculous event. The whos, whats, wheres, whens, and hows related in each of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not only do NOT agree on many of these things, in many instances they tell contradictory stories. If you were investigating a crime, and four different supposed "eye-witnesses" to that crime gave you four stories that differed from one another as much as THESE four do, you'd KNOW that someone was lying to you.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Why do I always have to come in at the tail-end of a thread?

I listened to the whole debate. And although both men were good representatives for their positions, the argument might as well be out of the 19th century.

Atheism vs. Christianity, as if these divisions still existed as they did in the time of the Scopes monkey trial.

Here are a few quick caveats.

1. I've said from time to time that Paul Tillich is on of my favorite theologians. Although theology has moved on, his imprint has been indelible. He is reknowned as one of the most important theologians of the 20th century.

He and others were very influenced by one teacher who suggested that in the modern world people have trouble relating to the imagery and period that the Bible is usually cast in.

So Tillich and others worked throughout their lives to recast the message of the Bible into ideas that could be studied in universities. So now there is Christianism as competitive, metaphysical, and epistemological positions that can be studied as philosophy. Tillich addressed the question, yes, but what does Christianism mean?

So Biblical, mythic imagery can be translated into ideas. And ideas can be translated into imagery.

If atheists feel they are bemused at Biblical imagery, then they need to be examining the rich and sophisticated world of Christianism as profound ideas about the nature of divinity and the nature of man and the nature of reality.

2. Today a large segment of theology completely understands that the Bible contains facts, contains legend, and even possibly some myth. Theology is not at all uncomfortable with this view. You understand that legend always contains elements of fact. Billy the Kid has had a lot of legends grown up around him, but the fact is that there really was a Billy the Kid, and he really did perform a lot of the things attributed to him. Today theology understands contemporary science and does not at all reject it.

In some departments of theology the direction taken by sub-atomic particles is being examined from the point of view of the direction being precluded by some divine hand.

3. We now have the dimension of transpersonal psychology. And as a consequence, we have some understanding that parts of a human being are not physical are are unconscious to the ordinary, waking psychology of a person. Carl Jung has even suggested that consciousness is not an epiphenomemon of matter. In other words, matter and earthly life did not create consciousness. Consciousness existed before the individual came to be born.

4. We now have a hundred years of psychical research like the ongoing programs in the psychology department at the University of Arizona. We have thirty or forty years of research into the near-death and 'out-of-body' experiences. Much of this research has passed through the levels of critical certainty, such as the work of Dr. Kenneth Ring and others. We now have a large number of accounts that suggest non-temporal realities and the survival of the personality after bodily death.

So people standing on a stage discussing atheiem and religion as if they are offering the final word on this matter simply sound like a discussion that should have taken place a hundred years ago.

SDC

Your logic is so twisted I won't even try to reply. Let me finish off this thread by stating that my faith is not based on the Biblical accounts. It is based on personal experience. I entered my adulthood as an avowed atheist (actually more of a believer in scientism). It was only after He led me to belief in Him by introducing Himself to me that even began to study the Bible or theology. My faith is based on a real encounter with the Living God. I know you don't want to believe that and that is your perogative. However I can say as a former atheist you don't know what your missing. The empty philosophy of causeless causality is a game played by fools and the hopelessly conceited.

An old joke goes something like this: A scientist thought he had proved life evolved by creating life in the petrie dish and boasted in his heart "see God I can make life from these common elements." Then that still small voice replied, "Now make your own elements out of nothing".

Being human we love to stand on our own little pile of dung and think that we know it all. What we don't know is that we are not on top of the dung we are underneath it and opening our mouths only makes us more full of it.

As I said earlier in this thread we will never learn anything if we think we know it all.

Stephen - St. Matthew 5: 18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Has heaven and earth passed? No.

I know many people exist Stephen who believe as you do. They usually believe that once they have given their life to Christ, they are saved for all eternity, no matter what sins they commit after that point. I do not know if you feel this same way too, but the Bible refutes this belief over and over.

When I get a chance, I'll give you some Bible passages.

Joe - very funny analogy. I believe that a smart man knows enough to know he knows very little, and a stupid man doesn't.

Joanne,
With regards to, "I do not know if you feel this way too". I have struggled with the whole "once saved, always saved" question seeing some verses that seem to teach it and some that do not. I think that the challenge here might be that God, in His completeness, resides outside of time and has a more advanced concept of "sequence of events" than us. Please don't put me in the camp with those that might think they can do anything now that they are saved. However, I do believe that God, in his merciful grace, does have a very long leash.

When Jesus says that "one jot or one tittle shall no wise pass from the law" I believe He was acknowledging that the law still has a place while the earth is still shrouded in sin - it points people to a saviour.

Also, many of the Old Testament prophecies, as yet, are still unfulfilled. Israel is being regathered, as prophesied, but they still have not converted en-masse to Jesus (Ezekiel 36-37). I believe this will occur after the anit-Christ.
The law, with its allusions to Christ is still pointing them to Jesus.

ol hoss, you quoted: "no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" - 1 john 3:15

Jesus said whoever hates their brother without a cause has already murdered him (Matt. 5). So if a believer is annoyed at someone and losses their temper, does that mean that if they died that second they would go to hell? We are all way to sinful to be able to repent from all our individual sins as and after they happen. We are not even aware of all our sins. Grace has to step in at some point. You might agree with me here.

What I believe 1 John 3:15 is talking about might be a person who continually has muderous/hateful thoughts but does not recognize them as being wrong. - If someone does not recognize sin as wrong, I might question whether they were saved in the first place because then they would not need Jesus to save them.

"If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." Romans 7:16,17

The only real un-reedemed sin occurs when we refuse to bring a sacrifice, and in the context of the OT law, that is "willfull" sin. Jesus is our sacrifice, there is no other that can save since the blood of bulls and goats could never cover all sins for people.
"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrifice for sin" - Hebrews 10:26

Joanne, Stephen et al. Your struggling with sin & sin nature is a very good thing and the once saved always saved debate is one that I have been involved with once in a while.

However as I have matured in my faith I came to realize that in these discussions I always made God too small. I always thought of God as reactive and not redemptive. I thought that if I committed sin, a big thumb would come out of the sky and squish me like a bug.

Since then I have grown up a bit. God does not treat us according to our actions but rather God treats us according to His plan. When I was most lost in sin God granted me more Grace. As Jesus said, "I didn't come to condemn the world, I came to save it." Looking back I can say that the times of my greatest suffering were when I was most sincerely trying to follow God's leading. It almost seemed that I wasn't being punished for my bad intents but for my good intents.

A few years ago my son's were sharing a laugh with me saying that I had encouraged them to take a hard course in life so that they might be wealthier. As they struggled they would think to themselves, "Does Dad hate me this much"? Of course now they look back and can affirm that indeed I did love them and the hard course I laid out for them was more than worth it.

Looking back I too can say the course laid out for me by my Heavenly Father was indeed worth following.

Joe, your quote: "It almost seemed that I wasn't being punished for my bad intents but for my good intents" brings to mind Psalm 34:19:
"Many are the afflictions of the righteous"
(actually I had to look it up)

It blows the "health and wealth gospel" heresy right out of the water (along with a whole lot of other verses).

Someone who is offended at the concept of suffering being redemptive should ask themselves, how do people learn empathy for each other? Is it not by walking in their shoes for a time? Even non-christians would have to admit this.

Because we humans have trouble exercising compassion and understanding without tasting a bit of suffering ourselves, it proves that suffering is indeed redemptive to a certain degree.

I appreciate the contribution of Christianity in the development of some of the better aspects of western civilization. I also appreciate the contribution of western civilization in the development of some of the better aspects of Christianity. I think it was and is a two way street. Seeds need fertile soil in which to grow and produce more seeds. I think that Greg from Dallas is talking about some of this ongoing dialog.
I was raised as a Christian but currently think of myself as positively agnostic even though that sounds dumb. I have rejected Christian theology but retained some of the philosophy if that makes more sense. I was given a new testament many years ago with the words of Jesus high-lited in yellow. I still read it and contemplate or even meditate on some of the tougher nuts. My favorite testament is Matthew.
My basic reason for rejecting Christian bible based theology is that it just seems way to complicated and more mythological and allegorical than factual.
When I contemplate questions affecting my life that are not in the empirical domain such as "is there life after death" I don't need a complex theology to support my decision to believe the affirmative. To me it just makes for a better life to assume that their is some form of continuation after my demise, even though there is no apparent reason, that I can comprehend, for why this continuation might be so.
My moral values are surely derived from my western/Christian upbringing but they are basically condensed down to the golden rule.
There is a part of me that sees myself seeing myself or is in some way an observer of my life. I try to respect and acknowledge that particular aspect of the human condition in others.

Doug it is good to hear your honesty. Your present position could be what Jesus Himself spoke of, and when the mustard seed had grown, it became such a big plant that even the birds of the air took shelter in its branches.

However I think you got a bit sidetracked in trying to understand the Bible so you can understand God. Turn it around. Forget about trying to understand the Bible and all the vagaries of men's understanding. Get to know God.

Experience Him in you every day and you will realize many of the theologies are little but men's groping for what they do not know.

Lest anyone think I'm speaking heresy remember what Jesus said, "Seek the Kingdom first and all these other things will be added to you".

Doug Newton,
"My basic reason for rejecting Christianity is that it just seems way to complicated..."

It is the complicated nature of the Bible that makes it so fascinating. 40 authors weaving together a common message over hundreds of years, explaining things that even they do not understand at the moment but that is revealed over time.

I personally believe that many "contradictions" in the Bible are nuances into deeper meanings. When the "contradictions" are solved, the supernatural nature of the bible is given further validation. Someone could just not make all this stuff up.

Consider even the golden rule:
Galatians 5:14 says that "all the law is fulfilled in one word. even in this: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' ".

However, when Jesus sums up a description of the law in Mark 12:29-31, He puts loving others behind the "first" commandment (however similar): "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all you strength."

To the casual skeptic, this might seem like another Bible contradiction proving it is all false. However, I believe one must consider the time the statements took place. Before Jesus died, people had to be very concerned about trying their utmost to love God by obeying all sorts of rules. Jesus, before his death, had not yet torn down the enmity between people and God. (Eph. 2:15-16). After Jesus death, the purpose of the law changed somewhat (at least from a human perspective). This is all just a theory though, I may be wrong.

Thanks for your kind advice Joe.

Stephen
I expect ultimate reality to appear paradoxical from our limited perspective so I accept that there will be contradictions between Christians and between faiths.
When I acknowledge and respect in others that internal observer or witness that I mentioned, then I could say that I was acknowledging and respecting an aspect of the divine or infinite that I share with them, since this witness is the only part of me that I expect to survive, in some fashion, the death of the body and ego that is doug newton.

Stephen - Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

This is all after the first resurrection and the 1000 years later when the Book Of Life is opened and the dead are judged.

Doug,
I agree with your first statement regarding people seeing different aspects of truth.
However, I do not believe that Chritians and Muslims, for example, basically follow the same "God" though (I don't know if you believe this or not). There are some very stark contradictions that cannot be reconciled and I don't believe we would be intellectually honest to try to do so.

I respect people's "internal witness" to a degree.
I have heard plenty of stories of miracles from Christians which do help bolster my faith.
I do not automatically follow people's feelings and "supernatural" inclinations though as being legitimate since we all (definitely including myself) are very capable of deceiving ourselves in a whole host of areas. I believe there is also a devil who performs miracles and who is more than willing to participate in our deceptions.

For me, the reason I believe in God as described in the Bible is very much based on empirical evidence - without which I think I would have rejected God long ago based on perceived injustices in the world. Sure, I cannot see life after death but faith has to come in somewhere.

The fact that there are millions or billions of followers of Islam proves there are a pretty large group of "witnesses" testifying to a certain idea. What I find compelling about Christianity is that Jesus proves Himself by those who do not confess to follow Him. The Bible is basically a passed-on history of Israel -a whole nation of witnesses. If we can find references to Jesus Christ in writings of Judaism (Old Testament evidence which I believe is substantial) we help prove that there was not a biased agenda to promote Jesus - this is just one more piece of empirical evidence as I see it. I believe Satan helps motivate anti-semitism to try and destroy God's witness. Fulfilled Bible prophecy of a re-established Jewish state is just another piece of evidence. Israel is the evidence that keeps on giving. I believe Satan helps fuel anti-semitism because He wants to destroy God's witness.

When you describe, "an aspect of the divine or infinite that I share", I think of how God made every person in His "image" (Gen. 1:27). I don't believe that each person makes up a little portion of God, but I believe God is a "person" who experiences emotions just like us (anger, sadness etc...). Maybe us being made in God's image is why we believe there is life after death - we will inhabit eternity, like God.

Let me know if I am way off topic from what you were trying to discuss.

Doug - "My basic reason for rejecting Christian bible based theology is that it just seems way to complicated and more mythological and allegorical than factual." by Doug

I find is amazing how I can have read a passage in the Bible numerous times and have no understanding, and then read it later and understand it fully. I have to wonder how I could not have understood it the first time when it seems so obvious now. Any lay person cannot read the Bible and make perfect sense from it. The Bible is a great book of mystery - its treasures stored up and its understanding reserved for those worthy.

..or perhaps I should have said "reserved for those unworthy".

Joanne,
so if I understand you correctly, you believe there will be no more law only on the new earth (or way in the future)? I think I can agree with you somewhat. We can get a glimpse at Christ's complete redemption now though.

In one of my early posts I said "No more law." as a complete sentence. It helped trigger our mini-debate. I acknowledge it is wrong as a statement when standing on it's own.

I do believe, however, that the purpose of the law in justifying people is over. We do not gain righteousness by keeping any laws or by any good deeds because Jesus did it all in our place.
When Romans 10:4 says, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (NKJV), I believe it shows an end to the law but only in the sense that it does not serve to justify people. Doing good deeds and keeping laws (of any type) will not get people into heaven.

Let me know if this changes the aspect of our debate any.

I do believe, however, that the purpose of the law in justifying people is over.

Actually it never began. The purpose of the Law always was to show us how far we had fallen not how to attain righteousness.

Jesus' righteousness came from who He was (is) not what He did. Who He was (is) dictated what He did.

We on the other hand born with the nature of Adam act according to what we are and no amount of Law will change that.

Fortunately we, in Christ, receive a new nature at the time of our new birth.

"Your logic is so twisted I won't even try to reply."

Joe, THIS, coming from someone who's prior argument was essentially "Yes, I know it doesn't make sense, but that's what makes it make sense"? It personally doesn't matter to me exactly what you believe in (be it your chosen religion, ghosts in the attic, fortune-telling, the Loch Ness monster, little greeen men, or anything else that there is no verifiable evidence of), but it truly astounds me how so many people are willing to turn off their internal "fact-checker" (their sense of scepticism or "yeah, I've heard that one before") when it comes to one thing and one thing only; their religion. I evaluate arguments on their own merits and evidence, and while keeping in mind the motivations of those who are presenting those arguments. That means that although I am a Conservative at heart, I don't blindly accept what a Conservative politician tells me, any more than I blindly reject what a Liberal (ptooie) politician tells me. I evaluate their arguments based on those arguments and on the evidence in favour of or against those arguments, while keeping in mind the motivation of those people presenting those arguments.

SDC you are becoming a bit unhinged. I never said I blindly accepted anything. Religious, political, scientific, academic or pop culture just to hame a few. If you knew me the way my friends know me you would be calling me the biggest skeptic around.

What I will tell you again is that my belief is based on my experience and when I read the Bible I see my experience reflected in the experiences of the people in the Bible. I and literally Billions of other people have encountered the Risen Christ and your going to tell me that because you don't think Mary tried to annoint a dead body those billions of people have not had a valid expience? Now I do feel sorry for you.

Your whole argument biols down to Law and Tradition says it can't happen therefore it didn't happen. My argument is people don't always follow Law and Tradition. Look at the person in the story. She was a prostitute. Was she obeying law and tradition when she was peddling her wares? If she didn't obey the laws and traditions when making her living what makes you think she is going to be too hung up on the law and tradition when it comes to death and burial rituals.

BTW the traditon you speak of was not as quite as inviolate as you would like to believe. People's bodies were interred until the flesh rotted off the bone then the bones were disineterred and placed in boxes called osuaries.

Stephen - this is a very short read, but pretty much explains it as I also see it. You are not saved by your works, but are not saved without them.

"Besides, if we could be saved by works, then righteousness would have been based on the law and Christ would have not needed to die." by the author on the link below.

http://www.carm.org/questions/faith_works.htm

1 John 2:4 "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

There are statutes and judgments that do not come with retribution, but blessings and are solely for our well-being, such as the food laws. Deuteronomy states a way to live - what is wrong and isn't wrong. There would be no way to know if some of these things were wrong unless it was stated to be so.

I always keep in mind that God loves us, so his laws, statutes, and judgments are for our well-being, health, and happiness, not for judgment or to take away our joy, but quite the opposite. When I read something I do not understand, I believe there is a reason for it that is for my own good....even if I do not understand it at the time.

Joe: "Actually it never began. the purpose of the law was always to show us how far we had fallen and not how to attain righteousness

I believe you are right. Israel got carried away with keeping laws because God made them conditional for an ordered life on this earth (ie. successfully inhabiting Israel)
God had to shift their perspective on the purpose of law with Jesus Christ. Keeping the law was never a means to salvation after death.

Joe: "Actually it never began. The purpose of the law was always to show us how far we had fallen and not how to attain righteousness"

I believe you are right. Israel got carried away with keeping laws because God made them conditional for an ordered life on this earth (ie. successfully inhabiting Israel)
God had to shift their perspective on the purpose of law with Jesus Christ. Keeping the law was never a means to salvation after death.

SDC forgive me if I am flogging a dead horse but your brand of atheism is not a very scientifically sound one. A scientist would look at the evidence from both sides and then devise an experiment to see which side is true. For instance I say that there are microbes living in water. You say since you can't see them there are no microbes living in water. A dispassionate scientist would say lets build a microscope and find out which is true.

I say there is a God who loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. You say no such Being exists. My question is have you tried to find out or has your mind been made up from the beginning. I changed my mind based on my experience and I am certain that you too can share that experience. Until you try to gain that experience you are no more than a bag full of hot air spouting opinions about which you know nothing.

Your position reminds me of a little boy at Christmas time who gets a big box. He shakes it and it doesn't rattle. He checks for heft and it feels like it is just a box with wrappin paper on it so he decides there is nothing in the box and he never opens it up. Had he opened the box he would have found an inheritance cheque from his Grandfather worth millions of dollars.

Until you make the effort don't bother spewing.

Joanne,
I read the address you listed and I could not find anything to disagree with. I believe it was all an accurate evaluation of what the Bible says.

What I take issue with is Christians who might have a limited view of grace and say Jesus only ended the ceremonial part or the small details of the law. Who might say Christians are still incumbant to keep the rest of the law or else they are not really saved.

Galatians 5:18 says "if you are under the Spirit you are not under the law." (NKJV). However, there is always a tendency for people to try and justify themselves with laws (ie. penance) because we are not always following the Spirit - I believe this is a misguided approach/solution.

It is only natural, that someone who is genuinely saved would produce some good works since by confession, they are agreeing with God that certain things are good or bad. They would not be honest with themselves if seeing Jesus changed nothing about them. Without any works, God will prove their whole conversion experience was false.

"BTW the traditon you speak of was not as quite as inviolate as you would like to believe. People's bodies were interred until the flesh rotted off the bone then the bones were disineterred and placed in boxes called osuaries."

You're confusing two different traditions here, Joe, and I would hope that you're not doing this deliberately. Unlike Judaism, the early forms of Christianity definitely have a tradition of keeping "relics", among which are pieces of famous bodies or entire skeletons held in ossuaries.
My scepticism is based in personal experience, the same way your belief is. Since I see absolutely no evidence for the existence of any sort of "god", I see no more reason to believe in a "god" than I do to believe in magical pink unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, fortune tellers, or any similar claimed phenomena. The reason "psychics" and similar con-artists have been so successful throughout history is that most people genuinely WANT to believe in these things, despite the evidence showing that they are fakes. Put into a religious context, this means that people who WANT to find a religious "explanation" for something (eg. "I prayed for wealth, and I won $40 in the lottery") will FIND that "explanation", all evidence to the contrary. Religion DOES provide a sort of mechanism that allows religious people to ease their minds, in that if they believe that some sort of omnipotent power is watchiong over them, they will allow themselves to be more at ease, because they believe that "god is in control", but that has no relation at all to reality.

"A dispassionate scientist would say lets build a microscope and find out which is true."

And since test after test conducted since the Middle Ages has not shown the existence of anything even RESEMBLING a "god" or supernatural powers, believing in such is akin to believing that the carton of milk in your refrigerator can answer your prayers. I'm open to looking at any sort of "evidence" you may have, but so far, any such "evidence" I've ever seen has come down to "You just have to believe", which puts all religions at exactly the same place. If there IS a "god", and if this "god" has the powers that you ascribe to him/her/it/them, then he/she/it/they are more than welcome to make their presence known to me at any time of their choosing, but I haven't seen squat to that effect yet.

SDC
"And since test after test conducted since the"

Name one.

Name a test conducted at any time in history that proves the non-existance of God.

A wise man once said that we can only see what we know. Obviously your knowledge is lacking.

Instead of reading what you already believe try the experiment of reaching out to God. Make an honest effort and see what happens. Until then your opinions are little more than the sound of a tree falling in the forest and have no more bearing on this discussion than your re-interpretaion of history based on what you believe must have happened. The history of scholarship is littered with tales of fools who tried to revise history based on their own bigotries.

"Name a test conducted at any time in history that proves the non-existance of God."

You've got the cart before the horse again, Joe. Since you're making the claim that there IS a "god" the proof of that claim lies upon you. If I was making the claim that I had a Sasquatch in my freezer, or that there is a pink teapot orbiting Saturn, the claim would likewise be upon ME. There have been PLENTY of double-blind tests showing that "prayer" about something have absolutely no effect on whether or not that something actually occurs, but (as I said above), it may allow a person to relax in the belief that "someone else is in charge". If it makes you feel better to belief that Zeus, or Horus, or Vishnu, or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other "god" of your choice is in some sort of control over your life, it may make you feel better, but it has absolutely no relation to reality.

But SDC I just give you a test! Make an honest effort to find Him. If He doesn't exist then all you have done is wasted a bit of time. If He does exist....

Put all your bluff and bravado to the test. I already did and found out that St Paul knew what he was talking about. Your turn.

Once upon a time (high school), I did exactly that. The result? Zip, zero, zilch, squat. Now, you DO realize that the sort of "test" you're talking about isn't any sort of test at all, and that it will just as easily "prove" to you that the block of butter in your refrigerator has supernatural powers, right? All you need to do is really, really, REALLY believe that said block of butter will answer your prayers, and it will miraculously start to answer your prayers. All that this "test" proves is that people who have a need to believe in the supernatural will find a way to believe in the supernatural, evidence or no evidence, which makes the idea of your test rather laughable, don't you think?

SDC,
I see lots of evidence for God:

-Creation, natural laws and the beauty of nature
-Israel's history, present existence and continually fulfilled prophecy.
-Testimony of faith of millions of believers
-Testimony of miracles of many people
-Miraculous speaking in tongues (which I have
personally witnessed)
- a supernatural awareness among people, whatever religion (ie even ancient tribes had to "appease spirits" etc...)
-unbelievably complex nature of the Bible

God makes it abundantly clear in the Bible that he will not perform miracles on demand for people who do not acknowledge evidence that is already there (ie. Mark 8:12).

Actually, there comes a point where a jealous God will actually work to confuse evidence in front of people who oppose Him or His purposes
(ie. 1 Kings 22:20-23; 2 Thess. 2:9-12).

SDC

Based on the way you are now ridiculing the experience of others I doubt that you made any such effort in High School. Yours are the retorts of the never tried not the responses of those who admit they have failed after sincerely trying.

Now go do the test and BTW I would like to know the names of the tests you alluded to earlier.

You see if you make a foolish statement its not up to your debating opponent to provide you with proof. That was your statement and as such is yours to back up with facts. In the mean time have fun in grade 10, too quickly it passes.

Stephen, the only thing that we are here PROVES is that we are here; it certainly doesn't prove that we're here as the result of any supernatural agency. Each of the remainder of your list is just as easily explained by that common human failing of "wanting to believe"; every human culture in history has had its share of people who claimed to have had some sort of supernatural powers (or connection to someone/something else that had those supernatural powers), and this is why being a mystic/seer/psychic/prophet/priest/medicine man/etc. has such a long and chequered past. The "prophecies" in various religions' "holy books" are invariably so vague as to require a certain amount of "interpretation", and of course that interpretation will be provided by those who have an interest in seeing those "prophecies" come true (exactly the mechanism that makes the predictions of horoscopes and Nostradamus so popular). If it was a simple matter of "testimony of faith", all we would need to take a head count of which religion was the most popular, and that one would be the winner, right? Likewise, each religion has got its own myriad of "miracles" to point to to "prove" that it is the "one true religion", no matter how questionable those "miracles" are. I'm reminded here of one of the supposed "Miracles of Fatima", in which it was claimed that, in 1917, the sun actually danced around the sky for several minutes. This was attested to by numerous "eye-witnesses" at Fatima, Portugal, but there's an inconvenient problem with this "miracle"; if the sun ACTUALLY "danced around the sky for several minutes", how come NO-ONE ELSE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET NOTICED IT, least of all, thousands of soldiers on sentry duty in the trenches in France? So, given the choice of, on one hand, a case of an actual "miracle", or, on the other, a case of mass hysteria by people who really, truly wanted to "witness a miracle", I'm sure you can understand that my vote goes to mass hysteria. This "wanting to be part of something miraculous" likewise explains (and is a much more BELIEVABLE explanation, to boot) "speaking in tongues"; I'm sure 90% of the population can do a fairly convincing job of grunting, screaming, jabbering gibberish, and rolling on the floor if necessary. A "supernatural awareness" simply shows that most people have a DESIRE to believe that they are somehow special, and that some invisible, supernatural "parent figure" is looking out for them and can be appealed to for guidance or protection; this applies to modern religions just as well as it applies to stone-age tribes that desire to sacrifice a virgin to the "volcano god". Finally, the complex nature of the Bible is nothing special; like all "holy books", it was built up over a very long time, and every time a question was raised about one issue or other, the answer would either require long periods of "interpretation" (which had to be accepted without question, or you would be branded a "heretic"), or the "answer" would be along the lines of "if god wanted you to know the answer, god would have told you the answer". I'm not singling Christianity out in this regard, since I don't see any more evidence for any OTHER religion than I do for Christianity, but since these are the defences you raise on its behalf, that's the way the debate is travelling.

Joe, I could do your test a thousand times, and unless I "miraculously" claimed to have seen your "god", you would STILL not believe that I had made a good faith effort. (No different, I might add, than the Muslims who claim that all I need to do to be "saved" is to believe that "there is no god but allah, and Mohammed is his prophet"). There is no end of studies showing that prayer is a pointless exercise, but the most recent one I saw was a Harvard study of several hospitals and more 1500 patients who were undergoing heart surgery. This was a double-blind study (the same as those used in evaluations of medications), so that both the researchers and individual patients would not know if they were being prayed for or not, and each patient was tracked and graded as to how well they responded. In fact, the study showed that those patients who were prayed for did WORSE than those who weren't prayed for, but still within the statistical deviation that you would reasonably expect (that is, no different from pure, random chance). A short synopsis of the study can be seen at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5313042 , but a more thorough look is contained at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm As for "You see if you make a foolish statement its not up to your debating opponent to provide you with proof", the foolish statement being made here is that there is an invisible omnipotent man in the sky that has the ability to control everyone and everything; I await your proof, if you have any.

SDC, I don't doubt that some "miracles" can be accurately explained by personal delusions, biases, mass hysteria or natural anomalies - I just don't believe that this accounts for all of them. It is also not a simple matter of peoples' "testimony of faith" - this is just one more piece of the puzzle. I would not base my beliefs merely on a hand-count. I also would not expect God to produce results for any medical study trying to prove or disprove the effectiveness of prayer.

SDC

I have never said you would see God and because you compare Allah to Yahweh you confirm my suspicion of never trying my test in the first place. You don't want to do the test I have no objection. I simply ask that you have the integrity to admit there are things that you don't understand and then the maturity not to belittle other's beliefs.

I honestly try not to belittle Islam. I examined its history, beliefs, scriptures and its theology then reached my conclusion, comparing of course my own experience to that of Muslims and former Muslims I am familiar with. I am picking Islam because it you mentioned it in your last post and I don't want to take up Kate's bandwidth with comparative religion courses.

Islam I put into the sam category as Mormonism simply because only one man reportedly had the 'divine encounter’ I tend to be wary of like pronouncements. Jesus said that a minimum of two or three witnesses were required. The Bible has many witnesses including 4 different accounts of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus Himself stands in a long line of tradition and history. Islam can’t even get its history straight. It says that the sister of Moses is the mother of Jesus. That would make Miriam over 1000 years old when she gave birth to Jesus.

The Bible recounts real encounters with a Living God who expresses will and grants the ability to accomplish that will. Islam worships a god whose reaction could be that of a rock. Allah’s will remains a mystery and can never be known. The Christian God, Yahweh, loves His creation so much that it does not have to please or appease Him. According to Islam the blind appeasement and pleasing of Allah is everything required.

When I talk to a Christian I constantly hear about answered prayer and I have experienced it myself. When I talk to Muslims and former Muslims, they can never recount even one answered prayer offered up to Allah.

Nevertheless I disagree with people of all kinds of faiths including I might add atheists but I try to do it with at least some modicum of respect for a position honestly held. In your case however I detect from your infantile mocking, that you are operating from a default position and not a well thought out position so I tend to treat you with a lot less respect.