Written by Men?

I was wishing to post a comment but could not find a topic to which it specifically belongs - it is relavent to almost all of the topics on your site. I'm not sure if this is the best way to address the question/comment to you and if it's not, please tell me the best way to do it from now on.

Anyhow, to the point:

I was reading through many of the posts on various topics and I noted that several times, you (among many others - you are simply the easiest to directly reach) stated that the Bible was written by men. Specifically I saw this comment in a long transaction between you and "biblicalwitness" concerning the "Plea to TRUE Chritians". Anyways, what i would like to know is:

What is your basis for stating that the bible was written by men?

What proof can you offer that the Bible was written only by men?

What is your proof that the Bible was NOT inspired by God and written through men?

And why do you base your beliefs of the origins of the Bible on this proof?

If I worded anything too confusingly or nosensically, sorry, please let me know and I will do my best to rephrase it.

Again, I apologize if this is not the best way to ask you this question - please tell me if I need to do otherwise (like find a forum to post it on, etc.). Feel free to post this as a forum topic or what-have-you, I am not necessarily directing this question at just you. Actually I am quite curious to see how anyone responds to this topic.

Thanks in advance for any response,

JB

220 comments:

1 – 200 of 220   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

WHO ELSE WROTE IT?

Anonymous said...

dear Jb,

come on man! think. try. listen, if not men who else do you think wrote it? angels? think rationaly. even if 'god' inspired it how come there are so many versions? Why are there two different testaments?

Dave Van Allen said...

Well, let me pull a "messiah" and answer your question with a question: What is your proof that the Bible was NOT inspired by psychic aliens from Alpha Centauri?

Now, do you really think you need to answer that question? How would you provide the proof I requested?

See, first I would need to show that there are intelligent aliens somewhere around Alpha Centauri. Then I'd need to demonstrate that they were visiting us. Of course then I'd need to provide evidence of their psychic abilities, and their interest in influencing our thinking. Making a fantastic claim — psychic aliens, et al. — puts the responsibility for drumming up proof squarely in my lap.

It's like this: if I need to provide proof for how the Bible is NOT inspired by a god, alien, etc., then basically any silly thing people say would be considered true until proven otherwise.

Do you see the error in your logic?

Your question is typical, however. Christians are taught to think this way. "They can't PROVE there is no god, therefore there is a god." "They can't PROVE the Bible isn't true, therefore it IS true."

It's illogical and flawed thinking, but these kinds of things are repeated so often in Christian circles, with everyone nodding their head in agreement, that they SEEM to reflect good clear thinking — at least to other Christians. Everyone else just scratches and shakes their heads.

Again: the Bible is inspired by psychic aliens from another star. What is your PROOF to the contrary?

Now, would you like to rephrase your question?

Anonymous said...

The Bible teaches that Yahweh is the Supreme Power of the universe and that the operation of his judgment upon non-believing sinners has their destruction as its end.

It is much more plausible to believe that this presentation of God was written my men who behaved in this manner, than it is to believe that it is actually true and is actually the expression of the mind of the Supreme Power in the universe.

Anyway, it doesn't work to ask people to prove a negative: "God did not speak his mind in the Bible." Even if it is true, as I believe, that God didn't write the Bible, it would be impossible to structure any evidence to prove this negative proposition.

Anonymous said...

Would you care to answer your questions in regards to the

....Book of Morman?

....the Koran?

Can you prove that were not written by man, but by God?

Can you prove that they were not inspired by God?

Anonymous said...

The source of god revealed!!

The source of god is your brain, your brain is communicating with your inner self or itself. Your brain is analyzing the information it sees and hears and what it has seen and been told to be accepted as truth. Language and speech is accepted and learned behavior, no one born in America has to read a book to learn how to speak the English language, it is taught by mimicking and repetition, just like a belief, it is learned behavior by mimicking and repetition, then it is memorized. The information that you receive by your parents, preacher, authority figures, is weighed by your brain as to whether it is valid or not, but since we've all been under constant rule by authority, we are afraid to challenge this information in fear of retribution or punishment or a threat of eternal damnnation.

God is only a concept, taught out of fear and ignorance, as long as humans accept fear and ignorance as legtimate norms, god and religion and urban myths will always be an accepted part and belief of society....so sad for the future of humanity.

Anonymous said...

The bible is the central point of all christian religion. Our understanding and knowledge of god comes right from that source. Even if you never cracked a bible then the knowledge you have came from someone who got their knowledge from the bible. The bible defines god, his laws, and our history with god.

What if the bible is wrong? If the bible were completely removed from this world and all knowledge that everyone has that they got from that book was also removed then what would we know about god? Pretty much nothing. So the bible is pretty important when it comes to god.

How authentic is the bible then? Is the bible accurate enough to portray god? The bible itself tells us that god wants to talk to us and that god wants us to obey his will. Many would have you believe that the bible is either inspired by god or perhaps actually his personal written word.

But how can this be? If god is omniscient then how can the bible be so flawed? It is riddled with contradiction, inaccurate history, flawed science, plagerism of other religions, indescepancies, misconception, mistranslations, alterations and irrational logic. Any search on any one of those adjectives in relation to the bible on google will bring you a plethora of knowledge on each.

So, if the bible is suspect, doesn't that throw the whole idea of god into question? If any one part of the book of divine instruction can is questionable then how can you trust any other part?

Some christians will accept that the bible should not be taken literally or that some portions of the bible have been discarded in favor of other sections (old testament over new as an example) but the same problems are found in both sections. Who is the authority of picking and choosing what should be believed as literal and what she be believed as simple guidance? The Roman Catholic church created the current layout of the bible years ago when THEY picked and chose what books to keep and which to discard. In actuality the new testament used to be considered frivolous by the RCC. The whole story of "let he without sin cast the first stone" doesnt even appear in the earliest bibles.

The bible is questionable. It is obvious that it was written by primitive men in a time when their understanding of their world was based on mythology and plagerized legends. It condones slavery, murder, rape, incest, torture and killing of innocents, butchering of entire cities, sacrifice, subverting women to a lower class, bigotry, and intollerance.

When you really take a hard look at the bible you will find that the bible is just filled with error. It simply cannot be a matter of picking and choosing what is best. If you are willing to do that then you may as well take the next step and write your own bible using modern knowledge and less primitive flaws.

But that wouldn't be very divine then would it? Neither is the bible.

Anonymous said...

I think the best way to get the answer for you question is to simply read the bible.....

Once you see all of the contradictions, massacares, genocides etc and all the loving one's neighbour and turning the other cheek etc then you see how it was written by man. If this is in fact the word of god, then he is just like us in the way that he has changed over time, i.e. matured if you will.. therefore not an all loving god! (Don't know if anyone made sense of that???)

Anonymous said...

>>>I guess the Christians like to be bitch slapped by a book of superstitions<<<<

Sometimes it takes a real hard SLAP, before you say "HEY, Stop hitting me !"

That's when I left. Stop Hitting me ! Stop it! But they won't. They will keep "bitch slapping" you, it's up to YOU to get out of the way...unless you like it that way...."thank you" pastor, can I have another?

Anonymous said...

Slot machines in Vegas have what is called a "Random Generator" It randomly generates a different combination of numbers or symbols every time you pull the handle, from a finite number of possibilities.

We are the result of the same kind of random selection, with one exception. Once a molecule of life learned to reproduce itself, that single exception came into play.

Every combination of elements that randomly came together after that and could not reproduce itself, vanished forever, and every combination that could, did. Some of those billions and billions of reproducing molecules of life were slightly different from the others, and reproduced better in certain environments, therefore filling every nitch in every environment. There are even worms that live at the bottom of the ocean around volcanic spouts in water that would boil us.

When the big rock hit and killed off the dinosaurs that had been around for 70 million years, wallah! The mighty little mammals had their chance to multiply and conquer the earth. They filled every environment available. They lived in trees because trees were abundant. When trees became less abundant, they came down out of the trees and started walking around. Those that learned to stand up and look around survived and reproduced better than those that didn't, and at the same time they found that by standing that their front legs were free to hold things.

Somewhere about that time, some of those mammals mutated and were born smarter than the others, and early man was on his way.

Well, to make a long story short. We "Homo Sapiens," thinking men, have not been around very long, and it isn't all that certain that we will last much longer, given the nuclear annihilation threat, and the pollution changing the environment threat, and the wars that are raging around the world over whether "My God is better than your God", SO IT MAY JUST BE A TAD TOO EARLY TO SURMISE THAT GOD GIVES A RATS ASS WHAT WE THINK, OR BELIEVE.

Speaking of rats. The next intelligent species to evolve may just evolve from the rodents. They have a lot going for them. They reproduce like crazy. They eat almost anything. They live underground, and would be less susceptible to radiation, and there are already a million varieties of them.
Dan (Rationalist)

Anonymous said...

What makes you think there is a God of supernatural power?

Anonymous said...

Kooky, contrary to popular religious belief, evolution does not deal with origin, and origin does not suggest that all life appeared today in some random collaberation of chaotic elements mixed together. It has been one progressive step after another where conditions exist to encourage or discourage various changes.

One example religion likes to make is a million monkeys pounding on typwriters for a million years still would not randomly type out the entire works of Shakespear. However, if a million monkeys bang on their typwriters and each time one hits the next letter correctly you keep it and continue to the next then the entire works of shakespear will be pounded out in a matter of days.

Religion also likes to bring up disagreements in science and how scientists cannot agree with each other. This is entirely misrepresented. While some do have differing opinions, it is the work of those that seek inaccuracies that strengthens the overall understanding of science. Everytime someone finds something wrong or a better way then everyone benifits - unlike religion which wants everyone to simply base everything on faith. Religion does not want the individual to think.

Taking religion out of this world wont end all its problems, but it will end all problems that religion present. Your argument is like saying "Even If i did throw all the newspapers away in my cluttered home it would still be cluttered". True. But one step at a time, as humanity shrugs off intollerance, myth, and ignorance we will begin to clean our home properly. You have to start somewhere.

Anonymous said...

"Kooky"...aka the new Ex-Christian "Target boy"; the poster-child for fundamental Christianity; the new and UN-improved prototype for "intelligent" man.

Check this out, Coo Coo. You and your Christian "Anti-knowledge" Death Cult's "hurricane through the junkyard" analogy fails miserably....I repeat---MISERABLY.(and yes, this includes your cute little "Watch falling from the building" analogy, too) The one thing that BOTH of your "analogies" conveniently leave out of the equation is "time".......f%cking SHIT-loads of it. A hurricane can pass through a junkyard in a matter of seconds, you bumbling buffoon. You also forget the "selection" part of it---the part that eliminates what doesn't "progress", and keeps what does.

Secondly, in your internet travels, have you ever seen websites where there are debates going on about the existance of "trees", or "oxygen"? That's not a "no", but a "HELL NO!"...that's because we have OBJECTIVE knowledge that those things exist....do you understand, Einstein? You haven't provided OBJECTIVE evidence for the existance of A-N-Y deity, let alone Biblegod, and/or his bastard side-kick, Buh-jebus.

BTW, your Holy book "proves" the existance of God, the same way my nephew's Ninja Turtle book proves the existance of turtles that whoop asses. ...::Hi-Yaah !::..LMAO!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hey boomslang. Why are you getting so mad? Kooky is just saying what he thinks. No need to attack him like that. Relax...
Anyway, I used to think the way kooky does and not everything christian scientists say is wrong. Anyway, still what really got me was that scientists were looking for answers and then found an answer after a lot of research. The ID-scientists or creationists had the answer first and then did their research.
It's the same with math. If you know the solution already then it is way easier to figure out how to get to that solution. If there is only the equation without a given answer it is way harder and there will be a lot of people who will have the answer wrong of only half right. Good thing the scientists are working together. So we might find the one and only solution one day. ;)
Hope y'all got my point. It's kinda hard for me since I am not a native english speaker.
Have a good one guys!
Felden

Anonymous said...

The source of the bibles(lowercase since there are so many different versions) has been traced back to ancient mythologies which preceed the bible's authors by hundreds of years or more. Thousands of biblical scholars have worked on this research, many of them religious and many not, but essentially all of them understand that it has very real human roots. More important, however, is that the history of how the bibles came to be called the word of god is extremely well documented. The declaration that the bible was the word of god was, of course, a political ploy, not a reflection of reality. The church as a political power stood to gain even greater influence and control over the lives of those persons filling the offering plates if the authority they claimed came, not from the writings of mere men, but instead from a divine source or at least a divinely-inspired one, the bible. This scholarly research is accessible on the web via a simple search. Anyone who wants to truly understand this topic has easy access, but most choose not to pursue the truth of the matter.

No, the bible was neither divinely inspired nor was it written by a deity. It was, as factually as gravity, written by self-interested, scared, ignorant, and superstitiuos men.

Anonymous said...

For Webmaster:


Good! We are already getting right to the point of what I want to talk about. Now, let's see, I am sure that you believe that one must have proof in order to know something is true or that something exists. This is pretty common knowledge, right? If some guy walks up to you and tells you that you are going to die in the next five minutes, you would say "ok....what makes you say that?" (or something to that effect) You would want proof though, wouldn't you? You would want any sources this guy has and you would want to know why he belives you will die soon and what evidence he has to back it up.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you need evidence or proof of some sort before you belive something. That's obvious, anyone would. So...why wouldn't you appply this to beliefs about the origins of the Bible? You said yourself:

"It's like this: if I need to provide proof for how the Bible is NOT inspired by a god, alien, etc., then basically any silly thing people say would be considered true until proven otherwise."

So you're saying that because you cannot prove that the Bible was not inspired by God, therefore we should believe that it isn't? How do you justify that? Furthermore, if I CAN provide proof that the Bible was written by men under the inspiration of God (which I can), then that means we should immediately accept it, right? It has to work both ways:
-If you CAN'T prove it, DON'T believe it.
-If you CAN prove it, believe it.

If this is true, (and tell if I am totally misunderstading your view of truth and beliefs) then I think you should believe that the Bible was inspired by God and it is his infallible means of direct communication with man because I can prove it to you. Now of course, the next post will be "What's your proof?" I would love to give you all my evidence for why I know that the Bible is Gos inspired, and if anyone asks for it I will gladly state in in my next post.

Now as for saying that my thinking is illogical and flawed, how are you defining illogical and flawed (saying "the dictionary" would be a sufficiate answer), granted this would open up a whole knew can of worms, but I'm certainly willing to discuss it. I really would like to know how you are defining your terms though (even though I'm sure I already know the answers you will give me).

That's all for this post but if anyone asks i'll be ready to respond about either of the aforementioned topics.

JB

Anonymous said...

jb, Can you prove that the Holy Quran is not the inspired word of God?

Allah is the only God, all other Gods are imposters.

I know that the Holy Quran is the inspired word of God, because Mohammad said it is.

Shalom

Dave Van Allen said...

-If you CAN'T prove it, DON'T believe it.

That's it in a nutshell (pun intended)

Jim Arvo said...

Hello JB,

I hope you don't mind if I jump into this discussion. The first thing I'd like to clarify is that the word "proof" is a bit too strong in your statements. You also used the word "evidence" several times, and I think that is far more appropriate. When speaking of empirical facts, one can never attain 100% certainty, so the word "proof", as it is commonly understood, does not apply. Can we agree that what we should demand, before (provisionally) accepting any proposition that is put before us, is that it be supported by credible evidence?

I inserted the word "credible" in that statement because much of what is touted as evidence does not stand up to scrutiny, or is so unreliable as to carry almost no weight. An example of the latter is the existence of people who believe the proposition to be true. While I *do* consider that to be evidence, it is often so weak as to be negligible.

My position regarding the Bible is this. I do not believe that it is the product of a supernatural entity (directly or indirectly), because I have seen no credible evidence for the existence of any such being. On the other hand, and quite independently, I do believe that the Bible is the product of mere humans for a large number of reasons. Some of the credible evidence that I see for this is as follows: 1) The supernatural being that is described in the Bible is nonsensical and contradictory; e.g. touting boundless love, yet condoning and even commanding horrific violence toward innocent humans and even animals. 2) The Bible's history fits the pattern of many other so-called holy books, beginning as oral tradition, eventually codified and redacted by numerous writers, then deemed to be the "word of god." (Frankly, both the Koran and the Book of Mormon have *much* more credible stories in terms of being divinely inspired.) 3) Many of the motifs in the Bible fit those found in much more ancient religions; far more than can be explained by coincidence. For example, the slaughter of innocents is an example of the "dangerous child" motif that dates back to Krishna, and before. 4) Literary analysis of the Bible shows an unmistakable progression of embellishment and harmonization over time. Paul starts off with essentially no knowledge of an Earthly Jesus, yet my the time of John, the story has been filled in and polished. Memories do not improve with age, but legends most certainly do.

Now, you claim to have evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired. I suspect you are going to point to so-called fulfilled prophecies, or maybe even numerical codes hidden in the Bible. In any case, until you produce the evidence, and it withstands critical examination (and I doubt very much that it will, based on hundreds of previous claims that I've checked out), I see no reason to believe the Bible has any more exalted status than any other "holy book" that has been produced from human imaginations.

Anonymous said...

In response to Jim -
"Now, you claim to have evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired. I suspect you are going to point to so-called fulfilled prophecies, or maybe even numerical codes hidden in the Bible. In any case, until you produce the evidence, and it withstands critical examination (and I doubt very much that it will, based on hundreds of previous claims that I've checked out), I see no reason to believe the Bible has any more exalted status than any other "holy book" that has been produced from human imaginations."

Actually, I have no intent on pointing out prophesy fulfillments or exploring any "secret codes" in the Bible. The main reason being that I have witnessed many Christians using these sorts of examples (which I do believe are awesome evidences of God's work - don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to down-play them at all) and i have always noticed that while these people make good points, I sincerely believe that they are going about it the wrong way.

First, I want to ask you:
Why do you believe what you believe?
There are varying answers I'm sure but that does not matter because, for unbelievers, they will all eventually come to the same conclusion - You believe what you believe based on what you have learned from past experiences, right? You know that bananas exist because you've eaten one before. You know that your livingroom sofa is comfortable because you have sat in it before and it felt comfortable. You know that the cereal is going to pour out of the box tomarrow morning because it always has (provided that it was not empty, of course). You get the gist. The same goes for all of the morals and values you uphold - they are things you have experienced before and you realize the necessity or importance for them to be in your life. You base all of your beliefs on what you have previously experienced too. As many of you have shared on this website, you grew up in churches that you did not like or agree with (for whatever the reason) and have since decided that you dislike or disagree with the Christian religion. Perhaps you don't like Muslims, for example, because maybe you had a bad expeirince with Islam at some point. Whatever it is, whatever the case, as an unbeliever you base EVERYTHING in your life around your experiences.

The Christian, on the other hand, bases their entire life around 1 thing - God's Word. The Bible is the true Christian's source of beliefs and morals. It is the ultimate determining factor of right and wrong, and it is in command of every action that a believer should perform. God has chosen that person to become his child and that person can't help BUT to rely on God's infalable word.

So if nonChristians are basing all their rational on what they have experienced (which could be anything - hundreds of different views, most of them clashing with each other) then how can they POSSIBLY be expected to make correct decisions? Who decided what is officially right or wrong? Nobody. Unbelievers always need proof (or evidence, since I guess I'm not supposed to use "proof"?) before they can accept something as truth. But who came up with that idea? Well, unbelievers made it up. Sure it makes "sense" that you need evidence, but that is just because you have learned to think that way.

The Christian has been called by God and therefore embraces His Word as truth. They don't need the world's evidence to make something true or false; right or wrong. The Believer relies on God and God certianly doesn't need "proof" or "evidence". In fact he created those ideas! He doesn't need them to convince people of anything. When God wants you to believe, then you will. He calls you to him and you cannot resist it. You don't need anything or anyone on this earth to try to tell you if He or His Word exists. You will know for a fact that it does if he ever saves you. This is the simple reason why a nonChritian CAN'T accept any of this stuff about the Bible and Christ - they have never experienced him so how could they possibly understand? They can't!

Now I know this is probably not what you are used to hearing, namely because I am saying that being saved is not something that you do on your own once you have convinced yourself to or once someone else has preached it at you enough times or once you have found enough "evidence". So many times I hear people say: "well if God was real, then he would show himself and I would believe". NO NO NO! Your missing the whole point! God doesn't have to show himself to you and He certainly doesn't need any approval from you to save you! Yes of course this goes COMPLETELY against human nature, which is why it is so hard for anyone to accept. We want to be in control of our own lives and we don't want anything to do with God, so we make up excuses and reasons for things that don't involve God, like evolution. We don't want to admit that there is a higher being in control over us and sustaining us, and that this someone created us, so we say, "well we must have come from somewhere else. Hmmm...I know! Let's go try to find some evidence - that way we won't have to believe in God!".

Sadly enough, many people who are professing Chritians have done the same thing with their beliefs on Salvation (among other things). They don't like the thought of someone being totally in control of their lives (once again, this is the nature of every human) so they decide to make God seem "nicer" and they make Jesus out to be this little old loving man who simply wants to be your friend and they say that if you simply ask him, he'll let you in to the kingdom of heaven and he will bless your life forever. The reality is that God has predestined the salvation of every Chritian from the very beginning and HE chooses US to have eternal life, not the other way around.

Perhaps some of you have heard of the "Lordship Controversy" (this has been made especially popular among Evangelicals). Basically, there are people stating that "Jesus can be your Savior without being your Lord" which is a prime example of what I am saying. They don't want God to seem like this King and Ruler of everything, so they decide that they ant to go and get salvation from him and then live how they please. Just like any other nonbeliever, they are totally missing it because of their sinful instict to resist the authority of God.
I know this message is not popular among most professing "Christians" because it is much more appeasing to dress Jesus up and make him seem like this wonderful guy who is just begging for you to knock on his door. Again, so many people say things like "If God is so loving and merciful and good, then why does He kill people? And why Pearl Harbor? And why 9/11? And why...yada yada yada. Well, fact is, God id loving AND wrathful, merciful AND angry, gracious AND destructive, all at the same time -imagine that! And to us, as mere humans (yes, myself included), yeah, a lot of it doesn't make sense but that's okay. I doesn't have to make sense. We are puny little humans, why does it need to make sense to us? God has much biiger plans in store and we are a teeny, weeny little part of it. And again, where did we come up with this thinking that things "just have to make sense" to us before we will believe them? As humans, we made it up! There is no reason that what we say about something should be better and more sensical than something from an awesome, all-powerful being that's in charge of the entire univerese - let alone your life.

Well i do believe I have gone on enough for now, but I really hope you get what I'm saying. And I am certainly not trying to say that I am perfect and anyone else is stupid for not believing this - I was obviously a nonChristian before too and it has taken me YEARS to accept this stuff and there is a ton of it that I don't understand, somethings that I probably never will - and I'm ok with that. This world has to know everything and be totally smart and be on top of everything, but really what's it all mean in the end? If you understand all of the mysteries of life, how is that going to help you in the end unless you have Jesus Christ as the Lord and savior of your life?
Reality is, (and everyone realizes it of course, no matter how they want to joke about it or whatever) that everyone will die eventually, and there is only one thing that will matter then.
I really don't mean to try to throw some salvation pitch at you but it's just true.

Anyhow, it's late and I'm tired of thinking, let-a-lone writing so I'm going to stop now (no really, I promise) but I hope the comments keepa commin. I'll post again soon.

JB

Anonymous said...

It was written by men,but worse it
was copied over and over by men.
Each copy added new interperatations and some scribes just added their own stories,this has been proven! Go to Barnes and Nobles and check it out a few books on the making of the bible.

Anonymous said...

sharonaavigail -
"But the New Testament is just a rip off of the Old testament, sort of like an upgraded version, placating to the masses."

Woah woah woah!
Where in the did you get that from? An "upgraded version" ?
Ok, for one thing, there is major historical context involved here. The Old Testament books were written BEFORE Jesus came (obviously because they are prophesying His birth) and they were mostly written by men of the nation of Israel, all of which were under the inspiration of God. They are about people that were under the old laws of the Israelites, the laws which Jews still follow today.
The New Testament was written after Christ's birth by several men, some of them being eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus' time (including His crucifiction). They were written for people who are no longer under the old laws (that's us) but, because of Christ's death, have been made new and separated from the old laws of sacrifices and such in the Old Testament (which are no longer necessary because Christ was the ultimate and final sacrifice for us so that we don't have to sacrifice animals anymore). It is also written about times in which people can now communicate direcly to God (through Jesus Christ because he is the God-Man and can be a messeger to common people - an important part of the doctrine of the Trinity) and they no longer have to communicate through a priest (as they did in the Old Testament and as Catholics still do). The seperation of old and new is a vital part of Chritianity and that is what seperates it from all other religions (as I haved mentioned, Jewish and Catholic religions, for example). The Testaments represent much more than just time periods and the New Testament is definitely not a revamped version of the Old Testament.
Also, after speculating about God's direct and specific giving of the commandments to Moses (which if you've ever read Exodus it's obvious), you asked:
"why hasnt he handed down anything else since then?"
Hmmm...well let's see - how about the Bible? Although I suppose if you deny the authorship and authority of the Bible, you will never see past the Ten Commandments to realize that there has never been a time when God HASN'T given us commands and blessings.
Also, for the Christian, He has given us the Holy Spirit (esintially a form of God) to lead and guide us in our everyday lives in whatever we do - couldn't ask for much more than that.

JB

Anonymous said...

Ben-
"Joseph and Mary could not have been married, otherwise Mary would not have been a virgin.
If jesus existed, he could have only been a bastard child"

Jesus Christ is God in the form of a man and His conception itself was a miracle. Mary WAS a virgin and Joseph and Mary were not married at the tim of Jesus' birth. That's the awesome thing about it - A man so perfect (a messiah) could only have been concieved by God Himself. So actually, Jesus was not a bastard child.
Also,perhaps you did not notice, but you were quoting an Old Testament verse (Deuteronomy 23:2) which, if you had actually understood (or atleast read) what I just posted earlier, you would have realized that the verse is discussing laws that were broken by Jesus' coming to earth in the first place. But that's beside the point.

BTW, an IQ level of 100 would be equal to a senior in high school not a 5th grader. (I just thought I'd let you know that since your IQ level is sooo high...)

JB

Anonymous said...

Anony -
"You do realize that most of the people that visit this site are exchristians don't you??"

Well, yeah....that would be why I'm here! I can't think of a better place to shed light the gospel than at a site for "exchritians" (there is really no such thing as an exchristian - your either a chritian now or your never have been. Salvation doesn't work like that, and the fact that you use that term only proves that you have no grasp of what being a Christian is all about - but I won't even get into that). Couldn't ask for a better audience than people who are struggling because of their unfulfilled need for Christ (even though they would never say that they are having a hard time). I'm glad you read that big long post and I was also expecting you not to care. But you did read it - that's why I posted it. Of course I'm not here get positive feedback - I'm here to srengthen my faith and reach ohers while doing it. And I've already achieved both of these in about 24 hrs. - I feel great!

JB

SpaceMonk said...

JB: "Unbelievers always need proof ... before they can accept something as truth. But who came up with that idea? Well, unbelievers made it up. Sure it makes "sense" that you need evidence, but that is just because you have learned to think that way."

Oh...My...God!

You are lost.

You will continue to feel great, and your faith will continue to be strengthened, as long as you continue to blindly ignore reason and logic.

Why do you think you have a brain?
To use it!
To judge for yourself between options.
To weigh up factors and "proof's".


If 'chritians' are pre-destined to be saved by god why did Jesus order evangelism?


You say "God id loving AND wrathful, merciful AND angry, gracious AND destructive, all at the same time -imagine that!"

I can imagine that quite easily. Any old human can be that way. You've just shown how human bible-god really is.
I wonder why?
- because he is a reflection of those who invented him?
No, that would make too much sense...


Even if bible-god is real, why should I obey/worship/respect him?

What makes him better than me?

The only reason I can see for giving a rat's arse what he wants out of me is if I thought he had some power to harm me.

He'll send me to Hell?

If someone put a gun in my face and said, "Hand over your wallet!"
I probably would, but it would not make them better than me.
It would not make them right.

What makes bible-god any better than such a person?

What makes him better than Adolph Hitler?

Dave Van Allen said...

"When God wants you to believe, then you will. He calls you to him and you cannot resist it."

Ah, a fellow Calvinist and Presuppostionalist!

Keep studying man, eventually you'll wake up. Presuppositionalism is by far the best apologetic for keeping Christians in the faith because it simply denies everything that contradicts a Calvinistic worldview. It's perfect — no need for logic, thought, or concentration of any sort.

Be careful. You've surrendered your mind to other men, not to a god.

Anonymous said...

JB,

Whether intentionally or not, you have opened the proverbial can of worms you mentioned.

To begin with, you asked for definitions. Ok, here you go:

Illogical: "lacking in correct logical relation" and "Ignorant or negligent of the rules of logic or correct reasoning; as, an illogical disputant; contrary of the rules of logic or sound reasoning; as, an illogical inference."

Flawed (Flaw): "An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness" and "A defect or shortcoming in something intangible"

How's that? Ok, on we go...

You stated somewhere in your previous posts that it has taken you years to accept some of the things you have. I'm not surprised that you don't want to give it up so easily. However, both of your posts are chocked full of typical (and flawed) Christian logic.

Before getting too deeply into this, I want to address one big error at the beginning of your last post: "Now I know this is probably not what you are used to hearing..."

Actually, most (if not all) of us are quite used to hearing what you've said. We hear it weekly here, when some random Christian comes and posts 'evidence' or 'proof' that their brand of Christianity is true. Furthermore, many of us have heard these same things coming out of our own mouths!

The kind of flawed logic you use is not only common to Christians, it's required in order to support your faith, because without it the faith cannot be sustained.

You may not be comfortable with the idea that someone can leave the faith if they were truly Christians, but it does happen. Even to spirit-filled, bible-believing, born-again, blood-bought Christians can 'fall' from the faith, if that's what you want to call it. Read your epistles again. Paul spends most of his time encouraging the faithful to STAY faithful. Furthermore, according to Christian tradition Satan is a fallen angel, which means he once was exalted. This is not to say we here are the spawn of Satan, but it does illustrate the warm-fuzzy fallacy of Christian logic that asserts "once saved, always saved."

Ok, enough about that and on to other topics.

I think this has been noted already in one or more of the comments already posted, but it bears repeating: those making extraordinary claims bear the burden of proof.

This is difficult for some still in the faith to understand, because to them the existence of God is self-evident. It requires no proof other than the experience of the in-dwelling spirit. However, this is not the way science, archaeology, textual criticism, and other temporal methods of finding truth work.

As the Webmaster points out, if he makes an outlandish or supernatural claim, he bears the burden of proving that what he says is true, or at least give evidence that in some way verifies his claim and can be checked independently. In the same vein, when religious people claim something outlandish or supernatural, the burden of proof is on those people.

Although you've chosen to try and turn this around on us, I'm quite sure you'd adopt this same point of view if your neighbor called you up and claimed that he/she just had a meeting with Jesus, and was given a mission to eradicate all left-handed people, because they are actually demons. As a good citizen, you would probably be calling the authorities!

Now, to the meat of the argument.

You acknowledge in your last post that men wrote the Bible. For now, I'm going to ignore your claim that you have proof (or rather, evidence) that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God/used by God to write what they wrote.

So, essentially we agree on the premise that men wrote the Bible to the extent that the present 66 books of the Bible are the result of a couple thousand years of oral and written tradition that was accepted as scripture and passed down through the ages after numerous translations and re-tranlations, having been copied and re-copied thousands of times. All of this involved the hand of man. Can we agree on this?

Ok, assuming we do, I'd like to introduce the concept of Occam's Razor. Usually applied to science, Occam's Razor essentially says that the simplest answer is usually the right one. Another way of putting it would be that one should not make more assumptions than needed. For example, after a rainstorm you find that there is a puddle in your yard. Based on the evidence (rainstorm and puddle), you can safely conclude that the rainstorm caused the puddle, given the strong logical correlation between the two. On the other hand, it would not be reasonable to conclude that Zaphod Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy, had used your lawn as a urinal, as it requires too many additional assumptions (that Zaphod Beeblebrox exists, that he is President of the galaxy, that the galaxy has a President, that he has means to travel to Earth, etc.).

Applying Occam's Razor to the Bible, we have a similar situation. The Bible is a book. We know man writes books. We know man was involved in writing this particular book, copying it, and translating it. It is reasonable to conclude that man wrote this book. It is not reasonable to conclude that a supernatural agent prompted man to write this book, or told him what to write, because that requires too many additional assumptions (that the supernatural agent exists, that it desires to write, that it has a means of communicating with man, etc.).

In other words, I don't need 'proof' that man wrote the Bible, nor am I required to 'prove' it to anyone else. The available factual evidence (the Bible is a book, man writes books, man was involved in writing this book) allows me to conclude that it was written by man. Additional assumptions cause me to enter the realm of the illogical.

Interestingly, Occam's Razor was devised by a Franciscan Friar (a Christian).

One more thing...

"So if nonChristians are basing all their rational on what they have experienced (which could be anything - hundreds of different views, most of them clashing with each other) then how can they POSSIBLY be expected to make correct decisions? Who decided what is officially right or wrong? Nobody."

Well, I can't speak for everyone here but I don't need a book to tell me what's right or wrong. I was raised a certain way, and my society has certain widely held morals. I don't need to read the Bible to know that I wouldn't like it if someone stole my car, and therefore conclude that it would be just as wrong to steal someone else's. Ergo, stealing is wrong. Hey! Look at that! I didn't even need the 8th Commandment!

Whether these are based on Christianity or not is irrelevant. There is no 'official' right or wrong, so to speak. Some of us face ethical dilemmas every day, and make decisions based on what we believe to be right. Sometimes, we fail miserably. Sometimes, we succeed miraculously.

Christians are no different. In fact, Christians facing the same dilemmas are subject to making the same mistakes we are, because they are human. Whatever your source for morality only informs these decisions, it doesn't make them for you. So, your implication that a Christian is somehow better equipped to deal with the world than a non-Christian is simply wrong.

Incidentally, I'd love to hear what 'evidence' you claim 'proves' the Bible was inspired by God. It'd be great to hear something refreshingly original, but frankly (and with all due respect) I doubt you can deliver.

Looking forward to your reply!

Incidentally, I'm having trouble logging in to my Blogger account, so...

This has been a post by Ubergeek!

Anonymous said...

"What is your basis for stating that the bible was written by men?"

Because biblegod has exactly the same traits, prejudices, hatreds, jealousies and power trips that men do.

I do believe in a deity, but it sure isn't one who kills people and then says he can't tolerate being in the presence of sin. Biblegod has committed cruelties that I would never dream of doing even if my life depended on it. So either the bible's idea of God is fallible or I'm just a better person than your God.

Jim Arvo said...

JB, you show faint glimmers of cogency, but then you invariably slide back into an abyss of murky unsubstantiated assertions, glib answers, and innuendo. I'm not going to bother responding to most of your post; others have already dismantled your "argument" as well as I, so there is no need to repeat it. I will pick a few things to reply to, however.

JB: "...As many of you have shared on this website, you grew up in churches that you did not like or agree with (for whatever the reason) and have since decided that you dislike or disagree with the Christian religion...."

This statement gives you away. It shows that you simply dismiss what we've been saying; it doesn't even enter your consciousness that we have considered the claims of Christianity very deeply. I'd wager that most of us here have thought it through far more thoroughly than you have. So, we did not reject it because we simply "dislike" it or "disagree" with it, but because we have reached the conclusion that is it PURE FICTION. It does not hold up to critical examination. It is an illogical house of cards. It has no substantiated basis. Is any of this sinking in?

JB: "The Christian, on the other hand, bases their entire life around 1 thing - God's Word. ...God has chosen that person to become his child and that person can't help BUT to rely on God's infalable word."

That is patently circular. You are supporting the position of the Christian (i.e. that the god of Abraham exists) by asserting that god exists. That doesn't work. Everything you say is nonsense unless your purported god exists, and you have made not one inch of progress toward showing that he/she/it does exist.

JB: "Unbelievers always need proof (or evidence, since I guess I'm not supposed to use 'proof'?) before they can accept something as truth. But who came up with that idea? Well, unbelievers made it up."

Sorry, but I just can't help but calling this one as I see it. That is simply off the scale of stupidity. But wait...

JB: "...Sure it makes 'sense' that you need evidence, but that is just because you have learned to think that way."

...it just got even stupider. Your argument goes down in flames like this: just try suspending that rule for ten seconds. Let's see what happens if we deem everything true that somehow strikes our fancy (or anybody else's fancy) without any supporting evidence. Well, we now have a pantheon of gods and goddesses; they all exist because somebody said so, and without evidence. We now have the fact that UFOs visit our planet and routinely abduct people. We now have Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, elves, poltergeists, pixies, and people who can bend spoons telepathically. Now, if we re-instate that one simple rule again--if we simply insist on having credible supporting evidence before accepting every claim--we are back to a place where we can begin to sort fact from fantasy. That's where I live. That's where most everybody else here lives. You an join us if you like.

"The Christian has been called by God and therefore embraces His Word as truth. They don't need the world's evidence to make something true or false; right or wrong."

Then there is no way to distinguish what they say from pure fantasy.

"Now I know this is probably not what you are used to hearing,..."

Absolutely wrong. You are a garden-variety Christian. You have said absolutely nothing of substance. Was all that bluster about "evidence" was just for show? Right now I'm kicking myself for wasting my time responding to such sophomoric nonsense.

Jim Arvo said...

Ubergeek, that was an excellent reply to JB. I think you are exactly right, and you didn't even resort to the "s" word as I did in my post above. Well done.

Anonymous said...

JB:
You clearly have Stockholm syndrom. You have been kidnapped and brainwashed by xianity and now you are an addict and believe the propaganda of your captors. My mother and her family tried with me and failed miserably....thank god!!!!ha! ha! ha! I'd rather be addicted to heroin....at least the high would be real.

Anyway, Mary was definitely NOT a virgin. The definition of virgin is merely "maiden" or unwed woman. Surely you've heard of other "virgin births" that were meant tongue in cheek??? It is likely Mary was raped or willingly fornicated and to protect her reputation, **viola!** she was a pregnant virgin! Also if she had not been a virgin, she could not have married so she had to have a miraculous pregnancy to marry Joseph. That is just another falicy of the buybull that MEN wrote to control man-kind's behavior, (especially women-kind).

As previously posted, if for no other reason than the sheer number of times it has been translated, the buybull has no validity. Not to mention that xians can't even agree on a version of it. It was NOT written by god. It was written by men to answer men's philosophical questions for which man was not advanced enough to answer with science. It is no different that Greek and Roman mythology which was created for the same purpose. In fact, a lot of the bible was stolen from mythology or other more ancient religions and almost all religions have some form of "virgin birth".

Newspaper reporters can't accurately report an item mere hours after an event. But you are willing to believe the buybull, specifically the new testament, which was written 200-300 years after the supposed death and resurrection of a man who probably didn't even exist, in a language that no longer exists and has been translated and interpreted innumerable times over the last 1700 years. There is probably not 10% of it that is accurate to the original writing, and the original writing was probably not even 10% accurate to the events. Gullible, gullible, gullible. My dad used to say "There should be a tax for being stupid." I've told him there is....any donation to any religious organization!!!

Anonymous said...

JB: "Sure it makes "sense" that you need evidence, but that is just because you have learned to think that way."

The same "sense" it makes that a Court of Law requires evidence to support allegations and alibis in criminal cases?

Anonymous said...

@Jim Arvo,

Thank you sir! I agree with you, this topic is screaming to be labeled with the "s" word. Personally, I felt you and some of the other folks had already nailed the coffin shut on this one, but since JB kept hanging on there it seemed like a good idea to spell it out for him.

Happy Friday!

Still having trouble with my account...

Ubergeek

Anonymous said...

J.B.!not that you will come out of your coma long enough to understand,but most of us were very dedicated fundamentalist christians.Many of us were ordained ministers(me for 20 yrs)!
Your refusal to accept this proves your just another brainwashed cult
member of churchianity.Your"once saved always saved" doctrine is also proof your brain has been hi-jacked by a denominational cult!
Wake Up!!!in jeebus name,.Awake!!
I command thee awake from thy
Coma,NOW!!!!in jeebus name,
amen.

SpaceMonk said...

The 'S' word?
Was that "Sasquatch"?
;)

Jim Arvo said...

Spacemonk asked "The 'S' word? Was that 'Sasquatch'?"

No, no, no... "Sasquatch" is a 'B' word! Don't make me use the "s" word on you. :-)

Anonymous said...

Spacemonk says: "The 'S' word?
Was that "Sasquatch"?
;)"

I thought the "s" word was "Spacemonk." ;D


Ubergeek

Anonymous said...

Oops. I didn't think about context...

Sorry Spacemonk!

Ubergeek

Anonymous said...

For those of you looking for evidence, there are many confirmations of the truth and reality the Bible outside of the Bible itself.

The most documented Biblical event is the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6-9. A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same flood.

The Sumerian King List, for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time. Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed.

The Story of Adapa tells of a test for immortality involving food, similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language as we have in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). There was a golden age when all mankind spoke the same language. Speech was then confused by the god Enki, lord of wisdom. The Babylonians had a similar account in which the gods destroyed a temple tower and "scattered them abroad and made strange their speech."


Other examples of extra-Biblical confirmation of Biblical events:

Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.

Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.

Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.

Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.

Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.

Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.

Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.

Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.

Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.

Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.

Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.

Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

....if you need more, I can give it to you!

Anonymous said...

proof4u, mythology, like all fiction, is always based on actual facts. Otherwise the reader/listener wouldn't have a frame of context to understand it by. Could there have been a devistating flood? Certainly. Devistating floods happen (just ask the folks in New Orleans). The question is, was there a flood that covered the whole planet and killed off everything except Noah and his arc? Or did the scribes who wrote the book of Genesis simply borrow this story from the Babylonions?
The Bible includes references to actual people and events because its writers were aware of these people and events and wanted to tie them to their God. That's all.

Unknown said...

proof4u,

Whether the Bible contains some factual information is not at issue. There was an assertion made here that the Bible was inspired by God, and that man was merely the tool by which God accomplished the composition. In what you've written, I see nothing that indicates divine inspiration.

By the way, after doing a quick Google search, I discovered that you cut and pasted this entire post from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html. You could've at least given your source material in your post. Not doing so is disengenuous.

I can't speak to the historicity of particular events described in the Bible as I'm not an archaeologist, nor am I particularly interested in Biblical archaeology. However, just for fun let's play with this for a bit.

There are flood stories from boatloads (pun intended) of cultures from everywhere around the world. However, the details of each (including the extent of the flood and when it happened) vary depending on the culture from which the story originates. Some stories describe the gods causing bodies of water to rise, others describe great deluges (a la Noah), while others describe everything from ice wounds of a frost giant to overflowing canals. Some stories have certain individuals building great boats that ultimately land on some mountain. However, the mere fact that many cultures contain flood stories does not mean they all reference the same flood.

The stories most similar to the biblical account originate from the same geographical region. The Assyrians and Babylonians have accounts that are very similar. Perhaps there was a catastrophic flood in that region, and some particularly enterprising individual built a large boat and saved a bunch of animals. Nevertheless, this doesn't prove the biblical account, or that any flood was really 'world-wide,' nor does it prove that God had anything to do with it, or that God inspired man to write it in the Bible.

As for life-spans being shortened after this catastrophic flood, do you have evidence that man's life-span across the globe was shortened? Do you have evidence that this wasn't caused by some post-flood contagion?

The Story of Adapa is only similar in the sense that Adapa and Adam are both words for "man," and that a god told them not to eat something. Missing from the Adapa story is the Garden of Eden, Eve, the serpent, the tree, the fruit, and the reason not to eat. Adapa is admonished not to eat as a part of his instruction on what not to do when in a particular being's presence in heaven. Google "Story of Adapa" and you can read the story for yourself, rather than parroting a Christian website.

As for confused speech, I can think of at least two reasons for differences in speech, and one reason to write a story to explain it that leaves deity completely out of it. One reason might be people who speak a different language moving into the area and interacting with the locals, but look similar physically. Another might be the evolution of the language proceeding at different rates in different regions. People might be prompted to write a story to explain this in terms they could understand, ascribing the cause to deity rather than natural events.

The rest of your information is irrelevant. Even if a particular text contains some factual information does not mean that it is valid in every way, or that God had anything to do with it. Furthermore, there's a massive leap to be made from believing historical events occurred to believing God caused these historical events to occur, or that God inspired man to record them.

I'm running out of time, so I have to wrap up...

The entirety of your post does nothing to 'prove' God had anything to do with the Bible's composition, even assuming all of your information is accurate and 'unspun.' I've seen the 'historically accurate' card played before (used it myself, once upon a time), and it never seems to dawn on the folks who use it that none of this is evidence of God's intervention/interaction/interference in the world, or of any alleged inspiration by God in composing the Bible.

After a quick re-read, I think this post is a little lame, but I'm putting it up anyway.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

To anyone with GUTS: Read the Bible! Read the entire thing! People simply trust others' slander of this book and don't read and develop their own opinions. I don't mean read a few chapters, or a little bit and then base all your arguments on this. It is clear from some people's arguments here that they are suffering greatly from ignorance stemming from the fact that NO ONE actually READS the bible anymore! You wouldn't review a movie you haven't seen, would you? That would be ridiculous. No one would care what you thought about a movie you had not seen. Likewise, unless you have read the entire bible, please do not purport yourself to be an expert on its inanity! People who don't read the bible and then slander it are cowards. They are afraid that they might actually start believing what it says. "The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing the soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." I would start with the new testament, since it has more releveance to today. The OT is a history that explains the circumstances leading to the coming of Jesus. I challenge you to read it cover to cover, and then say that God did not inspire the words. Please write to me at lizbenparsons@yahoo.com to comment on this.

Unknown said...

lizbenparsons,

I'll be replying to you via email, but just in case...

You might not have noticed, but this is an EX-Christian website. Most, if not all, of the folks here HAVE read the Bible, cover to cover, more than once. There are ex-pastors, ex-theology students, and a plethora of other ex-believers who DO have the courage to read the Bible, and have done so.

For many of us, it took a great deal of courage to look at the Bible in a critical light and finally cast off the shackles of ignorance which now bind you.

Look around here a bit. Read the posts. You might be surprised what you find.

Dave Van Allen said...

I've read the Bible cover to cover dozens of times.

Is that enough?

David said...

To lizbeparsons,

I know you are trying to help and reach other but don't bother. Read Matthew 7:6 and you will know why. I tried the same thing to no avail. Now I just check the website from time to time trying to keep other Christians from posting here. I submitted a post to all Christians not to go here and post anymore but the webmaster would not put it up. He needs Christians to post here to keep the website alive. I encourage you and all other Christians to not post here. We can find another place on the internet to go.

Dave Poole

David said...

To lizbeparsons,

I know you are trying to help and reach other but don't bother. Read Matthew 7:6 and you will know why. I tried the same thing to no avail. Now I just check the website from time to time trying to keep other Christians from posting here. I submitted a post to all Christians not to go here and post anymore but the webmaster would not put it up. He needs Christians to post here to keep the website alive. I encourage you and all other Christians to not post here. We can find another place on the internet to go.

Dave Poole

Jim Arvo said...

lizbenparsons said "To anyone with GUTS: Read the Bible! Read the entire thing! People simply trust others' slander of this book and don't read and develop their own opinions...."

Bravo!!! I couldn't agree with you more!

lizbenparsons: "It is clear from some people's arguments here that they are suffering greatly from ignorance stemming from the fact that NO ONE actually READS the bible anymore!..."

Yes, you are absolutely right. It never ceases to amaze me how many devout believers have never even read their own holy book from cover to cover. We see them here on a daily basis.

lizbenparsons: "People who don't read the bible and then slander it are cowards. They are afraid that they might actually start believing what it says...."

Can you also admit the converse? That people who claim it is "god's word" or that it contains "no contradictions" without having read it are also cowards? Can you admit that they may have trepidation about what they might discover if they actually read it?

lizbenparsons: "I challenge you to read it cover to cover, and then say that God did not inspire the words."

Okay, I accept your challenge. I've already read it cover to cover several times (and piecemeal many more times), and I think it's clearly the work of credulous people. I've also read hundreds of books written by both apologists and skeptics, then carefully checked out as much as I could on my own (not 100%, of course, since many of the manuscripts and other artifacts are impractical for me to access directly). The phrases "no contest" and "slam dunk" spring to mind. I think the evidence is simply overwhelming that Christianity is a man-made religion, just like hundreds of others.

Have you read any scholarly works that critically examine the Bible or Christianity? If so, can you name a few titles and/or authors?

Unknown said...

David,

LOL...good luck with reaching the approximately 11,250,000 Christians in the U.S. with Internet access who might wander across this website.

Hehe...pearls before swine...good one!

Jim Arvo said...

David, it seems to me that you are afraid of debate. You are afraid of this place because we examine your beloved doctrines; we know them inside and out, and we have come to see them through rational eyes. The reason that you (and other like-minded Christians) make no headway here is that you have no evidence to back your assertions. You have "belief", and you have "faith", which are both proxies for the hard currency of reason and evidence.

Can you bravely face the fact that we disagree with you? Must everyone adhere to the same religious doctrines that you do? Please do answer that question. It seems you are always on the ready with some insinuation about the motives of the webmaster or the regulars here rather than simply facing up to the reality that WE DISAGREE WITH YOU, and that we can present a RATIONAL CASE for disagreeing with you.

David said...

To Jim Avro,

It is OK to disagree. The Christians and Non-christians are not going to agree here. Everytime the two groups discuss we meet at an impass. WE can argue asd discuss all day but the outcome is the same. "We believe by faith." and "We believe in the facts." That's it. It never gets past that, and if it does get past that it just degenerates into mindless mane calling and slanderous acusations. That is why I say Christians should not come here. Not to mention the fact that the other Ex-Christian alumni have said thaey don't want us here.

David said...

To ubergeek,

That's the point. I do not need to reach all 11,250,000 Christians, just he ones that come to this site. I am trying to keep them off this site.

Dave Poole

Jim Arvo said...

David, many people learn from this site. Go ahead and try to shelter people from it; I think it's a misguided idea, and it won't work anyway. Why are you not content to let people express their opinions and be exposed to other ideas? Sheltering ideas from debate does not strengthen them in the least.

Anonymous said...

David,
A much larger threat to you and your faith, than ex-Christians is Islam. Muslims are taking up residence here and in every country in the world and their "bible" tells them that anyone who will not convert to Islam, should be killed, and if any Muslim gives up their faith in Islam they should die.

They have no interest in assimilating into the countries they are immigrating to, in fact just the opposite, their stated objective is to change every country into an Islamic theocracy.
Dan (Rationalist)

Must read:   Click here: Faith Freedom International
( http://www.faithfreedom.org/ )

David said...

To Jim Avro and Dan(rationalist),

Few people have on this site have been interested in exchanging "ideas". "I spit on your God.", "Your God is nothing.", "Grow up and join reallity.", "All this God stuff is in your head", "Your worthless GET OUT!" don't seem like ideas to me but rather vicious attacks. Take a look at some of the other posts on here (focus on guys like "Ben", south2003, and other similar posters). These guys don;t want us here and I think we should give them what they want. I think it is humurous that Christians get slammed and ridiculed here and then when someone says we should leave they ask "Where are you going? Why are you leaving?" It is the equivalent of making fun of a kid at recess and then apologizing so he won't leave with the only ball.

This site is harmful to those who may be "on the edge" of giving up Christianity or for those who just have questions. The information presented is not objective. I understand that this is because there is an inbalance between Christian and non-christian participants. But the non-christian posts, or the posts that are retorts to Christian posts are more often then not just simple attacks. Again I reference "Ben" and "south2003". All hostility and no civility. There it is.

Dave Poole
Dave Poole

David said...

To Jim Avro,

I am sure people learn here, I know I did. But I just worry that individuals are being bullied around during difficult times in there lives and not being presented with all teh information. That's all.

I am also a little bitter, I must admit, because the webmaster neglected to answer several questions that I asked of him and felt it unneccesary (or harmful) to post my "Testimony".

Dave Poole

David said...

To South2003,

For the first time you are right, this is a waste of my time and bandwidth space. I have no desire for attention, although I am kind of hooked on this.

And if you think I lied fine. I am glad I have a God who extends endless grace.

Dave Pooel

Dave Van Allen said...

Sorry about that Mr. Poole. What were your questions again?

And, just for the record, I don't post everything that Christians send me by email. However, I do allow Christians to post comments to the topics, as witnesssed by your many posts. The testimony you sent me was a bit of a sermon directing Christians to stop posting on this site. It appears to me that I might be more tolerant of opposing views and ideas than you.

Even so, I won't condemn you to hell for holding a different opinion from me.

Now, to another subject: how would you feel if I lumped all Christians into one group, picked out one or two that rubbed me the wrong way, and classified every Christian as rude, nasty, ignorant, or whatever?

I bet you'd think that was unfair.

Well, ex-Christians are as diverse as the world we live in. We are not united by any creed, world-view, background, language, race, sex, or social more. We are united by only one thing, having left one of the hundreds of versions of Christianity behind. We were all once Christian and now we aren't — that's all that unites us.

However, your God is almighty, right? Just pray to Him, and I'm sure he'll convert me, or shut the site down, or just kill me. Ask Him. Ask Him now!










Waiting...



Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Why do most Christians who come here get treated the way they do? Here's my take on it:


It's like someone stumbling on to an A.A. support website and saying:


"Yes, all alcohol is bad for you, except Christweiser. You recovering alcoholics should give it try----you just haven't had the right beer, yet. If you have tried it and didn't like it, it's because you drank it wrong, and/or you misinterpreted the warning label. And no, I don't have any medical evidence showing that Christweiser is the only beer that's actually good for you, I just believe it is because.......well, just because."

David said...

To south2003

"Say what you mean and mean what you say." Nice words. Perhaps I was just being.....pragmatic.

To webmaster,

webmaster: "And, just for the record, I don't post everything that Christians send me by email. However, I do allow Christians to post comments to the topics, as witnesssed by your many posts. The testimony you sent me was a bit of a sermon directing Christians to stop posting on this site. It appears to me that I might be more tolerant of opposing views and ideas than you."

It was not a bit of a sermon sermon directing Christians to stay away, it "WAS" a sermon directing Christians to stay away. If you were more tolorant of others opinions I believe you would post my testomony. It never got posted so I guess your tolerance is open to speculation.

I will honor your prayer requests, no problem. Maybe you could answer those questions for me. I would really appreciate it.

webmaster: Even so, I won't condemn you to hell for holding a different opinion from me.

I didn't think you had that kind of power. But thanks anyway.

Dave Poole

Jim Arvo said...

David,

I'm stunned by the sheer number of straw men that you can erect. Nobody is preventing you from leaving. In fact, most of us are perplexed that you are still around, given that you seem to have nothing of substance to offer. Please, leave, and take your condescension with you. I think everybody will get on just a little easier. I was merely questioning the wisdom of your stated goal of keeping people away from this site. For me, it always sends up a red flag when somebody want to shelter others from a site like this.

As for the ridicule that you and other Christians receive here, some of it is unwarranted (I'll grant you that), and some of it is richly deserved. If you barge into a place where you know full well from the outset that everyone disagrees with you, make unseemly accusations, proffer unsupported opionions, and generally annoy everyone, what do you expect? Let me tell you, David, I've been treated FAR worse that you at various Christian sites, merely for asking a few polite questions.

David: "This site is harmful to those who may be 'on the edge' of giving up Christianity or for those who just have questions. The information presented is not objective."

Not objective?! Such hypocrisy! You come here with nothing but "faith" to support your views, and you accuse *us* of not being objective? Sorry, but I stand in slack-jawed incredulity at that remark. As for this site being "harmful", yes it is harmful to "faith", as it is intended to be. If you do not want your faith questioned, then there is a simple way to shelter yourself; go to a different site. But YOU, David, are not in charge of making that decision for anybody else.

David: "I am sure people learn here, I know I did. But I just worry that individuals are being bullied around during difficult times in there lives and not being presented with all teh information."

The people who come here because they are in the process of leaving Christianity get a lot of attention, a lot of friendly support, and lots of useful advice from people who have been there. Take a look at some of those threads. You'll see nothing but compassion coming from the regulars here. That's the *real* purpose of this site, according to the webmaster, who created it. Now, look back to those same threads and you'll usually also see hate-filled messages from Christians who cannot accept the decisions that people have made for themselves. Can you open you eyes to the vitriolic condemnation that spews forth from them, David? Do you see that, or do you gloss over it? Or maybe you think they're being good Christians. To me they are rude, narrow minded, and often bigoted.

So don't complain about ridicule unless you are also prepared to see it coming from your side of the divide as well.

Jim Arvo said...

Hey BoomSlang, where can I get some a that there Christwiser? The 7-11 round the corner don't carry it. Dang!

David said...

To Jim Avro,

I will admit whole-heartedlly that some Christians do come here and post narrow-minded and bigoted statements. but this site is not just a support group for ex-christians. Any ills that befall the church or Christianity as a whole appear here; Pastors fondling girls, priests raping boys, clergy stealing and laundering money, etc. If it was just to encourage it would not list these things. You never see anything good posted, or positve about Christianity. It is all one way. And the people posting do sometimes take an objective stance, like yourself. Some can see past the articles about all the bad things that can be found to slander Christians or Christianity. But others just hate. They see these articles, they see the coruption that only represents a small portion of the faith and it fuels the fire. This site, while it may encourage some, has an agenda. An agenda to not accept, not to live-and-let-live, but to tear down, erode, and destroy Christians and Christianity.

Maybe I'm crazy, but that is how I see it. I do see a lot of hypocricy and duality in Christianity; I see a lot of love, compassion, and mercy as well. But you don't see that here on this site. You see only the bad, none of the good. That is why I say it is dangerous. One can not make an informed decision with only 1/2 the facts.


Dave Poole

David said...

To Jim Avro,

What is a straw man?

Anonymous said...

Tell ya what....present O-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-E evidence for the existance of biblegod, and then we might examine the other "half" of the facts. If you take your belief on "faith", then just say so, and then scram....as I have "faith" that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and lordy, I need a cigarette! LMAO!

Anonymous said...

David,

If you don't like this site, why don't you just wonder on down the net highway.

Unknown said...

I'll get the definition for Jim. However, because I'm feeling lazy, this is from Wikipedia:

Straw Man:

The straw man fallacy is a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position; deriving from the use of straw men in combat training.

Setting it up:

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Example:

Debater A: "I don't think that children should play out in the busy streets."

Debater B: "I think it's very cruel to deny children their freedom to play out of doors, or to go wherever they please. Children should not be kept locked-up in their own homes as my opponent suggests."

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Dave Van Allen said...

"I will honor your prayer requests, no problem. Maybe you could answer those questions for me. I would really appreciate it."

The website is still up, I haven't converted, and I'm not dead. Are you SURE you are praying? As I asked above, what were those questions again? I honestly don't remember. Thanks.

"webmaster: Even so, I won't condemn you to hell for holding a different opinion from me.

I didn't think you had that kind of power. But thanks anyway."

Good point — I don't have that power, and neither do you, and neither does your imaginary god.

Are you still praying?






Waiting...








Waiting...









Still waiting...

freeman said...

David Poole,
Definition of faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

In other words, wishful thinking!

Now that is harmful to society!

Anonymous said...

Thanks ubergeek, those definitions prove that David himself is a strawman, a tin man, and a cowardly lion, and David is off to see the wizard.

Unknown said...

Dave says:

"One can not make an informed decision with only 1/2 the facts."

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. That's exactly why sites like this are a good thing. The other 1/2 of the information you refer to comes from sources that also have an agenda - to promote Christianity - and therefore spun the opposite direction.

There are thousands of websites out there promoting the Christian faith, as you are well aware. While I don't have hard numbers, I'd be willing to bet they outnumber sites like these (assuming this is lumped in with the other skeptic-type sites) by at least 10 to 1.

By the way, having an agenda is not necessarily a bad thing. Christian media is always complaining about this group or that group having "an agenda," as if they themselves do not, and as if the mere presence of an agenda is an indicator of Satanic influence.

Cheers!

Dave Van Allen said...

Poole said, "One can not make an informed decision with only 1/2 the facts."

Exactly the point with the revealing stories of phoney Christian leaders. The Internet has literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian websites touting all the supposedly positive aspects of Christianity. I don't know of any other sites exactly like this one, showing the absense of the reported magical transforming power of Christianity. Do you post on Christian websites and demand equal time on those sites for atheists or other unbelievers to post sermons against Christianity? If not, why not? Don't you want both sides of the story out there? Again, there are an uncountable number of Christian websites out there. You're perspective on Christianity is well represented on the Internet.

Yet, just one site like this apparently terrifies you because it's soooo dangerous.

Oh brother — get real.

What you should fear is the heinous crimes committed by the leaders in your religion; you shouldn't fear a little website that collects random stories of what various "MEN OF GOD" have done. If all these "MEN OF GOD" weren't doing all these horrible things, this website wouldn't be able to collect the stories, would it?

Sad.

Oh, are you still praying? Because I'm still waiting.

David said...

To webmaster,
webmaster: Doctors told me that my daughter would be born with Spina Bifida. They ran tests and confirmed that my daughter had this condition, and advised that we might want to consider an abortion. My daughter was not magically healed, but when she was born, she did not have the condition, not a trace of it. The doctors' tests were mistaken.

I asked you if you prayed for your daughter during this time. I was just curious. You claim it was a faulty test. How many times did they perform the test? And how often did you pray for her to be well? I am glad she turned out to be alright though.

Dave Poole

P.S. I'm still praying, so keep me updated.

David said...

To webmaster,

I respectfully ask that after you post your answers to my questions you indefinetly remove me from this website. Please do not allow me to post here anymore. I lack both the will and self-control to stop myself. Thanks.

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

I for one do not want to see Christianity eradicated. It helps to control ignorant people who cannot think for themselves. That's what it was created for anyway - to keep the masses in line with fear and threat of hellfire.

Anonymous said...

Ubergeek:
"LOL...good luck with reaching the approximately 11,250,000 Christians in the U.S. with Internet access who might wander across this website."

Well he reached me and if even if it is only one, he's done what he needed to do, and he will be rewarded it for it one day. God will most definitely take care of everything else.

Thanks Dave Poole!

SpaceMonk said...

Yes ThanksDave!! for saving us the trouble of arguing another 100 posts with an ignoramus.

Obviously this guy has more will power and self control than you though.

Who knows, if he had started posting we mere mortals might have been able to wrest his soul from gods Almighty grip.

Thanks Dave!!

Dave Van Allen said...

Yes I prayed at the time, as I was a Christian. I prayed, "Thy will be done." I knew even then that my prayer was not much more than resignation and acceptance.

We had one Ultrasound test before the diagnoses and went back for several more Ultrasound tests afterward — not one of the Ultrasound tests confirmed the Spina Bifida. Oh, and the doctors giving us the Ultrasound test were military. The doctor that gave us the Spina Bifida diagnoses was a civilian at a very large hospital. Two doctors, one who was right, and another who was wrong. It was just a bad diagnoses, that's all. It happens all the time!

Now, a question for you: When was the last time someone had a severed limb restored through prayer? That's not the question, really. This is the question: Why is it that all the supposedly magical healings credited to prayer or a god are all things that are either internal, invisible problems, or problems that can be healed through normal channels? If it's going to be a magical healing, why is it that the regeneration of a severed limb is completely out of the question?

Oh, and I remain unconverted, am alive, and the site is still up? Are you sure you're praying to an almighty god? Is he asleep, or does he just fail to keep his promises to hear the prayers of his people? Maybe you're not a True Christian™. Maybe you've been deceived to think you are a Christian, and that's why your prayers remain unanswered. Maybe there is sin in your life, keeping the ears of your god closed to you!

Add another request to your prayer list: pray that your god will give you the self control you lack, or that he will magically block you from this "dangerous" website.

Anonymous said...

David,
The reason you are addicted to this site is: This is the first time in your life that you have been able to garner any attention over a time span of several days, with your rather generic religious doctrine.

If you had gone to a Christian website, your theological views and beliefs would be no different from any other person on that site, and therefore you would have received little or no attention.

Aside from the fact that most people here really would like to save another human being from the clutches of your cult, there is a certain smugness that we acquire when we practice thinking without incorporating mythology into our personal philosophy. It becomes totally obvious to us that rational thought, completely devoid of all make believe, is unassailable.

AND THAT ALL MYTHOLOGICAL BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE INDEFENSIBLE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DEFEND ANYTHING THAT IS MAKE BELIEVE.

We know, what hasn't sunk into your consciousness yet, and that is: When people construct religious instruction literature such as the bible they always include all kinds of passages that block any conceivable escape rout, I. E "IF you don't accept what is written here without question, you will go to hell and burn forever"

All religions do it. Some religions like Islam make it virtually impossible for someone who is indoctrinated at a very young age, to escape.

David, deep down you know that an omnipotent, omniscient, creator is not interested what petty beliefs we have, simply because if it was, it wouldn't be the force that created us.
It takes a lot of NAIVETY, to think that God is sitting on his throne in heaven with absolute concern about what we, who in geological time have just began to think, are believing.

Get over yourself Dave, there is REAL work for us to do if we are going to save ourselves and this planet.
Dan (Rationalist)

Anonymous said...

yawn are people that stupid. you cant have a virgin birth even with magic its impossible and downright retarded. man some people are so guillible.

Anonymous said...

heres a question for the christians what if God (who to me isnt physical at all) happens to be a buddhist? well buddhists were opressed for many centuries by christians tryign to force thier beleifs onto them.......

Anonymous said...

i rather agree with what david had to say. but i think that the people that frequent this site have had the short end of the stick when it comes to christians including myself(muttmutt)

Anonymous said...

If a god wrote or inspired it, why is there no mention of many things a true "All Knowing" god should know? ---- -----------
----------
There is NOTHING in the Bible which shows any knowledge of much other than the immidate area of the Middle East. --------------------------------
The Bible says the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe and on and on with things any TRUE ALL KNOWING "god" would not allow to be written.---
---------
----------
And there are many other reasons no god had any thing to do with writing the Bible only things like facts and logic are wasted on believers.----------------------
Neil C. Reinhardt
----------

Anonymous said...

the bible was written by trout with their magic fins.............sheesh people will believe anything if its written down .......
muttmutt1978

Anonymous said...

JB, your religion has filled your head with so much nonsense that you cannot even see the truth, that the bible was written by men! What do you think, that God poked "his (or her, or whatever)" hand out of the sky and picked up a pen and started wrriting? Why is the book so screwed up then?

Anonymous said...

Can't you see the obvious problems in the gospels? What were Christs last words on the cross, "My God, why hast thous forsaken me?" or "It is finished?"

That is just the tip of the iceberg. The bible contains many errors. Christian theology has many problems.

Anonymous said...

The answer to the question regarding Christs last words, of course, is "who knows?"

Anonymous said...

Saith jb:

...there is really no such thing as an exchristian - your either a chritian now or your never have been.

You need to get a clue, mate. There is such a thing as an ex-Christian, and we are proof of it. Pull your head out of your arse and open your eyes for once in your life.

Aeryn (Fyrefly)

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with you. There are 66 books in the bible and none of them contradict each other. That takes allot of planning and allot of mental power. The atheist argument here is saying that since there is no God how could God write the bible? You are backing your answer on the assumption of the non-exsistance of God. All either of us is wanting is for the truth to come out. So stop fighting and lets come to a REASONABLE CONCLUSION

Anonymous said...

You're exactly right Brad!

The word of God cannot be defiled by man. Every word, verse, scripture, parable, prophesy, is absolutely the true breath spoken word directly from Mr.God himself, even the ink used to write down the words in the Bible, was spilled out from the very Heart Pumped Veins of God, (red letter edition).

Gods message is Holy true and pure and no matter how much Atheists and non-believers try, their damndist to prove otherwise, God's Holy emmaculate word always comes out the Victor, God's Holy word will always prevail.

Praise God, Brad it's such a thrill to meet a fellow Christian that knows deep down in his Heart that God has a plan laid out just for you my friend, how it must feel to be chosen out of billions of sinners, to be looked upon on High of his Almighty Grace, to know there awaits a mansion built around streets of Gold and Emeralds and Diamonds with your Name Highlighted in the Lambs Book of Life, right beside Jesus's Holy name.

I personally cannot wait until that glorious day when We Christians( snubs nose at Atheists), will be there to account as a witness of full payment for our sins atoned for the blood payment through the sacrifice and crucifixion of Jesus' our personal Lord and Saviour on High!

Hows it feel to you Brad? You ready to meet the Lord? Like I am.

Ben (The Rationalist)

Anonymous said...

Hey Brad, are you a non-believer who's being a super sarcastic smart-ass?(called for, at times)....or.... are you a believer who's being a super ignorant dumb-ass?(cool, none of the time)

Just curious.

Anonymous said...

Here's another contradiction in christian theology. Christ said that the "Meek" would "inherit the earth." According to christian theology, the "meek" would be christians, yet christians are all too often far from being "meek." Many are total assholes. It is absurd to suggest that these would be the "meek" to whom christ was referring.

Dave Van Allen said...

"Consider that the bible might be true and that God is not the author of evil."

Revelation 4:11: thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

All things means ALL things. Hell, the devil, most of humanity damned, all for HIS pleasure.

"He would, in consistancy with his character and the definition of good..."

For the definition of good, please listen to a podcast by clicking here.

Dave Van Allen said...

"Consider that God set up this world in such a way so that people would have complete freedom, and in that freedom the power to reject himself and to therefore by default choose suffering because freedom is the ultimate and greatest cause..."

The freedom you've described is a freedome to either love HIM the way HE demands to be loved, or suffer horrifically for rejecting that "love."

I'm sorry, but that sounds more like a rapist demanding submission from a victim and promising torture if the affections are repulsed. "You're free to reject my hot embrace, but if you do so I'll have no choice but to slit your throat. If you accept my affections, then you can live. It's your free choice," quoth the Rapist.

Nevermore, say I.

Freedom is letting something go, not threatening it with eternally horrific retribution.

Think about it.

Anonymous said...

.....::sigh::.....


They just DON'T get it, do they?.....another long-winded post gone to the dung-beetle.

Hey Liz?....'you there? Listen babe, your "God"...yes, YOUR god--- welp, "He" does not exist, and furthermore, "He" CAN not exist. Liz, there is no such a thing as a "square circle"; there is no such thing as a "married bachelor". By the EXACT same reasoning, love that is offered conditionally, DOES NOT exist. And please, do NOT come in here and try to tell intelligent compassionate human beings that your god's "love" is a "choice".

What would you say to a thug who would hold your mother or sister hostage with a 12 gauge sawed-off shot gun, and who would then tell them that they have a "choice" of whether to give him their money, or not? Let's pretend---let's say that your mother or sister told the thug that he couldn't have the money, and then 2 seconds later, their guts where distributed all over the wall behind where they last stood.

Liz?..what would you say to this person if he told you that he gave your mother or sister a "choice"? C'mon, Liz, it's the SAME "freewill" that you claim your "God" gives us. Don't try and spin it to suit your dogma, really T-H-I-N-K about it, for a change.

Anonymous said...

Again---real love is NOT conditional. BTW, I don't think your god is arrogant; I think your god is non-existant. Furthermore, even if your god DID exist--- ANY being who cannot follow their OWN rules is not worthy of my admiration, let alone, my worship. Thanks, but no thanks.

Have a good day.

Anonymous said...

Gee, Liz.... if that post was "for people who still believe in God", then I suppose the next logical question is: WTF are you doing in an EX-Christian web site? Scram....go to the zoo engage a talking donkey.

Dave Van Allen said...

Liz, how can you tell that God is good unless you already have an idea in your mind of what good means?

If you already have an idea of what good means, then God doesn't define good, something else defines good. If God commands the slaughter of whole people groups, then that would be good, right? Do you think killing whole people groups is good? God has commanded the slaughter of whole people groups, therefore slaughtering whole people groups must be good.

I doubt very many people, outside of Hitler, or other insane despots, would call genocide good. The definition of good must be outside of God, and therefore even God must answer to a predetermined standard.

Now, if you're comparing your god to your boss at work, then you've made a serious error. You've accurately described the scam that is Christianity, and I doubt that was your intention. If serving god is analogous to serving an employer, then it is quid pro quo relationship you have with your god. You do something to get something. If my employer stopped paying me, I'd no longer answer to that employer. I only go to work and do what my employer says because he/she gives me money.

Do you only serve your god because it has promised you a jeweled crown? Suppose there were no reward for serving this god, would you still serve it? If not, why not? Don't you love this god? Wouldn't you serve it even without the threat of eternal, horrific agony or the promise of everlasting bliss?

If the threats and promises of reward are removed, would you still serve this god?

True enough, however, if there is a God and he/she/it made us, then we are its toys and he/she/it can do with us as it likes. But, having the power to break its toys doesn't make a god a good god, it just makes it a possessive employer.

Dave Van Allen said...

"Boundaries are important and basic in life-- wouldn't you agree?"

I'd agree, boundaries are necessary to maintaining an orderly society.

Let me ask you, if you lost your religion tomorrow, would you suddenly become a thief, murderer, or adulterer? Is it only your religion that keeps you from anti-social behavior? If so, that's sad.

Dave Van Allen said...

So Liz, your God could not have come up with a world where there was free will, yet the choices didn't include going to hell for eternity?

Not a very creative god is it?

I'm taking it that you believe you will LOSE your free will in heaven then, right? No one will ever choose to rebel there, because no one will be able to choose to rebel. Even Christians, filled with the magical Holy Sprite (spelling intential) frequently choose to sin, yet once these children of god are translated to Glory, will no longer have the ability to sin -- no more free will.

I don't think I'd work for an employer that threatened to torture me forever if I didn't make my productivity goals. I don't think I'd want a father who was in the habit of torturing people in a furnace for offending him. Sounds a bit like Sadam Hussein, torturing people for minor offenses.

Anyway, keep on worshipping the Goa'uld, that's your free choice.

Dave Van Allen said...

I posted my testimony when I started this site. It's linked in the left column of every single page. It says "Webmaster's Anti-Testimony."

Anonymous said...

LIz said:

"anyone who comes to God must first believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek Him." (Hebrews).

What gets me is, christians use these metaphorical phrases that the looney bibilical opiumheads wrote down over 2000 years ago, apparently they think that by mimicking those phrases, makes their God become true.

Lets enter a different God, thanks to Liz.

"anyone who comes to Allah must first believe that Allah exists and that Allah is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek Allah." (Hebrews)

Therefore Allah exists, and all christians are going to Hell.

Lets try another one.

"anyone who comes to Daffey Duck must first believe that Daffey Duck exists and that Daffey is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek Daffey Duck." (Hebrews)

Therefore Daffey Duck exists and I will pray for all you people who refuse to worship Daffey Duck.

Hebrews coffee in the morning, and Shebrews Tea in the evening.

Liz hun, get a life and a brain too Ok?

You're just repeating garbage that you've read or heard someone say, and now in your own self-rightousness you pretend like all christians, that you are Jesus incarnate.

go to: www.nomorefakegods.blogspot.com

Dave Van Allen said...

So Liz, have you read my testimony yet?

David said...

To Liz,

I am a Christian who has been here for a little while now and let me tell you, you nailed it right on the head. And now that you stuck up for yourself you can probably expect some more name calling or the infamous title of "TRUE CHRISTIAN" just because you pushed back a little.

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

Liz wrote:
"I see that you are right and that I am wasting my time in talking to anyone here, while getting insulted in the process"

Liz! Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk. This advice has no significance whatsoever to your post, but I have always liked the sound of it.

It's a beautiful day for a walk with Jesus. Can I hear an Amen?
Dan (Who believes every body has the capacity for rational thought, if the love "Truth" enough)

Steven Bently said...

Liz, This is going to be a big surprise to you, but the people that wrote the bible over 2000 yrs. ago, thought that the Heart was the center of all thought and emotions, today we know that the brain is the center of all thought and emotions, surely God knew of the brain, this proves that God had no part in writing the bible.


Your Heart Pumps Blood only!

A Human Heart:

Does not have strings!

Does not break!

Does not have rudder!

Has no eyes or ears!

Has no roots!

You cannot invite God, Jesus, Mother Teresa, etc. into your Heart.

Liz please quit mimicking and repeating ignorant retarded people that lived in fear of an invisible ghost/god over 2000 yrs. ago. Ok? Thanks!

David said...

To Ben,

Ben said: Liz, This is going to be a big surprise to you, but the people that wrote the bible over 2000 yrs. ago, thought that the Heart was the center of all thought and emotions, today we know that the brain is the center of all thought and emotions, surely God knew of the brain, this proves that God had no part in writing the bible.

This proves bologna, actually. The bible was written in a manner that would be understood by the people of the day. If the early Disciples and the first missionaries went around saying that the earth was round, and revolved around the sun they would have been killed. And the early Christians would not have understood either. If the authors of the bible had written all that then Christianity would have never gotten off the ground.

Secondly, the heart is used in the bible as a metaphor, not just in the literal sense. People to this day still use it that way, even outside of Christianity. And you know that, so why use it as an argument? Hmm…


Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

"This proves bologna, actually"

Well, at least you can SEE, TASTE, TOUCH, and SMELL bologna....hell, you can even HEAR it.... if you smack somebody up side the head with it!

So where's "God"?

Anonymous said...

If "God" is the author of the Bible, why would it carry any "misinformation". If man wrote the bible and wrote it so people 2000 years ago would understand it, then it is out of date and of little relevance to us.

Dave Van Allen said...

Liz,

If I'm reading you correctly:

1) You are of the opinion that I didn't have an authentic experience with your god.

2) In order to have an authentic experience with your god, I need to approach him correctly, or I'll never have an authentic experience.

3) A truely authentic experience with god is based mostly on emotion—silly little things like rational thought just get in the way.

4) God is no longer wrath, that's the Old Testament, which has nothing to do with your god anymore. Your god is all love, and loves everyone, and is filled up with love.

I'm serious here: Does your God still consign all those who fail to approach him in just the right way, and acquire an authentic experience, to an eternal, horrific eternity in the lake of fire he created, like it says in the book of Revelation?

David said...

To Mary,

Great point. So I guess we should disregard all of Shakespeare’s writings. His body of works is most certainly outdated. And The Iliad should be brushed off as insignificant as well, since it was written so long ago it must be of little relevance today, right? I suppose all accounts of history and events, and all literary works beyond 2000 years old should be destroyed as it obviously has no impact on modern day life. That would be the easiest way I think, right? We can’t learn anything from them, nothing at all.

That sounds a bit silly now, doesn’t it Mary?

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

I believe Shakespeare wrote "stories" and didn't claim it was "divine", or that it was plan of eternal salvation.

Dave Van Allen said...

So, David, are you saying that we should model our lives after Shakespearian plays? We should live according to the classical religion promoted in the Iliad?

As far as destroying all the books of antiquity, that's exactly what Christianity tried to do. Obviously that was a horrible thing they attempted. Thank goodness they failed. Click here.

The Bible is as interesting and valuable as any ancient piece literature, but it certainly is not handed down from a god, any more than any other interesting piece of ancient literature has been handed down from a deity. The Bible's contents are of little relevance to anyone alive today, except maybe as an aid to understanding how primitive mankind viewed the world. I wouldn't destroy it, but I wouldn't base my life around it. I wouldn't destroy or base my life around anything written 2000 years ago ever again, but maybe that's just me.

Anonymous said...

you are just a tad condescending now aren't you Dave.

Anonymous said...

David 03/20 at 2:56 pm.

Here, you insinuated that we are "dogs" and "swine" by referring to Matt. 7:6. How would you feel if somebody said that about you? To non-christians, christians are known to be self-righteous and holier than thou as it is. You have added fuel to their fire.

I used to be an asshole too, when I was a christian. Full of hatred and judgement, until I couldn't stand myself. I'm much happier without it.

Christ hung out with whores and lepers, shunning the church.

On 03/20 you also said, "I didn't think you had that kind of power..."

You wouldn't say that to a christian for "condemning" somebody, would you?

Do unto others, man. You should know the rest.

Here's another one for you-"Why do ye call me Lord, and ye don't do as I say?"

How about "Not everyone who sayeth unto me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter heaven...?"

Your religion is screwy. Why don't you admit it?

On 03/20, aagain, at 7:40 pm, you said, "any ills that befall the church or christianity as a whole appear here."

What do you expect, when christians claim to be "saints," then misbehave at will, writing it off as "forgiven?"

As many christian websites as there are, somebody has to show the whole truth!

On 04/11 at 3:59 pm, you said, "you can...expect some...name calling or the...title of "true christian." FYI, christians started that one by coming here and judging other christians as to whether or not they are a "true" christian. How about "judge not, lest ye be
judged?"

On 04/11 at 7:04 pm you said "The bible was written in a manner that would be understood by the people of the day."

As a result, the church today is divided into how many denominations? Hundreds, perhaps thousands? Somewhere in there, one may find some truth, I suppose, but the real problem is that the bible is a mess.

I've read where the early christian church taught reincarnation. There are remnants in the gospels where it appears as though Christ is teaching the law of karma and reincarnation. His teachings all too often defy the doctrine of "salvation by grace," which is primarily a new testament doctrine and the primary doctrine of the christian church. His descriptions of heaven often seem to suggest something besides the conventional christian idea.

Christianity is nonsense.

David said...

To slingshot,

You wrote quite a bit here. Let me address a few of your comments.

Slingshot said: I used to be an asshole too, when I was a Christian. Full of hatred and judgment, until I couldn't stand myself. I'm much happier without it.

If you knew me I don't think you would consider me an a**hole. I have several atheist friends and get along with them fine. And we discuss matters of the faith and the origins of the universe all the time without a problem.

Slingshot said: On 03/20 you also said, "I didn't think you had that kind of power..."
You wouldn't say that to a Christian for "condemning" somebody, would you?

Darn right I would. We have had issues within the church with members of the congregation judging or gossiping about other people struggles or "backsliding". When these issues were brought up those congregants they chose to leave. Too often members in the church will chose to condemn or judge instead of coming along side these people who struggle and see them through their trials. Like you said, Christ hung out with whores and lepers.

Slingshot said: Your religion is screwy. Why don't you admit it?

It often can be screwy and "watered down". Christianity has been used for personal, selfish ambition. I believe that if the disciples of the Bible saw what the church was turned into; if they saw what a modern day Christian is they would be shocked. And there are some things in the Bible that may not make sense. But that does not mean there is no God. God can still use the Bible to speak to us, to guide us.

Slingshot said: On 03/20, again, at 7:40 pm, you said, "any ills that befall the church or Christianity as a whole appear here."
What do you expect, when Christians claim to be "saints," then misbehave at will, writing it off as "forgiven?"

I have never met a Christian who said he was a saint. I know that they are out there however. I can't say that they misbehave at will. Can you? A lot of people do, either knowingly or unknowingly, sin without thought of consequence or accountability. "Should we sin more so that grace will abound? Certainly not!" (I forget where this verse is) Unfortunately people do this. But there is so much more that is good done in the name of God that you will never see on this site. All those other awful stories are presented as evidence that Christianity is wrong, but the other side of the story is never told. The deck is stacked against us in that respect.

Slingshot said: On 04/11 at 3:59 pm, you said, "you can...expect some...name calling or the...title of "true Christian." FYI, Christians started that one by coming here and judging other Christians as to whether or not they are a "true" Christian. How about "judge not, lest ye be
Judged?"

I did not know that Christians started that phrase. And you are right, they should not judge. I agree.

Slingshot said: On 04/11 at 7:04 pm you said "The bible was written in a manner that would be understood by the people of the day."
As a result, the church today is divided into how many denominations? Hundreds, perhaps thousands? Somewhere in there, one may find some truth, I suppose, but the real problem is that the bible is a mess.

There are a lot of denominations out there. I can't say which one is right or which one is wrong. I do not think the Bible is a mess. Even if we have lost parts of it in translation or if certain minor inconsistencies exist, I still think Lord God can speak to us.

I hope some of these comments satisfied you slingshot and I hope you can read this before the webmaster deletes it. I had another non-offensive post removed yesterday after five min.You would think that lovers of free thinking would be more tolorant of others opinions and "free thoughts".

Peace

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

You say that if I knew you, I wouldn't think of you as an asshole. You must understand that all I know of you is how you present yourself here. You called us dogs and swine. Asshole.

Anonymous said...

I think you should apologize for that. You say you have atheist friend? First of all, this is not an atheist website. Some here believe in the existence of a God, some debate it, some disbelieve. It is christianity we do not believe in here. Second of all, you may have atheist friends, but in case you haven't noticed you aren't making any friends here.

What's with this "backsliding" nonsense anyway? Is a christian "saved" or not? There can be no "backsliding" if the doctrine of "salvation by grace" were true.

Anonymous said...

You said christianity "often can be screwy" yet you believe in it?

I've heard preachers refer to the entire congregation by saying "saints..."

The doctrine of salvation by grace is nonsense, really.

Anonymous said...

David, you said, "Christianity has been used for personal, selfish ambition." That's another problem with the churches doctrines. "Getting saved" is selfish, really. "He died for me." Selfish. You do realize that he only died for those who've "accepted" him, according to christian theology? One may not honestly say "he died for you" to a non-christian. The funny thing is, as I've pointed out elsewhere a number of times, there really is no "guarantee of salvation" in christian theology. I'll show you what I mean, if necessary.

Anonymous said...

In all due respect slingshot, I wouldn't waist alot of time with David, he's been on here a month or so and he's not learned a damn thing, his agenda appears to be, if he could just convert one of us back to his level of insanity, then he would get a brownie button from his make believe god, and a bigger mansion in Heaven.

David's faith and beliefs in the bible are cast in bronze and he will keep them, he's been sold a bill of goods and now he's stuck with them, if he really was a christian, he would go over to Iraq and convert some muslims over to Christianity, this was commanded by jesus, go unto all the world and preach the gospel.

Theres nothing more sickning than a Christian hanging around in the USA preaching what has already been preached a million times over. David is one of those sitting on the side lines, hoping to hitch a ride into heaven off of the coat-tails of a Real Christian.

David said...

To slingshot,

Slingshot said: The funny thing is, as I've pointed out elsewhere a number of times, there really is no "guarantee of salvation" in christian theology. I'll show you what I mean, if necessary.

OK. Show me.

To Anonymous,

Anonymous said: With all due respect slingshot, I wouldn't waist alot of time with David, he's been on here a month or so and he's not learned a damn thing,

Translation: David does not agree with us so we must not be learning anything. I listen to everything that is presented but I just don’t agree with it. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous said: if he really was a christian, he would go over to Iraq and convert some muslims over to Christianity, this was commanded by jesus, go unto all the world and preach the gospel.

Last I checked the USA was still part of the world. And there are still lots of people who need to hear the gospel. How is staying here not fulfilling that command?

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

What a crying shame! Out of 166 posts so far, only the first few addressed JB's question directly, and very few have remained on topic. The post has been hijacked by people like South2003 and boomSLANG who feel it's necessary to insult the believers who enter here. As Benjamin Franklin said, "this seldom fails do disgust." It is not persuasive. I suspect you guys are also wrong about her intelligence level. Judging by how clearly she communicates, the accuracy of her spelling, the level of her vocabulary and her ability to get a point across without profanity, she's probably smarter than both of you.

Your anger is misdirected. I have also had bad experiences with Christianity. Reading history makes me even more agry about what priests have gotten away with. Christianity deserves to have ridicule heaped upon it. People who practice it need sympathy. We should save the anger for the many posts here about ministers molesting kids and ripping people off.

Liz was almost on the subject with her assertion that God is love and the Bible teaches love. She should be commended for keeping her patience in the face of insults. Ex-Christians who wish to persuade and not just vent should follow her example.

Dave also insulted ex-Christians with Matthew 7:6. Going way back, the gospel writer cast the insult, placing these words on the lips of Jesus. If Jesus really said it, he started the whole thing.

JB's original question should be addressed philosophically and epistemologically. "Just Rick" was on the right track, mentioning that science seeks to correct its own inaccuracies -- poorly stated hypotheses that don't fit observation. In this sense, science is self-correcting, but it's hard work. You have to stand on the shoulders of giants, trying to reach higher, while simultaneously bringing them down a notch. When they are truly giants (like Galileo, Einstein, and Darwin) honest scientists find it impossible to pull the rug out from under them entirely and start over without considering their well-demonstrated concepts.

Conversely, Bible believers claim to have received knowledge from a Higher Source that is not subject to questioning. This epistemological stance has never yielded a single useful result in any field of study, whether geology, biology, or ethics.

Ex-Christians demanding proof will never get anywhere in debate. The issue dies right there. The problem is similar, epistemologically.

What we are after, the giants of philosophy have shown, is propositions that are open to disproof and modification. This allows the quest for knowledge to continue, and not just stagnate with the same tired appeals to authority. That is dogmatism, not inquiry, whether done in the name of science or religion.

Hume offered logical proof that the stories Christianity is based upon should be considered ridiculous. In his essay, Miracles, the argument went this way (and it's the argument we're considering, not an appeal to the authority of Hume): if somebody claims to have witnessed a miracle, I should ask myself the question, which is more likely: a) the miracle actually occured, or b) the person is telling an untruth? Since I have never observed a miracle, I should accept the least miraculous of the two propositions -- somebody lied. In the case of Christianity, this amounts to an utter dismissal of its most important claim -- that somebody rose from the dead.

JB, in response to your original question -- "how to I know it was just men?" It would be a miracle if the infinite creator of the universe spoke to one of these Bible writers. Following the logic above, it is more reasonable to believe the lesser miracle. None of the Bible writers (if we even knew who most of them were) had such unquestionable credibility that they couldn't have told a story to suit their own purposes. In most of the stories the purpose is revealed -- to preserve and consolidate power for story-teller's theocracy.

Anonymous said...

OK David, you want to know how it is that there is no "guarantee of salvation" in the christian church? Here it is.

First of all, a christian believes him or herself to be "saved" for having "accepted Jesus." If one reads scripture, one finds that the bible tells us many, many things. One will find that the bible tells us that if we confess with our mouths that Christ is Lord and believe that God "hath raised him from the dead," we shall be "saved." Now we have a contradiction. If a person does the latter, he or she is "saved!" It is apparently unnecessary to "accept Jesus," despite the claims of the christian church. One may do the former or the latter, in order to be "saved." Then, we have another problem. The devil. If this character exists, who is he tempting? What is his purpose in the whole picture? Supposedly, this guy exists to "tempt" people into committing "sin," in order to "win their souls into hell." A person is "saved," however, depending on whether or not they've "accepted Jesus," according to the church. No measure of sin whatsoever may cause them to "lose their souls." The devil may only "tempt" non-christians, yet they're already "damned!" There is no purpose to this fellow at all, really, in christian theology, if the doctrine of "salvation by grace alone," were true. It is our own "sin," that keeps us from entering "heaven!" This is supported by Christs own words, where he told us that there is nothing that "defileth" a man that does not come from within him. Because of the "devil" character, a christian may believe, as some do, that he or she may "lose their salvation." If a person is "saved" then there is no point to this character.

Jesus said that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and phaarisees, you shall not enter into heaven. I once asked a christian to explain this passage, since it shouldn't matter if one is "righteous" or not, only if they "accepted Jesus." He told me that a christian is automatically "righteous" for having "accepted Jesus" into their heart. I thought, if that were true, why are there so many christian assholes? These people are far from being "righteous!" So many christians are quite the opposite, really. The idea to the doctrine of salvation by grace is that anybody will go to heaven, even Jeffrey Dahmer, for having "accepted Jesus." Would you call Jeffrey Dahmer "righteous?" Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't call him that. He killed people and ate them! He's a horrible sinner, according to the bible, how could he be "righteous?"

Let's not forget that it's harder for a rich man to enter heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. How could this be? If the rich man "accepted Jesus," he should go to heaven just like anybody else! No problem! If one has "accepted Jesus," their name is in the book of life, and they are granted immediate entry into heaven in the afterlife! How could it be that his material wealth would cause him difficulty in the afterlife? He would be free of all material possessions! Why would his soul have difficulty entering heaven?

Let's not forget that one must "become as a child," in order to enter heaven. Christ did not say that he would make a person into a child, he said that they must "become as a child," or they will not enter heaven. Clearly, a person is not "saved," for having "accepted Jesus." They must still "become as a child!"

In the old testament, a woman is "saved by childbirth." At this point in time, there is no way into heaven, according the christian church. How could childbirth "save" a woman?

Of course, when Christ returns, many will come to him in that day, saying that in his name they did works and cast out devils! Christ tells them "depart from me, ye that work iniquity (sin.)" Nice. so much for being "saved."

Christ also said that not everyone who says to him "Lord, Lord," shall "enter heaven," but "he that doeth the will of God."

Anybody who has "accepted Jesus," should go to heaven. This would mean that every one of the many hundreds or thousands of denominations of christianity, including catholicism, mormonism, latter-day saints, seventh day adventists, etc., are "saved," despite their disagreements over interpretation of scripture. Do you agree? Would all christians agree with this? Of course not. There are many christians who believe that their congregation is "saved" and the rest are "damned."

Why are we instructed to "repent of sin" by Christ?
What is the purpose of "walking with Christ," if a person is "saved?"
How could somebody "backslide?"

I have many things to do, and I must go. I will return later for your answer. David.

David said...

To slingshot,

I will do my best to answer your questions and/or respond to your comments.

Slingshot said: First of all, a Christian believes him or herself to be "saved" for having "accepted Jesus." If one reads scripture, one finds that the bible tells us many, many things. One will find that the bible tells us that if we confess with our mouths that Christ is Lord and believe that God "hath raised him from the dead," we shall be "saved." Now we have a contradiction. If a person does the latter, he or she is "saved!" It is apparently unnecessary to "accept Jesus," despite the claims of the Christian church. One may do the former or the latter, in order to be "saved."

Response: I do not see a contradiction here. Professing That Christ is Lord and believing He was raised from the dead IS accepting Jesus. ACCEPTING not only means asking Him into your heart but also believing and ACCEPTING that what the Word says about Him is true.

Slingshot said: Then, we have another problem. The devil. If this character exists, who is he tempting? What is his purpose in the whole picture? Supposedly, this guy exists to "tempt" people into committing "sin," in order to "win their souls into hell." A person is "saved," however, depending on whether or not they've "accepted Jesus," according to the church. No measure of sin whatsoever may cause them to "lose their souls." The devil may only "tempt" non-Christians, yet they're already "damned!" There is no purpose to this fellow at all, really, in Christian theology, if the doctrine of "salvation by grace alone," were true. It is our own "sin," that keeps us from entering "heaven!" This is supported by Christ’s own words, where he told us that there is nothing that "defileth" a man that does not come from within him. Because of the "devil" character, a Christian may believe, as some do, that he or she may "lose their salvation." If a person is "saved" then there is no point to this character.

Response: Again, accepting Jesus and being saved is the same (in my opinion). The Devil will do anything to separate people from God. All sin and all have sin. Sin in our lives also separates us from God. The devil will tempt us in order to separate us from God. That is his purpose. After he pushes us far enough from God he can then start tearing at our beliefs. This could be used to explain many of the de-conversions that we see here on this site. These people, by their own admission, drew away from the Lord and then stopped believing in Him.

Slingshot said: Jesus said that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into heaven. I once asked a Christian to explain this passage, since it shouldn't matter if one is "righteous" or not, only if they "accepted Jesus." He told me that a Christian is automatically "righteous" for having "accepted Jesus" into their heart.

Response: The Pharisees and scribes of the day were considered to be very holy and righteous, but they were very superficial in their religious lives. Jesus was instructing us to be righteous on the inside as well as outwardly.

Slingshot: I thought, if that were true, why are there so many Christian assholes? These people are far from being "righteous!" So many Christians are quite the opposite, really. The idea to the doctrine of salvation by grace is that anybody will go to heaven, even Jeffrey Dahmer, for having "accepted Jesus." Would you call Jeffrey Dahmer "righteous?" Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't call him that. He killed people and ate them! He's a horrible sinner, according to the bible, how could he be "righteous?"

Response: There are a lot of a**holes who profess to be Christian. Are they? I can’t say. Jeffery Dahmer may be in heaven right now. If he truly repented and truly believes then he is up there. Dahmer's actions certainly were not righteous but who is to say what happened to him in prison. He may have changed.

Slingshot said: Let's not forget that it's harder for a rich man to enter heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. How could this be? If the rich man "accepted Jesus," he should go to heaven just like anybody else! No problem! If one has "accepted Jesus," their name is in the book of life, and they are granted immediate entry into heaven in the afterlife! How could it be that his material wealth would cause him difficulty in the afterlife? He would be free of all material possessions! Why would his soul have difficulty entering heaven?

Response: I am of the opinion that the more you have, the less you need God. Back then and even now, those who have much and can obtain virtually anything have less of a need for a provider in heaven. Those with less need to rely on God more. Can a rich man enter the gates of heaven? Absolutely. But generally those with great wealth seem to have less of a need for God. And if you don’t need Him or rely on Him, then you most likely will not need Him. Again, this is just my interpretation.

Slingshot said: Let's not forget that one must "become as a child," in order to enter heaven. Christ did not say that he would make a person into a child; he said that they must "become as a child," or they will not enter heaven. Clearly, a person is not "saved," for having "accepted Jesus." They must still "become as a child!"

Response: This is not a mystery to me. Christians are supposed to be as children in the following ways, and it is easy to achieve as you draw closer to Christ. A child has great faith in what they hear, with or without evidence. A child has great compassion and caring for others. Children do not see race or color, disabilities or whatever. Children generally see others as Christ sees them, as equals.

Slingshot said: In the Old Testament, a woman is "saved by childbirth." At this point in time, there is no way into heaven, according the Christian church. How could childbirth "save" a woman?

Response: I have no idea. I am not familiar with this verse and do not have the context. What verse is it?

Slingshot: Anybody who has "accepted Jesus," should go to heaven. This would mean that every one of the many hundreds or thousands of denominations of Christianity, including Catholicism, Mormonism, latter-day saints, seventh day Adventists, etc., are "saved," despite their disagreements over interpretation of scripture. Do you agree? Would all Christians agree with this? Of course not. There are many Christians who believe that their congregation is "saved" and the rest are "damned."

Response: There are many different theological differences between all the Christian denominations. And while I do not agree with a lot of them if they profess Christ then I can say nothing. It is between them and God.

Dave Poole

Dave Van Allen said...

"...And while I do not agree with a lot of them if they profess Christ then I can say nothing."

Now that'd be nice.

Anonymous said...

David, I'm only going to say this once. I'm not going to argue with you:

Clearly, there is a difference between "accepting Jesus" and confessing with ones mouth that Christ is lord and believing that God raised him from the dead. "Accepting Jesus" means "accepting" him into ones heart as ones personal lord and saviour, which suggests that there is a purpose to "walking with Jesus (he being lord and savior)" despite the fact that this would not be so if one were so simply "saved." Confessing with ones mouth and believing are entirely different actions.

The church has always taught that if one "accepts Jesus," then they're "saved." "Walking with Jesus," and "repenting of sin," and reading the bible, and praying "in His name," do not "save" a person. Only "accepting Christ" saves a person. Anybody who is "saved" will go to heaven. Everybody else will burn in eternal torment. We ex-christians should be "saved," technically, except of course Paul said that if a person "leaves the fold," he or she cannot return. Christians have come here and told us that we are still "saved," or that we were never "saved" to begin with, that we did not "truly accept Jesus." Which is it? Are we "saved" or aren't we? If we are, then what is your purpose here? If we aren't, then we can't be "saved" and again, there is no reason for you to be here.

Regarding the "devil," you missed my point. If the doctrine of salvation by grace were true, there would be no purpose to this character.

You said that the devils purpose is to tempt us and separate us from God. Are you saying that one should "draw nearer" to God as one goes through life? Why? You said that sin also separates us from God. If we were not "sinners," then, we would be "nearer to God." The world would draw nearer to God by "repentance," then? Do you realize that the way of enlightenment which Buddha taught teaches essentially the same thing, but it is worded differently? Why does the christian church focus so much on the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, then, and not go into the world and tell others how the world may be nearer to God? Don't you care?

You said if Jeffrey Dahmer "truly repented" and "truly believes" then he is "up there" (in heaven.) Why do you say "truly?" Do you believe that it is possible for somebody to go through the motions in "repenting" and "believing," without actually doing so? Does this mean that not all who "repent and believe" are "saved," only those who "truly" did so? Why do you say that he is in heaven if he "truly repented" and "truly believed," anyway? One goes to heaven for having "accepted Jesus," remember. That's what our discussion is about. The doctrine of salvation by grace alone claims that a person is "saved" for having once "accepted Jesus," remember. Nothing else "saves," including "repenting" and "believing."

Once a person has "accepted Jesus," he or she may go on with their life as they always have, without any change whatsoever! Again, it is "accepting Jesus," that "saves," according to the church. This doctrine has been taught for centuries! Some denominations believe that one goes into a state of limbo upon dying, and christians will go to heaven at "judgement day," with the rest going into the "lake of fire." Anybody who doesn't "accept Jesus," of course, is "damned!" They will burn in eternal torment. Plain and simple. This means that every christian or catholic who has "accepted Jesus" is going to heaven. Every denomination of christianity is "saved." Do you believe this? Do you believe everybody else will burn forever?

You said "Jesus was instructing us to be righteous on the inside as well as outwardly."

You missed my point again. Christ said if one does not do this, one will not enter heaven. This defies the doctrine of salvation by grace, where one is "saved" for having "accepted Jesus."

I've grown bored, and so have others, I fear. I'll respond to the rest of your post some other time, if necessary. I don't agree with you. Christianity, to me, is nonsensical.

Anonymous said...

South2003:

My point was made. It's a shame when people resort to insults in debate. It isn't reasonable or grown up.

I engage in a lot of private debate with Christians who question the possibility of ethical life without God. It would be good if I could invite them to this site to read good arguments and meet grown up people who are confident about their lives.

I share the righteous indignation on this site towards fascist ministers who abuse others. Resorting to insults is usually interpreted as shallowness and lack of conviction about one's views. In any case, it borders on the lack of regard for others that ex-christians and atheists are constantly accused of.

Liz didn't seem like a narrow-minded fundamentalist. I didn't see any reason for the insults. She told me privately that she stopped visiting the site because of the insults.

I thought this site was intended to provide encouragement to ex-christians. That encouragement should be extended to people who are questioning their own views or even discussing philosophy and ethics with us.

Dave Van Allen said...

"Ex-Christians who wish to persuade and not just vent should follow her example."

Good point. Sorry you got the impression that the reason for this site is to convince people of anything. The emphasis of this site is to encourage ex-Christians, and part of that encouragement process is providing them with a place to vent.

Venting, especially on a forum, is good. Venting on our loved ones, friends, co-workers, in person—not good.

There are plenty of other sites holding to an evangelical atheistic intent—sites you would feel more comfortable visiting. Perhaps this site is just not for you. You are more than welcome to frequent any number of the sites that meet your demands.

Anonymous said...

Swilley said: "This post has been hijacked by South2003 and *boomSLANG who feel it's necessary to insult the believers who enter here".

No, actually, "hijacked" is much more in line with what the Christian meme does to people's brains---the meme is the "gunman"; the Christian is the "hostage". And "insults"?...please, any kind of religious dogma based on reward and punishment pretty much pisses in the face of what it means to be a human being---so I think that THAT is an "insult"......an insult to humanity.

More: "Ex-Christians demanding proof will never get anywhere in a debate."

What "debate"? Without proof that what you're debating "exists", there IS no "debate". If I jump in some forum and assert that purple one-eyed midgets created and control the universe, honestly, is anyone going "tip-toe" around me?....is anyone going to "worry" about offending me?..especially when I say shit....whoops, I mean, stuff like: "You can't prove that purple one-eyed midgets don't exist, and if you don't believe me?... you will go to midget hell."

Get real.

Steven Bently said...

David Poole said,

(Response: This is not a mystery to me. Christians are supposed to be as children in the following ways, and it is easy to achieve as you draw closer to Christ. A child has great faith in what they hear, with or without evidence. A child has great compassion and caring for others. Children do not see race or color, disabilities or whatever. Children generally see others as Christ sees them, as equals.)

This for once, I will have to agree with Rev. David!

To enter the kingdom of Heaven you must become as a little child!

First to become as a little child, you must poo poo in your drawers always in public and druel and slobber all over the furniture, and wonder around mindlessly in the constant threat of danger or being crushed by the family car by your mom or dad leaving for work, and constantly spilling your milk all over the table, and relieve yourself immediately at will, and cry, just because you want to disrupt the peace, and regurgitating half chewed food, and puking all over everything, and constantly pulling lamps off of the end tables and swinging on the curtains and sticking your fingers into the electrical socket, and punching the dog and pulling the cats tail and getting diaper rash and eating boogers, and sticking your fingers into the brown hole below and smearing feces all over the walls and having temper tantrums at the drop of a hat, basically you need to become a mindless rug rat with no perception of reality in order to be saved and see the kingdom of God, this is what is expected from Jesus, for most christians, I see the corelation.

Anonymous said...

SLAMMMM!!!!!!!!lol

Steven Bently said...

To sbwilley you said,

What a crying shame! Out of 166 posts so far, only the first few addressed JB's question directly, and very few have remained on topic.


What's the point? The first 3 posts answered JB's question straight and to the point!

Why discuss any further? End of subject!

Steven Bently said...

P.S.

FREE!!! 72 VIRGINS WITH EACH VISIT TO MY BLOG! Your Choice Boys or Girls!

Just Click On My Name Ben!

Hurry!!! This offer will not last long, only while supplies last!

Anonymous said...

Ben wrote:
"P.S.
FREE!!! 72 VIRGINS WITH EACH VISIT TO MY BLOG! Your Choice Boys or Girls!
Just Click On My Name Ben!
Hurry!!! This offer will not last long, only while supplies last!
posted: 5/02/2006 12:20 AM EST  "

Dano asks:
Ben! Can I use the 72 virgins as credit on just one horny old senior citizen who works out, doesn't give a shit about religion, doesn't think sex is dirty, and likes to sleep naked, because her main consideration is that she want's to "use it so she doesn't loose it"
Dan (Agnostic, realist, humanist, vitamin user)

David said...

To Ben,

Are you really that obtuse or are you just doing this for comedic releif? Do you really not understand the point I was making or are you just trying to stir the pot. Please enlighten me.

Dave Poole

freeman said...

Hey David,
Did you know that armies through out history and even today in some countries perfer young teenage boys because they are killing machines with no conscious. Morality is missing at this age.
Yes children are extremely nieve and will believe any damn thing you tell them. ie santa, easter bunny, tooth fairy...and yes jesus!
Yes, be like a child so that you will not use the logic nature has given you to reject such nonsense!

David said...

Statement 1. "Christians are intollorant because they do not accept or respect other peoples opinions and ideas"

Statement 2. "What a ding bat!" David does not agree with me/us, he must be a ding bat.

Very logical

Anonymous said...

"Very logical"


Interesting---"logic" is essentially "out the window" in this rest of this debate, and now all of the sudden it's applicable? lol

David said...

It's humorous how both sides pick and choose when to be logical and when to be emotional when it suits thier arguments.

Anonymous said...

Here's some logical discourse, from biblical passages.

Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats.

Genesis 30:37 - "And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods."

Genesis 30:38 - "And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink."

Genesis 30:39 - "And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."

Okay, waiting for some emotional plea, to suggest that we have candy cane striped goats running the earth.

freeman said...

David,
I never said that you were intolerent, extremely nieve, yes!

I am, by the way, a very logical person. It is in my nature. This is why I studied biology, chemistry and psychology. I always want to know why and how. I only become emotional when someone does not wish to follow logic.

Again, children believe in santa because we as parents brainwash them to this line of thinking! As they mature, they realize how illogical it is. Unfortunately, people do the same with religion. As a child matures, they think it is illogical to believe in the BS and they begin to question the incomprensible. But parents kill their questions with stupid statements like "you just have to believe"!

Brainwashing!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

To address the "AS a little child"thing above in Ben's post.

There were smart people around when the bible was being assembled also, so it was necessary to insert verses to combat their superior cognitive abilities.

What they are saying is: Smart people don't have a very good chance of going to heaven, but the dull, intellectually inferior, followers, who will put their money in the collection plate without thinking, are on a fast track.

Dan (SKEPTICALAGNOSTICUS)

Anonymous said...

"It's humorous how both sides pick and choose when to be logical and when to be emotional when it suits thier arguments."

It's humorous how you can't seem to find a way to so much as put a ding in the non-believer's argument without attacking your own credibility at the same time.......e.g..."both sides". D'oh! LMAO!

'Got evidence? Stilllll waiting.

David said...

To Boomslang,

What kind of evidence will satisfy you? Want to see some people raised from the dead? Do you need to see someone walk on water? Perhaps you would like to see a limb regenerated (that one was for you, webmaster). Water into wine perhaps? Or shall someone read your thoughts and gaze into your mind?

These things happened 2000 years ago and STILL people did not believe. So if these things happened today what would be different? There would still be those who would deny and nay-say.

So what will it take? A glimpse of heaven and hell? A mountain cast into the sea? Perhaps you can give me your phone number and I will have God call you. What evidence are you waiting for? We both know that whatever evidence I provide will not be sufficient for you, and that’s fine. Based on the available evidence you choose not to believe; and I choose to believe. End of story. I wish it were another way but there it is.

Peace

Dave Poole

David said...

To freeman,

I do not see how I am naïve. And I think I am reasonably logical as well. I have lived in the world and have seen what it has to offer. It is enough for some but not for me. And I do not see what is logical about a world that created itself. How a planet with the diverse life that inhabits it, could have evolved from random particles in space is illogical to me. That from dust and gas we could have evolved into what we are today, to me, is illogical.

Call me naïve if you want. I have seen both sides of the issue, have weighed all the evidence, considered all the offers, and have made my choice , just like everyone else here. Peace.

Dave Poole

freeman said...

David,
What evidence?

Jim Arvo said...

David Poole asked "So what will it take?" (i.e what evidence for god would we accept as credible?)

That's a fair question. I've posted long lists of things here previously that I would consider to be compelling evidence for the existence of supernatural entity. However, there is one very simple thing that would grab my attention instantly, turn my entire worldview upside down, and force me to totally re-evaluate my entire position on religious matters. And it's something that could be done almost trivially, right over the internet. But it would require a willing believer to participate. Are you game, David? Let me know if you're willing to give it a go, and I'll spell it out very succinctly and clearly in just a few sentences. Then we'll see what happens.

Anonymous said...

Ya know, David...it's funny how NONE of those things that you mention have ever happened in the context of how you offer them, since "2000 years ago"(according to your presupposition that they even happened then). So what's more likely?...that they haven't happened SINCE then?...or that they never happened AT ALL? Gee, I wonder....?

Anonymous said...

Dave Poole: "We both know that whatever evidence I provide will not be sufficient for you, and that’s fine. Based on the available evidence you choose not to believe; and I choose to believe. End of story. I wish it were another way but there it is."

We both know, that whatever you provide as evidence, will not be sufficiently associated to a specific god. For instance, you say you're logical.

However, all of those people back in the past who lived with the miracle man himself, didn't believe him - there's your sign.

What do you have, today, that makes you more authoritative on the issue of Jesus, and miracles, than the people who "lived" in his theoretical era, and in the same neighborhood christians claim he would have lived? What gives "you" the authority to make such a claim, over millions of eyewitnesses?

Lets play a logic game, you say, Jesus or some godly being created miracles back CE. Okay, how do you know "which" god, or even if perhaps it wasn't the Devil/Satan performing those so called miracles, i.e., turning water into wine, walking on water, etc?

In the logic game, Dave, you lose, because you can't determine which god, or Satan performed magic tricks back in CE, because you don't know what you'd be looking for. For instance, please define your "god", specifically, and what acts your "god" would or would not be involved in, using the only source you have, the bible. Now, please define Satan, specifically, and what acts he would perform or not perform according to the only source reference you have, the bible.

You can't define something that is "omniscient", unless you are omniscient as well, if you are omniscient then you by default become omnipotent and equal in power to any god a blashpemy in many religions, if you are equal in power to any god - you're god Dave. So, do you chose to be god today, or... do you accept that you can't define your god. Thus, not ever knowing whether Satan or your god or other gods are at work?

Your statements aren't logical, because the only source you have to rely on is your bible... and, your "bible" doesn't define god. Uh, that means, Dave, either you or someone else in your life... has "taught" you what a god concept is. However, we both know, that whoever taught you about a god, didn't have a definition either, they were just passing on to you what they had been taught.

The only experience you have with a god, comes from the words given to you by a person you know, or words in a book. Do you have such a desire to have more in your life, that you are willing to sacrifice your life for words in a book, that were written by anonymous writers for the most part? You have "faith" in the "unknown", that's illogical.

Just my few cents added to the logical fountain of knowledge.

Anonymous said...

How come we do not have a book written by Satan?

Oh we do, I forgot, it's called the Bible!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like David is a "True Christian(TM)" since he believes in Talking Snakes and Donkeys, and Angel insemination and virgin births, and rising from the dead, and miracles from above.

Yep, David Poole is a True Christian, not one of those "Fake Christians (TM)".

Jim Arvo said...

David,

Please don't overlook my question to you above. I'd really like to know whether you might be willing to participate. Say the word, and I'll spell it out. (You can always refuse.)

David said...

To Dave8,

Dave8 said: The only experience you have with a god, comes from the words given to you by a person you know, or words in a book. Do you have such a desire to have more in your life, that you are willing to sacrifice your life for words in a book, that were written by anonymous writers for the most part? You have "faith" in the "unknown", that's illogical.

Reply: That is not the only experience I have had with God. I have had several other very meaningful encounters. Of course the "logical" people out there in cyber space would write it off as a rush of endorphins or some neurons in the brain misfiring. Please do me the service of not speaking about what I have experienced and seen as though you have known me my entire life. Thanks.

To Jim Avro,

I have to admit this sound’s like a trap but OK. Send your question/comment to the below listed email.

dpoole@ebmail.gdeb.com

Dave Poole

David said...

Anonymous 7:13AM said: Sounds like David is a "True Christian(TM)" since he believes in Talking Snakes and Donkeys, and Angel insemination and virgin births, and rising from the dead, and miracles from above.

Yep, David Poole is a True Christian, not one of those "Fake Christians (TM)".

Reply: Thanks for the compliment

Dave Poole

Jim Arvo said...

David said "I have to admit this sound’s like a trap but OK. Send your question/comment to the below listed email."

It's not a trap, it's a legitimate challenge to you. I would prefer to post it here rather than sending it via email. I just didn't want to waste my time articulating it if you had no interest in responding.

The challenge

At exactly 9:00 PM, Pacific time, on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, I vividly pictured a scene in my mind for about ten seconds. The scene can be accurately described in one short sentence. Ask your god to relay that sentence to you, then post it here. That's it.

Discussion

The odds of you guessing such a sentence are effectively nil. Moreover, it would be impossible for you to obtain it covertly, as I have told absolutely nobody, nor have I even spoken it or written it down. Therefore, if you were to post a sentence describing the scene I pictured, I would immediately need to revamp my entire worldview, because that event would be completely inexplicable within my current worldview.

Note that if you were to get it right, the ONLY person it would have an immediate and profound effect on would be me (as it's unlikely that anybody else would believe me), and the ONLY effect it would have on me would be to make the possibility of some supernatural force or entity seem suddenly very plausible. I would not get rich. I would not become famous. I would merely get "religion" (or, minimally, be suddenly very receptive to it).

If you choose not to participate, please explain why; and simply saying that "God cannot be tested" will not suffice. Has your god not chosen to reveal himself and to perform much more fantastic miracles for the purpose of convincing non-believers? What would be the harm in doing this one small thing to gain another believer? Are you afraid it might open the flood gates, causing millions of similar requests to pour in from non-believers the world over? What would be the harm in that? Would it overwhelm god? In any case, shouldn't you let god decide how to handle it?

I request that you provide a direct and honest description of your actions, regardless of how you choose to handle this. If you ask your god to reveal the information to you (which I openly *invite* him to do, by the way), I would like to know what, if anything, you hear back from god. If, on the other hand, you decided not to even ask, I'd like to know why.

Deal?

David said...

To Jim Avro,

I accept your challenge. I do not know what will come of this butI will let you know. BE advised that the only computer access I have is through work so it may not be until Monday that I can get back to you. Talk to you soon.

Dave Poole

Jim Arvo said...

David, take your time. Thanks for accepting my challenge. You are the first to do so. (I've issued very similar challenges many times, and not once has a Christian given me a serious reply.)

I'll check back next week.

Anonymous said...

Let the record show that I, "boomSLANG", hereby declare that I have NOT known David Poole his whole life. The only thing I know with a high degree of certainty about him, is that he is a person just like the rest of us.

Question: Everyone--- How do you recognize any other person or being? You set limits on them, both on the physical AND the personality..i.e...the "self". Think about it.


Sound about right?



David Poole: "That is not the only experience I have had with God. I have had several other very meaningful encounters."


Question: David Poole, seeing as how "God" is presumably "timeless"; "infinite"; "omniscient"; "omnipotent"....i.e..."limitLESS".....how do you "know" that what you experienced was in FACT a "God", and not just in your head? If you can describe the experience by putting limits on it, then God is most certainly not "limitless".....yet, if you can't describe the experience but you could "feel it"---then how do you know it was in fact NOT Allah, Ra, Osiris, Budda, The Great Pumpkin, Thor, John David, Mithra, Mothra, whom you "felt"? Or even better yet, how can you be sure it was not the one and only "Satan", himself, who has deceived/is deceiving you?

boomSLANG.

Anonymous said...

DAVID,
If you can talk to God and he answers back, why would you need a computer. Just ask God to post it.

Also, please ask God to blink his eye and eliminate all pain and suffering, and get rid of that stupid Satan guy!
Dan (Who has a long list of requests)

Anonymous said...

I believe Zeus was trying to *strrr-ummmm* my ancient heart strings today by making an almost miraculous connection with me at the bus stop...or maybe it was Thor or Hestia?

Anyway, overhead their was a strike of lightening and a great clap of thunder that rattled me bones, right at the same exact time a large advertisement on the side of the bus pulled to a stop right in front of me which boldy proclaimed: "Go Greek"!

I guess that should be considered a sign from the great Zeus on Mt. Olympus. I pondered only for a second then went on my way.

ORRR...it COULD it be the OT Christian God was converted while waiting around the last 2,000 years and is now really a Greek god and not a Hebrew God anymore. Dare say?

Well, as imagined, all of this is only relative to those people who decide to live by faith in self-made assumptions and baseless notions of make believe.

Even though one tries to have so much faith (but always fails to have enough of it!)it requires the mind of a child to know it.

Guess that counts me out.

MAYBE the ancients biblical writters were wrong and could not understand the Real Greek Truth back then.

MAYBE the TRUE way to eternal bliss is to believe that Zeus is highest in the ranking of a hundred other "Sky Fathers" and has been kicking their divine asses and taking down names.

Also, I think they believe Zeus commanded that Gaia is the highest Mother and he says we have turned our backs on her. She is mad at this world and he will make us pay in horrific agony for failing to honor her twice a day. Rain and earthquakes, famine and fire...for the bad children of Earth.

She is a jealous Mother, but she loves us. She can kill whomever she would like in an instant if it serves her purpose, but She loves us. We should stop raping her of her precious resources or else she is going to come back and destroy half of the planet in a fit of rage and revenge and return it primitive muck once again.

She has plans though, for the other half that was good and followed only Gaia, she will rise them up to live in the new world that she creates perfectly in 1,000 years. Unity and Peace forever.

This prophetic message was brought to you by me...just now!

So I am writting it down to share with all those who are lost and without love and that many may know this truth ages from now.

These are the words of the great Gaia...Mother of ALL! Promising to guide you to eternal light. Stop following those man made false images and idols, these unoperable gods have no control over HER. Stop carrying your false labels to identify your stripe or cult.

Gaia is love. Bow to her, every Knee...or spend your life floating aimlessly in space and time being tormented and twisted by gravity and black holes.

She loves us. But BEWARE!

(illogical improvising is required)

Here is the Truest and complete MYTHICAL story as told by ancient Greek men as they wer inspired by mother Gaia, for her children of the Earth and her own powerful divine children that rule over all of nature.

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

HOWEVER...one must make absolute assumptions in order to believe THIS particular religious faith is the Ultimate Truth and should be adhered to by ALL people in this world. Have enough faith yet?

They are right...everyone else is wrong. Jesus is all there is for those struggling with Earthly life and even believing that is just impossible! Let them bang you over the head with their bible, like a gang or a cult that initiates you by dunking your "old" self away, the words are like a sword of swift justice that cuts out your BRAIN while they sucker you in by selling false hope and religious lies.

Humanity is alive but not well. It requires our attention. Religious people pretend to be exceptional for their faith as claiming to have a divine connection with a holier-than- thou cosmic dictator that made evil for his own purpose and hides behind a unknown throne somewhere in a nearby galaxy, but wants us to "know" him.

He offers his mortal servants an unsuitable set of teachings to live by and promises torture to those who fail his life long course.

Bible god is ALL LOVING? Sure he is, go on and follow him right into your own delusional oblivion.
Okay, I've tried it. But the superaliens don't speak to me or move me emotionally for some logical reason.

It is delusion you know. Religious faith is a belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.

JB's question is not even valid, if you follow Zeus or Hades.

Zeus bless you all as he rains down upon us all his mighty primordial anger and eternal righteousness! Forever.

NOT!

You know, I am wondering about the thousands and thousands of people who died today after praying and begging for a bit of food or a much needed cure.

Help is not on the way from any god above...it is down the earthen path where compassion and humanity meets on Survival Lane.

We all know the hidden truth about myth and religion, but living beyond the ancient legends of fantasy requires people to be honest and unselfish, to let go of our own assumptions.

I am open to change, unlike the self-righteous religious folks whom proclaim to know it all because of a dusty old man made religious journal called the bible.

Critical thought and honest inquiry moves us beyond the dead end of blind religious faith to experience the eyes-wide-open adventures of discovery and freedom.

Hope this helps ya JB.

Jim Arvo said...

Dano makes a good point. He said to David "If you can talk to God and he answers back, why would you need a computer. Just ask God to post it."

But PLEASE ask god to use the "Other" button! If he posts as Anonymous, we won't know it's him!

Anonymous said...

To Jim Arvo,
I will use any button I want, and if you don't like it you can go to hell!
(Danonymouse)

David said...

To Boomslang,

Boomslang said: Question: David Poole, seeing as how "God" is presumably "timeless"; "infinite"; "omniscient"; "omnipotent"....i.e..."limitLESS".....how do you "know" that what you experienced was in FACT a "God", and not just in your head? If you can describe the experience by putting limits on it, then God is most certainly not "limitless".....yet, if you can't describe the experience but you could "feel it"---then how do you know it was in fact NOT Allah, Ra, Osiris, Budda, The Great Pumpkin, Thor, John David, Mithra, Mothra, whom you "felt"? Or even better yet, how can you be sure it was not the one and only "Satan", himself, who has deceived/is deceiving you?

Reply: As you stated God is limitless, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. I am sure He knows how to make things very clear to us simple minded humans. I can describe every experience in perfect detail. Am I putting limits on it? I am not sure I know what you mean by that. All I know is that I describe it as I remember it. If that is “putting limits on it” then fine. How do I know it was God and not some other deity? I know, what else can I say? No one knows a man’s heart except God, and I heard things that only someone with that access could know. How do you know that you love your family? How do you know they love you? Is it the feeling, or is there some definitive test that can prove you love your family? When you know, you know.

Dave Poole

David said...

To South2003,

How am I a sackless fundie? Please explain. I asked you before but perhaps you missed it, is your testimony anywhere on this sight? Please provide the link if it is or type it out for us. I'll be looking for my "sack" while I wait.

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

"I'll be looking for my 'sack' while I wait."

LMAO! Holy shit!...that was actually pretty damn funny.(being serious)

David Poole: "I'm sure He knows how to make things clear to us simple minded humans."

1) Speak for yourself.
2) There are thousands of religions, and hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations within Christianity. Yes, "things" are definitely "clear" and concise.

David Poole: "All I know is that I describe it as I remember it. If that is 'putting limits on it' then fine."

Looks like God is not "limitless"---so maybe you're being stalked by a finite/temporal being, or maybe you're dreaming.
BTW, many people can remember and "describe" their dreams. I once had a dream I was a pirate in a past life....::Shiver me timbers!!!::....

David Poole: "How do I know it was God and not some other deity? I know, what can I say?"

What can you say? You could "say" that you might be wrong, but since your conviction won't allow it, you just completely nullified your Faith in God. If you "know", then you don't need "Faith". Let the record show that David Poole does NOT have Faith in God. He is not a "real Christian". (I have a fire resistant body suit if you want to borrow it, I don't need one anymore)

David Poole: "No one knows a man's heart except God, and I heard things that only someone with that access could know."

Bzzzzzt! There's nothing in your "heart" except blood, valves, tissue, and muscle....so you must be refering to your brain, I take it? David Poole would obviously have "access" to David Poole's brain. I mean, that is much more likely than a man-ghost looking into your brain, and talking to you about what it sees. (If you're having conversations with yourself, there's drugs for that. Seriously, if you hear voices in your head, I'd see about that. Soon. Charles Manson heard voices...yikes!)

David Poole: "How do you know that you love your family. How do you know they love you?"

I know it BASED on how that love is reciprocated, and vica versa. Furthermore, if for some reason my love not reciprocated, I won't call a family meeting and set them all on fire. My love for them is NOT conditional. They are physically there for me when I need their support, and I for them. If I should need help in the form of action, they give it.....they don't sit around on their asses KNOWING I need help, and then make be beg for it.(pray)


God 'less.

Jim Arvo said...

David said "...When you know, you know."

But... people also "know" when in fact they do NOT know. Muslims, "know" that god is in fact Allah. Alien abductees "know" that aliens are for real. The average person "knows" that they see color over their entire visual field. Amputees sometimes "know" that they can still feel their limbs. The world in replete with such examples. Does this not justify being very skeptical of someone's claim to "know" something if it cannot be independently verified?

God said "I will use any button I want, and if you don't like it you can go to hell!"

That was very predictable, god. I thought you were supposed to work in mysterious ways. You even remembered to use the "Other" button. Good for you. I hereby grant you one brownie point on the existence scale. (You only need about 1.0E23 more to officially exist.)

David said...

To Jim Avro,

You are right. All those people do "know" that they are right. And your skepticsm is appropriate. I have no other answer than to say that I "know" it was real.

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

David Poole: "Reply: That is not the only experience I have had with God. I have had several other very meaningful encounters. Of course the "logical" people out there in cyber space would write it off as a rush of endorphins or some neurons in the brain misfiring. Please do me the service of not speaking about what I have experienced and seen as though you have known me my entire life. Thanks."

You've got to be kidding, are you literate?

I'll type re a l l y s l o w for you. You are attempting to place your subjective "feeling" to an unknowable and undefinable "god".

First of all, your feeling can not be an objective litmus test, anyone else can use, because you are unique biologically speaking, so, all you can hope to do here, is attempt to persuade people, that you have a legitimate belief based in logic, but... your belief is "not" logical, albeit you have the right to continue to believe in my opinion. I just fail to see the benefit.

Secondly, until you can "define" god, and you "can't" which was the point of the last post, you CAN'T say, your feeling is "pointing" to a "god". It could just as easily be pointing to aphrodite, the goddess of love. I am not talking about endorphins, I am talking about your total and complete inability to "define" a "god", while you run around, telling everyone you have found "god".

How do you find, locate, describe, assign feelings to... an object (god), that you can't describe?

Please do me the service of not speaking about your logical prowess, and how your belief is fully supported by logic. I have heartburn, is that "god" or "Satan". I feel peaceful warmth, is that "aphrodite" or some other "god".

Read your bible, El of the OT was a cranky and jealous god, who killed the masses, but at least there wasn't any hell. The NT god, Yahweh was a little more generous, by sacrificing his son on a blood spit for humanity, but, then again, he created hell. Which of those two gods, do you worship, I'm sure you have picked one. Is it the NT god, because you have more to gain as a gentile.

David said...

To Boomslang,

Could I be wrong? Sure, I could be wrong, I would bet anything that I am not but I can accept that I am. Until that other god who has been passing Himself off as bible God slips up (I don't really think it is naything else but THE GOD), I'll stick with Christianity.

That whole the heart only pumps blood thing; do me a favor, look up the word metaphor ('me-t&-"for)and then re-read that section of the post.

Dave Poole

David said...

To Boomslang,

I would like to apologize for that sarcastic statement in the above post. It was uncalled for. Or at the very least could have been phrased more respectfully.

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

"El is a northwest Semitic word and name translated into English as either 'god' or 'God' or left untranslated as El, depending on the context. El is used extensively in the Tanach(Old Testament) to refer to the God of Israel as well as heathen gods.

In the Levant as a whole, El or Il was the supreme god, the father of mankind and all creatures and the husband of the Goddess Asherah as attested in the tablets of Ugarit.

The word El was found at the top of a list of gods as the Ancient of Gods or the Father of all Gods, in the ruins of the Royal Library of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC. He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. El had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yaw and Mot, each of whom has similar attributes to the Greco-Roman gods Zeus, Ophion and Thanatos respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'El

"The name Yah is composed of the first letters of YHWH." That means, Yah, is YHWH, and Yahweh. Therefore, El is big daddy, the father of Yahweh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Yah

"The name YHWH was not always applied to a monotheistic God: see Asherah and other gods, Elohim (gods) and Yaw (god)."

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

Just thought I'd throw that out there before some reply came back, that these two gods, El and Yahweh, were the same exact god in the bible.

David said...

GOD: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. (Merriam-Webster)

I just attempted, with a little help, to define the undefinable. How'd I do? I am illiterate....so...you know...consider that.

And for the record I am not trying to convert anyone. EVERYONE has made it very clear that they will NOT be converting to Christianity. There. NOw that that is out of the closet we can move on.

My beleif is not logical? OK. I don't agree with you, but that's OK. I still know what I have seen, and to write off what I have seen as coinscidence or chance is the very definition of illogical. Please calculate the odds of a hole in someones heart closing up the day after it was prayed for. Please calculate the odds of a runaway teenager who had been missing for three days and then walking into a prayer meeting in a house he had never been to while members of his church were praying for his safe return. Present me those odds and then we will discuss how 'logical' thise things could happen if not for some "divine intervention".

Dave Poole

David said...

To Dave8,

My post got out there before I saw your new post. That is all very interesting. I personally choose to not use wikipedia only because anyone out there can add or create anything they like on the site. I have been there a few times and have even put a few things on there myself. Perhaps there is someone out there using my resource information to argue with someone else. That's scary, isn't it.

Anonymous said...

Dave Poole: "GOD: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. (Merriam-Webster). I just attempted, with a little help, to define the undefinable. How'd I do? I am illiterate....so...you know...consider that."

Actually, I am beginning to understand now. You haven't ever taken a logic course.

Perfect: "Being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

To know something is "Perfect", one must "also" be "Perfect". Uh, are you "Perfect" Dave? When, you say, you have a "feeling" or a "vision", is it a "Perfect" vision, or... are you experiencing your subjective vision of feeling from your "imperfect" self?

Subjective: "Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Objective: "Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If your god is "Perfect", then your god it "Objectively Perfect". How do you, as a subjective being, rid yourself of your emotion, and personal bias... Your "personal bias", is what creates "you", without the elements of your biological makeup and environemtal experiences to give you identity, etc., which make up your "personal bias", you cease to exist. Hence, you will never know perfection, if you are still living in your subjectively ridden body, thus, you can't possibly... with logic, know a perfect "god".

You can know your own personally biased and built god, however, call your god heartburn if you want.

Anonymous said...

David Poole: "GOD: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe."(Merriam-Webster)

Hey, wait a minute...?...? I don't see the words "Jesus"; "Holy Ghost"; "El"; "Trinity"; "Son"; "Yahweh"...or "LORD" in that definition. David?....are you a Universalist?


(I still have that fire resistant suit if you want it..LMAO!)

Anonymous said...

Let me add, call your god heartburn if you want, but its not the Perfect god you suggest exists. So, whatever god you create, it will never be the objectively true god, of someones' imagination... Well, until someone calls themselves "perfect", and then of course, I will call them "god", or self-centered, whichever seems to fit the profile.

Oh, you don't like wikipedia... okay, here's another source, which references archeological evidence...

"Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Michael Jordan 2004"

El:
Origin Western Semitic regions and Israel (northern Hebrew tribes) [Syria, Lebanon and Israel]. Creator god.

Known Period of Worship circa 2500 BC to 700 BC.

Synonyms et elyon (most high god); et sadday (god of the mountain); et olam (everlasting god); et betel (god of storms), Il [Southern Arabia].

Centers of Cult(s) Tirzah, Samaria, Bethel, Dan and many local hill shrines.

Art References none extant other than from later artists.

Literary Sources Vetus Testamentum; Qum'Ran Textx

Modeled on the creator god of the Canaanites, Il, represented by the bull and revered by the Hebrew tribes who settled northern Palestine. According to some Ugaritic (Ras Samra) texts, not the original creator but the offspring of an older principalk, El-Eb (god of the father). In Biblical texts the word el comes to be used in a descriptive sense as a qualifying epithet meaning "lord".

Possibly El came to represent the sum of all the creator spirits of the northern tribes. Israel was unwilling to part with the name against pressure from the southern state of Judah (see YWHW), but the name fell into disuse after suppression of Israel by Tiglathpileser II (Assyria). The Hebrew term Elohim may denote an "upper tier" of great gods while Elim applies to a lower order of deities.

Note: Biblical traditions were carried by the southern state of Judah. The impression is given that El is a distant, vaguely defined figure perceived in human form-"he" is able to see, hear, walk and touch-though no images in human form seem to have been created. El was apparently symbolized in Israel from circa 922 BC again by the bull calf (I Kings 12), probably emulating the Canaanite precedent. The voice of El is said to be like thunder, the clouds are his chariot, and he waters the mountains from heaven.

Bottom line, there Dave, is your god a bull calf or not... if not, then there are two gods in your bible, at minimum, and depending on how you fit Jesus into the picture, there are possibly three, notwithstanding you chucking out Satan as having god like powers.

David said...

To Dave8,

No, I have never taken a logic course. I am not an optometrist but I know how an eye works. I also am not trained in early childhood psychology but I am doing quite a decent job of raising my daughter.

Dave8 said: To know something is "Perfect", one must "also" be "Perfect". Uh, are you "Perfect" Dave? When, you say, you have a "feeling" or a "vision", is it a "Perfect" vision, or... are you experiencing your subjective vision of feeling from your "imperfect" self?

That is not making sense to me. It must be the illiteracy. Anyway, to know something is perfect one must be perfect. Does that apply with anything else? To know something is “large” one must “also” be “large”. No, that doesn’t work. Let’s try again. To know that something is “round” one must “also” be “round”. No, that does not work either. This should work, it sounded so logical when you said it. Let’s try one more time. To know something is “imaginary”, one must “also” be “imaginary”.

I understand that you are saying that I CAN NOT know that God. Dave8, I am a 27 year old white male, you do not KNOW this. However, the fact that you do not KNOW, makes it no less true. You will just have to take that on faith, based on the words that you are reading.

Dave Poole

P.S. Do you have any logic tests handy

David said...

To Dave8,

You said: Let me add, call your god heartburn if you want, but its not the Perfect god you suggest exists.

You must be PERFECT yourself to KNOW that my God is not perfect. Logically speaking of course.

Dave Poole

David said...

To Boomslang,

Thanks for the offer, but I think I will be OK. I’ll let you know if anything changes.

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

David Poole: "That is not making sense to me. It must be the illiteracy. Anyway, to know something is perfect one must be perfect. Does that apply with anything else? To know something is “large” one must “also” be “large”. No, that doesn’t work. Let’s try again. To know that something is “round” one must “also” be “round”. No, that does not work either. This should work, it sounded so logical when you said it. Let’s try one more time. To know something is “imaginary”, one must “also” be “imaginary”."

Okay, no logic course, then I have to communicate better. Yes, the rule applies accross the board.

We are talking about perception, Dave. My degree is in the behavioral science, so, forgive me for assuming that most people who enter into such arguments are versed in subjective perception.

When you see a large round ball, and someone else sees the exact same ball, you are limited by your biological "eyes", and "senses". YOUR senses, are "UNIQUE" to you alone, no two people in the world have the "exact" same biological senses, because our physiologies are different even if slightly, thus, no two people see the exact same large round ball. Now, notionally, can two people say, hey, there appears to be a large round object, collectively called a ball by many cultures, yes. But, they do not "perceive" that large round ball, in the exact same manner, as their biological "lenses" are different.

Not only are we subjectively inhibited by our unique biological senses, we have different experiences and knowledge. Therefore, I may consciously search for a word to describe large round ball to you, but, that doesn't mean your mental filing cabinet is going to pull the exact same thought I am perceiving based on my own experiential knowledge, you are going to do your best to recall my description with your own unique knowledge based on experiences.

Again, you suggest that you are capable of perceiving a perfectly objective god. However, you have no "standard" by which to compare a "perfect" god. You have lived your whole life, as a subjective human being, gathering information through your uniquely "different" and non-perfect biological senses, and based on your unique knowledge base.

In short, you "collect" information from birth to build your knowledge base, and its a unique knowledge base, and you, like everyone else, apply that knowledge to your environment.

If you assert god pushes his objectiveness onto humanity, then, I suggest, that humanity will "paint" that objectiveness with their subjective views, to the point, that no two people can say, that they have experienced a "perfect" deity. You can't experience something objectively, if you are perceiving through subjective lenses.

Likewise, if you suggest god is within us, and pushes outward, then, I'd have to say, I can't ever get into your mind, and thus, however, you personally "think" about your god, I will never really be able to perceive, because its modelled in your mind, and you can't portray anything in this natural environment, that I will perceive in my subjective view, objectively equal to your insights.

Thus, a "Perfect" god, can 'never' be known, "Universally" equal, and thus can not be corroborated.

Oh, and while we are at it. Just to close the loop, I don't know if you are a mainstream christian or not, but... mainstream christians, place "god" in a transcendent reality, thus, a supernatural being, outside of this natural universe. Thus, your example resides in this "natural" universe, not in a "transcendent" and "supernatural" universe.

Logically speaking, we can never prove or disprove something that exists in a transcendent reality, where a "supernatural" god, is said to exist. However, if a christian had that belief, then, they need to drop their "experiences" at the door, when they attempt to prove their god, based on their "Natural" experiences, as... their "god" doesn't reside in this "Natural" universe, according to them.

Jim Arvo said...

David said "Please calculate the odds of a hole in someones heart closing up the day after it was prayed for."

I know you intended your question somewhat rhetorically (that is, you are really just asserting that the odds are small, right?), but I'm going to interpret it literally, just to show what it would take to provide a meaningful answer. In order to calculate such odds, I would need the following information at minimum:

1) How certain was the diagnosis?

2) How certain was the remission?

3) How many times had this condition been observed in the past?

4) How many times had this condition corrected itself in the past (both with and without prayer), and how long did it take on average?

5) How many prayers were issued, and at what times?

6) How long after the initial diagnosis did the condition disappear?

You see, if one is to actually compute meaningful probabilities, there are many factors to consider. Without this information, the "odds" are nothing more than subjective impressions, which can be notoriously far off. As one specific example, let's suppose that 100 days lapsed between diagnosis and remission, and that remission occurred the day after it was prayed for, as you stated. Then, without the above considerations, you would likely jump to the conclusion that the odds were no better than one in a hundred that it would have happened that way. However, if prayers had been issued at other times as well, perhaps one EVERY intervening day, then the likelihood approaches 1, which is not very impressive.

David: "Please calculate the odds of a runaway teenager who had been missing for three days and then walking into a prayer meeting in a house he had never been to while members of his church were praying for his safe return."

Again, there are many many considerations if you want a meaningful probability. How many houses had the teenager visited? How were they distributed? Were they all in the same proximity? How many groups of people were praying for his return?

I should also point out that I've been assuming that events unfolded as you described them. Now, I'm not calling you a liar. But it's human nature to distort facts and to remember only those things that conveniently fit your pre-existing worldview. Stories tend to get better with retelling.

Finally, if I were you, I'd wonder about other prayers that have gone unanswered. Why was the teen returned home safely when thousands of children die of cancer, despite the heartfelt prayers of the parents and even entire communities? How often do abducted or lost children return home safely when prayed for? If you have some evidence that the odds go up appreciably when prayer is involved, I'd like to know about it.

David said...

To Jim Avro,

First of all, I have no reason to lie. Let me answer your questions in order.

1) 100%
2) It has been 11 years so far
3) Just the 1 time
4) Just the 1 time after prayer
5) Diagnosed once, confirmed a week later on a Wednesday. We prayed at service that night. His mother brought him back the following day and it was gone. Several routine checks at X month intervals and nothing.

In response to your final question I can only say I don't know. I have no idea. Some will say "it was God's will" or that "they were called home". "His ways are mysterious", is also popular. All of these excuses have alwlays been and still are unsatisfactory for me. But I can't stop beleiving just because I don;t have all the answers.

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

David Poole: "You must be PERFECT yourself to KNOW that my God is not perfect. Logically speaking of course."

Well, the logic class continues. No, no, Dave, its easier than that. I know that you don't have the exact same thoughts as me, based on neurological processing with is also biologically dependent, and of course, I hope you would agree, that we have both lived two different lives, and picked up information and experiences differently. Your knowledge, and your cognitive processing, and your biological lenses, are "not" the exact same as mine. Thus, I am not perfect, and neither are you, we are both unique.

However, Dave, that's the point. You, being, unique, with a subjective perception, can not logically support the statement that you can "gain" an "objective truth", in this "Natural" universe, again, you have to be able to "overcome" your subjective limitations, i.e., physiological, neurological, informational/environmental, etc. in order to see a "theoretical" perfect being, or experience.

Again, unless you actually believe you are perfect, with perfect knowledge, you don't have the capability to "know" perfection. Even if "I" personally saw something, I would "paint" it with my knowledge to become something I have experienced previously. Then of course, I would test that hypothesis, using my senses. If I experienced, something, I had never experienced before, but could not define or explain the event, then at a minimum, I would have to acknowledge, that what I experienced was based on my subjective perception. Knowing I don't have any Perfectly Objective Universal knowledge, I could not logically state, that what I experienced, in fact, had to be a "perfect" being.

A baby, with no knowledge, is in much the same situation. They have experiences every day, and subjectively pull in new information using their senses, but when they find something new, they look to their parent or caregiver to give them a word to describe and anchor that image in their mind. A child, that is never given a "name" to label an experience, etc., may either choose to ignore it, or persistently attempt to give it a name. All experiences we have, aren't "understood", I have moments when I know the phone is going to ring, but I am not sitting around looking for a god, nor do I call that experience "god", which by definition can not exist by mainstream christianity in the "Natural" realm anyway.

If I don't have a term for an experience, I continue to seek further knowledge on the event. Again, check your definition, you said "Perfect" god, as a subjective perceiving human, I accept that whatever event I have, can never be known in an "objective" manner. If god is "Perfect", then god, is beyond my understanding. If god, is as mainstream christianity states, "transcendent", then I can never "reach" or "interact" with a god, from this natural reality.

David said...

To Dave8,

Real quick, I have to leave. Again, I am not trying to prove anything about the existance of God. And I understand what you are saying about perception. To use your example of the round object. Two unique people may see two different things when looking at the same object. But ones PERCEPTION does not define its reality, existance or characteristics. It exists on its own. Perceptions are unique, each one different, so perception is not a good measuring device. I may be unable to PERCEIVE that God is perfect. But my lack of perception or insight does not detract from Gods, or anythings, true characteristics.

Maybe that made sense, maybe not. Either way I need to leave. I will catch up tomorrow if I come to work (it is supposed to be a beautiful day)

Peace to all. (no God or prayers, just peace)

Dave Poole

David said...

To Dave8,

I can concede the point that I do not know perfection and therefore can not KNOW that God is perfect. I can not say with full assurance that I know. Obviously that knowledge is beyond our reach. I will also agree that God is beyond both of our understanding. You can’t create everything in the universe and not be a little complex. But I also have to say that a transcendent being would have the means to communicate with us in a way that would be as real as anything we can touch or see or whatever.

I really need to go. Thanks for the lesson.(zero sarcasm)

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

David Poole: "But ones PERCEPTION does not define its reality, existance or characteristics. It exists on its own."

So, you're not a proponent of "perception is reality?", I take it, hehehehehe. Agreed.

However, perception is based on knowledge, and thus, knowledge creates our reality, wouldn't you say. So, the more knowledge we have, the greater the understanding of our reality, and thus existence. The reverse argument would be, if a person had no knowledge, would their perception of reality be extremely limited to their immediate sphere of senses? I would say, yes, much like a babies perception of reality, is limited, every play peekaboo, where a childs' face lights up once you seem to appear out of thin air? The child, can't perceive anything greater than direct line of sight, because of a lack of knowledge.

If a child never learns, spatial recognition, or pertinent information regarding reality, then to them, everything is magical. Like you said, perception doesn't define reality, but to that infant, their subjective reality is all magical, and like many adults who believe in such matters, they claim it as "truth", and not only just "truth", but "Objective" truth.

Again, I am not going to argue that reality doesn't exist, I may however, argue, that humanity doesn't have the necessary capability to perceive "reality" in its totality, much like you experience catching a ball, which you may describe as catching a ball, someone else, may suggest they just caught umpteem gazillion molecules... whose to say they are wrong... only someone omniscient would be able to tell them different. At the more "macro" level, we have more clarity, and predictability, and thus validation methods, the more reductionist we get, the harder to validate claims, notwithstanding, taking extremely small particles and blasting them through a particle accelerator and making them larger for observation.

Personally, I believe we can find truth, and find a modelling technique to unify our understanding of this reality. And then, there are others who believe, that we can't ever really know this reality, and thus, need to fall back on "faith", in the unknown & unknowable.

Infants have a need to "know", its why they continue to ask questions throughout life, doesn't it seem unnatural to tell someone to quit thinking, in order to find true peace? Especially, when we are naturally designed to anchor ourselves in this reality, based on our ability to "know" our environment.

Anonymous said...

David Poole: "But I also have to say that a transcendent being would have the means to communicate with us in a way that would be as real as anything we can touch or see or whatever."

A transcendent being, remains "transcendent", but, even transcendence is a hypothetical. Using the same logic as earlier, with subjectivity and perception, how can a person create the "notion" of "transcendence", when all they have ever known has been in this "natural" universe, and according to their subjective senses?

Well, its late, but I'll leave you with this. Sometimes, its more important, to know, what you can't know, than to claim you do know, what you can't possibly know ;-)

Anonymous said...

Let's see now, David Poole was asked to "define" his "God", and this is what he came up with:

"GOD: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. (Merriam-Webster)

My original response was: "Hey, wait a minute...?...? I don't see the words "Jesus"; "Holy Ghost"; "El"; "Trinity"; "Son"; "Yahweh"...or "LORD" in that definition. David?(meaning David Poole)...are you a universalist?"

So....David?(meaning David Poole).... are you a universalist? I mean, I don't see anything that ties into Christianity in that definition. Nothing. So, when you get back, would you care to tell the class how you know for a fact that it's the "Christian" deity(s) that you are chatting with? And just out of curiosity, what language is used for these conversations between you two gentlemen? Thanks.

Dave Van Allen said...

Don't like Wikipedia?

Okay, here's a book: The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Biblical Resource Series)

Dave Van Allen said...

To Dave Poole about the heart, blood, emotions, thoughts, etc., etc., etc.

The ancient Greeks believed that the heart, the most noticeable internal organ, was the seat of intelligence and memory as well as emotion. This belief was passed on down the ages and became the basis for the English expression "learn by heart," which is used by Chaucer (1374) and must have been proverbial long before that. "To record" reminds again of this ancient belief in the heart as the seat of the mind. When writing wasn't a simple act, things had to be memorized; thus we have the word record, formed from the Latin re, "again," and cor, "heart," which means exactly the same as to learn by heart—Biology 218

Many classical and medieval philosophers and scientists, including Aristotle, considered the heart the seat of thought, reason or emotion, often rejecting the value of the brain.

The Stoics taught that the heart was the seat of the human soul

Today we know more about the heart, but the expressions in our language continue on as metaphors. Today it's a metaphor, but the ignorant writers of the Bible would have considered these ideas about the heart to be literal.

David said...

To South2003,

Wow, quite a "warm" response to a simple question. You could easily tell me where it is but instead you want to play coy and be difficult.

As far a the evidence. I made a few calls and was unsuccessful finding that kid with the hole in his heart. Someone else also asked for proof about my bank acounts. Like I would post personal bank information on the internet for the whole world to see.

Anyway, if you really want evidence of my witnessed miracles I guess I will take a page from South2003 and say "Hey South2003, go search for it."

Dave Poole

David said...

To webmaster,

WM said: Today we know more about the heart, but the expressions in our language continue on as metaphors. Today it's a metaphor, but the ignorant writers of the Bible would have considered these ideas about the heart to be literal.

I understand that they were being literal. And even though they were not accurate with that part of the message I don't think it detracts from the context.

Dave Poole

David said...

To boomslang,

I am not a Universalist. I thought the definition was fine and acurate the way it was. I will get a more in-depth definition if you want.

Dave Poole

Anonymous said...

David (Poole),

(Even though I know that you know exactly where the problem lies with your definiton, I'll play along with your cute little game)

David, your definition is ambiguous, as it does not make reference to the Christian God, whatsoever. A Muslim could just as easily blubber "I thought that definition was fine and acurate the way it was." Of course, they'd be PRESUPPOSING "Allah" the exact same way that you PRESUPPOSE "Christ".

But anyway, yeah, just out of curiosity, find me a dictionary entry for "God" that makes direct reference to "Christ", and none other god.

(Side note: I know that you use the bible as a science journal, but in this case, could you please not use it as a "dictionary"? lol! Thanks.)

David said...

To boomslang,

Yes it does not mention the Christian God. But it still is acurate.

Dave Poole

I'll work on that other definition. But is there really a point if I do. Be honest.

David said...

To boomslang,

Yes it does not mention the Christian God. But it still is acurate.

Dave Poole

I'll work on that other definition. But is there really a point if I do. Be honest.

Anonymous said...

Okay.


Okay.


David, is "acurate" accurate?

(No, my Ad hominem doesn't mean God doesn't exist, but it's soooo fun! lol)

Yes, the definition you provided is accurate to the generic commonly accepted noun, "God". The problem remains, however, and you know what it is. Find me an entry that delineates Jesus Christ as the creator and ruler of the Universe. Thanks.

boomSLANG.

David said...

To South2003,

That kid (his name is Aaron and I lost touch with him after he went to college) was a good friend when we were in high school and going to the same church. After school we moved, started families and began our lives. People grow apart, it happens. Do you still talk to every person you went to high school and college with?

Anyway, your right. You do not have to just hand over your testimony to anyone. I did not think it would be a big deal to show it to me since you have already posted it for the entire world and left it open to scrutiny. Maybe you could help me find my friend and we'll see if he has the MRI's still.

You also told me that you were a staunch atheist. I'm glad you mentioned it because I couldn't tell based on your posts alone. Not to worry, you won't get any "fundie, sackless, two-faced, hypocritical, ding-bat" Christian conversion lectures from me.

Dave Poole
XOXOXOXO

David said...

To South2003,

You said Christians occasionally puke on your testimony; I must admit I worry that exchristians will puke on my things as well. That’s the risk you run by posting your life on the internet.

You still talk to the important ones? That’s great. I can’t seem to find time to do that with my job (55-60 hours a week) and outside activities (church, my band, and school). Either you have a lot of free time or there were not a lot of “important” ones, get it *wink*.

When I contact my friend I will ask him, but you could give me the information I would like quite easily, but choose not too. How old are you?

Dave Poole
(kisses)

Anonymous said...

Dave Poole, lets say you find the MRIs, and it shows an amazing recovery. Tell everyone, how you can associate that recovery with a "deity" please. That is the genesis of asking you for the definition of your god. If you can't provide us with enough tangible evidence to attribute that recovery to your "god", whatever you want to label it as, then that recovery could just as easily be attributed to Aphrodite.

Your inability to define "one" god, with enough attributes to identify "it", shows you can not have a relationship with that "entity". If there is an experience you have in this natural world, then its not from a transcendent "god", its from a "natural" god.

If you can not define your god, then you can not "locate" your god, either in the transcendent realm, or this natural realm, miracles at that point are useless claims as you can't tie them to your god.

If you want to play testimony 20 questions, why don't you just ask your questions if you have them. Personally, I have nothing to hide, you don't know me I don't know you.

I'll let you know though, I have no problem saying, "I don't know" at some point, but because I don't know, doesn't mean I give it a name "god", that can't be defined, that's assinine. However, it may be harder for the one who is claiming a "god" exists, to state they don't "know" something, because then their entire god concept becomes arbitrary, and unstable knowledge, fuzzy logic comes to mind. Anyhow, can you readily admit that you don't know if your "god", saved your friend, or do you hold to the "belief", based on your "faith" in Aaron's word (knowing he can't define god either), that your "god" saved him.

There's a difference between belief based on "faith", and belief based on "knowledge". Do you have a belief based on your "faith" in Aarons' word, or do you have a "belief" based on "knowledge". Okay, while you are defining "god", why don't you take a shot at epistemological limits, and your threshold for accepting something as knowledge.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer› Newest»

Pageviews this week: