I’d like to say that I go to Church so that I can worship God. In fact, after 28 years of trying to follow Jesus, on Sunday morning as I back out of my driveway, worshipping God is still one of my main objectives. It seldom happens. Two eight-year-olds, two seven-year-olds, and one four year old are a big part of that. Fighting like badgers all the way to church is another. We don’t always fight but often enough.
So why do I go?
I go to Church because the Sanctuary for me truly is a Sanctuary. I’m able to leave the outside, outside.
I go to learn; about the Bible, about my Saviour, about life.
I go to be with others who share what’s most important in my life
I go because I’ve grown to love imperfect people. I love people who have the courage and humility to ask for help. I love being with those who know and admit to their hypocrisy and bigotry, their lies and their lusts. People who are brave enough to admit their imperfections and their need for forgiveness have become VERY attractive to me. I crave to be with honesty and being with other Christians gives me that.
I go to Church because it puts me in contact with those in need. I’m amongst the grieving and the sorrowful. I amongst the hurting and with those who hurt others. Going to Church puts me in contact with those who, because of their struggles, are sitting in the presence of Jesus.
I go to Church because I want my children to know about Creator God.
I go to Church because I want my neighbours to know that it’s important to me without telling them so in words.
I go to Church because I want to show to God, in a tangible manner that I can stop making money and stop playing in order to focus on Him.
I go to Church because it makes me want to be a better dad, a better husband, a better neighbour. I also get this desire to be a better person from reading the Bible and praying but being in Church rejuvenates and refreshes me.
I go to Church because I want to be a visible part of the team that is going to win
I go to Church because I love my Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ. I want to be where He is. I want to be near Him. And where His followers are, there He is also.
“I was glad when they said unto me, “Let’s go to the house of the Lord.””
I love Church today as much or more than I hated Church in my pre Christian days.
I love Christians today as much or more than I hated Christians in my pre Christian days.
I love Jesus today far, far, far more than I’ve ever loved Him before. Thank you Lord Jesus for Your mercy, Your kindness, Your patience and most of all for Your salvation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
So do you shamelessly admit that instead of allowing your children to develop and make their own minds up, you are geting in their first while they are most impressionable and hammering it into them that your god is real, as is jesus - much like a muslim would do to their children with respect to allah and muhammed? (any other religion is equally applicable).
If 6 of your 7 children are disabled, how long before they start to ask you why god made them that way if he loves them so?
Again, not trying to offend, but an obvious question that they are likely to ask if they are capable. What cop-out do you feed them to help them cope with that fact they are different from the other kid whos is the son/daughter (who isnt disabled) of the neighbourhood gangster that makes a living by selling drugs, the same child who incidently bullies other less fortunate children at school?
Do you not see why, if he exists, your god is one cruel individual?
"So do you shamelessly admit . . ."
Yes, without shame or regret. A life lived with Jesus is so incredible, and a life lived without Him is so fourth rate that I will do whatever I can within my power to not get in the way of God making Himself known to these children.
================
"If 6 of your 7 children are disabled, how long before they start to ask you why god made them that way if he loves them so?"
They already have. Rab, when I said the kids didn’t see themselves as different - yet - I meant they don’t see themselves as “less than.” They feel equal in value and worth to anyone else in the world. You see, unlike atheists Christians are able to see good even in the midst of tragedy. We’re able to experience hope in the midst of suffering.
I’ve lived with childhood sexual abuse, crippling arthritis beginning at age ten, loss after loss after loss. Again, unlike atheists, I don’t flop down in a pout and blame God for my struggles. The children, the older four, have already asked, “Why.”
When they ask important questions like that, we don’t talk about it until we can all gather in the living room. And when I asked, I didn’t tell, I asked, for children are usually far more in tune with these kinds of things than we adults, I asked “Why do you think God allowed this to happen?” One of them said and the others agreed, “Well, I think I’m stronger than other kids BECAUSE of my disability. I don’t feel sorry for myself like Jordan does. So maybe that’s why He let this happen.” That answer, or that understanding may change of the years, but for now I think it's pretty good.
=============
“your god is one cruel individual?”
Rab, Two points:
. You are the reason our world is filled to the brim with crap.
. God is the reason that I am able to float on the surface of the crap.
God has never promised, nor to we Christians expect to be exempt from the tragedies of life. However, He comes into our pain and suffering in such a way as to make these events pretty heady stuff. A couple verses highlight this:
“Those who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They will rise up on wings like eagles, they will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not faint.”
“Those who wait upon the Lord are like Mt. Zion, unmoved by any circumstance.”
I can attest to both of those verses as being true.
I want my children to have His resources to not just survive a difficult existence. Almost anybody can survive. There's nothing special in that. I want these children to have His resources so that they can emerge victorious over life. I make no apologies for doing that.
I go to Church because I want to show to God, in a tangible manner that I can stop making money and stop playing in order to focus on Him.
I echo every sentiment that you made on this post Mak, except I fall short on this one. Normally I am off on Sundays, however, I have numerous opportunities to earn extra income on that day of the week. I pray that I may discern between the knowledge that is to be gained by joining the fellowship of believers on a weekly basis against the few bucks I would earn if I worked instead. I know it's not an equal trade, maybe I worry too much over my finances and should trust in the Lord more to assist me in this area.
Mak said to Rabhimself: "You are the reason our world is filled to the brim with crap."
1. The world is not "filled to the brim with crap"
2. You give Rabhimself too much power.
Excellent and moving post, Mak. You echoed my sentiments to a T. Interestingly enough, I have a couple of autistic children. They are mostly non-verbal, so they have never asked me those kinds of questions. But for some reason they have always enjoyed coming to church. More often than not, I hear my daughter vocalizing a hymn, sometimes with an intelligible word or phrase slipped in.
There are so many families I know who are enduring much greater trials than mine, and it is funny how these are the families who generally don't question God, knowing full well that, in the end, everything we have and are is always infinitely better than we deserve.
The people I feel sorry for are those who are in an extremely difficult or even tragic circumstance, yet they are not strengthened and sustained by the Savior because they refuse to turn to Him. But there is hope for them, because He is nearer than they think.
I feel even worse for smug and self satisfied people (perhaps like Rabhimself -- these atheist pen names, though sometimes humorous, are truly weird), who as far as I know are living fat, dumb and happy, or think they are. Yet they rail against God and feign concern for the less fortunate, and then call them foolish for leaning on God. Yet the Bible has a completely different perspective:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Will evildoers never learn— those who devour my people as men eat bread and who do not call on the LORD? There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous. You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the LORD is their refuge.' (Psalm 14)
Yet even for them there is hope. We should know, because "At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy." (Titus 3:3-5).
You go to church because you are a sheeple. ;)
Figured I'd return the favour of a blog comment since you came to mine with a horribly skewed opinion of atheists.
Bye!
Thanks for the encouraging words Leo.
Lorraine - that's right, I am a sheep and Jesus is my Shepherd. Hopefully, I will have the strength and courage and faith to follow Him where ever He leads.
I am the reason our world is full to the brim with crap? Thanks.
One, it's not that bad Makarios.
Two - how the fuck would it be my fault?
I guarantee if i were your god, the world would not be in the state it is. I wouldn't let it get this way.
Additionally: "Again, unlike atheists, I don’t flop down in a pout and blame God for my struggles"
I'm sick of this stupidity - what do i need to do to convince you i do not believe in god? I don't blame god for any struggles because he isn't there. I merely pose hypothetical questions that should make you question your gods logic, if he existed.
I see Leo has started chipping against me now as well? Brilliant.
I see he also resorts to the same shameless scripture quoting to point out my damnation. I suppose it wouldn't matter if i then quoted the same scripture that says a lot of nonsense?
Of course it wouldn't. By default i'd be misinterpreting it, taking it out of context, not understanding it or some other lame, bullshit cop-out.
"I am the reason our world is full to the brim with crap? Thanks."
What I mean is, your response to God, my response to God every single person on earth’s response to God is to resist His authority and deny Him access to our lives.
We’re determined to do it our way, not His way. And because we did it our way, this is the kind of world that we got.
=============*
“I guarantee if i were your god, the world would not be in the state it is. I wouldn't let it get this way.”
So you would have created robots instead a free agents? That doesn’t sound like much fun to me.
==================
“By default i'd be misinterpreting it, taking it out of context, not understanding it or some other lame, bullshit cop-out.”
Probably. Listen Rab, I’ve been where you are. I know what it feels like to have Christians tell me about hell and feel really irritated by it. On the other hand, believing what we believe, how can we NOT warn you about what Jesus taught?
===========
"it's not that bad Makarios."
"I wouldn't let it get this way."
Besides the obvious contradiction that’s one of the really sad things about our world. Most humans see nothing wrong with the world, as long as the problems don’t interfere with their daily activities. So what if children are starving to death. So what if children are working as sex slaves. So what if most of our youth only feel love as an after effect of a drug. So what, so what, so what. Just don’t interrupt my game of golf.
I believe th current estimate of christians on the planet is around 2 billion people. Why can't god just interact with them then? Why can't he just be involved in the lives of christians in a manner which is greater than just within the mindset of a christian?
Who said anything about removing free will? By all means, have free will to do whatever you like - including not believing in me, i have already stated this before and my solution to it.
I was more referring to your last point rebutting my statement that its not so bad.
I appreciate what you are saying Mak, some truly awful things, but the fact is the entire planet is not in this state. So it could be worse.
If i were god, i'd feed the impoverished and needy, or more to my original point - i wouldn't let it get that way. I can apply that to any other bad thing on the plant right now.
What kind of omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god who LOVES you would let a paedophile rape you when you are 3 years old? I would not stand for that Makarios.
Yet you will still defend the undefendable. It does not matter what you think man has done to merit god withdrawing himself from our lives, there is no excuse for an entity that has such power, knows its going on, loves that child - yet still lets her be raped.
Bull
Fucking
Shit.
If he exists, he CAN help according to the power you state he has. He just chooses not to. How terribly and disgustingly wicked can you be. Given his omniscience he is no better than someone watching the same rape on a live video feed and doing nothing about it. Scum.
I believe th current estimate of christians on the planet is around 2 billion people. Why can't god just interact with them then?
Because that would interfere with free will and remove faith from the equation.
What kind of omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god who LOVES you would let a paedophile rape you when you are 3 years old?
The important thing to remember here is that it is not God that is responsible for such a reprehensible act but rather an evil, misguided human being. Getting back to free will, it seems that God wanted the full range of options available to us in order that if and when we choose to love and serve Him, it is done of our complete volition, when we could have decided to completely reject Him as well.
If he exists, he CAN help according to the power you state he has. He just chooses not to.
I don't know about this Rab. Are you prepared to state that God has never helped anyone, even in the recent past? Christians are different than 18th century Deists. He speaks to us through his word and sometimes things just happen in our lives that we recognize that, when all factors are considered, that the possibility of some of the blessings we receive does not lead a rational person to chalk it up to mere chance. Especially when it happens more than once and at specific times when needed. Thats not to say that Christians have anything like near-perfect lives, but there is always a Great Counselor we can appeal to when the chips are down.
Why would it interfere with free will?
"The important thing to remember here is that it is not God that is responsible for such a reprehensible act but rather an evil, misguided human being."
I know it is an evil person committing the deed, but that doesn't mean god can't put a stop to it. He must be watching it happen, he mustv'e known that it was going to happen - yet he just sits and watches as the 3 yr olds life is ruined as they are subjected to the unthinkable.
Like i said, you defend the undefendable. Are you honestly telling me that if YOU were god you would not stop this?
Bullshit.
"Why can't he just be involved in the lives of christians in a manner which is greater than just within the mindset of a christian?"
He does. I am absolutely a new creation. If you got to know me today you might not be that impressed. But if you knew the pre Christian me and compared that person to the today me, I think you'd say, "I want some of that." And for what it's worth. AT THIS STAGE God uses the evil that we commit to change souls. One day evil will be banished. Today it is frustrated and used for good. Can you really not see, even from your own life good that has come out of suffering?
==========
“By all means, have free will to do whatever you like”
“i wouldn't let it get that way.”
Again, these two can’t go together. If you are going to give people the ability to do wrong (free will) then that’s exactly what you have to let them do. You can’t then turn around and "stop it from getting that way."
In order for love to be real, we MUST have the choice to not love.
“I love you darling.”
“Oh thank you. That means so much to me.”
“Ah it’s nothing. I have to feel this way.”
This life Rab, this stage of life on earth is a preparation for the next stage. It’s weeding out those who want to be with God and those who do not want to be with God. Only free will allows for such a winnowing process.
================
“I would not stand for that Makarios.”
Yes, we DO stand for Rab. We not only stand for it we support it, we promote it. Responsible sex is the one thing we DON’T want in this world. Look at the spread of HIV and other STDs. We actually expect our children to be sexually active. This wasn’t always the case Rab. Not to this degree. We are willing to sacrifice our children just so that we can have what we think is freedom. Given the hyper sexualised climate that we promote for both financial reasons and to feed our own lusts, how can it be any other way? Have you looked at Much Music lately? Nine and ten year olds are watching that stuff. And then women cry the blues about not being respected as human beings. Well duh!
===========
He just chooses not to.”
So are you admitting that we are hopelessly wicked, depraved and corrupt to the core? Of course we are, otherwise why are we allowing our world to be this way? The state of the world is OUR fault - right? There’s no one else to blame - right?
Well, that’s exactly what God says as well. You and God agree :-)
================
I know it is an evil person committing the deed, but that doesn't mean god can't put a stop to it. He must be watching it happen, he mustv'e known that it was going to happen - yet he just sits and watches as the 3 yr olds life is ruined as they are subjected to the unthinkable.
Sure, let me expand on that a little. First though, just let me state that it is my understanding that the so-called "question of evil" isnt even debated within the confines of academia and better philosophy departments anymore and is relegated to the domain of psuedo-intellectuals (you know, like NGITS and Comhradh) to ponder over. The main reason being that the existance of evil in this world does not, in and of itself, negate the existance of God. At best it could be stated that "it is poorly understood among certain people why evil exists in the world" and little more.
Back to your question. If God injected Himself into every scenario in which evil (or disaster, or minor discomfort) is about to occur in a clearly visible, no-doubt-about-it way, that would then remove faith as a qualifier for believing in his existance. We have freewill to accept or reject His existance based on the evidence that we have.
The evidence = none.
I still don't and won't buy it. I would not sit back and watch a three year old that i love be raped. End of.
Mak, you are wrong about the free will. Look at our lives - we have our own justice systems. E.g. People are free to murder if they wish, but they shall be punished for it. I don't understand how you can defend god's decision to leave us be.
Tell you what, if he miraculously locked up paedophiles across the globe, rid the world of badness and helped me and my friends like i would help them if i were god, i'd not only believe in him, i'd love him too.
Sadly, none of it is real.
I was that three year old Rab - and four, five, six, seven and eight. It messed me up something awful. I still struggle with the after-effects. However, God, the God that exists and the God that allowed that to happen to me has taken that vile and disgusting time in my life and He has made me so strong "through" it that, well, I need to be careful here, but I feel as though nothing in life could knock me off my firm foundation. I am solid and confident because of God and only because of God - the same God that allowed sexual abuse to be part of my life.
The evidence = none
This is just frighteningly stupid Rab and gives insight to the level of intellectual dishonesty that you are willing to subject yourself to in order to ignore the obvious.
Science is proving the Bible correct every day with new discoveries in the field of archeology. Consider the previously "non-existant" Hittite Empire or the "fabled" city of Nineveh or the "made up" existance of King Saul. Add to that more recent discoveries such as Sodom and Gemorrah along with Nehemiah's Wall and all of this paints a picture of some very certain "evidence" that only a fool or the willfully blind would try to deny.
JD, i'm not even prepared to speak to someone who thinks that i am being intellectually dishonest by refusing to believe in the christian god.
I challenge you to present me with unambiguous, irrefutable evidence of your gods existence.
What do i expect from you? Nothing. Why? Because no such evidence exists. How dare you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when it is YOU who clings to FAITH in a suoreme being.
"Science is proving the Bible correct every day with new discoveries in the field of archeology."
Oh really. I guess it's just a matter of time before we discover that men are in fact made of dirt and that women are made from a man's rib. That the universe really is only a few thousand years old will be declared fact evidence will arise that proves that the earth was once in fact completely submerged in water.
Or maybe we won't. You should be embarrassed.
I don't think i've ever been so infuriated by such a closed-minded comment. I follow what the evidence shows me JD, i don't believe claims with the magnitude of a god in question without evidence.
As for you makarios - i am sorry to hear that you were a victim of my selected atrocity.
If it comforts you to think that god has helped you in life, yet wouldn't stop your torment in your younger years then fine. Whatever helps you cope.
For me however, you just provide further evidence to suggest he is not there.
The god you loved watched you bein abused - over, and over, and over, and over. He loves you - but what did he do to stop it? Nothing.
If you knew a friend was watching at the same time, yet did nothing to stop it - would you love them when they comfort you after the ordeals?
You have stated that god is using evil as a tool to weed out who is for and against him - Surely he could have stopped events before your abuse, realising that the culprit was evil and hence saving you the wicked abuse you have suffered?
But no, YOU had to suffer to satisfy your god, while he sat back and watched it all.
“For me however, you just provide further evidence to suggest he is not there.”
. Bad things happened to me
. Therefore God does not exist
Hmm, seems as though you’re missing a point or two
==============
“If you knew a friend was watching at the same time, yet did nothing to stop it - would you love them when they comfort you after the ordeals?”
This is probably pointless since you’re incapable of comprehending what is going on. However, if all there was to life, if the main point of life was escaping pain and experiencing happiness, then yes, I suppose rescuing everyone from their difficulties would be THE sign of love.
However, there is far more to life than simply avoiding pain. Atheists can’t / won’t / don’t want to understand this. That’s why your reaction to difficulties and sorrows are more akin to that of a toddler than an adult.
==========
"Surely he could have stopped events before your abuse”
Yes and He could have left me as shallow and immature as atheists are but instead, He gave me something better and more enduring.
=============
"Yes and He could have left me as shallow and immature as atheists are but instead, He gave me something better and more enduring."
I resent that.
I am not shallow, I am not immature.
You know what? If you think that him allowing someone to rape you over several years was his way of giving you something better and more enduring then suit yourself.
Don't attack me and other atheists because you are sour that we find the idea of a loving god that would allow this to be unbelievable. You have done nothing more than highlight your own shallowness in making that statement.
Also, atheists are well aware there is more to life than avoiding pain - stop tarring us all with the same brush (again). I'm well aware of this, i merely question why, if your god exists, he kicks back, watches, and does fuck all while you were sexually abused.
There is absolutely no need for it. Keep kididng yourself on, like i said, if it helps you cope with what happened then fine but any rational person would be asking why their loving god abandoned them in their hours of need.
Perhaps you weren't, "At an age of accountability".
"stop tarring us all with the same brush"
When I meet an exception I'll say something different. Just because you can't imagine anything good coming out of tragedy doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
i'm not even prepared to speak to someone who thinks that i am being intellectually dishonest by refusing to believe in the christian god.
No, the reason you're being intellectually dishonest is because you state there is no "evidence" when nothing could be further from the truth.
From thefreedictionary.com, evidence: (As it relates to God's existance in bold) The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law
From nolo.com (legal website)evidence: testimony of witnesses, documents
There is an abundance of such "evidence" and you are demonstrably incorrect.
Is it your belief that archeology is not a science? archeology: Archeology is the scientific study of past human culture, technology, and behavior based on the analysis of remains that people have left behind (source, http://www.nps.gov/yell/historyculture/archeologyindex.htm)
If you are not intellectually dishonest Rabster, then I'm sure you approached the subject with an open mind. What sources did you consider before arriving at your viewpoint?
Rabhimself said...
“I see Leo has started chipping against me now as well? Brilliant. I see he also resorts to the same shameless scripture quoting to point out my damnation.”
Not necessarily to point out your damnation, because no one is beyond the grace of God. But
I am indeed shameless about quoting Scripture, but I will also appeal to common frames of reference like logic and reason. I accept the authority of the Scriptures as a matter of faith, but it is by no means a blind faith. There are reasoned and logical arguments for accepting their validity, and millions of intelligent people accept them without checking their brains at the door. Here is another one that I will quote shaemlessly.
Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ”
Atheists have ample evidence for the existence of God right in front of their very noses but are choosing to suppress or ignore it, because for whatever reason there is a part of them that would rather He did not exist.
I am sure you can make an equal and opposite argument about me and other theists. You could put forth a plausible case that pre-historic man was terrified by the untamed world around him and particularly by his own mortality; therefore he invented the concepts of a god and an afterlife. But I would argue that there are things that are more terrifying than death. The unknowns of an afterlife can be pretty frightening, particularly if it involves accountability to a Creator. And even if we don’t think too much about the afterlife, there is something in us that chafes at the idea of a Creator running our lives.
Alduous Huxley in Ends and Means was honest enough to state the following:
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption….The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he should personally not do as he wants to do…. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation….”
I won’t speculate as to the specific reasons why you would rather God not exist, but the general sentiment is actually common to all of us. Even if out of personal preference or for utilitarian reasons we subscribe to a moral lifestyle, we still would rather live life on our own terms and—if you ask us–we have no need for a god, thank you very much. The theist has two choices on how to deal with this: (1) come to terms with God and who He is; or (2) invent a god in his own image, a less troublesome one that is to his own liking. The atheist, on the other hand, takes the second option a step further and does whatever it takes to convince himself that God does not exist and therefore cannot have any claim or authority over his life.
I must also comment on Rab’s argument against the existence of God because He allows evil: Rab tells Mak:
“If it comforts you to think that god has helped you in life, yet wouldn't stop your torment in your younger years then fine. Whatever helps you cope. For me however, you just provide further evidence to suggest he is not there.”
Two points:
1. If God does not exist, then all the things you call evil are utterly meaningless. On what basis is pedophelia, child abuse, torture, genocide or any other unspeakable horror to be considered evil? We are nothing but biochemical matter that will eventually die and decompose, are we not? Where then did you get your sense of morality by which you condemn the God that you claim does not exist?
2. I will not only quote Scripture without shame, but sometimes some of my favorite theologians as well. In his classic, The Cross of Christ, John R. W. Stott states:
"I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross . . . In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it?"
The point is, God is not immune to it. He apparently allows evil and pain to make us more like Him, if we will allow Him. Without minimizing any pain or tragedies that are far worse than anything I have endured, the fact remains that He has endured far worse for our sakes. I hope and pray that you will one day come to realize this.
Peace.
ev·i·dence
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
"There is an abundance of such "evidence" and you are demonstrably incorrect."
Thats not evidence you ignoramus. I only need to direct you towards the book of mormon to highlight your delusion. Joseph Smith has documented his personal revelations, and he has witnesses to support him. Do you believe it? - Didn't think so.
EARFOB
Exaggeration?
Accuracy?
Reliability?
Factual?
Opinion?
Bias?
The above are something that i learned in history class for the evaluation of sources. In your case, you basically state the bible is evidence and is hence the source.
A quick read around the bible will show us quickly that it is extremely biased (obviously) - it suffers from exaggeration (the earth was flooded completely?) - it is most certainly opinion (other religious books testify contrary to yours) - accurate and factual? science has proved that much of it is not. All of this makes it a bad source for events of the time, and as such, the correct answer in higher history would be to evaluate the source as useless.
Now, don't get me wrong, an opinion doesn't mean something can't be factual, neither does bias - but unfortunately this often leads things to be the case. Exaggeration often destroys a sources reliability, as with the bible as it defies logic. Reliability, Accuracy and Factuality? From the bias the writers have, you can claim virtually zero (again, i direct you to the book of mormon if you disagree, which no doubt you will).
To be perfectly frank JD, the sources i consulted when i initially decided that god wasn't real, and that the bible is utterly ridiculous, was simply the logic of my own developing mind.
Scientific evaluation of evidence is the only way that matters of this magnitude should be analysed. For the existence of god, it is absolutely necessary that 100% irrefutable and unambiguous evidence is presented. I see you failed your challenge to present me with this. Not surprising.
As for your archeology claim, show me a source and i'll read it. Thing is, already i can tell you that the existence of an earthly place, written about in the bible, does not prove the credibility of the bible as a whole.
Indeed, this is not a supernatural claim being proved factual, merely a natural one and more specifically the existence of a certain place/civillization. Nothing special about that.
What will never happen, however, is the discovery of evidence that irrefutably supports the supernatural claims of the bible. The existence of god, the resurrection of jesus, turning water into wine, feeding thousands with a few fish and a couple of loafs of bread, a geriatric rounding up two of every creature on the planet and putting them on a large ark, followed by a world wide flood that resulted in the entire earth being submerged, the transcendance to heaven, walking on liquid water, parting the red sea by raising your staff - honestly, the ridiculous list goes on and on.
You would not believe me, right now, if i claimed i could fly unaided (like peter-pan) unless you saw evidence. You still wouldn't believe me if instead of showing you i can fly, i show you an old book that has within it a line that says i can fly.
Yet you believe the bible.
Utterly stupid, painfully ridiculous. You suspend the same critical thinking you use to analyse other extraordinary claims, in order to believe the bible. Again, i don't need you to tell me you don't believe the book of mormon - do i?
Yet you have the audacity to claim that it is i being intellectually dishonest.
"No, the reason you're being intellectually dishonest is because you state there is no "evidence" when nothing could be further from the truth."
There is no evidence (real evidence - not just your opinions) for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god.
So do you shamelessly admit that you are changing the topic and argueing things that I did not state? At no point did I argue the veracity of the Book of Mormon. You throw it out there and pretend that it is the same as the Bible. THEY ARE 2 DIFFERENT BOOKS EINSTEIN. If you somehow strike up a conversation with some Mormons via the web, about the accuracy of their books, please let me know.
You would not believe me, right now, if i claimed i could fly unaided (like peter-pan) unless you saw evidence. You still wouldn't believe me if instead of showing you i can fly, i show you an old book that has within it a line that says i can fly.
Breathtakingly stupid. If you entered into evidence a book stating that you could fly, then that evidence could be examined as to whether or not it is a true statement. It does not automatically make it true. By all means, please explore the writings of Harvard educated law professor Simon Greenleaf who examined the Bible and what he determined concerning it's admissability into a court of law if were put forward as "evidence" in a legal proceeding. You just might be suprised. He wrote entire VOLUMES of material concerning "evidence" and is a truly reliable source. Link from Univ of Missouri
Thats not evidence you ignoramus
No, they are only dictionary-legal definitions of the word "evidence" with sources cited. That's all.
Archeology (Biblical) Link
Excuse me?
I'm well aware you never brought up the book of mormon. I'm also well aware they are two different books. I'm trying to make a point which you are avoiding. It is a direct and relevant comparison that i can make - the fact you believe the bible, and the fact you don't believe the book of mormon. Both are core to two different religions, and the key point is that Joseph Smith makes extraordinary claims about speaking to god, seeing angels and has witnesses to back it up etc - yet you don't believe it/him - but despite the bible entqailing the same such nonsense, you believe it. That's the hilarious part, i don't need you to admit that, i know you don't believe it. I also know if you read it, you would dissect it with the very same rationale and logic you apply to everything else - except your own religion.
Please, don't insult me by telling me you were merely statiing some definitions of the word evidence. It is clear you are trying to hammer in the point that the bible is a written account made by 'witnesses' and therefore is evidence of god's existence.
I see, yet again, you fail my challenge to provide an irrefutable, unambiguous piece of evidence that proves the existence of a god - let alone the christian one. Again, i'm not surprised.
"Breathtakingly stupid. If you entered into evidence a book stating that you could fly, then that evidence could be examined as to whether or not it is a true statement."
I'm well aware how daft that seems by analysis - precisely my point. You acknowledge that just because it is written, doesn't make it true - yet you believe the bible. You also note that it can be tested to prove - yes, the bible has a lot of things we cannot test (conveniently), however, one of the things we can and DO test, is the power of prayer. Surprise surprise - prayer does nothing. Every scientific study i have heard of examining the power of prayer has concluded it does nothing.
Will you accept that as evidence that god is very probably not there? Or that the bible is telling lies? No. Why? Ridiculous, unmoveable faith.
Other things we can prove wrong in the bible would be certain events such as the story of creation itself. We know the account in the bible is wrong - but still, you make your excuses and persist.
I'll read the archaeology thing later, but as i have aforementioned, it does nothing to solidify the bible as evidence of god. The archeological find is merely verifying that a certain place did in fact exist - nothing more than that. No hocus pocus involved with finds like that.
How can you expect me to take a website seriously that seriously believes this? -
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html
I'll reiterate, archeological finds supporting some places/things mentioned in the bible are one thing - proving the existence of a supreme being is a whole new kettle of fish.
So do you shamelessly admit that instead of advancing the discussion in a meaningful manner, you intead set up strawmen?
There are a number of beliefs that cannot be proven by the scientific method but that anybody reading this would think it rational to hold. It seems that you have some sort of hang-up concerning God and are some sort of science-fetishist to boot.
"So do you shamelessly admit that instead of advancing the discussion in a meaningful manner, you intead set up strawmen?"
And how do you suggest we do that when my intial statement still stands correct? You cannot provide me with evidence of any gods existence.
"There are a number of beliefs that cannot be proven by the scientific method but that anybody reading this would think it rational to hold."
The beliefs you refer to are most certainly supernatural - including other religious doctrines.
"It seems that you have some sort of hang-up concerning God and are some sort of science-fetishist to boot."
You make it sound like i should be ashamed that scientific analysis is the way to go with matters of extraordinary claims. Science-fetish? I have no more of a fetish for science than you do for believing your religion. As for a hang up on god - no i don't, i don't believe in him, or any of the other gods. If i have a hang-up, it is with people that irrationally believe in such gods without evidence.
Do you shamelessly admit that you can't just come out and admit that your intial statement of; "No, the reason you're being intellectually dishonest is because you state there is no "evidence" when nothing could be further from the truth." is an absolute fallacy? - Both on the fronts of me being intellectually dishonest and on their being evidence for god's existence? - Probably not.
So - how do we discuss the argument in a meaningful manner when 1) you are so heavily deluded and 2) you do not provide any evidence, which is essentially how this argument begun. I mean come on, you provided me a link detailing arcehological finds - thats fair enough - but from a website with heavy religious bias, that also believes FULLY in the story of Noah's Ark.
I contest it is you that is failing to take the argument forward meaningfully. Of course, how can you though? There is still no evidence, all you can do is churn while i state the facts.
You cannot provide me with evidence of any gods existence.
I have. Just what is your definition of "evidence" and can it be found in ANY dictionary in the entire world?
The beliefs you refer to are most certainly supernatural - including other religious doctrines.
This one's easy. Just check out this (3 minute) video from William Lane Craig entitled Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins
Insofar as the subject of archeology is concerned, you've only raised one topic that you have an issue with and it seems you completely ignore other evidence, which, to me anyway, is intellectual dishonesty writ large. Check this out when you can. Further evidence from the Bible is cited (2 examples).
No you have not. There is no irrefutable, unambiguous evidence for the existence of a god, let alone the christian one. Hence, you cannot provide any such evidence, as it doesn't exist. All you have suggested is that the bible is evidence, and that is is true.
Prophecies? You've got to be joking.
Here-
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
What went wrong wtih that lot then?
Please, enlighten me with regards to which evidence i ignore. You only provided an archeological argument, which does nothing to verify the authenticity of the bible, merely the existence of a place that it mentions. Once again, it does not prove anything supernatural.
P.S. I would class the belief in something for which there is no irrefutable, unambiguous evidence as intellectual dishonesty. Or the denial that something obvious is true, i.e. 1+1 = 2.
You accuse me of something i do not commit. I hold the more rational position out of us both - by a long shot.
There is no irrefutable, unambiguous evidence for the existence of a god, let alone the christian one. Hence, you cannot provide any such evidence, as it doesn't exist. All you have suggested is that the bible is evidence, and that is is true.
And yet you shamelessly admit that you refuse to provide a single definition of the word "evidence" that can be found in ANY dictionary in the entire world. Interesting.
Prophecies? You've got to be joking.
Nice. Bury me with 20 different quotes from a biased site and expect me to address every one of them. Right. Good luck with that. This site that you mention has an irritating habit of showing where a prophecy wasnt fulfilled in the second part of a statement, but doesnt state where the original prophecy can be found. EPIC FAIL. You still havent commented on the instances of Biblical prophecy being 100% correct that I posted at 8:19 and given your evasiveness thus far in this discussion, nor do I expect you to. But I have faith that you just might. (Not much though)
While we are on the subject, I have never heard of a archeological discovery that has proven the Bible to be wrong. Have you?
You only provided an archeological argument, which does nothing to verify the authenticity of the bible, merely the existence of a place that it mentions. Once again, it does not prove anything supernatural.
The Bible contains eyewitness testimony that can be wieghed against archeologically verifiable facts giving further credibility that it is the inspired word of God. (i.e. EVIDENCE)
I would class the belief in something for which there is no irrefutable, unambiguous evidence as intellectual dishonesty.
Apparently you didnt watch the video I supplied. If you did then comment on it.
I hold the more rational position out of us both - by a long shot.
And how is that? By believing in a universal negative that can never be proven? Rab, instead of God, if I were to make the statement "Life that is at least intelligent as humans here on Earth does not exist ANYWHERE in the entire the universe. Nowhere at all." Would I ever be able to prove such a statement?
Rab, I came across this link today entitled 101 Cleared-Up Contradictions in the Bible, Not that I expect you to argue every one of these points. Maybe you would like to archive it and look it over at your leisure someday with something other than a mind that is completely closed. Link
You know what JD? You win. I cannot combat such ridiculous delusion. You have a great level of audacity to call me closed-minded.
You are a hypocritical fuck. You provide me with a link to a biased website, but when i do the same its not acceptable? Newsflash - my website doesn't state fallacies to try and back up what it believes (i.e. Noah's Ark). The website i provided states the bible how it is. Nothing more. Nothing less. I didn't expect you to combat any of the points, i was merely showing you that your claim regarding prophecies is bullshit.
Showing you a definition of evidence is as easy as searching for it on merriam-webster. I have no idea why you are so desperate for me to privide this. The fact remains - there is no irrefutable or unambiguous evidence for the existence of a god.
As far as im concerned this is over. I can't provide evidence to you that Zeus doesn't exist, but do you believe in Zeus? Didn't think so.
Lets just get down to the root of all this delusion -
Had you been born in Iran, you would be sitting telling me Allah exists, and that the Quran and the Hadith prove this to be the case.
Had you been born in India, you would be telling me Vishnu etc exist, providing the Upanishads as 'evidence'.
Had you been born into a Mormon family, you would be telling me that mormonism is absolutely correct because the book of mormon says so.
Had you been born in ancient Egypt, you would be telling me Horus was real - again backed up by scripture as 'evidence'.
Had you been born in china, you might very well sit there and argue that the chinsese gods are the real true gods.
Had you been born in scandanavia in a time since past, you would be telling me Thor and Odin are real, supported by your so called 'evidence'.
Had you been born in ancient Rome, you would be telling me Aries etc are real because you have sufficient 'evidence'.
Are you seeing the pattern here? You are nothing more than another sheep, following a false shepherd - another name that goes on the long list of people who believe in things that they have no evidence for, yet really think that they do.
If you want to waste your life worshipping a god that doesn't exist - go for it.
I'll stick with the sensible position.
Zeus bless.
Apples and oranges Rab?
Had I been born a Muslim, we would still be argueing monotheism/atheism.
I wasnt born a Hindu. When you debate Hindus on their sites, what is their most common reply? If I'm not a Hindu, then that doesnt mean that I can't examine their still existant religion and decide for myself if (rationally) it is a valid belief.
Who are these "Chinese gods" that you speak of? Is their archeological record anywhere near as accurate as the Old Testament/Gospels as spelled out in their foundational documents?
Mormonism doesnt deny the existance of God so I don't know why you would bring it up. There is an extra-biblical source whose veracity can be debated as well as some other theological points but these matters are best reserved for debate between Mormons and Christians.
Insofar as the worship of either "Horus" "Aries", "Thor' or "Odin", which ones claim to be historic personages?
Which ones have 2000 years of Biblical exegesis or similar in order to examine if they are true or not?
How many universities were founded to the "glory of Odin"?
How many hospitals were ever opened by the followers of Thor?
You are nothing more than another sheep, following a false shepherd - another name that goes on the long list of people who believe in things that they have no evidence for, yet really think that they do.
Do you think that over the course of 2000 years they might have found the crucified remains of Jesus Christ by now? An even better question would be how many of the original apostles of "Aries" chose a horrific and gruesome death over recanting the truth they were speaking?
Either you are choosing to, or accidentally have completely missed the point.
I'll tell you the point to clarify. Throughout the entire history of mankind, thousands of gods/religions have been devised where every one of their followers would be just as zealous as yourself to justify their existence, with so called evidence.
Today, we still have verious different religions, with people still willing to testify just as zealously that there is evidence for their chosen god(s).
I believe the debate we were having was whether or not the bible was accurate 'evidence' of god's existence. Not a debate regarding specifically monotheism/atheism. You insist that the bible verifies itself by 'evidence' and thus, god exists. I disagree, yet you persist with what i regard as nonsense - so without actually saying it, i make the point that it is clearly the indoctrination that you have underwent (by choice or otherwise) that makes you so confident and adamant that the bible is true.
Another way of looking at it, is if you were a hindu, you would believe the bible is a load of shit.
Do you not see this?
As for the apostles, dying for the cause does not make it true. it just signifies how much they believed in it. You need look no further than modern day religious extremists to understand that if you believe it enough, then dying for it is not a problem.
You seem very hung up on the concept that because the bible has a few archeological back-ups for a FEW things it has mentioned, that verifies it completely. Despite th fact that other pieces of evidence point to the contrary. I will direct you again to the story of Noah's ark.
Oh, as for the chinese god's google it yourself! It's not like you are incapable.
Throughout the entire history of mankind, thousands of gods/religions have been devised where every one of their followers would be just as zealous as yourself to justify their existence, with so called evidence.
Again, I don't see any comparative study being done by yourself to compare other religions to Judeo-Christian history as contained in the Bible. Classic Atheism 101 blather by lumping all religions together.
i make the point that it is clearly the indoctrination that you have underwent (by choice or otherwise) that makes you so confident and adamant that the bible is true.
You mistake "indoctrination" for "study". I asked you a few questions on my last post. Putting all other things aside, what other religion has opened more hospitals and universities than Christianity? Might this be just one indicator over the value of one religion in reference to it's impact on civilization when compared to other religions? After you answer that, we'll take a look at the foundations of modern charitable organizations.
As for the apostles, dying for the cause does not make it true.
Simple fisherman who were crucified rather than recant that Jesus rose from the dead should be an indication that they were speaking the truth. How many people would be willing to face such a tortured death in order to perpetuate a lie? Chuck Colson once said that he learned one thing from Watergate. That Jesus Christ rose from the dead. They were the brightest and best minds of their time and they couldnt keep a lie going for more than 2 weeks with only the threat of some prison time, nevermind torture and crucifixion.
I will direct you again to the story of Noah's ark.
The Bible states that it happened and it is incumbant upon you to prove that it didnt.
JD, i don't know what the benevolency of christianity has to do with it's veracity. Muslims do plenty of good too, so do hindus etc etc.
"Again, I don't see any comparative study being done by yourself to compare other religions to Judeo-Christian history as contained in the Bible. Classic Atheism 101 blather by lumping all religions together."
I'm not trying to compare them, i think you are just being obtuse by evading the obvious point. Atheism 101? What do you know about being an atheist? Just so you know, i think all religions where the ultimate worship of god(s) takes place are equally ridiculous in nature.
Again, your point about men being tortured etc, then lets be honest. They weren't tortured enough. I believe that if you torture someone enough you could get them to confess anything.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but Jesus could have been tortured a lot worse than he actually was. Read up on the execution of William Wallace, for example, to see what i mean.
Anyway, this time i'm done.
If you honestly believe that a geriatric rounded two of EVERY non-aquatic creature on the planet, built an ark to house them all and his family, along with the appropriate food, before the entire earth was flooded. You are quite frankly deluded.
We know that never happened. It's both logistically and practically impossible to gather all the animals and food, we need not 'prove' this. Common sense tells us it is impossible.
And whats that bullshit? It's up to me to disprove what the bible says? Wrong.
You are the one supporting the ridiculous claims, so it is up to you to prove it. Again, i flew up to space unaided last night JD, but it is up to you to prove that i didn't. Get me?
Even at a more simple level, and to quote Christopher Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
I'm not prepared to debate any further with someone who honestly believes that if the bible says it, it must be true. I know that you can't possibly believe it all, otherwise you'd be killing everyone who isn't a christian, but nevermind.
It is genuinely frightening that so many people out there like yourself exist. How can you believe such ridiculous piffle?
Yet, it is I that is intellectually dishonest. Got ya.
Oh, i forgot to point out that we know through geological evidence that a the entire earth wasn't flooded. As a continuation, if it were, that also defies logic as there isn't enough water on the planet to achieve this.
Have a nice life.
Odin bless.
JD, i don't know what the benevolency of christianity has to do with it's veracity. Muslims do plenty of good too, so do hindus
How many times have you heard about marauding groups of Christians rampaging through the streets killing indiscriminately? How are the recruitment efforts of th Al-Methodists Martyrs Brigade coming along? Are the Pentecostals flying any planes into buildings? Ever heard of an Episcopalian suicide bomber?
Again, your point about men being tortured etc, then lets be honest. They weren't tortured enough. I believe that if you torture someone enough you could get them to confess anything.
Even when crucified upside-down they didnt recant. Who would do that for a lie?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but Jesus could have been tortured a lot worse than he actually was.
I find that hard to believe IF they expected him to carry his own cross to Golgotha, even then he needed help.
Again, i flew up to space unaided last night JD, but it is up to you to prove that i didn't. Get me?
Please present your "evidence" and let's examine it.
I know that you can't possibly believe it all, otherwise you'd be killing everyone who isn't a christian,
You lost me there, bub. Please substantiate this claim.
We know that (Great Flood) never happened.
No, we don't know that.
"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Matthew 24:37-41.
Apparently Jesus didnt know that it didnt happen either. Thats a 2nd corraborating testimony.
and to quote Christopher Hitchens
Is that the clown that I saw got his head handed to him by William Lane Craig in a debate not long ago? Even the atheist bloggers said he lost poorly.
"We know that (Great Flood) never happened."
- "No, we don't know that."
That is precisely why i'm dropping out. Intellectual dishonesty? There is no more a flagrant display of this than the above. Like i said, we have the hard geological evidence that proves the earth was never entirely submerged in water - there was no flood. Like i also said, there is not enough water on the planet to achieve this.
You are blindly believing hocus pocus.
Goodbye.
Way to go JD, for holding your own in a spirited debate while Makarios is off on a well deserved holiday. It has been entertaining to watch. Too bad our “Rab” friend is deciding to declare victory and call it quits. In typical fashion, he hurls epithets, accusing people of intellectual dishonesty and “believing in hocus pocus” and walks off in a huff, taking his marbles and going home, with all the righteous indignation he can muster. But it does beg the question, if he truly believes what he believes, why he even bothers in the first place, which was my point a few gazillion comments ago to the post “He walks the other way”
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/06/he-walks-other-way.html?showComment=1245980196407#c2566811389414422856
I did not receive an intellectually honest or even somewhat thoughtful response to that, nor to my previous comment on this post.
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-i-go-to-church.html?showComment=1247621088829#c6064286930739621411
How is this for believing in hocus pocus? Scientific evidence points to the likelihood, and indeed the general scientific consensus is, that the universe exploded out of nothingness, or from an infinitely small and hot “singularity” about 14 billion years ago. I believe that too. But wait a minute. Science is suggesting something that is scientifically impossible. How did something (indeed everything) come out of nothing? Why do we have anything instead of nothing at all? This sounds an awful lot like creatio ex-nihilo or “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Atheists know in their gut and by all sound logic that the only possible explanation is a First Cause that exists outside of space and time, but they will instead go through all kinds of twisted logic, crazy theories—and, yes, intellectual dishonesty—to avoid acknowledging the God they don’t want to believe in.
I have addressed the possibility of something creating the universe in other posts, so i'm not going back into it. All i will say that scientific evidence points towards no such thing. We just don't know. That's it. There are theories, but we don't know. 'It's god', by default is what religious people always apply to the unknown. If we somehow proved how our universe begun, you would then concentrate on what begun the thigt before it. It's a neverending list.
I did not declare victory at all you fool. I am, however, taking the intellectual high ground and refusing to debate with someone who believes in the story of Noah's Ark.
As for you not getting any respones - when you state atheism is a religion, it shows how ignorant you are. It also shows that there would probably be little good in pointing out that it obviously isn't. Why do we argue? Because it is genuinely frightening that in the 21st century, billions of people live their lives according to ancient scriptures and believe the utmost ridiculous things without evidence, which brings me to why you perhaps gained no reply in the other post:
"Atheists have ample evidence for the existence of God right in front of their very noses but are choosing to suppress or ignore it, because for whatever reason there is a part of them that would rather He did not exist."
No we don't.
You are right though, given what the bible tells us, i would rather he doesn't exist. That, however, isn't why i don't believe - i'd rather HIV didn't exist but i believe it exists.
The difference? Evidence.
Oh, additionally - not just the bible, i mean what if you guys are right about a god but are in the wrong religion/worshipping the wrong god? So that is applicable anywhere that a supreme creator, contaminated with fallible human emoitions exists.
Okay, Rab. You have a nice day too. :-)
Post a Comment