Gdub:

As a minister, I support your feelings here.  Three comments.

First, it was not just India; indeed, India did not suffer nearly as much as some other countries.  Still, the devastation there was horrible.

Second, although 70% of the population is Hindu, most of the remaining population is split about evenly between Christian and Muslim.

Finally, it would be amusing if it were not so sad that people are always "accusing" God when "bad" things happen.  They forget that, while God is all-powerful, and can intervene if He so chooses (which He does not do often; but that is another discussion), He is not "the ruler of this [temporal] world."  That title belongs to Satan.  As the cliche goes, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people that he didn't exist."  This is why people are so quick to blame God, rather than the enemy.  A good example of this was 9/11.  When 3,000 innocent people lost their lives at the WTC, many people - including clergy of all faiths - were asking "Where was God?"  One bright, Scripture-read minister did not even flinch when asked this question.  His answer?  "God was busy helping to save the 45,000 people who got out of the buildings alive: some in - need it be said? - miraculous ways."

Peace.

maani wrote: Gdub: As a minister, I support your feelings here.  Three comments. First, it was not just India; indeed, India did not suffer nearly as much as some other countries.  Still, the devastation there was horrible. Second, although 70% of the population is Hindu, most of the remaining population is split about evenly between Christian and Muslim. Finally, it would be amusing if it were not so sad that people are always "accusing" God when "bad" things happen.  They forget that, while God is all-powerful, and can intervene if He so chooses (which He does not do often; but that is another discussion), He is not "the ruler of this [temporal] world."  That title belongs to Satan.  As the cliche goes, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people that he didn't exist."  This is why people are so quick to blame God, rather than the enemy.  A good example of this was 9/11.  When 3,000 innocent people lost their lives at the WTC, many people - including clergy of all faiths - were asking "Where was God?"  One bright, Scripture-read minister did not even flinch when asked this question.  His answer?  "God was busy helping to save the 45,000 people who got out of the buildings alive: some in - need it be said? - miraculous ways." Peace.

WHAAAAAAT?

So the omnipotent, omniscient God decided to save some but not all of the unfortunates of the WTC disaster.As another cliche goes "God does not play dice..."
None of the poor people who jumped hundreds of floors were saved, you'd have thought He would have reserved a miracle for that. Houdini would have worked out how to do the trick.
What a load of sanctimonious nonesense.

The greatest trick Christianity ever pulled was to convince people the Devil does exist.Dont use a line from "The Usual Suspects" to make your argument appear valid.Every Christian I know believes in the Devil. That's no exaggeration.

arcer wrote: people - don't go there again it ended in tears last time

Can't imagine an hardened Hack like yourself crying over a few loony comments.
Must be them Southern Softies you support.

Reed Lover:

The line "the greatest trick..." did not originate with The Usual Suspects.  It has been around for a very long time, and its original meaning pertained to Christians who believe in God but do not believe in Satan.  And although every Christian you know may believe in the devil, there are literally millions of Christians (i.e., people who self-identify as "Christian") who do not.

Peace.

maani wrote: Reed Lover: The line "the greatest trick..." did not originate with The Usual Suspects.  It has been around for a very long time, and its original meaning pertained to Christians who believe in God but do not believe in Satan.  And although every Christian you know may believe in the devil, there are literally millions of Christians (i.e., people who self-identify as "Christian") who do not. Peace.

Maybe things are different in the USA but my experience suggests that every Catholic  (I know I have not sought the opinion of every citizen) believes in the Devil.I acknowledge that Catholics do not account for all Christians, however all Christians I have discussed religion with believe in the Devil.

Surely you, yourself do not believe in The Devil? Belief in God and Christ is one thing, but to believe in a metaphor shows a certain lack of sophistication in my opinion.

To suggest that the WTC Tragedy was the work of the Devil in anything other than a metaphorical sense is Christian Fundamentalism at its most crass.Terrorism, religious terrorism , religious fundamental evangelism was responsible for that atrocity- a very man-made act. It does not make me question God, of course I am not a believer myself,it makes me question humanity though.

However at least these claims are consistent.Many people believe that man created "God" to clarify things that he couldnt understand or explain.Once you decide that God is responsible for all the good things how do you account for the bad things? Maybe He is angry, maybe He moves in mysterious ways or maybe there is an opposite to God-the Devil (evil).
As religion is a sure-fire method of mass subjugation, the thought of eternal damnation is a guarantee of adherence. What a wonderful invention of the early Christians Satan is. He takes the blame away from God and also herds the faithful into His churches.

They shackle your minds when you're bent on the cross/when ignorance reigns life is lost-Rage Against the Machine

I don't agree with them, but I am always willing to hear other people's opinions. There was a time I would have labeled myself an atheist as well.......but that is another story for another time.

As  for events of nature Jesus said it rains on the just and the unjust.  I think it is enough to know that these events affect everyone. No one of faith should be laying claim to the devil doing this or this is Gods judgement on something or some one.  

Reed Lover:

You say "belief in God and Christ" is one thing, but that belief in the devil is another.  Umm...not if one believes the Scriptures, which I do.  Indeed, you simply cannot believe in Christ without believing in the devil, because Christ spoke about him so often, and so directly.  No "metaphor" involved: Christ makes it very clear that Satan is very real, and very active.

Indeed, consider that immediately after we are "introduced" to Jesus for the very first time - in a brief handful of passages relating to His baptism by John (Matthew 3:13-17) - He is immediately "led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil" (Matthew 4:1).  Thus, our very introduction to Christ is in the "company" of Satan.  This is not a "metaphorical" devil being talked about, it is a very real figure.

Indeed, even setting aside the many comments about "the enemy," "the devil" and "Satan" made by Paul and the apostles, Jesus Himself mentions "the enemy," "the devil" and "Satan" over 25 times.  And in every case He is talking about a very real figure - not a "metaphor."

Thus, I do not feel that belief in Satan shows a "lack of sophistication," or that referring to the "work of the devil" as "anything other than metaphorical" is "crass."  Indeed, as stated, as a Christian I would be wary of any "Christian" who does not believe in a very real, very active "enemy," since Christ Himself not only "believed" in Satan, but confronted him "mano a mano."

Whatever you may think of Christianity, fundmentalism, etc., a Christian either believes in the Scriptures or s/he does not.  If s/he does, then s/he cannot "cherry-pick": if s/he believes in Christ then s/he must believe in Satan.  That is "consistent."

Again, I respect anyone's belief or non-belief, and every person's right to disagree with or even disdain the faith I believe in.  But, both as a Christian and a minister, I do expect that, if the Scriptures are going to be quoted, cited, or otherwise discussed, then they be discussed from a position of careful reading, or at least of basic knowledge backed by Scripture itself.  Anything short of this is like discussing a movie one has never seen.

Peace.

gdub411 wrote: Lately I have been hearing many  Christians making comments or asking questions or setting up polls as whether the unfortunate events that happened in India was a warning from God or not. I,being a Christian and a republican found this to be offensive. It is things like this that give normal Christians and republicans for that matter, a bad name. I just wanted to let you know I am NOT in their camp for this line of thinking, nor would I hope are most christians and republicans. It is these radicals that pervert what either organization is all about and give the rest of the world justicification to sneer at our ways. Please understand that these people make up only a small minority of republicans anr christians and most of us do not condone this line of thinking. Thanks Greg

What camp are you in gdub??

A small minority? Are you sure about that? It was thanks to 'fundamenralist' Christians that Bush won his second term. There are believed to be over 35 million Christians in the US who believe that we are in 'End of times' They believe that God is acting. These evangelical lunatics are ensuring the pre conditions for Christs return to Earth. Its interesting to note that these guys regard themselves as normal Christians.

When Bush 'pressured' Ariel Sharon to dismantle Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the White house was bombarded by over 250,000 furious e-mails from right wing Christians threatening to stop supporting the Republicans if they did anything to harm the Jewish state. They of course believe that Jews will convert to Christianity when Christ returns to Earth. They regard Sharon as a hero - despite having blood on his hands, and being a war criminal..

So you're a republican and a Christian. Do you believe in, and support this line??

Um if you read the first note in the thread you have his position.  Why do you feel the need to make this another political thread when it has nothing to do with the topic?  If there are 35 million evangelical Christians that elected GWB what happed to the other 90+ million who also cast votes?  They had no say in the outcome?  Give it a  rest.    In less than 4 years the boogey man will be all gone never to return.

Reed Lover wrote: [QUOTE=maani] Every Christian I know believes in the Devil. That's no exaggeration.

Does that make the Devil a Christian?

maani wrote: Reed Lover: You say "belief in God and Christ" is one thing, but that belief in the devil is another.  Umm...not if one believes the Scriptures, which I do.  Indeed, you simply cannot believe in Christ without believing in the devil, because Christ spoke about him so often, and so directly.  No "metaphor" involved: Christ makes it very clear that Satan is very real, and very active. Indeed, consider that immediately after we are "introduced" to Jesus for the very first time - in a brief handful of passages relating to His baptism by John (Matthew 3:13-17) - He is immediately "led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil" (Matthew 4:1).  Thus, our very introduction to Christ is in the "company" of Satan.  This is not a "metaphorical" devil being talked about, it is a very real figure. Indeed, even setting aside the many comments about "the enemy," "the devil" and "Satan" made by Paul and the apostles, Jesus Himself mentions "the enemy," "the devil" and "Satan" over 25 times.  And in every case He is talking about a very real figure - not a "metaphor." Thus, I do not feel that belief in Satan shows a "lack of sophistication," or that referring to the "work of the devil" as "anything other than metaphorical" is "crass."  Indeed, as stated, as a Christian I would be wary of any "Christian" who does not believe in a very real, very active "enemy," since Christ Himself not only "believed" in Satan, but confronted him "mano a mano." Whatever you may think of Christianity, fundmentalism, etc., a Christian either believes in the Scriptures or s/he does not.  If s/he does, then s/he cannot "cherry-pick": if s/he believes in Christ then s/he must believe in Satan.  That is "consistent." Again, I respect anyone's belief or non-belief, and every person's right to disagree with or even disdain the faith I believe in.  But, both as a Christian and a minister, I do expect that, if the Scriptures are going to be quoted, cited, or otherwise discussed, then they be discussed from a position of careful reading, or at least of basic knowledge backed by Scripture itself.  Anything short of this is like discussing a movie one has never seen. Peace.

I have mentioned previously that i was brought up a Catholic and attended Catholic Church schools from 4 yr old until I was 18.The scriptures were very much part of our daily school life and I am very familiar with them.I take no issue with the basic moralistic principles of the Old & New Testaments.

The obvious mistake you make Maani is that the New Testament was not delivered as a finished product a couple of years after Christ's death.The earliest known versions of the Gospels (the Paul Gospel) date to around 90 ad; nearly 60 years after Christ's death. This Gospel is particularly problematic as Paul's conversion was after Christ's death and therefore is not first-hand witness testimony.None of the Gospels are essentially valid pieces of factual documentation.These are very man-made accounts and their content was easily manipulated to suit the evangelical nature of the emerging Christian faith.And that is without even discussing the very real problems of translation.
Most Christians are blissfully unaware that Christ was not universally accepted to be "God" until the Council Of Nicaea in 325 ad. Constantine demanded that the two main factions of Christians, essentially those who believed that Christ was literally God in corporeal form, and those who believe he was accepted at the right-hand of God when he died and became God The Son at this point, come to some definitive agreement on something so fundamental (the Arian Controversy).Christ's deification was literally down to a show of hands, political manoeuvering and lobbying, not unlike the modern canvassing to be awarded the Olympic Games! Eusebius, who ratified The Nicaean Creed at the behest of the recently converted Constantine and for the sake of Christian unity, was known to more than a little unhappy with the turn of events as he felt that this new image of Christ was a million miles away from Christ The Man and something of his original personality and the spirit of his teaching had been compromised forever.
These are very man-made definitions and clarifications of Christ's life and teachings. The acceptance of Christ as God was something that for many people of that time was totally mundane- Constantine himself had recently had his own father deified as a tribute.We are not talking about something that the average man in the street would have great difficulty in accepting. They were used to every Emperor and his dog being deified.I think we should have moved on from this in these more sophisticated times!

You say you believe in the scriptures-does that include Adam & Eve and the Creationist view? This is the sophistication I am referring to.I myself would rather believe that we ought to have grown out of these simplistic rationales by now.

Garion81 wrote:     Um if you read the first note in the thread you have his position.  Why do you feel the need to make this another political thread when it has nothing to do with the topic?  If there are 35 million evangelical Christians that elected GWB what happed to the other 90+ million who also cast votes?  They had no say in the outcome?  Give it a  rest.    In less than 4 years the boogey man will be all gone never to return.

Thank you Garion. I REALLY don't need these so called know-it-alls who don't even live in this country and have no idea what they are even spouting off. Talking about listening to propaganda.

Blacksword..your post is so ridiculous I wouldn't even know where to begin.

As Garion said...this was not meant to be a religeous debate and if you didn't understand my position from what I wrote at the beginning of this thread than you are obviously listening to too much rap.

Well, I have no intention of offending you, gdub. You did make your position quite clear in your opening post, I guess I decided to question it. Perhaps I shouldn't have done, but if you start a thread entitled 'India and Christianity' you must realise that it is going to become a 'religous' debate, as it did long before I gave my two cents..

I am not a 'know all' I dont claim to be, but I do try to take notice of whats going on in the world, and as for listerning to propaganda, well we all do every time we open a newspaper, switch on the TV. Regardless of any political slant on any given subject ALL news will have been embelished to suit someones agenda. Pro Bush/Blair or otherwise.

Anyway, I'll take your advice and stop listening to rap..

I'll butt out now...

The Church: Sanctuary from both knowledge and doubt.

Blacksword:

You say that "These evangelical lunatics are ensuring the pre-conditions for Christ's return to Earth."  That's an interesting statement.  Assuming for a moment that everything written in the Scriptures - from Genesis to Revelation (no, not the album...) - is true, this makes it God's "screenplay" from beginning to end.  Do you mean to suggest that "these evangelical lunatics" have the power to alter that screenplay?  What I am getting at is, the "screenplay" will unfold on God's schedule, not on a human one.  Thus, these "evangelical lunatics" can do anything they want or believe will "hasten" the "end times."  However, if it is not time for the "end times" (and, despite all the prognostication, no one knows when that will be: it could be tomorrow, it could be a hundred years from now), don't you think God would "step in" and "slow things down" in His own way?  Or, alternatively, if a particular group (of Christians or others) was trying to "slow down" the "end times," don't you think God would step in and "speed it up" of His own accord if He saw fit?  What makes you think that humans have the power to alter God's plan, or change God's schedule?  If the Scriptures are true, and there is to be a Rapture and/or an "end times," it will come when God wills it, not as a result of human efforts.  This does not mean that humans are not "used" in God's Will for the world.  But it is the height of arrogance for any Christian to assume that they know God's Will re the "end times."

Gdub, Reed Lover et al:

Ironically (though, to a Christian, it would be "providentially"...), the following article appeared in today's (1/10) New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10safire.html?hp - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10safire.html?hp

Peace to all.

Our attempts to alter God's plan are a part of Gods plan. So our attempts to speed things up or slow them down are already incorporated in Gods plan.

The past, nor the future can be altered (time-travelling paradox). The conditions on how this universe will proceed are fixed, and can't be altered.

to quote Jesus Christ Superstar. "Everything is fixed and you can't change it".

maani wrote: Ironically (though, to a Christian, it would be "providentially"...), the following article appeared in today's (1/10) New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10safire.html?hp - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10safire.html?hp Peace to all.

I am absolutely stunned that you choose not to address any of my points re "scripture."

Also, I put it to you again-do you believe in Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark etc?

Oh, and the link doesnt work if you are a non member-pretty apt really!

Reed Lover wrote: Oh, and the link doesnt work if you are a non member

LOL!

RL: actually, I believe that since the 80s, Catholics are required not to believe in the Devil, except as a personal capacity for malevolence and sin. This is an official Vatican position, the only specific thing they've had to say about the subject in the last 400 years. Whether this changes what the average Catholic believes or not is another matter...

According to the accepted Christian view, the Devil is the "Lord of this World" (why do people think that Black Sabbath is satanic? I find them, if anything, to be uncomfortably orthodox at times) and has more direct contact and effect on our daily lives than God. Apparently God and Harry S. Truman had different ideas about where the buck stops.

I'm officially altering my position on religion; I don't think that religion is any more dangerous or damaging to mankind than any other body of mass belief (including nationalism, economics, or scientific theory). It doesn't really matter what the specific details are that we establish when we get together- it's just gonna end in misery for the outsiders anyway. Christianity is only used as a scapegoat because it is so ubiquitous, which makes it easy for people to accept (or question!)without thinking.

gdub: whoops, sorry...I should say something about India, huh? Well...whatever motivates people to help those in need is all right with me.

Reed Lover:

I do not question the historical accuracy of the political machinations involved in the compilation of the New Testament.  What I question is whether that, in and of itself, means as much as you believe it does re the substance of the New Testament, and its portrayal of Jesus, His ministry, and the 40-60 years following.

I believe that all Scripture is "God-breathed"; i.e., that men (and women) were "inspired" (from "in-spirited") in its writing.  As to Paul, it does not matter that he did not see Jesus during His earthly life; I believe that he heard and saw Jesus after His resurrection (i.e., both on the road to Damascus and later).  In addition, Paul certainly knew the original apostles, and thus knew all of who Jesus was and what He did from first-hand accounts.

Your historically accurate position re the compilation of the New Testament is misguided for another reason: you seem all too willing to "throw out the baby with the bathwater."  That is, even given the "political maneuvering" involved, this does not in any way lessen, much less negate, the underlying texts, principles, etc.  The Gospels are accounts of Jesus' life and ministry: there is nothing to suggest that anyone at the time - on any "side" of the issue - questioned this.  Paul's writings with Timothy (i.e., the majority of the New Testament) are equally valid per se, independent of later "political" maneuvering.  The remainder (particularly including Titus, and Jesus' brother, James), again, are equally valid per se.  In sum, even if we accept that some "books" may have been "left out," there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that the Nicean Council - or anyone else - "doctored" the books that actually comprise the New Testament.  Indeed, all of the historical evidence found in recent years supports the fact that the books themselves are "accurate" per se.

Re "knowledge" and "wisdom," because I believe in the Scriptures "as is," I will let them "do the talking" for me here:

"Do not be wise in your own opinion."  (Rom. 12:16)

"Let no one deceive himself.  If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.  For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness.'  And again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."  (1 Cor. 3:18-20)

"And if anyone thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know."  (1 Cor. 8:2)

"For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'  Where is the wise?  Where is the scribe?  Where is the disputer of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?...Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise..."  (1 Cor. 1:19-20, 25, 27)

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."  (2 Tim. 3:16)

"That your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.  However, we speak with wisdom among those who are mature [in faith], yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which god ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew...These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man [i.e, non-believer] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  (1 Cor. 2:5-8, 13-14)

If we take as axiom that everything is part of God's "screenplay," this means that even the Nicean Council had its part to play.  If so, that part may well have been to place a "stumbling block" to true "knowledge" and "wisdom" - to prove that one's faith "should not be in the widsom of men, but in the power of God."

I do not have all the answers.  And the historical facts of the compilation of the New Testament may seem irreconcilable with the concept of the "inerrancy" of Scripture.  However, I believe more strongly in the power of God than the wisdom of men.  Thus, although I, as a mere human, may not be able to reconcile them, I believe that God is both amused and saddened by the impudence of those whose faith is in "the widsom of the world" rather than in the knowledge of and faith in Him.

Peace.

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN ANYTHING MORE THAN YOURSELF ???

Does it give you a feeling of security or what is the gratification you recieve from your faith ?

Still no answer

is there freewill in the afterlife?

just imagine, an eternity of decisions. Ewww!

maani:

I'll reply shortly via private message. I see no worth in carrying on a religous debate here.

maani wrote: Reed Lover: I do not question the historical accuracy of the political machinations involved in the compilation of the New Testament.  What I question is whether that, in and of itself, means as much as you believe it does re the substance of the New Testament, and its portrayal of Jesus, His ministry, and the 40-60 years following. I believe that all Scripture is "God-breathed"; i.e., that men (and women) were "inspired" (from "in-spirited") in its writing.   "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."  (2 Tim. 3:16)   I do not have all the answers.  And the historical facts of the compilation of the New Testament may seem irreconcilable with the concept of the "inerrancy" of Scripture.  However, I believe more strongly in the power of God than the wisdom of men.  Thus, although I, as a mere human, may not be able to reconcile them, I believe that God is both amused and saddened by the impudence of those whose faith is in "the widsom of the world" rather than in the knowledge of and faith in Him. Peace.

Hmm.....so do you believe in the Creationist Theory of the start of the world? Do you believe in Adam and Eve? This is Scripture-you need to answer this to validate your points re the "all Scripture is "God-breathed".I admit I ask this question mischievously but I feel you should answer this.

I am not suggesting that The Council Of Niceae altered the Gospels-where did I say that? What I am saying is that the evangelical nature of Christianity would necessitate "competing" with the established beliefs of the potential converts. Surely you can see that Christianity would have to be "sold"-my God is better than your god fashion? This would lend itself to a certain amount of tinkering with the facts-presumably you dont think that the Apostles  just turned up in the market-square, set up a soap-box and everyone said "wow, this is great, count me in"?To suggest that God's Word somehow magically infused itself into these people's consciousness precludes the need for evangelists in the first place.
Suggesting that everything is just part of God's plan is a cop out.The trouble with Religion and Christianity in particular, is that it ties itself in knots.To suggest you know what God's plan is, is blasphemous,to suggest God has a plan but we can not know it infers that we need not involve ourselves in spiritual matters, which then means that religion is redundant.

DallasBryan wrote: Reed sounds like you would make a good Muslim, as this is one of the major complaints of Islam against christians, that they doctored the new testament to say jesus christ was the messiah and not just a major prophet. Just random thoughts!

I do not need to suggest that the New Testament was doctored or inaccurate.

If you place the Sinoptic Gospels side by side-the so-called "parallel reading" method of comparison, you will see wide, maybe not altogether crucial, differences.One Gospel (Mark) describes how Jesus went to his home town "and could work no miracle there" yet Matthew (13.58) claims he did not perform many miracles there and Luke chooses to solve the problem by just making a story up (Luke 4 16-30, I think). Switching to Maani for a moment-it would appear that God's memory is hazy too, if he told 3 Apostles different tales!
It always amazes me that if you deny Christianity you somehow become an enemy. I wouldnt make a good Muslim because I do not believe in God!

Velvetclown:

Your question - "Why do you have to believe in anything more than yourself?" - and your question re "security" and "gratification" are moot unless one presupposes an afterlife.  If one does not believe in an afterlife, then those questions have no meaning.

Let me put it as simplistically as possible.  Christians believe in a "soul" (or spirit).  That "soul" inhabits our mortal bodies for approximately 90 years.  But it inhabits the "afterlife" for eternity.  Thus, we "focus" on our spirit's "eternal" life, not its "temporal" one.  However, our spirit is not our own: it was given to us by God.  Thus, its "future" is in God's hands, not ours.  That is why we believe in something more than ourselves: because we did not create ourselves, and we did not provide our own souls.  God did.  Seen from this perspective (whether one accepts it or not), your comments re "security" and "gratification" fit perfectly into place: the "security" of our eternal souls is in God's hands, and we are grateful for that.

Reed Lover:

Of course Christianity "competes" with other people's faiths.  I never suggested otherwise.  What is critical is how our faith is "presented" in the "spiritual marketplace."  If it is presented in an aggressive, forceful manner - i.e., "ramming it down people's throats," sitting in judgment or condemnation if they refuse to hear or believe - then that is wrong.  However, if it is presented in a patient, loving, humble manner, free of judgment and condemnation, I see no reason why it should be seen as anything other than "a different choice."  Everything - material, spiritual, philosophical, etc. - is "sold" in a "marketplace" by "comparison" to other "products."  You buy the products you do because you believe they are better than the others, or more reliable, or whatever.  But you make your choices based on information about each of the different manufacturers' products.  "Spirituality" (i.e., faith) is no different.  I present my case for Christianity, a Muslim presents his case for Islam, an Indian presents his case for Buddhism, a Middle Easterner presents his case for Zoroastrianism, etc.  What a particular person ultimately "buys" (if anything) is going to be based on what they hear, what is offered, etc.  I see nothing "sinister" or "nefarious" in this.

It is interesting that you say "To suggest God has a plan but we can not know it infers that we need not involve ourselves in spiritual matters."  Actually, Scripture says the opposite: that because God has plan, and that plan is more important than anything in the temporal world, we should only involve ourselves in "things of the spirit," and not involve ourselves in temporal matters.  "No one engaged in [spiritual] warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this [temporal] life, [so] that he may please him [i.e., Christ] who enlisted him as a soldier." (2 Tim. 2:4).  Jehovah's Witnesses take this passage literally: among other things, they do not vote, or engage in politics in any way, because they believe the "spiritual warfare" to be the only important thing.

You comment on "God's memory," noting that some of the things in the Gospels don't jibe.  Let me give you a hypothetical to explain this.  Let's say you spend three years with a few close friends.  You don't do everything together, but you do most things together.  Fast forward 20, 30 even 40 years.  You and your friends have not seen each other or spoken in years.  Someone comes to each of you and says, "Write down what happened during your three years together."

What will happen?  Simple.  There will be differences, because each of you will remember some things - even momentous things - slightly differently: what order things might have happened in, what exact words were said, etc.  However, the majority of each of your individual accounts - especially the things that left a strong impression - will overlap, often perfectly.  This is why over 65% of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke overlap, while displaying some differences in specific details.  That is, this is to be expected when one is recounting something that occurred decades before.  I do not see how this is strange in any way.

You say, "It amazes me that if you deny Christianity you somehow become an enemy."  I accept that you feel that way, and that you may even have been put in that situation.  However, any Christian who says that to you, or even infers it, is not a "good' Christian.  No Christian who knows anything about Jesus, His ministry or the Scriptures would ever say something like that, or make you feel that way about yourself.  Non-believers are not "enemies."  Indeed, a true Christian would express enormous compassion for you (even if that seems repugnant to you), not judgment or condemnation.  And even if they do perceive you as an "enemy," Jesus said, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."  Thus, there is no excuse whatsoever for a Christian to make any non-believer (or believer in another faith) feel like an "enemy."

Finally, re the "creationist" theory, there are two answers here.  First, it is common error to misread Genesis in an ultra-literalist fashion.  When it states that god created the world and everything in it "in six days," that is clearly metaphor.  How do we know?  Because the period of creation was not being measured in "sunrise to sunrise" terms.  Scripture states, "For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past" (Psalm 90:4), and "With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."  Thus, even a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis would give "creation" six thousand years instead of six days.  But there are other Scriptural passages that go further into how God reckons time as opposed to how man does, and make any attempt to interpret Genesis literally of questionable value.

Second, it is also common error to believe that Darwin (and his colleague, Charles Lyell, the founder of modern geology) was attempting to disprove the existence of God.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What Darwin and Lyell set out to prove was that, once God "set things in motion," He did not "interfere" with the processes.

First, keep in mind that Darwin was not simply a Christian, but he also studied for the ministry.  And despite claims by the scientific community to the contrary, Darwin never gave up his belief in God.  In "the Origin of Species," he states the following in his conclusion:

"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created.  To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes...There is grandeur in this view of life...having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one..."

This is Darwin speaking, in the book that so many believe was written to disprove the existence of God.  It amazes me how many people cite Darwin, yet have never actually read the book.  Indeed, Darwin virtually undermines his entire theory by stating the following:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down...To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Darwin was also wary of people using his hypotheses (remember, evolution is not a fact, but a theory, albeit one supported by much evidence).  He states this as follows: "I was a young man with unformed ideas.  I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire.  People made a religion out of them!"

As for Lyell, he states the following in his seminal work, "Principles of Geology": "Whatever direction we pursue in our researches, whether in time or space, we discover everywhere the clear proofs of a Creative Intelligence, and of His foresight, wisdom and power."

I leave you with a few quotes about evolution and the existence of God, from some of the greatest minds in history, many of whom are often assumed to support evolution and non-believing viewpoints:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”  Sir Isaac Newton

“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”  Sir Isaac Newton

“Man will believe anything, as long as it’s not in the Bible.”  Napoleon

“A little science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him.”  Louis Pasteur

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable.  We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”  Sir Arthur Keith (wrote the foreward to the 100^th edition of “The Origin of Species”)

“The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link, except the fact that it is missing.”  G.K. Chesterton

“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”  Albert Einstein

“Either we see everything in life as a miracle, or we see nothing in life as a miracle.”  Albert Einstein

“The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical.  It is the power of all true art and science.  He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand in rapt awe, is as good as dead.”  Albert Einstein

“Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exists between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.  Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding.  The source of this feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.  The situation may be expressed by an image: religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame.”  Albert Einstein

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God.  But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views…I want to know how God created this world.  I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element.  I want to know His thoughts.  The rest are details.”  Albert Einstein

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion: almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”  H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester

“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged [via evolution] is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein…The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10^40,000…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.  There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”  Sir Fred Hoyle

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips (micro) and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."  Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”  Stephen Hawking

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.  In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of absolute fact.”  Dr. D.T. Tahmisian, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

And a couple from the faith-based community:

“Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links’ - transitional life forms - would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species.  Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.”  Grant Jeffery, Christian minister and author

“Dogs have puppies, not kittens.  Cats have kittens, not chickens.  Horses have foals, not calves. It doesn’t matter how many thousands of years pass, elephants don’t have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men…It is interesting to note that pig heart valves have been used as replacements for human heart valves.  Pig skin has even been grafted in humans to deal with severe burns.  In fact, pig tissues are the nearest in chemical composition to those of humans. Perhaps wishful evolutionists should spend more time around the pigsty.”  Ray Comfort, Christian minister and author

All:

Here is the text of the article I provided a link to:

Where Was God? (by William Safire, in The New York Times)

In the aftermath of a cataclysm, with pictures of parents sobbing over dead infants driven into human consciousness around the globe, faith-shaking questions arise: Where was God? Why does a good and all-powerful deity permit such evil and grief to fall on so many thousands of innocents? What did these people do to deserve such suffering?

After a similar natural disaster wiped out tens of thousands of lives in Lisbon in the 18th century, the philosopher Voltaire wrote "Candide," savagely satirizing optimists who still found comfort and hope in God. After last month's Indian Ocean tsunami, the same anguished questioning is in the minds of millions of religious believers.

Turn to the Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible. It was written some 2,500 years ago during what must have been a crisis of faith. The covenant with Abraham - worship the one God, and his people would be protected - didn't seem to be working. The good died young, the wicked prospered; where was the promised justice?

The poet-priest who wrote this book began with a dialogue between God and the Satan, then a kind of prosecuting angel. When God pointed to "my servant Job" as most upright and devout, the Satan suggested Job worshipped God only because he had been given power and riches. On a bet that Job would stay faithful, God let the angel take the good man's possessions, kill his children and afflict him with loathsome boils.

The first point the Book of Job made was that suffering is not evidence of sin. When Job's friends said that he must have done something awful to deserve such misery, the reader knows that is false. Job's suffering was a test of his faith: even as he grew angry with God for being unjust - wishing he could sue him in a court of law - he never abandoned his belief.

And did this righteous Gentile get furious: "Damn the day that I was born!" Forget the so-called "patience of Job"; that legend is blown away by the shockingly irreverent biblical narrative. Job's famous expression of meek acceptance in the 1611 King James Version - "though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" - was a blatant misreading by nervous translators. Modern scholarship offers a much different translation: "He may slay me, I'll not quaver."

The point of Job's gutsy defiance of God's injustice - right there in the Bible - is that it is not blasphemous to challenge the highest authority when it inflicts a moral wrong. (I titled a book on this "The First Dissident.") Indeed, Job's demand that his unseen adversary show up at a trial with a written indictment gets an unexpected reaction: in a thunderous theophany, God appears before the startled man with the longest and most beautifully poetic speech attributed directly to him in Scripture.

Frankly, God's voice "out of the whirlwind" carries a message not all that satisfying to those wondering about moral mismanagement. Virginia Woolf wrote in her journal "I read the Book of Job last night - I don't think God comes well out of it."

The powerful voice demands of puny Man: "Where were you when I laid the Earth's foundations?" Summoning an image of the mythic sea-monster symbolizing Chaos, God asks, "Canst thou draw out Leviathan with a hook?" The poet-priest's point, I think, is that God is occupied bringing light to darkness, imposing physical order on chaos, and leaves his human creations free to work out moral justice on their own.

Job's moral outrage caused God to appear, thereby demonstrating that the sufferer who believes is never alone. Job abruptly stops complaining, and - in a prosaic happy ending that strikes me as tacked on by other sages so as to get the troublesome book accepted in the Hebrew canon - he is rewarded. (Christianity promises to rectify earthly injustice in an afterlife.)

Job's lessons for today:

(1) Victims of this cataclysm in no way "deserved" a fate inflicted by the Leviathanic force of nature.

(2) Questioning God's inscrutable ways has its exemplar in the Bible and need not undermine faith.

(3) Humanity's obligation to ameliorate injustice on earth is being expressed in a surge of generosity that refutes Voltaire's cynicism.

Maani,

Whilst I thank you for your more detailed explanation of your beliefs you still do not say whether you believe in Adam & Eve or the Noah's Ark story.
I have made no reference to Evolution, I merely asked if you subscribed to Creationism as set down in the Bible.

What I find bizaare is that on the one hand you say Scripture is "God-given"-with the obvious conclusion that it should be infallible, and on the other hand you state that the Gospel writers were prey to failing memories and Chinese Whispers. I am damn certain that if Christ had failed to perform miracles or if he had managed to perform miracles, I would remember. Let's be honest, Christ returning to his home town would be a major event, and no doubt filled with trepidation for him and his followers. Like a home town performance, so to speak.

I also find it banal that you trot out the usual suspects (no pun intended) like Hoyle,Einstein and Hawking as if I am supposed to say "well that clinches it then." Far from it. These men, brilliant in their fields as they might have been ,could all make mistakes. Einstein threw his weight against Plate Techtonics,Hawking claimed that nothing could escape from a Black Hole (which last year he retracted), and Hoyle, one of the most notoriously obnoxious figures in the history of Science,believed that Man developed projecting noses to stop Cosmic Pathogens from getting into the nostrils.None of them were Theologists and it is unlikely that the structured nature of Higher Academic Learning would accomodate Physical Sciences and Theology.

"For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past" (Psalm 90:4), and "With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."  You say that the Six Day Creation Model is metaphorical? I dont doubt it at all-wonderful how God can breath metaphor into his subjects when the need arises whilst at other times his thoughts are entirely transparent. Those two statements are almost perfect examples of metaphor.Have you ever read any Love Poetry?To suggest these should be used as models for "God Time" is laughable to the point of ridiculousness.

I do not doubt that Jesus lived. There is enough written evidence from people like Josephus (who had no vested interest whatsoever) to make it more than likely. Jesus as God-wishful thinking at the most and if he wasnt God then the whole of The Scriptures are invalid.Unless God  spoke with "forked-tongue".

DallasBryan wrote: All the evidence points to that Jesus Christ was God manifest in a carnal body, come to save man from the limitations of the old covenant. To suffer the lowest of all and to know all the answers, but to endure for the sake of mankind. The model for TRUE LOVE interests me!

Evidence??! ?

lol

maani wrote: Reed Lover: Of course Christianity "competes" with other people's faiths.  I never suggested otherwise.  What is critical is how our faith is "presented" in the "spiritual marketplace."  If it is presented in an aggressive, forceful manner - i.e., "ramming it down people's throats," sitting in judgment or condemnation if they refuse to hear or believe - then that is wrong.  However, if it is presented in a patient, loving, humble manner, free of judgment and condemnation, I see no reason why it should be seen as anything other than "a different choice."  Everything - material, spiritual, philosophical, etc. - is "sold" in a "marketplace" by "comparison" to other "products."  You buy the products you do because you believe they are better than the others, or more reliable, or whatever.  But you make your choices based on information about each of the different manufacturers' products.  "Spirituality" (i.e., faith) is no different.  I present my case for Christianity, a Muslim presents his case for Islam, an Indian presents his case for Buddhism, a Middle Easterner presents his case for Zoroastrianism, etc.  What a particular person ultimately "buys" (if anything) is going to be based on what they hear, what is offered, etc.  I see nothing "sinister" or "nefarious" in this.

I thought I made myself clear. I was discussing the early spread of Christianity, the level of sophistication at that time and why certain aspects of Christ's life might have been exaggerated. Your reply in the present tense and references to" ramming it down people's throats" shows that you missed my point or chose to miss it.
You have consistently misjudged my position in all this discussion.

emdiar wrote: Reed Lover is really Jeremy Paxman. Go for it RL.

Reed: Press the question..

'Do you believe in Adam and Eve? AND DID YOU THREATEN TO OVER RULE HIM??!!'

I have no intention of contibuting to this debate (it falls outwith my personal "boundaries"), but would like to congratulate the participants for the inteligent, informed, and thought provoking posts so far. RL, I find it hard to express my thoughts without sounding unintentionally patronising, but I have been genuinely impressed with your constructive input.

Can I suggest to others that this thread be allowed to continue to develop without frivolity. (VC, this is specifically NOT directed at you, you have expressed yourself here clearly, and succinctly and in the way you do best. A picture can indeed say a thousand words!)

Easy Livin wrote: I have no intention of contibuting to this debate (it falls outwith my personal "boundaries"), but would like to congratulate the participants for the inteligent, informed, and thought provoking posts so far. RL, I find it hard to express my thoughts without sounding unintentionally patronising, but I have been genuinely impressed with your constructive input. Can I suggest to others that this thread be allowed to continue to develop without frivolity. (VC, this is specifically NOT directed at you, you have expressed yourself here clearly, and succinctly and in the way you do best. A picture can indeed say a thousand words!)

I agree EL.  These people have had a true civil debate and I for one am in grateful to read their thoughts on both sides of the issue. 

Reed Lover:

I thank you for your private message.  However, I respond here, "in public," because it may be that an apology is owed, or at least a clarification.

At no point has anything I've said been offered in a sarcastic, demeaning, denigrating, disparaging or negative manner.  If anything I've said thus far has "come out" that way, please accept my apology.  My intention is simply to respond, and to be instructive within my understanding of my faith; not to "misjudge" your positions, but to simply respond to specific statements, comments or inferences.  Perhaps I should have used some emoticons to "lighten up" some of my comments.  Whatever the situation, please understand that it is never my intention to be demeaning or condescending: I dislike when people do it with me, so I avoid it like the plague.  Again, if anything came out that way, please forgive me.

That said, I think you are still way too willing to "throw out the baby with the bathwater."  Yes, the Scripture claims to be the "inerrant" Word of God.  But to say that, if even one word is wrong or incorrect or conflicts with something else, then all of it is "wrong" seems awfully extremist.

Most of us have been in high school or college, or their equivalent.  And we all studied from textbooks that claim to be filled with "facts."  If we find out, however, that something in the book is "wrong," we do not therefore assume that everything else in the book is wrong.

Why should it be different with the Scripture?  Yes, it is not the same as a temporal book full of facts, as it purports to be the inerrant Word of God.  Yet even if it were true (and I do not see it that way) that something within the Scriptures were wrong, why would that necessitate throwing the whole thing out?  Are not the basic precepts of Jesus' ministry, and other life principles, valuable and true?  Why do you seem so willing to reject it lock, stock and barrel simply because it is possible that internal conflicts exist?  And I say "possible" because, despite what you may think you know or believe, no one - not you, not me, not even someone much smarter or more Scripturally learned than one of us - truly knows and understands the Scripture well enough to know whether what seem to be inconsistencies truly are.

As to your comment about the "early spread of Christianity," don't you think it's just a tad presumptuous on your part to assume that "certain aspects of Jesus' life might have been exaggerated?"  You were not there (neither was I), so this is nothing more than speculation at best.  On the other hand, if the things that Jesus said, and the events of His life and resurrection, are true, then there would have been no reason for the apostles and disciples to exaggerate them.  And isn't it also demeaning to presume that people were somehow less "savvy" then than they are now?  That they somehow could not tell a "snake oil salesman" from the real thing?  After all, look how many people today - people you seem to feel are more "savvy" than those of Jesus' time - buy into "snake oil salesman" of all types.  Can you really claim that we are any more sophisticated now than they were then?  Based on what?

I want to posit something completely different, something I have rarely heard posited by anyone, either believer or non-believer.

To those who reject the Judeo-Christian construct, and particularly Christianity in general - the divinity of Jesus, the Scriptures, etc. - let me ask you this.  Do you really believe that the entire "scenario" - and everything that has transpired, from the establishment of Christianity, to changing the calendar to "time" things from His birth, and all the good works done in His name (from orphanages to hospitals to schools, etc.), and simply the way His name and life "permeate" global culture - were all the result of a "conspiracy" created by less than 25 individuals who knew Him?  Does that really make sense?  After all, even the Nicean Council did not occur until almost 400 years after His death and resurrection, so the "conspiracy" must have been in full swing way before that for it to "survive" even the first 400 years.  If you step back and really think about this, you will see how silly it sounds.

Are you suggesting that these 25 (or less) people sat around after Jesus' death and said, "Gee, let's claim that He rose from the dead, and that we saw Him, and that He fulfills all the Old Testament passages about the Messiah.  Let's go out and convince people of this, and start a religion around Him."  My first question would be: To what end?  What "vested interest" would they have in doing so?  My second question would be: How could such a small group create such a vast, super-detailed conspiracy, and keep that conspiracy going for so long - at least 200 to 300 years at a minimum before it was "officially" established via the compilation of the New Testament?  My third question would be: Given that the basic precepts of Jesus' ministry (love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service) and most (if not all) of the other principles of Christianity are positive and worthwhile in and of themselves, why would they need to create a conspiracy to "sell" them?

No, even from a practical, "rational," logical, common sense standpoint - and even as something of a "conspiracy theorist" myself - I would find it hard to accept that Christianity is little more than a conspiracy cooked up by a few individuals 2,000 years ago.

Like Easy Livin, I am pleased that this discussion has remained mature and focused, and has not denigrated into personal attack or negativity.  In that regard, discussions like this are a good way to "sharpen" one's problem-solving and debate skills, by listening and learning from others, and by being "forced" to support one's position with more than just an opinion.

Finally, at the risk of sounding obvious, my comments are not an attempt to proselytize, though I can see how some people might see them that way.  As noted above, I am simply responding to various people through my own knowledge and understanding of my faith - which knowledge and understanding I do not claim is perfect, or even near so.

Peace.

I am not suggesting for one minute that Christianity is the product of any conspiracy. I was trying to condense 400 years of history into a few coherent sentences.Brevity and clarity arent always well-matched bedfellows!

You indicate that my position that "if anything in the Scriptures is wrong then the whole thing must be wrong" is extremist. It might be extreme or unpalatable to Christians but fundamentally I believe my position to be correct. I am not talking errors of syntax or translation-I am well aware these are human faults.Problems with the "factual" narrative detail, however, is a different matter.I do feel it necessary to throw the baby, its mother and all her ancestors out with the bathwater because THE WORD OF GOD CANNOT BE WRONG. I know I keep going over it but your position is quite clear: the writers of the Gospels were privy to God's direct communication. We are not talking a few lines of prose jotted down in a notebook here-we are talking finished article, pages and pages of it,impregnated (breathed?) into the very conciousness of these men. So how can there be fundemental errors?Surely God would not allow this. It is an all or nothing situation in my opinion: the switch is either "on" or it is "off."

Returning to the emergant Christian Religion of those early years I believe that my scenario of exaggeration is perfectly reasonable.We have all seen how religious zeal can lead to the wrong thing being done for the "right" reasons. Such a magnetic personality as Christ would have had an hypnotic hold on his disciples and after his death they must have been literally bursting with emotion and religious fervour.But not all of them were singing from the same "hymn book." Some, followers of James (Christ's brother) believed wholeheartedly in Jesus as The Saviour but wanted to carry on with traditional Jewish practises.Paul, on the otherhand,a gentile, believed that this needed to be a new faith  that overrrode Jewish Law. Christianity at this point was not a coherent entity but consisted of a mish-mash of Gnostic Sects with no formal rules and The Pauline and Jewish Christians who were constantly "at war" with each other.Ultimately between 60 ad and 75 ad Jerusalem was virtually destroyed.Crucially this was the chance that Pauline Christianity had been waiting for-the opportunity to break free of Judaism and flourish in the more sophisticated Roman and Greek cities.Christ's teachings could now be presented from a more Gentile standpoint  free of the constraints of being associated with the very much hated Jews. It is at this point that some of The Gospels start to change ever so slightly to play down Christ's association with the Jewish people. Evidence of this is the Canonical Gospels treatment of James, whose role becomes much less prominent even to the point of being exised from the account of Christ' "resurrection", despite this appearing in Paul's earlier version.There also other suspicious episodes slipped into these Gospels-an incongruous story of Christ healing a Centurion's servant (Matthew and Luke) despite his avowal that he was sent only "to the lost sheep of Israel" (also Matthew).I could go on - there is evidence of "God inspired" mistakes all through the Gospels.

As to my PM-I had merely taken umbrage at your supposition (based on negative views of me because of the lack of levity in some of my music posts?) that I knew nothing of Scripture or Bible history and was worried that this mis-assumption would drive any subsequent replies.

However you have still not answered my question: DO YOU BELIEVE IN ADAM & EVE and NOAHS ARK?

I have been very impressed by the gathered knowledge of both Manni and Reed.I do not know if Reed has all this stored in his head or whether he has taken it from books or sites.Manni being a Minister should certainly know what he is talking about.But no matter.I practise my faith and certainly believe in the Perousia (second coming of our Lord) but it is a subject I am not entirely comfortable about airing on line.For Christianity to have lasted 2000 Years and more surely should outline that the message of Christ the Teacher will last forever.The Apostles(Messengers) witnessed all that happened.I cannot begin to believe that a work of fantasy or exaggeration could have entered into the hearts and minds of so many and remained to this day.But again I suppose I am presupposing that everyone has faith.As the great man sang 'Soon oh soon the light'

Velvetclown wrote: It went to hell

And so should this moronic thread!

I find this thread fascinating, not least due the fact that maani is actually posting about his beliefs- something which he has been almost completely unwilling to do before now. RL doesn't get the same praise in that respect (LOL), but he is proving yet again that he can carry on an intelligent and civil debate. People who can be bith articulate and passionate about their beliefs are far more interesting than those who refuse to discuss important topics, for whatever reason.

Please, gentlemen- keep up the chatter!

Well It´s good to know who´s got faith and who doesn´t

Maani : As usual I don´t agree, but thanks for your answer. Personally I surely hope there´s no afterlife cos I just couldn´t stand an eternity together with humans  One life is more than enough thanks.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh"

Voltaire.

Fragile wrote: I have been very impressed by the gathered knowledge of both Manni and Reed.I do not know if Reed has all this stored in his head or whether he has taken it from books or sites.Manni being a Minister should certainly know what he is talking about.

believe it or not G-Man I actually have all this stuff floating around my one grey-cell!

It is not an extra brain cell I lack,just  good manners and common-sense!

Maani:

I believe I am not the only one awaiting your reply-with anticipation.

Adam & Eve- Give!

Fragile wrote: I have been very impressed by the gathered knowledge of both Manni and Reed.I do not know if Reed has all this stored in his head or whether he has taken it from books or sites.Manni being a Minister should certainly know what he is talking about.But no matter.I practise my faith and certainly believe in the Perousia (second coming of our Lord) but it is a subject I am not entirely comfortable about airing on line.For Christianity to have lasted 2000 Years and more surely should outline that the message of Christ the Teacher will last forever.The Apostles(Messengers) witnessed all that happened.I cannot begin to believe that a work of fantasy or exaggeration could have entered into the hearts and minds of so many and remained to this day.But again I suppose I am presupposing that everyone has faith.As the great man sang 'Soon oh soon the light'

It is a common misconception that the Apostles witnessed everything.The Gospels describe  quite vividly how most of them hid in fear of their lives when Jesus was arrested.

I am constantly puzzled when Christian believers will not discuss their faith.One could almost accuse you of failing in one of your central duties as a Christian. Christianity is meant to be evangelical-Maani would probably back me in this-so discussing it, and debating it with a non-believer such as I should be part of your duties.

I am not baiting you with this-as far as i know i am correct in my assumption.

Pixel Pirate wrote: Velvetclown wrote: It went to hell  And so should this moronic thread!

Pixie, what is maronic about this discussion? Please explain.

Sorry, Fragile I confused your avatar for Garion's

Reed Lover wrote: Sorry, Fragile I confused your avatar for Garion's

I have to say I am very impressed with this dialog between you and Maani that I just stayed out.  I am learning from both of you and the one or two things I could throw in seem small and irrelevant to the topics you two are commenting on. 

I don’t have a problem talking about my faith but only in the light of a civil discussion rather than someone throwing out insulting comments about it with nothing to back them selves up just because they don't agree. (I don't think you fit in that camp).  

Someday I will tell you exactly what I believe and don’t believe. But since you thought it was me I will answer your question.  

Yes, Christianity is evangelical in nature but so are all philosophies in order for them to survive.   Also, you are correct; the apostles could not have witnessed everything including Jesus's birth and upbringing. For instance, according to the gosplels,  John was the only one to witness Jesus death and none were at the tomb the morning when the women found it empty. 

Easy to confuse this for this:

Good job I wasn't chronicling the events of 2000 years ago! I'd be describing Jesus as a white-man with an American accent!

Reed Lover wrote:   Easy to confuse this for this: Good job I wasn't chronicling the events of 2000 years ago! I'd be describing Jesus as a white-man with an American accent!

You mean he wasn't?!?

Reed Lover:

The answer you are waiting for will have to wait a bit more (How do you keep a fool in suspense?  I'll tell you tomorrow...)

Meanwhile, you say: "It is a common misconception that the Apostles witnessed everything. The Gospels describe quite vividly how most of them hid in fear of their lives when Jesus was arrested."

Obviously, the apostles did not witness much of what occurred once Jesus was arrested (until He was seen publicly again), since they were not privy to meetings of the Sanhedrin.  But that is mutually exclusive of whether the apostles "witnessed everything" prior to His arrest, and once He was publicly seen again.  Thus, Fragile's point is essentially correct: they witnessed the overwhelming majority of Jesus' life and ministry.  In this regard, your comment is unnecessarily dismissive, to say nothing of incorrect.

You also state: "I am constantly puzzled when Christian believers will not discuss their faith. One could almost accuse you of failing in one of your central duties as a Christian.  Christianity is meant to be evangelical - Maani would probably back me in this - so discussing it, and debating it with a non-believer such as I should be part of your duties."

Well, you are partly correct.  But you are confusing "sharing the Word" via evangelizing, with debating and getting into long-winded, "legalistic" discussions.

Yes, Christians are called to "preach the Gospel" to anyone who will listen.  But they are also admonished not to engage in debate: "But avoid foolish disputes, geneologies, contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and useless.  Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition." (Titus 3:9-10).  Indeed, as you well know, the disciples were told by Jesus that if someone did not want to hear the Gospel, they should "shake the dust off their feet" and move on - not getting into "disputes" about it.  As an aside, I hold myself guilty in this regard, not so much in failing to "reject" you, but in engaging in this discussion beyond the point at which it might serve the purpose of simply "evangelizing," or at least not "devolving" into a "dispute" or "contention."

Having gone over this entire thread today, I must also admit that, like Fragile, I am at a loss as to exactly where you stand.  On the one hand, you claim many years of "instruction" in the Bible (which I do not question).  Yet on the other, it seems that all you got out of that instruction is that the New Testament was the product of politico-spiritual "maneuvering," and, indeed, that you question the entire "authenticity" and value of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.  In this regard, how can you, on the one hand, claim that the Scriptures are, essentially, "bogus," yet on the other hand start a response with "The Gospels describe quite vividly...?"  Again, it demands asking: Exactly what do you believe?

If, as you have stated numerous times, you believe that the Scriptures are (at least largely) bogus, then we are "debating" at cross purposes.  Someone observing a similar online discussion in another venue said it best: "If one is discussing dogs (for the sake of argument), it is not helpful to reply with a polemic about cats."  Since you clearly do not believe in the Scriptures - and are more than willing to "throw out the baby, his mother, etc." with the bathwater - and I obviously believe in them, then you are arguing dogs and I am arguing cats.  Nothing can come of it but continued "he said, she said" (OK, "he said, he said"), with you supporting your position with historical "facts" about the Scriptures, and me supporting my position by quoting the very Scriptures you believe are largely bogus.

This brings up two additional points.

First, from my perspective as a Christian who believes in the Scriptures, the Scripture that best describes how I feel about the situation at this point - given my comments in the immediately preceding paragraph - is: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.  These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man [i.e., non-believer] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, because they are spiritually discerned."  (1 Cor. 13-14).

That is, you are arguing the "wisdom of the world" - historical "facts," "legalism," etc.  I am arguing the "wisdom of the Spirit" which, to you, as a non-believer, is "foolishness."  In this regard, we both believe our positions to be "correct."  It seems that, as the saying goes, "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

Second, on a more "observational" note, in re-reading the entire thread I noticed something.  Gdub posted a comment having to do with the recent earthquake/tsunami incident that affected India (among other places), and how Christianity seemed to be being "used" in a way with which he did not agree.  I then responded with three comments, the first two of which were "factually innocuous" (that India was not the only country affected, and that Christianity is tied as the second largest faith in India).

It was my third comment - bringing up "blaming God," and the existence of Satan - that "stirred up the pot."  And although I accept that, by posting it on a public site (and not by PM), I "opened the floodgates," what actually occurred was that you immediately fell upon me like a vulture on carrion.  And from that point on, you were the (primary) "attacker," putting me in a position of "defending the faith" (which, as you see, I am always happy to do...)

What surprises me, though, is the palpable "vehemence" of your posts.  It is almost as if my faith, and my defense of Christianity, is personally offensive to you.  Indeed, you seem (pardon the pun) "hellbent" on dismissing, even negating, "faith," and particularly Christianity.  In this regard, your approach is one of anger and condescension: the latter in the form of the very type of "presumption" you accuse me of at various points re your knowledge and background.  And although you have not resorted to "personal attack" as such, my very belief in my faith now makes me "unsophisticated," "unlearned" and even "crass."  The strongest word I have ever used in a discussion of this sort is "misguided" - which I accept could be seen as "condescending," but certainly does not rise to the level of "crass."

Tell me: Where is all this incredible anger and vehemence coming from?  Why does my faith offend you so?  Why do you feel the need to "bludgeon" me with "history," as if history has never been proven wrong?

Note that, despite all of the above, I am neither upset nor "cowed" by your approach.  Nor am I  attempting to "get out from under" the discussion, or unanswered questions.  Rather, I am both sad and curious about the near-hatred underlying your side of the discussion.

You may want to take some time to think about this, rather than posting immediately.  In fact, I urge you to do so: to re-read the entire thread as I did, focusing on the "way you speak" - your approach, "attitude," choice of words, and what I can only call "lack of patience."

In the meantime, as others have noted, we could all use a respite right now.  It need only be temporary, as I am more than happy to continue the discussion (though, as stated, it does seem to be "apples and oranges" - or "dogs and cats").  Perhaps we should continue it on a separate thread in this category.  I leave that up to you.

Peace.

Ha ha. Very interesting and incredibly coincidental.

As is the case with most large Corporations, I had my Annual Review and appraisal with my boss today.

Part of the appraisal process is called 360° Assessment where your peers, subordinates and superiors rate you on a number of criteria.

My two principal "faults" were/are "lack of tact" and "lack of patience"

There is no hatred of religion in me,I am just very passionate.To say I hate religion would be like me saying I hated Santa Claus-totally futile.
Unfortunately for you Maani, my debating skills have been under wraps for nearly 25 years. Hopefully when I have been around the site for 10 years () I might just get the balance right!

So, Adam & Eve-I'm still awaiting your definitive answer!

Maani:

I only doubt that Scripture was, in effect, written by God. The obvious errors and inconsistencies pose interesting questions about the infallibility of God.You seem either to dodge this claim or misunderstand the relevance. If you rationalise my argument you will see that I offer man-made solutions for these errors, a generous position to take. You, however, seem to be unsure as to whether God is infallible or not.

What you describe as my arguing "legality" about Scripture is actually an attempt by me to clarify the contradictions of your argument.When one is discussing a perfect being one is entitled to expect perfection.If His word is incontravertible why do we need 4 Gospels? Why do these Gospels differ? This is not a flippant remark, just a question that needs answering.

There is something in religion which antagonizes a great many of the non-religious.

When the religious are a minority, they tend to become scapegoats and are almost always persecuted to some extent. When the religious are the majority, the outsiders tend to feel that they are surrounded by people who are not altogether reasonable- and therefore, a potential danger. Add this to a litany of incidents of hypocrisy, holy violence, abuse of power, prejudice and refusal to compromise and you have a likely target for negative feelings.

Both the religious man and the man without religion have a certain amount of patronizing wonder towards the other side. The sense of "the poor guy just doesn't get it and I don't know if he ever will". There's a certain point at which there can be no more dialogue; the person who is firm in their belief can take the option of ignoring the facts, which can be amazingly irritating to the person who is looking at the world purely with provable facts and first-hand observations.

I understand Reed completely, and sympathize with his point of view. I also understand maani, and hope that through his belief he will achieve positive works in his lifetime. It's too bad that the small acts done daily by the majority of believers are frequently overshadowed by the darker things- religion can be a powerful force for positive change and ennobling of the spirit. Honestly, it'sslightly more difficult for those of us trying to be a good person without referring to a 2000 year old spiritual framework or an embedded cultural presence.

Reed Lover wrote: Pixel Pirate wrote: Velvetclown wrote: It went to hell  And so should this moronic thread! Pixie, what is maronic about this discussion? Please explain.

Because,as I have said before,discussing religion with someone who actually IS religious is as productive as teaching an elephant to play guitar.

Well,Pixie I actually believe there have been productive outcomes to this discussion. Most of them have little to do with the subject matter and much to do with the individuals involved.

Whatever we may feel about Maani's Faith, very few individuals of a religious nature would have continued this debate for this long.Even if I feel there is a degree of "clouding the issue with dogma" by Maani , he has never resorted to the "that's what I believe and it is personal to me" dodge that so frustrates most debate on this subject.

Reed Lover wrote: Well,Pixie I actually believe there have been productive outcomes to this discussion. Most of them have little to do with the subject matter and much to do with the individuals involved. Whatever we may feel about Maani's Faith, very few individuals of a religious nature would have continued this debate for this long.Even if I feel there is a degree of "clouding the issue with dogma" by Maani , he has never resorted to the "that's what I believe and it is personal to me" dodge that so frustrates most debate on this subject.

"Clouding the issue with dogma"? You can't be serious? A christian who has dogmatic views?! Well,I never! I'm calling CNN right now! That's precisely my point,there's no way any logic and reason can pierce the armour of dogma that encircles the mind of a religious person. One simple fact: While I as an atheist/agnostic is willing to concede that I might be wrong,it's possible there is a god,although not very likely given the complete lack of evidence,there's no way that any religious person will ever concede that HE might be wrong and that there is no god. Try it and see if you'll get any believer to admit that.

Pixel:

While it may be true that Christians (and other people of faith) adhere to "dogma," consider two things.

First, the dogma that a particular faith-based person espouses can vary radically depending on what one is taught or understands about one's faith, and especially how well one knows the Scriptures.  For example, the dogma adhered to by the so-called "Christian Right" is very different - indeed, sometimes diametrically opposed - to the dogma adhered to by a "centrist" Christian, or a "primitive" Christian such as myself.  Yes, it is ultimately still "dogma," but, as one hip minister once said to me: "You can teach an old dogma new tricks."  (Or, as the 60s slogan goes: "My karma ran over my dogma.")

Second, and perhaps more importantly, you fail to realize that your worldview - and that of other atheists, agnostics, etc. - is also based on "dogma," though of a different kind.  If I am dogmatic about my faith and its underlying texts and principles, athetists/agnostics are just as dogmatic about their lack of belief.  In this regard, to say that "I as an atheist/agnostic am willing to concede that I might be wrong - that it's possible there is a god," but that "There's no way that any religious person will ever concede that HE might be wrong and that there is no god" is both incorrect and a cop-out.  It is incorrect because, after all, how many people of faith have "fallen away" and even rejected that faith later?  We are talking hundreds of thousands, even millions of people.  True, a person who is currently faith-based is highly unlikely to "concede" that there is no God.  But it is absolutely clear that being faith-based at a particular moment in time does not mean that one will be faith-based for life.

It is also a cop-out because you are setting up an impossibly circular, and ultimately fallacious, argument.  After all, faith is just that: faith.  The Scriptural definition of "faith" is "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  Thus, to a non-believer whose "dogma" is grounded in rationalism, "faith" is prima facie "irrational," and not based on (empirical) evidence - i.e., evidence of things seen.

People of faith "believe" because they have witnessed and/or been the beneficiaries of God's grace, mercy and power.  What rationalists call "coincidence," believers call "providence."  As noted, the "evidence" of God's grace, mercy and power are prima facie "unseen" in the rationalist sense, and are thus not open to empirical quantification (yes, I know: "how convenient"...).  It is simply a matter of perspective: you, as a rationalist, are no more likely to change your perspective than a believer is to change theirs.  To claim that you "could" - because you are a rationalist - while they "can't" (because they are "dogmatic" about their faith) would seem extremely disingenuous.

Reed Lover:

First, there is nothing wrong with your debating skills; they are clearly as sharp as a tack.  If anything, there may be something wrong (a term I use loosely) in your approach.  However, given, as you note, the "passion" involved in matters of faith, perhaps that is understandable (to say nothing of forgivable...).

You say, "The obvious errors and inconsistencies pose interesting questions about the infallibility of God.  You seem either to dodge this claim or misunderstand the relevance. If you rationalise my argument you will see that I offer man-made solutions for these errors, a generous position to take. You, however, seem to be unsure as to whether God is infallible or not."

First, I am not dodging the question.  I am simply claiming not to have all the answers - but that, despite all your rational, worldly "arguments," I believe that God knew (and knows) what He was doing in the "dictation" of the Scriptures.  In this regard, I'm not sure that God would agree with you that positing rational, worldly arguments is a "generous" thing to do; rather, I think He would be both amused and saddened that you felt the need to resort to worldly positions to argue for His infallibility and perfection.

Similarly, you ask "If His word is incontravertible, why do we need 4 Gospels? Why do these Gospels differ? This is not a flippant remark, just a question that needs answering."  At the risk of sounding flip myself (to say nothing of dogmatic...), it only needs answering if one is lacking in faith.  However, assuming those questions do need answering, again I beleve that God would not want you to be looking for those answers in the "temporal" world, via rationalism, empiricism and human history.  Again, I do not claim to have the answers to those questions, even from Scripture.  But I have faith that God knew and knows what He is doing, and that there are answers to those questions - though we, as humans, may not be able to discern them despite all of our knowledge and "wisdom."

Finally, I want to thank you - sincerely - for your comment that, "I actually believe there have been productive outcomes to this discussion.  Most of them have little to do with the subject matter and much to do with the individuals involved.  Whatever we may feel about Maani's Faith, very few individuals of a religious nature would have continued this debate for this long. Even if I feel there is a degree of "clouding the issue with dogma" by Maani , he has never resorted to the "that's what I believe and it is personal to me" dodge that so frustrates most debate on this subject."

I, too, believe that, despite the occasional spasms of "intense passion" (), this discussion has been productive, and for the reasons you state.  Because no matter which side of the issue others who have posted may be on, they - and others who may be following this without posting - cannot help but be "enlightened" in one way or another by a serious, thoughtful, reasoned discussion/debate, especially on such a "thorny" issue.  And I am humbled that you would go out of your way to support me with the statement made in the last sentence of that post.

James:

Bravo on a beautiful statement.  It should be required reading for anyone and everyone who intends to engage in any discussion or debate about "faith."

Peace to all.

Maani:

I, too, hope that your Faith leads you to do "good" things. Surely no-one could argue with that.

However,whilst you might not see it as important,you still have not clarified your position on Adam & Eve. Shall we assume from your silence on this matter that your Faith isn't quite as strong as you state?

And we just keep going around in circles,don't we.... I could write a thesis or 50 with arguments against religion,and immodestly enough,most of them would be intelligent and reasonable but it would all be in vain since the human race is a species that's actually stupid enough to think that truth is a subjective issue. I'm ashamed to belong to such a species. Bertand Russell once had a discussion with Wittgenstein about this. Wittgenstein,a waste of a good intellect if ever there was one,claimed that there was no such thing as empirical truth. Russell then asked him: Is there a rhinoceros in this room? Wittgenstein refused to answer because the only answer he could possible give would be: No,there isn't. Which would prove that his notion that there is no empirical truth was complete nonsense,which of course it is.

I'm too old for this type of thing and my new year resolution is broken already so I'll just say this: Don't forget where all,and I do mean ALL,religious notions stem from. Simply the fact that the human animal is the only one on this planet that is aware of it's mortality. As opposed to every other living thing on this planet,humans know they are going to die. And they don't like it. They REALLY don't like it.In fact, it terrifies them. You can dress religion up in all manner of metaphysical arguement but if you work your way backwards to it's origin you'll find mankind's fear of death. Man is a simple being and simple beings are easily fathomed out. No one can understand anything about religion until they have a thorough understanding of human psychology. If you know what makes the human animal tick,especially it's fears,then and only then,will you understand religion. Without fear,there would be no religion. Know this and you know everything there is to know about religion. It keeps the fear from the door,that's it's function. It tells you soothing lies that this life is not the end. If cows had suddenly aquired the intelligence and consciensness of man,I can guarantee two things:1. After five minutes they would have started a religion (and naturally the cow god would have looked like a cow!) and 2. That religion would immediately have set to work to assauge the cows newfound fear of death.

Complicated beings require complicated explanations as to what makes them tick,simple beings do not. Man is simple. About all he knows is this: He wants food and sex and he's afraid of death. Man is astonishingly advanced technologically and astonishingly primitive philosophically. Once again: I'm ashamed to belong to such a species and I agree with Monty Python: I hope there's intelligent life somewhere in space because there's bugger all down here on earth.

This is turning into a really interesting thread

It also confirms to me that there is a lot of depth to the people who inhabit the forums despite the huge amount of flippancy on display at times.

sigod wrote: This is turning into a really interesting thread It also confirms to me that there is a lot of depth to the people who inhabit the forums despite the huge amount of flippancy on display at times.

Well,the curse of man is that he's bright enough to ask the questions but not bright enough to find the answers. All I know for certain is that there's no rhinoceros in this room and that's good enough for me. 

Velvetclown wrote: Well we all know that Sigod is one of the worst !!

Guilty as charged Velvet  

Pixel:

At the risk of sounding extremely un-ministerial, you show a seriously willful ignorance with regard to the question of "empirical truth," and the "rhinoceros" question.

You state, categorically, that there is no rhinoceros in the room.  However, many scientists - eminent, rational, award-winning, atheist scientists - believe that ours is not the only "universe" there is.  Indeed, the theory of hyperspace (which is only one of many "multiple universe" theories) allows for as many as 10 separate universes.  And according to this theory (and others), those universes may co-exist with ours in "time-space."

Thus, simply because you don't see a rhinoceros in your room - in the universe presently visible to you - does not mean that, in another universe that also "exists" in your room at this moment (though you cannot see it), there is not a rhinoceros.  Thus, you cannot, with scientific, empirical certainty, state, without reservation, that there is not a rhinoceros in your room - even from a rational, scientific perspective.  All you can state is that you do not see - in the limited amount of time-space that your eyes perceive "physically" - a rhinoceros in your room.  However, you cannot, with scientific certainty, state that there is not a rhinoceros in your room.  Thus, Wittgenstein was correct in not answering: because he was correct: "empirical truth" is not as "empirical" as many would like to believe.

Nice try.  Perhaps you should read more "hard science."  Or didn't you know that many "people of faith" are also well-grounded in "hard science," and are not simply "sheep" with no knowledge of anything except the Bible?

Peace.

Pixel Pirate wrote: sigod wrote: This is turning into a really interesting thread It also confirms to me that there is a lot of depth to the people who inhabit the forums despite the huge amount of flippancy on display at times. Well,the curse of man is that he's bright enough to ask the questions but not bright enough to find the answers. All I know for certain is that there's no rhinoceros in this room and that's good enough for me.

Sometimes Pixie you've got to ask the right questions.

All:

You will, I'm sure, be pleased to know that Reed Lover and I have "settled this" () via PM.  This was not meant to leave anyone out, but rather to decide whether a continuation of this thread would be of any positive value.  We have both agreed that it would not, and have "agreed to disagree" about some of the outstanding questions and issues.

We do both agree, however, that this was a wonderful, thoughtful, informative, valuable discussion.  We also both agree that everyone has comported themselves with characteristic aplomb (), and thank everyone for their comments, criticisms, witticisms and, mostly, their indulgence.

On a personal note, I really appreciate everyone's input, even where I disagreed with it.  As I noted to Reed Lover in a PM, "'Open-mindedness' does not mean suddenly or radically 'switching sides,' even based on a wealth of evidence.  It simply means being willing to consider other points of view from an 'ego-less' perspective.  Needless to say, that is very difficult to do.  For example, I doubt (as Pixel suggests) that anyone is going to make me give up my faith (unless, of course, it could be proved beyond question that there is not, and cannot be, a God).  However, that doesn't mean that I am incapable of 'modifying' my belief (to certain degrees) based on what I learn from what I read or hear."  It was very important for me - as a person, as a Christian, as a minister - to "hear," listen to and consider all of the various posts.  and although my answers were not always what people might have wanted or looked for, I did try to answer honestly and consistently.  If I failed in that regard, forgive me.

Below is the text of an article which appeared recently in a major publication.  I believe it is an excellent assessment of something that has been running through this thread - on both sides of the issue.

Since it has basically run its course at this point, after this post I will leave this thread open for 24 hours, after which I will close it (but not delete it).

Peace to all.

----------

Wow.  That article makes me feel terrible about my country.

How can we claim to have faith in something we know nothing about?  It is because of the groups like the ACLU that we have no mention of religion in schools outside of a few historical references. Not the ACLU is wrong we should not be teaching Religion at all the need for some knowledge of religion is essential to understand other cultures.  I have been blind to this ignorance in our country because I went to Catholic School and then had attended a non- denominational church where the Pastor felt teaching the bible was essential. I learned a lot from him.   I wish I had learned more about Islam. How can that incident in Arizona happen? This is a sad evaluation of America. 

To Both Reed and Maani thank you for sharing your time, knowledge and civility on this most important of subjects.  

Maani,you missed my point,or I was obtuse in making it. One CAN say categorically that there's no rhinoceros in the room because a parallel dimension that might contain one is merely a possibility,not a proven fact. I have read more hard science than most here probably and I am perfectly aware of the theory of the multiverse and similar theories but that's all they are:Theories. Since we humans dwell exclusively within a three dimensional reality,that's what we must have as basis for what exists and what doesn't exist,not what might possibly,maybe,perhaps be true. That's just speculation,things that are still to be proven. Only that which is proven can be said to be a fact. Only when a theory has been proven does it make the transition from theory to fact,until then it remains a theory which is not something on which to base your life. I'll admit that the room is crawling with rhinoceroses of all kinds when it is PROVEN to be so,until then there are none. One cannot base one's life on what might possibly be,only on what actually IS. But I'm an empiricist and pragmatist,you're not so we live in separate worlds and never the twain shall meet.

And of course I'm aware that many "hard" scientist are christians. No surprise there since fear has always been the basis of religion and why should scientists be any less afraid than anyone else? I think Desmond Morris' explanation of the origins of god is the one that comes closest to hitting the nail on the head: The need for a Super Parent.

Arioch wrote: Now that you quasi-intellectuals tried to awe us with your super long , self masturbatory rants, I for one am glad this thread is coming to an end.

Really...and your desire to post that message was from a much more constructive and mentally superior position (i.e., by that post you're basically guilty of the same thing you criticize...do you understand, or should I add a 'super' somewhere to emphasize my point? ).

BTW: generally used, masturbatory doesn't require a 'self' before it- that's implied. But that's just the kind of quasi-intellectual thing you're talking about, isn't it?

Pixel:

Fair enough.  Let's say I accept your position that a theory is just that - a theory - until it becomes fact.

OK, then let's talk about a little thing called the theory of evolution...  Because it remains theory - no matter how much supporting evidence it might have (and much of that evidence is not as "sound" as people think) - it is not fact.  Which means that a counter-theory of "intelligent design" (or any other, for that matter) is perfectly acceptable - and equally possible - until the theory of evolution becomes the fact of evolution.

I love when people make my arguments for me...

Peace.

maani wrote: Pixel: Fair enough.  Let's say I accept your position that a theory is just that - a theory - until it becomes fact. OK, then let's talk about a little thing called the theory of evolution...  Because it remains theory - no matter how much supporting evidence it might have (and much of that evidence is not as "sound" as people think) - it is not fact.  Which means that a counter-theory of "intelligent design" (or any other, for that matter) is perfectly acceptable - and equally possible - until the theory of evolution becomes the fact of evolution. I love when people make my arguments for me... Peace.

Well,I have certainly had my worst suspicions of the state of American religious fundamentalism confirmed. And then some! That there are people in the world in this day and age who still treat evolution as a theory is frankly so shocking I'm speechless. I'm not going to insult my intelligence in carrying on this discussion,I can surely find better things to with my time.