I like this Pope. Long live Benedict XVI

I'm going to like this new pope.

Wasn't Ratzinger the guy who played Cliff Clavin on Cheers?

The Cardinals were under the influence of the "Holy Spirit" (aka sacramental wine) alright.

I warned you.

I think I just might like this new guy.

I think this guy will be good for us all.

So the old Pope was a Polish Nazi-fighter in his youth; the new Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth in his youth. Hmm. Methinks this is not a good trade.

LOL, now that there is a German Pope, does that mean that the Vatican will invade and conquer France?

we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose

Really? That's Interesting. :-)

shepshep, that reminds me of a dialouge from A Few Good Men

Kaffee: Cpl. Barnes, turn to the page in this book that tells me how to get to the mess hall.
Cpl. Barnes: Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee: You mean the whole time you've been at Gitmo, you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: Then how did you find the mess hall if it wasn't in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, sir, like everybody else, I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: No further questions.

I just heard that the Financial Times referred to Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope John Paul II's rottweiler. Did the Vatican Council just elect Chomps? I'm liking this guys even more!

I can go down to Wal-Mart any time I want and say "I'd like to buy a condom, because I'm a Protestant, and fiercely proud of it!".

Does this mean Catholics will read Leviticus 23?

That's what people don't get. The media says the Catholic Church must reform in order to maintain itself in the West.

Well here's the thing, folks: the Catholic Church has a goal a bit loftier than maintaining itself in the West. The Catholic Church has to uphold God's will, no matter how small that shrinks the Church in the future.

They can't just change things to stay popular, they can only change things because they've had it wrong all along.

Uh... George guy? First-that was uncalled for. and Second-What's your point?

You don't have to be Catholic (I'm not) to grasp the importance of a new Pope.

Awesome. We've traded King Cocks of the most corrupt, worthless international pyramid scheme of unscientific powermongers bent on the continual subjugation of mankind to a make-believe Sky Fairy whose manners and ideals no better than yours or mine.

I'll save my little dance for when we quit believing some old fart with a magic hat is the conduit to the wisdom of the universe.

*sigh*

the new Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth in his youth

I love the fact that people are jumping all over this. Everyone of the right age in Germany was a member of the Hitlerjugend. It was mandatory. Ratzinger didn't go to a single meeting, despite the fact that he had to get papers proving he had been to meetings to get into school (a teacher took pity on him and let him get away with it). He was conscripted into the Wehrmacht and he deserted. Pope Benedict XVI is not, and never was, a Nazi. Get over it.

So.........scientific sciencemongers bent on the continual subjugation of mankind to the Evolution Fairy, whose lack of manners and ideals end up in death...are better?

Amen Jon.In the past few days,I have been curious about the prospectives,and most certainly,Cardinal Ratzinger.But after reading his history,and understanding his younger days,and the hows and whys,I have no concern.The folks who are acting all silly,are the same ones who were screaming from the rooftops that 'The Passion of the Christ' was gonna create the 4th Reich.They were wrong then,they are wrong now.

Besides,if the ever devout Yad Vashem says Ratzinger is a good man,it's good enough for me.

G-d Bless Benedict XVI.

Jon,

"He was conscripted into the Wehrmacht and he deserted." Yes, he deserted in May 1945...VE Day was May 8, 1945, so another way of saying this is: he served in the German military until the end of the war. Seems slightly less noble that way, though.

I'm not Catholic (Missouri Synod Lutheran) but some of us Protestant types are much comforted with a Pope that is traditional and faithful to Scripture. I certainly hope the Catholic Church NEVER tries to become "relevant" to today's society as have so many of the protestant denominations... I like this new Pope very much and I believe he is a 10th degree Black Belt Ninja...and will find out if you mess with Scripture...

steve,

I'm just saying if someone's going to call an entity God he ought to be somebody worth looking up to, not someone who throws hissy fits and destroys stuff when he (sorry, He) gets mad. Or contradicts himself literally and philosophically at every turn.

I don't know how we got here, and nobody else does, either, so why make up such a dumb story as Creation (which is really a variation on several other earlier pagan creation stories)? At least evolution makes decent sense at an intellectual level, and has the least number of unfounded assumptions. If there is a God, he would have done it way cooler, like, with lazers and robots anyway.

When you die, that's it--whether you believe God flicked a booger and created the world or cosmic dust bunnies humped each other in space...you still die. You don't climb up Heaven's Chimney or drink from the Razzleberry Fountain In The Sky. These are man-made constructs of our subconscious because we don't want to confront death. Relition's a poor coping mechanism at best, and an unrestrained inflicter of misery and poverty at worst.

...hence the and-don't-even-get-me-started-about-some-guy-who-is-now-god's-infallable-representative-on-earth-not-by-a-booming-voice-from-the-sky-but-democratically-elected-by-a-bunch-of-other-morons tone in the previous post.

steve,

I'm just saying if someone's going to call an entity God he ought to be somebody worth looking up to, not someone who throws hissy fits and destroys stuff when he (sorry, He) gets mad. Or contradicts himself literally and philosophically at every turn.

I don't know how we got here, and nobody else does, either, so why make up such a dumb story as Creation (which is really a variation on several other earlier pagan creation stories)? At least evolution makes decent sense at an intellectual level, and has the least number of unfounded assumptions. If there is a God, he would have done it way cooler, like, with lazers and robots anyway.

When you die, that's it--whether you believe God flicked a booger and created the world or cosmic dust bunnies humped each other in space...you still die. You don't climb up Heaven's Chimney or drink from the Razzleberry Fountain In The Sky. These are man-made constructs of our subconscious because we don't want to confront death. Relition's a poor coping mechanism at best, and an unrestrained inflicter of misery and poverty at worst.

...hence the and-don't-even-get-me-started-about-some-guy-who-is-now-god's-infallable-representative-on-earth-not-by-a-booming-voice-from-the-sky-but-democratically-elected-by-a-bunch-of-other-morons tone in the previous post.

I believe he is a 10th degree Black Belt Ninja...and will find out if you mess with Scripture...

Haha, now I'm picturing the new Pope in a martial arts film, and the English overdubbing is all off... and then he kicks the doctrinal deviants in the teeth with a move he calls "The Flying Pontiff."

Nuts,
I just got around to RWD's news roundup and realized he beat me to the Ratzinger/Ratzenberger joke by quite a while.

*hangs head in shame*

Geez, its been what, 5 hours, and already the Protestants are attacking the Catholics... sheesh

Sometimes I'm almost ashamed to be associated with these divisive Christians. Father, fill us, for we are so unworthy... :(

Evolution makes sense? You are kidding me right?

Ah Man. Thanks Mobile. That's a separate post right there.

You say we don't climb heaven's chimney- by what authority do you speak?

If these are manmade constructs then shouldn't they make life EASIER?

if there are contradictions both literally and philosphically, then let's talk abut THAT!

I wish I could live in your reality - life would be so much easier. Ooh - that's another idea for a post.

Why don't we get dissenters here more often? This is good stuff.

You're right, RWD, I'd like to live there too. How do I get there? Do I look in Heaven's fireplace?

Good ‘Ol Boy,

George was just quoting from Monty Python’s movie Meaning of Life.

"Evolution makes sense?" Maybe your ancestors crawled out of some primoridal ooze...mine did not! They were uniquely and divinely created as was I! Sorry!

The ills in the world that you speak of are not the fault of the creator...he had to provide a way out...hence the savior Christ or we would all be lost...

MobileSuitPilotXI: We are all blinded in part. Some like it that way. "When you die - that's it."

If you think so, that's probably what you'll find when your time comes. Relativity applies to more than physics.

If you want to know the truth about what happens when we die I suggest you check out some accounts of near-death experiences. Start with children - why would they lie?

I've had 4 types of NDE's myself. But I won't try to convince you that what I've experienced is what'll happen to you.

For the curious, you need to start somewhere

A lot of people emphasize John 3:16, at least this Pope seems to understand Revelation 3:16.

Moral relativism is ridculous. There are certain absolutes. I'm really tired of people saying that the Catholic church is not keeping in step with the times. That's silly! Why should the church bend to every fad and "lifestyle choice?"

What I have to say to all those moonbat whiners is that if you don't want to follow the rules of Catholocism; don't be Catholic.

Go make up your own religion and change it on a whim every week.

I agree, this conservative pope is exactly what we Catholics need. It just shows the rest of the world that we are committed to our faith more than to their ideals of what our faith should be. Although Benedict XVI may not lead us as long as John Paul II did, though perhaps he will, his election signals to the world that we as a church will stand by our principles and core beliefs.

Here's Apocalypse 3:14-19 (referenced above by McWhert), for those interested.

14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God: 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance.

God Bless His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

PilotX-

Just thought I'd briefly point out a couple things no one's addressed yet.

First, the whole idea of "we're picking something and calling it God" is a bit wrong. In fact, God gave Himself a doosey of a name - "I Am Who I Am." (Ex. 3:14) You've read God the wrong way (see JESUS), but, even ignoring that, He is, whether you acknowledge Him or not.

Second, you're a little off claiming the Biblical Creation was a variation on pagan myths. But, even if that's so, I have a crazy thought for you: maybe that's because that's what actually happened! It would almost make sense, wouldn't it? By the way, if you ask me, speaking and having stuff pop into existence is a bit cooler than "lazers [sic] and robots," too.

Third, I've heard something like that "Relition's [sic] a poor coping mechanism" before - from a guy named Marx. We know how smart he was - can you say "USSR?"

One thing I will say, though, is that, as a Protestant, the whole papal infallibility thing rubs me the wrong way too. Although, it sounds like I might be agreeing with this pope quite a bit.

Anyway, I hope this gives you some food for thought. If you change your mind or want to find out more, I think you've found a few folks who'll be happy to help.

I didn't say it made complete sense, I said it made SOME sense, and more anyways than the Sky Fairy concept. Evolution makes fewer assumptions about unknown processes than does creationism. Where science will say, "Hey, we don't f-ing know, come back and ask us in 100 years", religious doctrine will say, "Silly, everybody knows the white-bearded man in the sky MADE all this stuff just cause he felt like it, so DON'T ask."
---
"No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live."--Mark Twain
---
Read a book. Look at how the catholic church in particular has denied good scientific theory until years after it's been proven (i.e. heliocentric solar system, round Earth, etc.) because the church made the claim of infallable doctrine and leadership.

Literal inconsistency: Gosh, let's start at the beginning--Genesis 1 and 2 can't agree on the order in which things were made. If that's too nit-picky, go look up Proverbs 26:4-5 and see how you should answer a fool. :) Or go see if there's any consensus on Jesus' last words in Matthew, Luke, or John.

Philosophical inconsistency: Compare Psalms 145:9 to Jeremiah 13:14. Compare statements made in Ezekiel 18:20 to Exodous 20:5. Or the power of God in Matthew 19:26 to Judges 1:19. You know, you could have googled all this yourself and saved me some time.

And one other thing, RWD, while you're listening--before you paint me with the broad tree-hugging, pot-smoking ACLU & Dan Rather worshipping hippie liberal brush--I spend 99.9% of my time hanging around conservative blogs. I voted for Bush in 00 and 04 and am damn proud to have done so. I'm a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, and a fervent believer in smaller government, capitalism, freedom, and the death penalty. I just clash with conservatives on this one issue because it seems so obvious to me...but spouting off about it is so much fun. Besides, a little dissent in your diet can be good for you. When's the last time anybody argued with anybody around here?

I realized I went off on a tangent again and didn't address fully your questions before...sorry 'bout that.

"we don't climb up heaven's chimney"...My authority?...purely a joke. Does the possibility of climbing up heaven's chimney sound any more ridiculous than taking off your body like it's a suit and ascending into the sky (pearly gates, guest list c/o St. Peter, all that jazz)? Or being reborn as a platypus for being an a-hole? Or crossing the river Styx for fabulous fun and prizes?

man-made constructs...do they make life easier? Well, kinda. I'm not saying it helps people do spectacularly heroic things because they feel certain their eternity is already settled, or that it can comfort those of us someone leaves behind. I'm saying when religion is bent, as SO often it is, to the whims of manipulators in power (you would agree with me about radical Islam, correct?), it has more power to do evil than good. How did Medieval Europe keep a lid on the suffering peasantry? By telling them yeah, this life sucks, but it's all good after you die...really *wink*. Does that not seem fishy to you? Like a con that's worked well for way too long? Would you believe I am a 7-foot rabbit just because I said so?

I just don't want religion peeing on my shoes and telling me it's raining. I'm not saying the Bible hasn't got some great stuff in there about how to live well. I'm not saying people shouldn't believe whatever the heck they want to, it's a free country and I like it that way. I just think people who take the Bible as the infallable, complete, and literal word of God to be a little touched in the head. (and as Dennis Miller said) That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. If God snatched me up by the scrotum tomorrow and said, "MSPX, you little turd, quit talking sh** on me before I bust a cap in your ass" you'd hear me singing a different tune. Until then.....

PilotX-


Dude, you just won't give up. Evolution is one HUGE assumption - take the chances of even one benficial genetic mutation, multiply that out by a few billion changes that it would take to get a human being, toss in the fact that there's no concrete proof in the historical record, and you're on pretty thin ice. Especially when its proponents insist on ramming down the throat of the vast majority of America's schoolchildren. Christians have taken plenty more ridicule than you can dish out, but it's the stupidity that really bugs us.

With that, let me say a couple things about your "example" passages:

• Gen. 1 & 2 - Sorry, Genesis 2 is a recap of the end of Genesis 1. It didn't say God made the plants in full bloom.


• Prov. 26:4-5 - Proverbs is what's called Wisdom Literature. It's meant to be a bit cryptic. Besides that, even if the Bible's man-made, do you really think the perpetrator would be that dumb?


• Jesus' Last Words - Believe it or not, the Bible's not always a blow-by-blow account of events. Jesus could easily have said both in His last moments, with one book recording one part, and another, another.


• Ps. v. Jer. - First, you're taking poetry and making it prose - doesn't work in English class or in the Bible. Second, "good" and "mercy" don't mean "always smiling at everyone" - see Proverbs 13:24.


• Ex. v. Ez. - They don't disagree. The testimony of Scripture is that each person is responsible for his own actions. Exodus doesn't claim otherwise, but does acknowledge the fact that the sins of past generations do affect our lives - affect, not determine.


• Judges v. Matt. - Two things here: first, read the context - Matthew is talking about salvation, not battle. Second, rememeber the Bible isn't blow-by-blow. Since God can knock down massive battlements, drive off gigantic armies, etc., iron weapons wouldn't stand in His way. For what probably happened, refer to Joshua 7.

this just in

The Pope is Catholic.

leftists pretend to freak out

Anyone else think it's funny that someone with a name as wapanese as "MobileSuitPilotXI" is lecturing people on scientific discipline?

ENGAGE ION CANNONS! LARGE-BREASTED FEMALE COMPANION, JUMP UP CUTELY AND DO THE PEACE SIGN!

Brian,

The Catholic church has only ever been worried about maintaining itself in the west and every other place it proselytizes, as do most other religions.

The churches compete for the souls of the unbelieving all over the world because their is no church without believers so by definition they have to worry about how small their church becomes. Today's christianity is yesterday's zoroastrianism.

There are many disucssions among many catholics about chnages that rise above the threshold of "popular".

I am glad though they have permission to change things if they have had it wrong all along (the protestants must feel like they have a weight off their shoulders).

What are those things though and who gets to decide. Right now it one old man being avised by a few hundered cardinals picked because they think the same way.

Let us pick two issues for the sake of simplicity though. Married priests and women priests. By not allowing these two things, what loftier goals are they trying to maintain?

Jon,

Where did you get your information about his reasons and attendance? I read the same stuff but it came from him. Is there another source? He cannot be completely absolved if the "proof" is only from him.

To me though, I tend to believe it. I doubt any of us can imagine what it would have been like and it is eay with 20-20 hindsight to say that he should have resisted. Thanks to our fathers, grandfathers & great-grandfathers for winning against the forces of evil from WWI to the Cold War.

Steve,

Why does evolutionary theory lead to the "continual subjugation of mankind"?

USS Jimmy Carter,

I ask the same question as above, where does "faithful to scripture" come into play in allowing priests to marry and allowing female priests.

I am sure there are other modern day concepts which are anathema to you, but on these two issues, are they so wrong that you agree that the church should not even be discussing them?

N. Allen,

"I am what I am" is a great to explain the majesty of a supreme entity, which is why it was also used by others (ie, ahmi yat amhi).

Marx had many ideas and it is the hight of simplistic reasoning to assign failure to his concepts because of the USSR.

The latter was a brutal dictatorship that took a name from the ism it found most convenient.

You can argue till the cows come home (or jesus, whichever takes longer) about
faith, belief & reality, because there is no way for reason to overcome faith if the belief is strong enough.

You can critique Marx' philosophies and bash the USSR but please do not simply bring up the big bad commies to bash anytning or anyone associated with it.

N. Allen again,

You cannot simply brush aside evolutionary theory by calling it a HUGE assumption.

I would like more clarification on what you mean by "there's no concrete proof in the historical record". Do you mean recorded in writing? Or do you mean the paleontological evidence that they do have is false or not complete enough yet?

As for the "chances" of genetic mutations, I believe you misunderstand the point of science, which is to observe, determine patterns and build theory from that.

It is not to hold a belief and then look for the proof of that belief.

Whatever the chances are of these genetic mutations happening, it is immaterial to the evidence they have found for evolution.

But this is not to blow of the issue of chance. It is simply to state that it is not in the purview of science. The way you have phrased, it is in the purview of faith.

It has always puzzled me why people get so imbued in the trappings of organized religion without looking deeper into the information at hand in the 21st century.

Whatever the christianism is today, it is a reflection of the forces in the church that won out after Rome went christian.

When you couple that with how many similarities it has to other religions that existed at the same time.

When you look at all the variations of christianity that exist today.

Is it not feasible that the belief structure has been affected by the interpretations of humans.

When they look at the universe (& my simplistic understanding of it), they are amazed at how everything, absolutely everything, is set up perfectly for life on earth. When you read an article about it, you can "hear" the "wow" factor from scientists.

In string theory, which attempts to tie together relativity & quantum mechanics, they postulate that we live in a world of 11 dimensions.

Other theorists see unlimited numbers of universes.

These are not made up concepts mad up by a cabal of rationalists. There are many people working independently on these and many other concepts which are mind blowing and dare I say almost magical.

Is not possible that these or some of these theories are true but that they are the handiwork of a supreme being?

I have begun wondering that myself. In my limited understanding of these theories, my mind is drawn to the idea that these incredibly complex creations are of a force that, as of yet, we are not truly able to comprehend.

And there is evolutionary theory. God is all powerfull, all knowing, all seeing, but he/she/it could not possibly have instituted the process of evolution.

Perhaps the story of creation was a way to explain complex matters to humans at a time when they could not have possibly understood string theory.

Open your eyes if only to entertain the idea that God may be more complex than he is portrayed in documents written 2,000 years ago.

In trouble either way. A liberal would have decimated the church by ordaining women and the openly homosexual. A "conservative" would have no choice but to uphold a number of exegetically untenable positions, first among which would be Mariology.

Dan up, Baby!-

KAWAII!!!
Bishoujo ga daaaisuki!

MobileSuitPilotX-

Good to know there are some other right-wing Otaku out there. But "Gundam" just can't compare to "Eva." Besides, the "Gundam Wing" kids are terrorists!

P.S. God bless Benedict XVI! May his reign be long and infuriating to liberals!

No offense to any catholics out there, but that is a REALLY FUNNY statement coming from a Catholic...

As for not allowing female priests or in my case female ministers (I am Missouri Synod Lutheran). We take Paul's instruction from the new Testament seriously and do not believe that this has changed #1. In addition, number two we follow Jesus example he had zero female disciples.

By the way, Evolution is junk science and is being proven junk science on a daily basis. Don't hang your hat on Darwin! There has never been scientific proof for evolution! It has ALWAYS been a THEORY only but has been taught as fact by those that want to believe in something. It is rapidly being disproved as nonsense in the scientific community. Do some research! Look at it logically... If all the universe is in a state of decline (our sun will at some point burn out) how is it that the evolutionist can possibly teach that everything is evolving to a higher state or more advanced state of being...pure tripe!

Hey, don't forget those of us who are devout Christians and think evolution is a good scientific theory (and, in my opinion, more fitting with God's modus operandi than "Poof! Everyone now exists!").

The Catholic Church allows the belief in evolution; the important thing is acknowledging the uniqueness of the human being whatever the back-story is.

7:25pm - In case you misunderstood me, I wasn't talking about moral relativism, though it's certainly a relevant topic here. I was talking about free will and individual perception.

For example, if someone never had a dream while they slept and told me it was impossible for me to dream I would laugh and say, "sometimes I can fly."

I can't prove it, and I don't care.

PilotX - you raise a good point about the con. Maybe that's why the Messiah said 'except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'

In other words, if you can't rise above the con, you got a problem and probably don't even know it.

"Hey, don't forget those of us who are devout Christians and think evolution is a good scientific theory (and, in my opinion, more fitting with God's modus operandi than "Poof! Everyone now exists!")."

Excellent! Frank J. can now read the mind of God. We should pay him to translate all of God's Word into a correct, more fitting translation.

By the way, about women preachers:

1 Timothy 2 : "11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

I admit it's not my favorite Biblical teaching, but it's right there, so there's not much I can do about it. Maybe Frank can fit it in better with God's actual modus operandi.

Colin,
I'm just interpreting the Bible and life along with everyone else. Theologically, I find evolution more believable than creation. If God was going to do something blatant like make people appear out of nowhere and leave scientific evidence of it, he might as well jump out of the sky and shout, "Booga booga booga!"

But that doesn't leave any room for faith.

Phil Monk,

When I said the "Evolution Fairy" I was using it as a counter to Mobil's "Sky Fairy". I myself see the world created by God, and not through the slow process of evolution. Also for God to use evolution as his means for everything does not allow him to be perfect and all-knowing. Somehow I don't think God made a plant and tweaked it into a man over 5,000,000,000 years. I do not pretend to know how God did it, but I believe that evolution contradicts that he did it. So I believe evolution is a tool, among others, used by Satan to separate Man from God, (specifically Jesus Christ), therefore subjugating Mankind to the perils of sin. Which in turn leads to death. (Rom 6:23)

"The greatest trick the Devil ever did was to convince the world that he doesn't exist"

Phil Monk-

Good point on Marx. I was concerned about how much I was writing, and didn't want to go too deep into it. However, as you may recall, the USSR took Marx's atheistic bent to heart, and it did no one any good. Thus, I thought it was a quick way to make my point, which was that, at least to a large number of us, we believe Christianity because we think it's true, not because it's a security blanket.

Also, you're right about how long we can debate. It's been going on for a couple thousand years so far. However, I got annoyed at PilotX's remarks, and didn't want to leave them unanswered. Hopefully they made some sense to him, or others of his opinion.

Now, on to evolution. I am not a biologist. Nor am I a quantom physicist. That said:

1. I don't brush aside belief in evolution based on it being a huge assumption. I brush aside referring to it in factual terms on that basis.
2. For "evidence", I was referring to paleontologic evidence. I've seen faked fossils, pig's teeth, etc., but I haven't run into any incontrovertible evidence. Perhaps you can enlighten us?
3. When I wrote about the chances, it was in light of the lack of evidence. Since no one was around to observe the development or creation of the cosmos, and we have no conclusive or even semi-conclusive evidence, there is little science can work off of, either for or against evolution. Thus, while it can certainly be a theory, the current treatment of it as fact is groundless - you're dealing with faith either way.
4. Your comments on the possibility that people have modified true Christianity through the centuries is quite true, though. That's part of the reason why there have been so many splits, Reformations, intra-denominational squabbles, etc. Some are for dumb reasons, but many are people trying to stay true to the original belief. Even the Catholic Church has reformed itself in the past to be closer to the Biblical ideal.
5. I won't get into multiple dimensions, string theory, etc., as I don't know much about it. However, I think I should say that I am not against science and reason. What I am against is the hijacking of science. Evolution would not be taught if it wasn't the only viable option for the atheistic movement of the early 20th century, because it doesn't have a leg to stand on. Until that changes, if it ever does, I will stick to the Bible, since I trust the Author of that a bit more than I do most people. And, yes, before I get accused of believing the sun revolves around the earth, I am willing to re-evaluate my beliefs if truly scientific eveidence to the contrary is offered. I just haven't seen anything of that caliber yet.
6. I don't subscribe to "Theistic Evolution", because I see no reason to go beyond Genesis 1. If you really want to, I guess you can, but I honestly don't see the point.
7. Last but not least, God wrote (inspired) those 2,000-year-old documents. So, while I can certainly consider other ideas about God, it would be illogical (perhaps even unscientific) to accept ideas that run counter to what He already said.

Ok, a couple more points and I'll shut up. I didn't mean to be away from the debate for so long, but work gets in the way of blogsurfing every now and then.

First--Frank, ever the gentleman, has allowed me to rant on his site unhindered, with me being partially responsible for hijacking a perfectly good thread he started. My humblest apologies and sincere gratitude to my host.

Second--Dan up, Baby: I am in awe of your debate skills. You took a perfectly reasonable and debatable argument and made it about how clever my username was or wasn't. Insightful AND mature, congratulations. KWAII!!! ^_^

Third--First Children: I HATE Wing. I'm a 0083 Stardust Memory and 08th MS Team kind of guy. Eva as a single entity was better than Gundam, but a 30-year legacy of the Gundam universe is hard to ignore.

Fourth--Phil Monk: Too many good points to list. You have a much less shrill take on this and I applaud your use of reason. Unfortunately, frustration sometimes causes me to laugh a little too loudly at that which I feel is nonsensical.

Now on to N. Allen: As far as the logical and philosophical inconsistencies in the Bible, let me add a few more--Genesis 6:1-2 which unequivocally explains where giants come from, and this--if god is such a great moral guide, then why did he make provisions for the treatment of slaves (Exodus 21:2-6 and Ephesians 6:5-6)? Wouldn't you have thought god would have said, "Slaves? F-that! That's a terrible idea!"

I can see by your responses it is pointless to debate this further (that's never stopped me before)...nothing is inconsistent or wrong, it's (feigned shock and dismay) NUANCED, right? God COULDN'T have considered what a bunch of goofs we all are to begin with and just spelled it out. That would make too much sense. And god didn't write the Bible, a bunch of bronze-age desert tribesmen started the tomfoolery and it progressed from there. Can you tell me with certainty that Joseph Smith wasn't equally inspired by God? Do you know anything of the character of the "original" tribesmen authors?

Which brings me back around to how god has the manners of a spoiled child...see 1 Samuel 15:3 where he says to not only slay male combatants, but all women, children, and animals. Or Deut. 6:13 which explains what to do if someone even tries to convert you to a different religion (and some of us think the KORAN is unreasonable!). And 2nd Kings ch. 2 where god sends bears out of the mountains to kill children who made fun of a prophet's bald head.

Why does god act this way? Why do the gods always favor the cultural and racial characteristics of a culture?...because he's a mental construct of that culture. He's a personified figment of our collective imaginations, created to console us in our solitude. Christianity and Islam are the worst of the lot, because they're exclusionary religions, unlike Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. which I also consider to be supernatural nonsense, but less dangerous nonsense. Both Christianity and Islam's religious tomes say to kill everybody else at some point.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of the certainty of atheism, because it's impossible. I'm trying to say that if the concept of god were on trial, I would stand unconvinced with more than a little reasonable doubt. God's gotta convince me of his existence if he wants me to worship him, and he must be on vacation this milennium.

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." --Mark Twain

Frank, my concern basically is that if you can randomly begin calling certain parts of Scripture unrealistic or somesuch, where can you stop?

God didn't have to be discreet because everyone on Earth was a believer. They were made perfect. It was that fall from perfection that got everyone in this mess in the first place.

But if evolution is true, when did the fall take place? Was there no sin before mankind appeared? In which developmental stage of man did sin first occur?

Surely before the creation of man evil occured. Animals kill each other all the time. Nasty, brutal creatures, like velociraptors and saber-toothed tigers and ewoks. If sin introduced the concept of death, then sin must have been introduced before the coming of man, the fruit of God's creation. Are we condemned to hell because we were created by God with sin already in us?

It hate to use logic to defend Scriptures, as truly Christianity is a somewhat illogical religion. But that's exactly why I hate even more to pull out certain parts of the Word and 'fix' it as I see fit.

I suppose I should also clarify my position on evolution. It may be accurate. I have no idea--I'm no scientist. I know there are flaws with the theory, but that's why it's a theory. I know it's also backed up to some degree with substantial evidence which I have not the powers to refute.

But why couldn't God have created Earth to follow an evolutionary timescale, even if the Earth is not much more than 10,000 years old in reality? Surely when God created the world he did not begin everything at Step 1. That is, plants in seed form, humans and animals as infants, etc. Everything would die.

Clearly God had already created the illusion of age. Whats to stop him from tacking on a few more million years to that illusion, in order to get the ball rolling and setting the Earth on a logical course of natural progression?

I dunno, just my simple thoughts.

PilotX-

I've had about all the debate I can take. It's fun, but I really do have a life.

That said, I do want to say one more thing. In one of my posts, I said that I am willing to examine evidence that would appear to run contrary to my beliefs, but what I've seen hasn't met the burden of proof. Much of the Bible is nuanced, as are most things in life, but, interestingly enough, none of the "problem passages" you cited have to do with the meat of the Christian message. God made sure that stuff was crystal clear. The rest, fun as it is (and, trust me, I wouldn't have posted if it wasn't fun), isn't particularly important. There are answers for them all, but, that debate's never-ending. So, I'm done for now. I would encourage you, though, to seriously look at it. God might just convince you - it's happened before.

You finished off with a quote, so I will too:
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”" - 1 Corinthians 1:18-19

N. Allen,

I thank you for an engaging and thoughtful debate. I've been having a "crisis of faith" for about the last year, and have been trying to find where I fit into the cosmos. I've read Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and atheistic texts and have found no real conclusive answers. At any rate, the real thing to remember is to be nice to everybody, work together for the common good, and continually re-evaluate what works and what doesn't.

One more quote from Carl Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot--

"Science has brought many of us to that state in which Nathaniel Hawthorne found Hermann Melville--'He can neither believe,' Hawthorne said, 'nor be comfortable in his unbelief.'"

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad."
Aldous Huxley

I guess that quote is a two way street for this discussion.

This is obviously an endless debate and thanks to everyone for the discussion and the chance to participate, and I cannot resist the temptation of a few more comments, if anyone is still interested in reading.

Jimmy Carter,

There are many statements in the bible which are no longer adhered to. Why is this one still enforceable?

In terms of the disciples and true believers, were not those with him to the last women? And a woman is good enough to carry the son of god in her womb, but not good enough to act as a priest? (you may carry me but not my words?).

Evolution is not junk science nor is there any proof that it is junk science.

Or at least none that I aware of. Please direct me to some of the data that you are refering to (not biblical scripture nor the tired beard of theory vs proof wordplay).

Colin,

About women priests, same comment as above. If these are god's words, and should be taken literally, then what about the other statements in the bible which are no longer taken literally or even figuratively? Or those that are only taken figuratively but not literally?

Frank J,

There is plenty of room for faith in the concept of god creating all of us through the process of evolution.

The concept of evolution is distinct from the concept of who started that process.

Steve,

"Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if its cause is not lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own intelligence!"
Immanuel Kant

There is no way to refute what you believe.

N. Allen,

There are all kinds of elements that people consider to be evidence of evolution. You asked for some further information.

Impossibility of Evolution

Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies

But please stop using the "it is theory not fact" routine. The word theory as it used in scientific research does not have same meaning as it does in everyday parlance.

Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity something else you do not suscribe to because it has the theory attached to it?

So people have modified christianity over the years but when they do it in a way that pleases you (or your version of chistianity) it is god's work, but when it displeases you, it is the devil's work.

Do as I say not as I do.

"Evolution does not have a leg to stand on". I would love to understand the basis for that statement. Again, direct me where to look and what to read.

BTW, when has the church (ie, organized religion) ever been right in their initial interpretations of new scientific research?

You keep refering to god as superceding any dissenting comments, but why does the bible rise to the level of proof. Is it not simply a theory until there is the type of evidence that you require of evolution?

There are plenty of indications that the bible is an amalgamation of a myriad of other belief systems that were circulating at the same time as Jesus was walking the earth, not to mention other religions that predated christianity by thousands of years. If you can stomach it, take a look here:

Jesus Never Existed

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein

MSPX,

My issues with religion have been going the other way. As I read more of the majesty of the universe the more it makes me wonder if there some force directing it.

A good read is "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong, if you or anyone else is so inclined.

Colin,

I am glad you hate to use logic because you are not. You are basing your argument on faith.

You cannot disprove evolution because you cannot place the "fall" in your narrow conception of a timeline.

Perhaps the fall took place and god punished us by starting everything over and forcing humankind on a 20 billion year evolving quest to perfection?

Perhaps evil exists because we evolved from those "nasty, brutal creature". Where we come from does not necesarily force us to remain in a purgatory of repeating the same mistakes in perpetuity.

I have faith that humans will evolve, guided by free will, to where all the evils we now face will be non-existant. We are not there yet, and it will take hundreds if not thousands of years, but it will happen.

Colin,

If there is a god, maybe he has created these illusions. In fact scientists have developed computer models that show the something akin to whatyou are describiing is possible:

"Mathematicians have proved that a universal computing machine can create an artificial world that is itself capable of simulating its own world, and so on ad infinitum. In other words, simulations nest inside simulations inside simulations ... Because fake worlds can outnumber real ones without restriction, the "real" multiverse would inevitably spawn a vastly greater number of virtual multiverses."

Reality in the Melting Pot

If god is doing this, it does not preclude us from studying it nor in believing in it nor his desire that we continue to explore the possibilty and believe in it.

N. Allen,

Your point seems to be that humans can decide what they should and should not believe from the bible.

I agree.

The goal of any belief should be, has to be to focus on how we peacefully accept & treat each other, not how we exclude each other.

When Hillel was asked to explain the whole Torah while standing on one leg he said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it."

My interest is to learn by reading & discussing with an open mind.

I can accept the possibility that there is a god. I would even say that I want to be convinced.

I can fathom that there were concepts coalescing around 2,000 years ago that led to christianity.

I cannot blindly accept the bible as it has been handed down to us (cannot wait for the Oxyrhynchus papyri to be completely read).

I can in no way accept the teachings of organized religion.

I have never read anything on creationism that makes any reasonable sense and it can all be easily refuted.

Please, please, please refer me to information on creationism that is irrefutable.

"Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it was a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secret of the universe."
Lex Luthor

Phil Monk

I have not "always" believed in creation. I was a firm believer in evolution and could not see it any other way. I may not know as much about it as you or others, but I do have a basic understanding of it. I have however come to see in "my own" understanding that science is so imperfect. It's like MSPX said "Hey, we don't f-ing know, come back and ask us in 100 years". I think it's more like "Thats's what we thought 100 years ago, now we "know " it to be this way.". As far as Einstein's Theory of relativity goes, I think it is being argued still today, and may be proved wrong yet. I don't know if it will, and niether does science, yet. What I'm saying is science really does not have all the answers either. And the answers it has today will not be the same ones tomorrow. How can I put my confidence in something that changes so much. Science can only predict the outcome of a situation, like how far will the baseball travel if we know the forces involved? It does not explain where the forces came from or how they actually work. (opposites attract, but why? How does gavity accually work?) To some folks creation seems like a silly fairy tale. Then to some, like myself, evolution seems rediculous.

To sum up what "I believe" is to say that I find it more sensible to believe in something that is never changing and has so much truth and wisdom attached to it. I know that to non-believers it seems that the Bible, and God's plan is always changing, but to those of us who believe, it is solid. It is all a matter of perspective, remember,

"Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it was a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secret of the universe."
Lex Luthor

Matt 7:7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."
Jesus

I hope this make some sense to you, it does to me and I know that is what matters. No matter who, or what is responsible for our existance I am thankful that we have our free will and the freedom to think independently.
Me

"The greatest trick the Devil ever did was to convince the world he doesn't exist."
Keyser Soze

steve,

But what about all the things science has proven wrong that were attributed to supernatural causes before? Up until fairly recently, mental illness was thought to be caused by demon posession. Now we know brain injuries and chemical imbalances are to blame. Or what about Salem, Massachusetts during the early 1600s? We now believe that all that witch trial craziness was caused by a mold that grows on grain that causes LSD-like trips, "ergot" I think. How likely is it, then, that people who believe god "talks" to them are really mildly schizophrenic? Science has throughout the ages been responsible for finding reasonable explanations to remarkable and confusing phenomena.

Phil Monk,
SOME force, I guess, may be responsible for the direction of the universe...I would be just as closed-minded as those I rail against if I didn't admit that possibility or be succeptable to persuasion in light of the facts. But I expect God (if he exists) to be one beyond reproach morally, and logical since that is the kind of orderly universe he has created. I don't think any religion has got it right, though.

To believe that God made the universe, the earth, all its animals and people, and then gave favor to one particular race or creed or skin color is an arrogant assumption, which I think we're in agreement on. If there is a god out there worth worshipping, he has not made himself known to me.

I'll pick up "A History of God"...it looks like an interesting read indeed. Might I also recommend Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot". No other book has inspired me like that one has yet.

MSPX

I'm not going to claim that I have "no" confidence in science. I believe that God has given us the ability to reason and make our own determinations. But you should know that things are not always black and white. Yes we see that people have chemical inbalances that may explain their handicaps, but does that explain the horrible things that people do. Take this John Cusie guy from Florida. The one who raped and killed the little Jessica Girl. Wait, this just in: He raped and burried her alive to die slowly an fearfully. That is just plain evil. Child pornography! Do you think that people who engage in that are victims of chemical inbalances, or mixed brain signals? I think they are just $#%&*@$ evil. And if evil exists, who is responsible for it's origin?

You may be right that the witch trials were from the mold. I think it was really men forcing their beliefs on others, which I know is not how to spread Christianity. I think the best way is for Christians to lead by example and then let God take over. MSPX, I don't believe that I nor any other human can convince you of what to believe. All I can do is explain the best I can to you what and why I believe what I believe. God must do the final convincing for you. And it may not be some overwhelming mist that envelopes your body and mind (also soul for those who agree we have one). For me it was more of a conscience decision. And it grew from there. And it is still growing inside me. I also know my relationship with Jesus is proportional to what I put into it.

One thing I notice from your post to Phil Monk is that you want to see a God that thinks like you. You said "But I expect God (if he exists) to be one beyond reproach morally, and logical since that is the kind of orderly universe he has created."

If there truly is a God (weather it is the Christian one or not) how could you expect him to think and act like you want him to?

Also you said "To believe that God made the universe, the earth, all its animals and people, and then gave favor to one particular race or creed or skin color is an arrogant assumption, which I think we're in agreement on. If there is a god out there worth worshipping, he has not made himself known to me."

#1 Yes I think Jesus made it clear that all men, and women are equal in the eyes of God.

#2 I will close with this (Because I'm running out of time And also begining to ramble) Rom 1:18-20"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

It's all a matter of perspective

Steve,

I most certainlay agree that we can independently and with free will make our own decisions. I see it as the hallmark of how western society has evolved.

In regards to your statement that "science is so imperfect". That is such a general statement that it is hard to refute. Can you offer a specific example? One example that demonstrates that it is imperfect to the point that refutes the entire concept of science?

As a n example, Einstein's theories did not disprove Newton's theories, but expanded them and made the concepts more complete.

Einstein "stood on the shoulders of giants" as it were, which is what science does. Research & theories are not considered as valid until others have replicated them.

And you cannot fault a whole line of research because say one small part of an overall vein of research has been shown to be mistaken.

Science if built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a heap of stones is a house.
Jules-Henri Poincaré

Science works by bulding a lattice work of informatin & data, piece by piece. If one of those pieces is shown to be be wrong or to need tweeking, the whole edfice does not come tumbling down.

Here is a more complete explanation:

The Scientific Method

In a hundred years from now, our information will have evolved, but not proven wrong.

Galileo did not know about the big-bang or that the universe is 14 billion years old, but it does not make his observations & methods wrong.

As for Einstein, his theories have not been proven wrong. Pehaps some of the elelements of his theories are in discussion or dispute, but not the overall theories.

In fact his theories have been proven to be correct time and time again and there is no indication that it will ever be shown to be wrong.

Of course science does not have all the answers. It is there to understand what is happening, Why did it it happen is for philosophers & theologans.

In terms of putting your faith in science, look at everything around you that is the result of scientific theory.

The changes that occur will only be based on the foundations of what we already know.

As for gravity, here is an explanation:

How Gravity Works

Religion and belief continuously changes. Protetestanism (how many denomations are there now), Vatican II, Greel Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.

Christian worship is not the same today as it was 2,000 years ago, 1,500 years ago or even 100 years ago.

If you are looking for something that is never changing, look no further than evolution. It is constant and all around you. What changes are the outcomes.

MSPX,

I will get it and read it.

Accpetance of everyone, regardless of creed, sex or orientation is what we should all do regardless if there is a god or not.
Steve,

Evil is everyhwere from individuals to organizations (I heard on the news today that the Catholic church has paid out over $800,000,000 for abuse cases).

But why is does someone have to be responsible.

The causes for evil are multifactorial from genetics, to disease to the environment.

The harshness of society comes from where we came from. It was not that long ago that our ancestors were living hand to mouth being an integral part of the food chain.

"If there truly is a God ... how could you expect him to think and act like you want him to?"

Aren't you doing the same thing?

Take a look at the evidence of the origins of christianity. Take a look here of an image of Dionysus on a cross from the 3rd or 4th century BCE:

Dionysus

Look familiar?

"Taking the first footstep with a good thought, the second with a good word, and the third with a good deed, I entered paradise."
Zoroaster

Thanks for listenting and I cannot recommend it enough, "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong

Keep believing whatever your head and heart tell you to. If it is the true path, it will survive scrutiny.

Phil Monk

I was prepared to let this end with 60 comments, but since you have added #61 with questions I will respond. I hope you will too. At least to know you read it.

Like I said earlier, "I'm not going to claim that I have "no" confidence in science. I believe that God has given us the ability to reason and make our own determinations." I think like many others that science can exist with the belief in a creator. But it comes down to this with me, "The more we learn, the more we find out how much we don't know." By that I mean that as science uncovers more and more, we see that the components get increasingly more complex. 1)Fifty years ago we thought that animal cells were made up of a nucleus and protoplasm. Really kind of a blob. Now as we are unlocking the genetic code through our DNA we see it to be very complex. 2) Also as we go deeper into the area of physics we see that atoms are made up of smaller particles, like nutrinos, quarks and string theory. I would bet that these things I speak of will get even more complex as we dig deeper. I could mention the forces and laws of nature also. Things are very, very complex.

My point is that I believe the more complex things get the less likely they are to have been by chance. I'm suggesting William Dempky's Specified Complexity here. You may or may not give it any credit, but I do because it is scientific. It has to do with probabilities. Math is a tool used in science.

I hope that explains my position on science.

Now, as for as me putting expectations on God.

I don't put any expectations on God other than the ones he said I could. That would be his promises. The biggest expectation I put on God is the forgiveness of my sins through the blood of Christ. Because "He" said I could!

I am not Catholic, or Methodest or anything else but a Christian. The best way for me to explain is for you to visit our website, www.corinthchristian.org, and click "Our Position".

You may still think that we have changed the Christian principles but we believe we are doing our best to maintain the original scriptures.

As for as the other thing, Dionysus, I know there are similarities and contradictions out there. But it's like you said "Keep believing whatever your head and heart tell you to. If it is the true path, it will survive scrutiny." I recomend a book that refutes a lot of so called inconsistancy claimed by critics. It's called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroebel. It should not take you long to read it.

I will look into the links you mentioned. But I will wait until I have more time to study them. Right now I have to get to work.

Phil Monk

I gave a look at the link to how gravity works. It explains that there are forces of magnetism and gravity, and defines the parameters of such. But it does not explain how these forces really work. Yes north and south attract, but why? It even says in it's conclusion that we don't know how atoms work.

These forces and laws are still invisible to us. Rom 1:20"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

How small is too small? What if we search another 100 years and still not find a true particle? So far everything we know of is made up of something smaller. In fact we really can't see the really small stuff. String theory has taken hold of some scientists because the smallest particles (that we can't see) seem to be made of something else. Magnatism and electricity "I think" is what we all are made of at this point.

I don't know if all of my interpretations are perfect and up to date as far as the facts of the latest science goes, but I believe them to be close.

There's still not enough evidence to convince me otherwise. I still chose the creator!

Hi Steve,

Did some research on specified complexity.

Overall, the theories I refer to are based on the work of thousands of seperate individuals observing patterns & then describing what they see. The theories are based on what they see, not what they want to see.

Mr. Dembski's is one person, with work based on a few other peoples works with the purpose of finding patterns that suit their philosophy.

The biggest fallacy of the argument that I can see is its circular nature.

Complex systems cannot be the result of evolution because they are complex, where by complex he seems to mean improbable.

There are tons of sites that easily refute his theories. Here is one that I found:

Specified Complexity

Again, I did some research on Lee Strobel and again there are others who seem to be able to take apart all of his arguments. Here is one such critique:

The Case for Christ

I guess you will accuse of having a closed mind. I will read the book and will be interested to see how it compares to the review above.

If I may be so bold though, it seems to me like you are looking for sources of information for what you want to believe.

You might think that I do also, but when I started reading and researching these issues, I had no idea that there were pagan influences on christianity, at least not to the extent that I have found.

I would also commnent that the evidence you seek in science is not matched by the evidence you seek in your religion.

The level of certitude you seek in the things that go against your beliefs is unattainable. Yet you accept the bible on faith only.

I looked at your churches site and I noticed the symbol of the fish. I found it ironic that this is considered to be one of the biggest borrowings from the the pagan religions (I am not trying to crtcize you or our church, but simply to make a connection to the influences on christianity). Here is one religious site that lists the pagan origins of the symbol but rejects as an idol:

Ichthus

In terms of science and gravity, the gravity site I linked to was the first one I found. The theories are incredibly complex and cannot be criticized by one sites explanation. Here is one that is more complete"

Gravity

These theories do not explain why only how.

And you cannot criticize science by saying what we know today is only going to change tomorrow so today's theories must be wrong.

Uncertainty & evolving concepts do not mean that what we know today is wrong or will be proven wrong.

But I agree with you that the complexity of the universe around us makes one think that their might be a hand at play here. It is one of the points that I have made several times in these posts.

There is however no evidence in evolution that show it.

There was a big bang 14-15 billion years ago where everything we see toady came from. From nothing came everything.

We might live in a world of 11 dimensions and in a universe that might only be one of an unlimited number of universes.

Maybe god snapped his fingers to creat all of this. Some theorize that there are membranes that sometimes touch and causes the big bang.

Perhaps god created the membranes. This is the complexity that needs to be thought about and fathom if it is the work of god.

I would suggest that you are trying to pigeon hole evolutionary theory to fit a very narrow conception of god.

The pagan influences on christianity are too many to refute. There is no one piece of information, like the carving of Dionysus on a cross done 400 years before christ or that Horus was called "the KRST" that is a slam dunk in of itself. But when you put all the pieces together, and there are thousands of similarities, it creates an body of evidence that cannot be easily refuted.

And it is not because that they are only similarities that it is not true.

There is no other historical record of jesus from any other source than the bible. Some say there are a handful, so even if we say that they are true, how can it be that such a man would not have been recorded in other sources.

Paul doesn't even refer to jesus as a person.

Archeological & historical evidence shows that Nazareth only came into existence in the 4th century CE. You might Bethlehem, but then why the conflicting report.

What ahout all the discrepencies between the gospels. Just take a look at the differnces about the resurrection.

But I guess we can go around the circles for hours.

I will read the book you suggested and I encourage you to read "A History of God". The latter started me thinking about the possibilty that there might be a god, which is pretty big turnaround for me.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.

Jesus said: He who seeks, let him not cease seeking until: finds; and when he finds he will be troubled, and if he is troubled, he will be amazed, and he will reign over the All.
Gospel of Thomas

Phil Monk

The bible is not the only history we have of Christ. In Stroebel"s book he refers to Joesephus, Taciyus, Pliny, and others. These were historians from the 1st and early 2nd centuries.

I will get the book you mentioned and read it. I appreciate your views, and I realize that there are good arguments on both sides of this discussion.

What it comes down to, I think, is what you and I both agree on. Perspective. As long as there is refutable evidence from either of the issue, we as free thinking people will still have to fall on faith. The important thing is for all of us is to keep an open mind. Which is not always easy!

Steve,

I hope you enjoy the book. I am reading another book by her called "The Spiral Staircase".

From what I understand, only Josephus is considered a valid reference (by some). The others are disputed and at best are mentions from Christian sources and offer no mention of his deeds. Look at the link above the review of the book.

But even if they are all actual and independent confirmation, is this all there would be of a man who did so much?

Anyways, enjoy the book.

I plan to read Thomas Cahill's "Desire of the Everlasting Hills" soon.

I read "The gift of the Jews" and "How the Irish saved civilizations". Found them to be quite thought provoking. I hope this one is also.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Phil Monk

I'm glad we've had our discussion. I hope you still look back once more to read this.

I ask that you notice that the review of The Case for Christ, was to me a fair look, from a non-believer's viewpoint. However in his conclusion he has not raised any reasonable doubt for me to acquit.

Concluding Thoughts

Case for Christ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.[35]

He is right that a lot of times eyewittness accounts are inacurate. I think this applies to people who happen to be wittnesses to a crime or an event like a earthquake. I wonder how a person would remember the events that took place over 3 years with Jesus. Keeping in mind how many times Jesus talked of the truth. Also these eyewittnesses had years to think about what they saw. They also could ask one another to see if their accounts match.

And I think it is extreemly laughable for him to make the statement about the lack of non-Christian historians confirming the diety of Christ. If a person was to confirm that they believed Christ was God incarnate, wouldn't they be a Christian. The fact that there "are no" non-Christian Historians claiming Christ's diety helps Mr. Stroebel's case a great deal in my view.

You said, "But even if they are all actual and independent confirmation, is this all there would be of a man who did so much?"

Again, this is further assurance to me. As people move closer to Jesus the more likely they are to become Christians. You don't see many non-believers speaking in favor of Christ!
Remember, it was not alway's "healthy" to speak favorably of Jesus in those days. If you did you were probably an early Christian.

Anyhoo, it's like you say, we could have this discussion for hours. I mean to say, it's been going on for thousands of years.

Hey Steve,

I think that your are missing the points he is trying to make.

Mr. Strobel's claim that he is a journalist is put to the test because no one he interviews holds opposing to the premise of the book.

He never interviews those that are criticized in the book by those he does interview.

Strobel brings up red herrings by buttressing points that are not made by those of the opposing points of view.

Any journalism 101 course will tell you that you must corroborate a claim made about an individual by asking said individual for a rebuttal.

Mr Strobel does not do this either because he is not very good at what he does or he is fearful of what they are going to say.

Why does he only ask people of the same opinions on the same subject? Asking them what others say does not count.

Could it be that those he has interviewed could not effectively rebut the arguments made by those who held opposing viewpoints? Well never know because he did not do his job.

All he had to do was call these people up and ask them, but he did not, so we will never know.

Why did he not get their points of view?

Why? Why? Why?

As for the non-believers, they are able to relate to and understand events as well as others. You might not like their point of view, but there is no reason dispute their point of view out of hand.

In terms of deity, the point is not that they would say that he was one, but that they could refer to sources that they deem to be credible; "documents from 33 ad recount the sermon on the mount" or "man from Judea has developed a large following" or "thousands believe in miracle worker".

Then they could argue about what it all meant. The non-christians might never believe he was a deity, but they could sure believe & note that others did at the time.

So the issue is not that they are non-christian. The issue is that there is no substantial evidence one way or the other.

The issue of the historians of the day is not that they would be reluctant to write about the miracles and what not. Of course they would be. The point is that there are no mentions of any note. Someone with that kind of following would have been mentioned.

If you say that is not important, then whether or not there was only one mention or 3-4 cannot be important at all.

It is the height of incredulity to say that there is no meaning to the fact that there is no body of historical evidence about his life (the bible does not count. The point is to corroborate the bible).

If he was famous, there would have been significant mention is his day from other sources. If there is no mention, it means that he was not famous.

And in terms of eyewitnesses, please look at some research on the validity of eyewitness accounts.

The believers would by there very nature inflate the story, not maliciously, not on purpose, but they would. Even if there were miracles.

And your assumption that they would keep themselves in check by talking to each other is totally counterintuitive. It is in these settings where people regale stories to each other. Some would be drawn to oratory.

Some would hear the stories and perhaps forget parts or not believe other parts. Some would include & mix their other traditions into the stories.

Add to this that the myriad of gospels only started to be written down years after the events took place, it would have been impossible for errors not to have crept in.

The bible itself is proof of this. Just look at the different accounts of specific events.

I read somewhere that there are over 300 different myths of a great flood. Almost every element of the major stories in the new testament has similarities to myths and religions predating christianity. Some are identical. No there is no "create a new religion from ancient myths & religions for dummies" that is ever going to be found. There will never be a Rosetta stone that connects all the dots.

But there thousands bits of information that show the connection to older beliefs. You will state so and so can easily refute this.

You will then state that 3 or 4 historical mentions of christ are enough proof.

It can't be both ways. If 3-4 mentions is enough then the plethora on the opposite side need to taken as seriously, if not more simply because of their numbers.

Not all the commonalities can simply be coicindences.

Nor do they necesarily dispute the deity of a son of god.

I will buy the book and I hope you take a look at some of the ones I mentioned. They are quite good, at least they were to me.

Take a look at the sites that list all of the (supposed) antecedents from the older religions. Go through them page by page. Look at them in their totality.

What can the harm be.

All the best to you and those around you.

Phil Monk,

Look, I think I get the point that the review was trying to make. I just don't think that Stroebel was writing the book as a debate per se. I believe he was writing it as a "Case for Christ". His purpose was to rebut "his" list of skepticism. I'm not suggesting that the book cross examines itself. That is for you to do if you choose. The books purpose is to raise reasonable doubt about the reasonable doubt.

By the way I do dispute non-believers, however I don't dispute their ability to reason. I actually enjoy the debate, enjoy their points of view, and I usually find myself more informed afterward. I do find that some folks refuse to even consider the possibility that God exists, these to me are no fun. I do at least realize that God is really a matter of faith, and it is possible (although not probable) that he is not real.

You said, "And your assumption that they would keep themselves in check by talking to each other is totally counterintuitive. It is in these settings where people regale stories to each other. "

It is also in these settings that students, teachers, and scientists find the truth. I don't see the early church as a bunch of cavemen around the campfire, like "Beyond Thunderdome"! I see it as a dedicated group of men, some educated, some not, but mostly all level headed and sane, with one purpose, to do as Christ commanded them. Spead the "Good news", that Jesus is The Truth and The Light of the world.

Matthew and John, if they are indeed the authors as believed, had writing skills. They may have had notes from the years when Christ was physically with them. Also Paul and Luke were believed to be educated. Luke is said to have been a Physician.

I realize that eyewittnesses can be unrelieable, but some of these eyewittnesses were more than bystanders. As I said they were students of Jesus, not mere aquaintences. Matthew, John, Peter,, and others were disciples (one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: as a : one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ's followers according to the Gospel accounts b : a convinced adherent of a school or individual), and traveled with Jesus for 3 years.

If the 4 Gospels were the exact same content, with different words, would they be any more believable? No! They would only be accused of plagarism. They are accounts written by 4 different people, yes there may be what appear to be contradictions, but remember, "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it was a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secret of the universe." Contradictions, or misunderstandings? We were not there and can not be sure. The book addresses this quite well.

You said,"If he was famous, there would have been significant mention is his day from other sources. If there is no mention, it means that he was not famous."

Jesus Famous! I'm not sure I would agree 100%. Not at the time. He is however famous now! He had a brief time in early history where he gained popularity. Although out of the three years of his ministry I really am not sure how large, and how long the popularity was.

True there are not a lot of writings about Jesus other than The New Testament. But remember the "Good News" had also been suppressed in those days. It was not very popular to be a Christian. However here is one account:

The following passage is found in the extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus (Ambrosianus in the 11th century, Vaticanus in the 14th century, and Marcianus in the 15th century). This passage is quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century: in the Evangelical Demonstration 3.5, in the Ecclesiastical History 1.11, and in the Theophany.

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Yes this is disputed as to whether or not it is authentic, but it does exist. I found it along with commentaries at www.earlychristianwritings.com. Click, "93 Flavius Josephus", then "The Testimonium Flavianum".

I know that this may not make sense to you, but I say that if God (The Great I Am) exists, then so does the Devil. If both of these exist then there is a spiritual war being fought. If these thing are true then I have to believe that Satan is doing "all he can" to decieve.

Again
"The greatest trick the Devil ever did was to convince the world he doesn't exist."
Keyser Soze