If He did, then why is it so hard to decipher, and so easy to interpret in so many different ways that conflict with each other? The English poet Percy Blythe Shelley once wrote: "If God has spoken, then why is the world not convinced?" Think about it. If you believe the Bible was "written" by God, then you believe the only reason you exist on this Earth is to be a part of your God's big lab experiment: "If I place these creatures in this environment, will they still believe in Me? If they don't I'm going to be PISSED, man . . ." Why would an omnipotent, all-powerful Being need to conduct an experiment to test the very souls He Himself created? It makes no sense, and is it so much to ask that an organized religion be at least a tiny bit grounded in logic? I don't think so.

If you claim to know the one true God, then the burden of proof is on you, my friends, and none of you can prove a thing. The Bible is full of contradictions, inaccuracies, and editorial blunders. No Christian organization in the last 2000 years has ever been able to produce a single hard piece of evidence or any record from an objective witness to any miracle the Bible claims to have happened. Why would God put His name on a mess like that? He might as well have "written" the Koran or the Book of Mormon . . . oh wait, that's right, millions of people besides you and me think He did!

But Ken, you say, what's you're problem, dude? What's the harm in having a world full of Christians?

To that question I like to quote Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." I would suggest our current born-again Christian President is a perfect example of that.


PS: I do have one serious question that may wind up being my gift to you: If the Bible is really the word of God, why are chapters 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 word-for-word exactly the same? I'm not just talking about one verse, or one paragraph, I'm talking about two entire chapters being exact copies of each other! If God put this chapter in there twice it must be the most important passage in the whole thing, right? If so, then why has no one made a big deal about this over the centuries? No Christian has ever been able to give me a clear answer to this.

i'm no scholar, but the site below has some helpful information that may answer your questions:)

www.biblequery.org

Toni07,

I went to biblequery.org and looked up the 2 Kings 19 and Isaah 37 question. As usual, no satisfactory answers are provided:

"Q: In 2 Ki 19, why is this almost identical with Isa 37?
A: Ignoring verse numbers, the two are identical except that 2 Kings 19:35 says "that night the angel" while Isaiah 27:36 says "then the angel".
These passages relate the prayer of Hezekiah and the Lord sending an angel to destroy the Assyrian army (probably through the agency of a plague of rats). If the writer of 2 Kings simply copied wrote exactly what Isaiah related, what would be wrong with that?
These verses being the same shows one was copied from the other. For whatever reason this passage was put in two places, I am glad it was. This is a good "validation test" to see how little the passages have changes over the years."

I love how Christians turn into politicians when faced with the really tough questions. It's the old Bill Clinton "that depends on what the definition of "is" is" tactic. It never ceases to amaze me how many times a religious person will beat around a bush until they come up with something - anything - I mean ANY kind of way around a difficult question, even a simple one, that will allow them to keep convincing themselves their religion is the one and only truth.

The way I see it, this writer from Biblequery is doing some serious spin here; turning something that could discredit his religion into, "No, this is actually a good thing!" - a classic move politicians and priests have used for centuries. I don't see how these two passages being the same is any kind of "validation test". There's nothing wrong if one writer copied the other, but the whole point is that this entire chapter is in the Bible TWICE. IF the Bible was written by God there must be a really good reason for that, right? But the only explanation offered by this writer is that God did it "for whatever reason" - and this from a website that claims to have answers to all the contradictions and inconsistancies in the Bible, and in fact exists only to supposedly shoot down all the questions guys like me have about it. One of the problems with websites like this is they are preaching to the choir, so to speak. When you really look at all their digital dogma with an open mind it doesn't hold up to critical or logical thinking. I believe this is because all organized religions - not just Christianity - are based on fabrications but cultivate followers desperate to believe.

I have been reading this post for a while now and have been trying to measure my reply. Here is my attempt.

“I went to biblequery.org and looked up the 2 Kings 19 and Isaah 37 question. As usual, no satisfactory answers are provided:”

Well, satisfactory is a bit in the eye of the beholder. The problem is that you are criticizing a single website that puts itself out as an expert. That’s the problem with the internet, who knows who this website belongs to. Have you ever asked a professor of Old Testament at a seminary about this, or do you just ask various laymen? That would be akin to me asking my mother about the mating rituals of elephants and if she came with something that I did not agree with saying, “well, that is just not satisfactory, there must be no good answer.”

”"Q: In 2 Ki 19, why is this almost identical with Isa 37?
A: Ignoring verse numbers, the two are identical except that 2 Kings 19:35 says "that night the angel" while Isaiah 27:36 says "then the angel".
These passages relate the prayer of Hezekiah and the Lord sending an angel to destroy the Assyrian army (probably through the agency of a plague of rats). If the writer of 2 Kings simply copied wrote exactly what Isaiah related, what would be wrong with that?
These verses being the same shows one was copied from the other. For whatever reason this passage was put in two places, I am glad it was. This is a good "validation test" to see how little the passages have changes over the years."”

I love how Christians turn into politicians when faced with the really tough questions. It's the old Bill Clinton "that depends on what the definition of "is" is" tactic. It never ceases to amaze me how many times a religious person will beat around a bush until they come up with something - anything - I mean ANY kind of way around a difficult question, even a simple one, that will allow them to keep convincing themselves their religion is the one and only truth.”

I agree, the “validation test” answer is a bit of a sidestep, but would you have accepted a general “I don’t know”? Some things are beyond people’s understanding. Does that invalidate it? Or just make it part of the overall mystery?

The way I see it, this writer from Biblequery is doing some serious spin here; turning something that could discredit his religion into, "No, this is actually a good thing!" - a classic move politicians and priests have used for centuries. I don't see how these two passages being the same is any kind of "validation test". There's nothing wrong if one writer copied the other, but the whole point is that this entire chapter is in the Bible TWICE. IF the Bible was written by God there must be a really good reason for that, right? But the only explanation offered by this writer is that God did it "for whatever reason" - and this from a website that claims to have answers to all the contradictions and inconsistancies in the Bible, and in fact exists only to supposedly shoot down all the questions guys like me have about it. One of the problems with websites like this is they are preaching to the choir, so to speak. When you really look at all their digital dogma with an open mind it doesn't hold up to critical or logical thinking. I believe this is because all organized religions - not just Christianity - are based on fabrications but cultivate followers desperate to believe.

What you are speaking of in general is a matter of faith. Your problem is that you don’t share the same faith so when you ask others about their faith, you are put off by their “unsatisfactory” answers. That’s fine, but the reverse is hopefully true. I believe a lot of what my science teachers have taught me. But if you asked me a pointed question about an aspect of science that I could not give a thoughtful answer, does that make all of science questionable? No. When you say “I believe” you are invoking a type of “faith” that is made up of your observations, filtered through your life experiences, and formulated into an opinion that is formed and spoken in a manner that is indicative of your education. Welcome to the rest of the world. Its just that nobody is willing to chalk up their beliefs as a question of faith like religious people are. Economists have faith in a certain model of economics, Smithian, Keynesian, etc… Scientists have a faith in atomic theory. Never seen an atom, but they are pretty sure how they work so they believe. Astronomers have faith in certain hypothesis about the Universe, but they haven’t seen it, they believe. That my friend, is faith.

Next time, ask an expert. Then, formulate your opinion.

Call Danny Carroll at Denver Seminary (303)762-6905. I don’t know him, nor do I have an affiliation with Denver Seminary. He was just the first professor of Old Testament that I found.

Let us know what you find out.

Dave

Dave,

I thank you for your reply, despite the fact you get a bit snide at the end of it. What makes you think I haven't asked scholars and experts about my questions of faith? I was raised a Christian and it took a lifetime of study and thought for me to reach the point I'm at today. I went to the Biblequery site because a previous poster suggested I do.

As to some of your points: Atoms have not only been seen but photographed, not only photographed but manipulated by man to do things like collide into each other, sort themselves out and split apart. Astronomers can see so far into the universe now that the majority of their past hypothoses can be either proven or disproven. Economists can watch in real time if their theories pan out. And yes, archeologists are unearthing more and more proof every day that things like dinosaurs and "cave men" existed. Organized religions? Well, they must simply rely on their manufacturing of faith for their claims to continue bieng recycled generation after generation. That's probably okay for a lot of people. You're right, I don't share faith with the people I engage in these debates with. But isn't it the Christian duty to instill that faith in the unbelievers of the world? By participating in forums like this I'm inviting you to convince me the Bible's true because I'd be very happy if it were, and I really mean that. I'm just not going to be an easy sell, is all.

Snideness on my part can only be explained by the limitations of communicating in the cyberworld. Purely unintentional, I assure you.

"What makes you think I haven't asked scholars and experts about my questions of faith?"

I neither think nor don't think that you have asked scholars or experts. It was merely a question. In your original post, you could have said something to the effect of "I have asked this scholar at this seminary this question and this is the answer he gave. This is an unsatisfactory answer to me..." You pointed out that "Christians" turn into "politicians" when asked tough questions. The question was to help clarify if you have asked specific Christians, or the man-on-the-street Christian.

"I was raised a Christian and it took a lifetime of study and thought for me to reach the point I'm at today."

May I ask how old you are? I don't mean this as a slight in any way, but rather, I have been a Christian nearly all of my life. My learning continues today after my 38 years. I forsee it continuing until the day I die.

As to some of my other points, you may have me with the photographed atoms, however, it was my understanding that the photographs that have been taken were computer enhancements of certain behaviors. Without the computer enhancement, they could not be seen. If I am wrong, I certainly hope that I am big enough to admit it.

But the point remains, at least for me. Certain aspects of atomic theory can never be proven, despite our observations. Same with astronomy. At some point, a scientist has to say, "this is what we believe happens..." That is its own faith.

"You're right, I don't share faith with the people I engage in these debates with. But isn't it the Christian duty to instill that faith in the unbelievers of the world? By participating in forums like this I'm inviting you to convince me the Bible's true because I'd be very happy if it were, and I really mean that. I'm just not going to be an easy sell, is all."

No, it is not my duty to instill faith. It is my duty to speak the message. The Holy Spirit will take care of your conviction. Your original premise however was about why God would have in his Word two identical chapters. Well, does this disprove the exsistence of God? That God does something that we do not understand it must be a mistake. Since God is supposed to be perfect, it must be the mistake of man, and man must be manufacturing all of this.

What about the content, or message of the Bible? Other than the various faux paus, and seeming contradictions, what about the overall message? I have to say, that people who want to disprove the Bible tend to point these things out, but never really get into the actual message of the Bible. From a theological perspective, what are your problems with Christianity?

Dave

Wow - you and I are the same age. My twenty-year HS reunion is this weekend - when's yours? Crazy how time flies, isn't it?

I can see your point about science and how, sometimes, it might come down to an educated guess. It is a good point. I don't know if I would call that "faith", though. Science is totally grounded in what can be proven by studying the parts and pieces of the real world. Religion and faith mostly deal with the fantastical. For instance it's a MUCH bigger leap to convince yourself that an angel brought Joseph Smith several golden tablets that he could ony read when he put on magic spectacles and then said angel took the tablets back to heaven and nobody else ever saw them, than to believe in the properties of molecules and atoms. (I use the Jospeh Smith example but Christians of all denominations must convince themselves that any number of fantastic stories are Truth in order for their faith to live.)

The two identical chapters don't disprove the existence of God, no - but they do severly damage the probablility of the Christian god, especially when combined with all the other contradictions, antiquated dogma and downright mistakes in the Bible - because if the Bible wasn't written by God, then Christianity crumbles. Why would God write a faulty book? The answer is most likely that he didn't. Most likely, a bunch of men that passed away long ago did. Most likely, those men had ulterior motives. Power, money, respect - the same motives that drive men to write books and start religions today.

And yes, another motive may have been to teach good morals. Aesop had the same motive when he wrote his fables, and they contain many of the same valuable and good lessons that are contained in the Bible. I'd like to say the general message of the Bible is a good one. The problem is, it's so easily interpreted in so many different ways that it's hard to say there is an "overall message". Why would God write a book that's so easy to interpret in so many wildly different ways? Unless, like one of the other posters on this board claims, God's simply bored and screwing around with us for fun. It that's so, then I say screw Him.

I don't dismiss the possibility that there is a God. I just think it's veeeery unlikely any of the world's organized religions know as much about Him as they think they do.

and I'm not real pleased to be going. Mostly because I cannot/don't want to affirm that it has been 20 years!

"I can see your point about science and how, sometimes, it might come down to an educated guess. It is a good point. I don't know if I would call that "faith", though. Science is totally grounded in what can be proven by studying the parts and pieces of the real world."

Using the word faith is me pointing out semantic issues in this type of arguement. I can see where a scientist would bristle at the use of "faith" but I can see where it could be a synonym for "educated guess." Further, science is totally grounded in theories based upon testing hypotheses. Proofs are hard to come by. I'm not discounting science or scientists. In fact, I am a great believer in a lot of scientific theory, but there are two sides to every coin.

"The two identical chapters don't disprove the existence of God, no - but they do severly damage the probablility of the Christian god, especially when combined with all the other contradictions, antiquated dogma and downright mistakes in the Bible - because if the Bible wasn't written by God, then Christianity crumbles..."

You are absolutely right. If God did not write the Bible, the Christianity not only crumbles, it is a colossal waste of time. It was around 1987 when I began to seriously question the faith of my childhood. Someone had pointed out the contradictions in the Bible and said "see, how can this be true?" I fell away from the church, cursed my parents for dragging me to church every Sunday, and began to examine just how much time that I wasted. But there was still this flicker. I took some questions to our new pastor at our church. He was a decent man, not prone to the ultra conservative ramblings centered in politics that other pastors had done before. I respected him as a person. I asked him about things like "what mountain did Satan take Jesus to to see the kingdoms of the world..." or "why does one Gospel say that Mary and the other Mary were at the tomb, when another says that only Mary Magdalene was there? He told me to look further, find the entire context first. See if that answered my question. Then explained to me the writing style of ancient writing. Things like why geneaologies are important, and how time is marked in the Bible. He had an answer for everyone of my questions, but was still able to be humble enough to say that he struggles with these issues himself at times but is amazed at how his personal education just keeps increasing.

Part of it for him, and now for me, is to understand that the entire Bible is the story of Jesus. All things lead to Jesus. If one can put aside for a moment that God inspired men to write the Bible, thus showing their personality and writing style, and focuses on the message of the Bible, it becomes very hard to find fault. The message is quite clear and unchanging. That is where I base my faith.

Dave

Nice chatting with you.

Hello Ken,

I am very new to this web-site and a new member. I just happended to come across this forum by accident. I was doing a google search to look at scenic photos of Colorado and one interesting step led to another. The rest is history. I was just wanting to give my mind a rest and look at some scenic pictures. Then the religion forum got my attention and then your messege got my attention.

My name is Mike and I live in Georgia. It seemed real easy to register here and so, here I am.

I really can't get into all the nuts and bolts right now to your thread, Ken. I was thinking about letting it go and then saw the date on your msg and noticed it wasn't that old. But let me just say this, as a Christian it seems to be that you have begun with a wrong presupposition. Everyone that is living on this earth right now comes into it as a fallen and imperfect. We enter in not in its perfect state as I believe it was when it began. Secondly, you may be correct in your statement about witnesses. I must agree with you that there are no witnessiing survivors of those who saw the miracles of God; or even Jesus' miracles. There are not even human witnesses of creation. But equally, there are not witnesses of evolution either putting them both on an even scientific plane. But what we do have is cirmumstantial evidence. The choices are really narrowed down to two: Darwinian evolutionism or Christianity. There is way too much evidence for Christianity over Darwin by far; at least from my viewpoint.

AS far as your statement about those who believe that God wrote the Bible and those who believe they have the truth I will say(comment you made quoting Voltaire) I will say this. Those nations that built their governments on atheistic philosophies in the 20th centuries have some blood on their hands(to put it very tenderly).

Just some food for thought.

Cordially,

Mike
metro-Atlanta, Georgia

Thank you for posting.

-Steve in Buena Vista, Colorado

Thanks Steve,

It can really be a stimulating discussion. I discovered the web-site by just wanting to look at some Colorado pictures. I am from Georgia and just wanted to get away. You all be good and take care.

Cordially,

Mike Karoules (Karu)

Hi Mike,

Wow. I haven't checked in on this thread in a while but was happy to see you got it kick-started again. Thanks for that.

You say some interesting things in your message here. I guess your main point, at the end, is that secular nations historically have been just as bad as those that were started and controlled by a religious body. Well, I just can't believe that - especially if you include current nations like Iran, Sudan etc. that are controlled by groups of fanatics. Now, if we're only including historically Christian nations vs. secular nations . . . I don't know. I think the Christian nations most likely would still get the medal for the most blood on their hands. But I get your point - atheists aren't perfect. I definitely recognize that. For sure I'm not perfect. Nothing, in fact, is perfect - because there is no god.

Which leads to another one of your main points, which is that we're all "fallen and imperfect" according to Christian dogma. Would you agree then that, since all of mankind is imperfect, then the men who wrote the Bible must have been imperfect also and therefore there are flaws in the Bible? Because, Mike, the Bible is definitely flawed. And IF the Bible is flawed then how could it have been divinely dictated? In that respect, what about the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Jehovah's Witness's "New World Translation" of the Bible? All of these books make equal claims to divinity and have equally passionate followers that believe those claims. They can't all have been "written" by god. Most likely none of them were.

In fact, there are many passages and stories in the Bible that are blatant plagarizations of earlier religions, including the virgin birth story, the story of a big flood, and even the story of a child of a deity being sent to earth and dying. If nearly identical stories were being told for centuries before Christ was born, doesn't it seem suspicious that the authors of the Bible incorporated them into it? In other words, Christianity itself is in large part recycled from many of the religions that came before it. I mean, JK Rowling borrows heavily from past works of fiction like the Lord of the Rings, Peter Pan etc. and that doesn't make the Harry Potter books any less wonderful to read - but they sure ain't divinely inspired. They're just inspired. I think the same applies to the Bible.


Take Care,

Ken Scar

In 2 Tim. 3:16, we find the most explicit self-referencing passage in the Bible. The claim is this: "All Scripture is God-breathed." I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that God actually wrote, dictated, and edited the Bible.

Perhaps, your case against Christianity places to much weight on the Bible in the first place. Christians are unified in a specific, concrete, historical and unique event as it is recorded in the Bible--but not so much the "Bible" itself. In fact, you will find different canons across demoninations and varying attitudes about what it means to be "God-breathed."

Thanks for your post. Thoughtful as always!

Dave

nm

WCS, it's pretty simple: without the Bible there is no Christianity. I don't think God actually took a quill pen and wrote the Bible and I have a feeling most Christians don't think that either. However, the Bible is Christianity's ONLY link to the past. If God did not somehow inspire every word in it you have nothing else to fall back on. The "specific, concrete, historical and unique event" you speak of (Jesus Christ rising from death, I'm assuming?) is ONLY spoken of in the Bible and in no other historic document of that period or, in fact, any credible document of any period before or since. The Bible is all you have, unfortunately for you. So how could I possibly place too much weight on it?

I'm glad that you don't think that God actually wrote the Bible. I thought that I should mention a few things that might help you as you wrestle with this issue:

The claim that the Bible is the Christians only link to the past is false. This statement neglects the role of tradition. You should know that even before the Canon was even collected, Christianity was active and spreading rapidly throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Southern Europe. This was owing to word-of-mouth, the testimony of those who witnessed the events of the 1st Century Palestine and subsequent believers. What we call the New Testament was born from this historical tradition. Christians are participating in a traditon of belief that came onto the scene well before the Canon itself.

In fact, there is an on going coversation within Christianity concerning the locus of authority. Some, i.e. Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions, root belief and practice within the tradition of the Church rather than the Bible by itself--others do not (although even those in the latter camp cannot deny that they believe and practice within some kind of cultural and interpretive tradition). There are many different views on the "weight" of the Bible. Whatever the case, regardless of what side of the conversation the Christian places herself, she is still united with the other in the belief in the unique historical event that you mention in your post.

And regarding this unique historical event, you should know that your claim that it is "ONLY spoken of in the Bible and in no other historic document of that period or, in fact, any credible document of any period before or since" is false, as well.

We have an account of the events in work of Josephus (37-100 C.E.), a Jewish Historian. He was a militant Pharisee, who, after the Jewish war against Rome, become fiercely loyal to the Empire, his former enemy. As such, he was not a Christian, but, as a historian, he was of course deeply interested in the sociological and religious movements of his day.

In a work that comes to us under the title of Antiquities, Josephus reports on the martyrdom of James, "the brother of Jesus--the one called Christ" (20.9.1) and describes Jesus in the following way:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people such people accept as truth gladly. He won over many Jews an many of the Greeks. He was the 'Messiah.' When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up there affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called, after him, has still to this day not disappeared (18.3.3)."

It should be noted that Josephus gives a report about a tradition, or, movement of his day--he was not talking about anything written down it what we now call the "Bible." Again the Bible is the product of a tradition, a tradition that was alive and well before the Canon, a tradition that we still participate in today.

It's my belief, my guess, that your claim that "without the Bible there is not Christianity" is written too hastily. It's clear that there would not be Christianity as we know of it today, for the Bible is a dominant factor in the shaping of the tradition that we experience at the moment--but it's certainly not the only factor.

As a matter of speculation, it is conceivable, it is possible, that there would still be a some form Christianity existing today even if the "Bible" never made it to the presses. It is possible that Christianity could have survived by the shear "weight" of tradition alone.

I hope this helps. Be well and enjoy the day.

Well said, WCS. You're right, there might be some form (who knows what) of Christianity today if the Bible had never been assembled. Indeed, we all know there are many thriving religions today that have been carried down through the generations by tradition only. None of them have any credibility, either.

One problem I have with the whole story of Jesus rising from the dead is that there has never been found any independent witness testimonial (i.e. outside of the Bible) to any of the "miracles" that happened. You just can't say it's a "historical" event when there's no real proof that it ever happened. The work you quote of Josephus is a good example. It is second-hand at best, and in no way is it contemporaneous. In fact, there is NO contemporaneous documentation of Jesus, as even the very earliest parts of the NT were written over 60 years - a lifetime - after Jesus' death.

It reminds me of the "telephone" game kids play at summer camp, where a phrase is whispered into one kids ear and he turns and whispers it into the next kids ear and so on, and when the last kid says out loud what's been whispered in his ear it doesn't even resemble the original phrase. In other words, tradition and "word-of-mouth" is not a good way to pass along a Truth. Not at all. So, as far as the Truth of Christianity is concerned, that brings us right back to the Bible and (among many other things) that pesky 60+ - year gap . . . doesn't it?

You have to argue for the assertion that the designation of "religion" necessarily implies the absence of credibility. This a robust and far reaching claim. You can't simply assert it as true. It's not self-evident or anything like that.

Take a look at the dates of Josephus' life. Look at the scholarship regarding ancient history, and find that, relatively speaking, Josephus is about as contemporaneous to the life of Christ as it gets. Documents so close to the events reported therein are prized among historians of ancient history (60 years is considered to be a flash in the pan in regard to ancient documentation). Moreover, some scholars argue quite well that Josephus himself drawing from earlier documented reports, along with the cultural movement surrounding him. Also, do some research on oral tradition as it was practiced in ancient times. Great care was taken here to ensure preservation of what came before, and historians are impressed with the relative stablity and accuracy of the ancient oral tradition overall.

In regard to your doubts about the resurrection, I point to the tradition itself. The force of this tradition comes to light in consideration of the fact that, for the first 200 or so years after the life of Christ, it was not very prudent to become a Christian, unless you don't mind being thrown in jail or eaten by Rome's lions. This, of course, is not decisive evidence for the resurrection, but it at least shows that something happened to ignite such a cultural upheaval and mass commitment, and it shows that is incumbent on you to provide plausible explanation for the way in which this tradition could rocket through the course of human history under such adversity and impediment. Feel free to speculate.

Have you not learned anything from your parents, teachers, or elders "word-of-mouth" that was true? I don't think you realize how much of what you think you know was learned in this way.

"....you believe the only reason you exist on this Earth is to be a part of your God's big lab experiment: 'If I place these creatures in this environment, will they still believe in Me? If they don't I'm going to be PISSED, man . . .' Why would an omnipotent, all-powerful Being need to conduct an experiment to test the very souls He Himself created?"

The spirit of fairness compels me to note that the above is a bit of a strawman. I know of no Christian theological system that makes such a claim about the motives and intent of God.

If that's not what just about every Christian denomination claims about the motives of God then what do they claim? And how did I misinterpret a lifetime of Christian dogma bombarding me from every direction and every other person I've known? No, when it comes right down to it, Christians believe God is conducting some kind of experiment with us - just because He can.

You write: "No, when it comes right down to it, Christians believe God is conducting some kind of experiment with us - just because He can."

Well, I'm a Christian, and I don't think that God is conducting a "lab experiment." Let that be a counterexample to your claim. I urge you to consider the possibility that you are making a hasty generalization.

Explore this for yourself. It's clear to me that you have not read the Bible. There are host of themes that your summary of the doctrine of liberation and salvation neglects. Some big ones, among others, are grace and sanctification. You place a big emphasis on belief, and this certainly plays a role; but belief is simply some a kind recognition (or, perhaps, illusion as you would have it) that God is, that God is there, and that one stands in some form of relation to God. In the tradition and records of Jesus Christ, Christians find insight into the nature of this relation--but as you explore the Bible for the first time, note how much more follows from this.
It's not an experiment.

Or, perhaps, you might want to show me the reasons why I should believe with you that Christianity is based on the premise that "God is conducting some kind of experiment with us." As it stands, you've simply made an assertion, or at least, I've been unable to locate your premises.

Hey guys,

It has just been a few days and I have not checked this forum for awhile but it appears quite a few of my responses were "hijacked" (LOL). I am just saying that wcs and I are pretty much on the same wavelength. My original intent though has to do with circumstantial evidence. This is all we have to go by especially when we deal with origins. There were no eye witnesses for either evolution nor creation/design which puts them both on equal footing for starters from a science point of veiw.

Ken, you admitted that in this world as we know it that nothing is perfect. Do you still stand by this?? If so, we are both agreed that nothing is perfect. If there is no god by what standard are you making this claim?? What is the "perfect state" of existence then and by what standard can we judge that claim?? Why would somebody be wrong then in saying that things today are just about as "good as it gets. Never will be better.?" Would you mock someone who would make such a claim and , if so, why?

As far as your point that many accounts or narratives in the Bible are plagarized, well, I will need some sound documentation for this because as far as I know it-it usually works the other way around. I don't know of one single Bible account(whether flood, virgin birth) that was copied from some other story or legend. Can you cite sources for me and give me proof??

Well, to not make this post too long I will stop here. Bye and take care. . .

Cordially,

Mike K.

Oi, you guys are challenging me with a lot of questions that it's going to take me a long time and a lot of typing to answer. I'm not sure how much time I can devote to this discussion right now, but I'll try to reply here to a few of the bigger points you made:

Mike K,

As far as evolution, it's not all circumstantial evidence. There is proof of evolution right in front of us every day. For instance, people, in general, are taller today than they were 100 years ago. Why? Because we are still evolving. But if we do just go from circumstantial evidence, well, the evididence supporting evolution is overwhelming, the evidence supporting a Christian God is not.

You ask for examples of Bible accounts that are plagarized. Well, first let's take the flood. The story of a great flood brought on by a god goes back thousands of years before Christianity. Mesopotamian, Sumarian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman versions of this story all include: A god that becomes displeased with mankind, therefore decides to destroy mankind with a flood - execpt one man and his wife - and warns that man that the flood is coming and to build a boat and put himself, his wife and some animals aboard. The Epic of Gilgamesh is probably the best source for you to read. You'll see how the early founders of Christianity clearly incorporated it into the Bible - because it's an excellent morality tale, after all.

Let's also take the story of Jesus Christ. There is a virtual laundry list of "saviors" from different religions - Chrishna, Budha, Odin, Adonis, etc., etc., - that not only have stories that are shockingly similar to Christ's (virgin birth, sons of a god, incarnated as Christs, Saviors, Messiahs, or Mediators etc., etc.,) but some of them look so much like the traditional image we know of Jesus that it would be hard to tell them apart. Mind you - these are religions that date a thousand if not thousands of years before Jesus Christ. A great example is Virishna, the heathen Savior from the East who dates back as far as 1200 B.C. Here are a few suspicious parallels between Him and Christ:

Immaculately concieved and born of a spotless virgin "who had never known a man"
The agent in the conception was a spirit or ghost
was threatened with death in early infancy by a ruling tyrant (Cansa)
His parents, consequently, had to flee with him to Gokul for safety
All young male children under the age of two were ordered slain by Cansa
Angels and shepherds attended his birth
His birth occured in ordinance with previous prophesy
he was saluted and worshiped as "the Savior of men"
he led a life of humility and practiced moral usefulness
he wrought various astounding miracles, such as healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind etc.
he was put to death on a cross between two theives
after which he descended to hell, rose from the dead, and ascended back to heaven "in the sight of all men"

There is also the history of the ancient Chinese God, known as Beddou (born 1027 B.C.), the Mexican God Quexalcote (about 300 B.C.) and many others - all with very, very similar stories to that of Jesus Christ. Hmmm. For further reading I'll point you to a great essay by Kersey Graves titled "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors". You can find it online.

So now I ask you: How are you going to sustain the declaration that Jesus Christ was the only son and sent of God, in view of these historic facts? Where are the superior crededentials of your claim? How will you prove the miraculous portions of your story real and the others false - especially in leiu of the fact that these other stories predate yours?

Hi, i don't know the answers to your questions, but there is a good author Lee Strobel, he has a series of books that may be helpful to you, I have read one of them, its The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus, then he has others like The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator. I wish I remembered all I read, but I don't. Keep questioning, you will find answers:)

You should also consult C.S. Lewis on this. He points out that the idea of the self-sacrificing God is commmon in mythology various histories. The idea cleary plays on the collective conscious (this is not Lewis' term). In the life of Christ, as it it has experienced through tradition and recorded in the Bible, the idea, the myth, the legend, becomes concrete and enters into the actual history of human life. Lewis of course will not convince you since your theory seems rather sedimented in your mind, but it is worth considering for academic purposes.

You are right to point out that there have been numerous claims of messiahship throughout human history, many predating the life of Christ. That there are such claims is no secret to the Bible or the tradition that accompanies it.

I read the Chronicles of Narnia when I was in 8th grade, and then in 9th I read the "A Swiftly Tilting Planet" trilogy - GREAT books and he was a great mind. I need to read more of his Christian-themed writings as many thinking Christians use his stuff in their arguments, and understandably so.

You say that "the idea of the self-sacrificing God is common in mythology (in) various histories. The idea plays on the collective conscious . . . the idea, the myth, the legend, becomes concrete and enters into the actual history of human life". So are you saying that the story of Christ has become "truth" simply because it has become, over the centuries, so ingrained in our culture, saturated into our society, wrapped into our world?

Can a story repeated relentlessly for a long enough time become true?

"Can a story repeated relentlessly for a long enough time become true?"

As Lewis understands it, it became true in the body and life of Jesus Christ, but not simply because it was "repeated endlessly"; rather, something that was "repeated endlessly" became actually fulfilled. Here, in the life of Christ, myth and history intersect, the mythological becomes historical.

Or, as Lewis himself puts it, "Myth became Fact." His view on this matter is hinted at in an extended footnote in Miracles (p. 218), and it appears in more developed form in the essay "Is Theology Poetry?" (in The Weight of Glory, pp. 98-100).

C.S. Lewis didn't write the Swiftly Tilting Planet Trilogy. Madeline L'Engle did. That aside, C.S. Lewis did write the Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity. Both of which are worth a read.

FYI - C.S. Lewis was an atheist until 1929.

J.R.R. Tolkein was a devout Catholic and these themes are seen in the Lord of the Rings stories.

I meant the "Out of the Silent Planet" trilogy.

I think the Ken makes a good point here, Mike. The claim that evolution and "creation" are on the same footing scientifically because no one was there to see any of this stretches things a bit. Science makes its inferences on what can be verified empirically at the moment, and the claim of evolutionists is that they have seen a lot that suggests evolution.

At any rate, I have a hard time understanding why Christians are so threatened by evolution itself. It doesn't necessarily preclude the idea of "design." I mean there are some versions of the theory that try to do so, but not very effectively in my mind. The whole "evolution/design debate" as it is typically rehearsed is rather confused.

Probably not as many times, or as thoroughly as you I would wager, but if you look at my first post that started this thread you'll see I used the carbon copy chapters of 2 Kings 19 and Isaah 37 as my initial challenge. At any rate, if God isn't experimenting with us then what is he doing? Playing around? Entertaining himself? Have we not been created by Him only to be cast into this crazy environment and left to our own devices to find our way back to Him? Maybe I am only looking at the surface of the whole thing. As a Christian, I'm sure you don't think you're part of an experiment but, seriously, what else could it be? Maybe "experiment' is not the most graceful term to use but, yes, that is the assertion I am making here.

I'll try to write more on this later this week. You guys are tough. I like it! Thanks for the stimulating discussion.

Not like an experienment, how about like being a parent?

You create a life, you nuture it, you give it what it needs to grow, you try to give the child every advantage, you teach them right from wrong, you give them the tools to make good choices. But just as a parent cannot force a child to become what they want, neither does God force us to love him or become a good person. God chooses to let us take our own road. Much like a parent he would like us to choose the right path of love for all others and for Him (the greatest commandments as found in the New Testament). The God of the New Testament (and therefore Christians) is a benevolent and loving God, not an angry or vengeful God. I don't think there is any getting "pissed" about Him. Yes, he is sitting back and watching us grow as people, much the same way a parent sits back and watches a child grow and mature. Its not for their amusement, it is because they care that they watch.

The problem most people have is in separating faith and religion. Faith is your personal relationship with God. Religion is function of the organizations created by man to worship God together. And just like any other societal organization, religion can be corrupted by man, leading to many of the problems you cite in your original post. It does not indicate a problem with the foundation of the religion any more than the current governmental mess indicates a problem with the underlying foundation of our democracy. The Bureaucracy mucks things up.

The rest of us are not that close to His heart - at least, if you believe what you read and what's preached about in the Bible. It seems to me that the Almighty in the Bible considers us more as His pets than as His children, and even saying we're like pets might be stretching it. If you had a pet you loved - say, a dog - would you build a big enclosure for that dog, put a bunch of other dogs in it, let your dog loose in there, and then just sit back and "watch". THEN, if your dog became to aggressive, too sexual, or generally disappointed you - would you throw that dog, while it was still consciouse of itself, into a fire?

No, your God does not fancy himself our parent. If he does exist as described in the Bible, he is a maniacal creature with very little regard for anything that doesn't do what He wants it to do. Why would I want to worship a megalomaniac like that?

AND if we are capable of doing things He doesn't want us to do why did he create us so? There is no logical reason for that, other than He's experimenting with us because He's . . . what? Bored?

The answer, I think, is that He's not there at all. Only we are.

""Only begotten" is from the Greek monogenes. This word is used nine times in the Greek New Testament. The word is a compound word, mono, meaning only, and gennesis, meaning birth. "Only begotten" (monogenes) is used five times by John, three by Luke, and once by the writer of Hebrews.

The scriptures teach that God's people are "sons of God" (Rom. 8: 14). Monogenes is used of Jesus' Sonship. Jesus is the "only begotten Son" (I Jn. 4: 9). "Single of its kind," comments Thayer, "…used of Christ, denotes the only Son of God or who in the sense in which he himself is the Son of God has no brethren…he is of nature or essentially Son of God, and so in a very different sense from that in which men are made by him children of God" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pgs. 417, 418). Beloved, God's people are adopted "sons of God," Jesus is the only Son of God by nature (cp. Rom. 8: 14-16)."

So are adopted children not as loved as those born of the parents?

From reading your "generally disappoint" comment, I think you have entirely the wrong idea about salavation and damnation. It is not a matter of disappointing God and Him throwing us into a pit of fire, but rather the choices we make. Man is not God and is therefore incapable of being perfect. It is in striving to live up to what God asks of us that we are saved. One is not damned for not being perfect or for "disappointing" God. One is damned for purposely making choices contrary to God's will and feeling no remorse for it. God loves us despite our imperfections just as a parent loves a child even when they make a mess all over the house or wreck the car.

You act as if God is sitting and waiting for us to screw up so he can pounce and send us to hell. He is not a hall monitor or a cop running a speed trap. He is not a meglomaniac. We are not like his pets. How often is God referred to as our "Heavenly Father"? This is the relationship for which we strive.

If we are capable of doing things He doesn't want us to do, why did He create us so?

but my computer locked up and I lost it. I'm not ignoring you, but this week is ugly busy and I don't have time to re-type right now.

I'll get back to you soon though.

Happy Monday.

A world where humans are afforded the opportunity to make their own choices and decisions is a much more dynamic and rich creation than a world in which humans are programmed like robots to obey and serve.

I repeat the analogy that we are like children. No more than we wish our children to be obedient automatons (despite what we may cry when they break our Waterford candlesticks), God does not wish us to blindly follow with no understanding. It is only through the opportunity to believe differently, to act differently, that we can fully understand and appreciate the full wonder of what God has given us.

If we were incapable of acting in a way contrary to God's wishes, what would we ever learn and how would we learn it? God is not a god of one chance. He provides us with chance after chance to learn, to grow, to make mistakes, and to better our lives. No two people come to their understanding of God in the same way. Without the ability to act in a way contrary to God's wishes, this bold and diverse world we see reflected in one another every day could not exist.

If the world's a better place because we so often behave contrary to God's desire, why would he punish us for it? Also, it seems that the diversity you describe makes the world a better place for US, not for God. From everything I've read, and from what most Christians preach, it only angers him when we step outside of his plan (which again begs the question, why did he give us that ability in the first place?). If we can create a better world without - or despite - His influence, does that mean we don't need him? Just like our own children grow up, become smarter than us (most of the time), and then leave the nest. Maybe it's time for us to leave our Father's house and go out on our own, eh?

I like this description of God that you give here. It's actually quite beautiful, and I'd love to believe that, if there is a God, He really is this way. But I think maybe this is what you want God to be, not what the Bible describes him to be. Really, do you have any way of knowing the Christian God doesn't want us to obey and serve him? In the Bible, He is quite merciless to those who dare to defy his rules - He sends us all to Hell, the worst place ever, for ever and ever.

I think the ambiguity of the Bible is another problem here. There are many Christians like yourself who believe God gives us many chances to get in line - but how many chances do you get until you're finally sentenced to eternal hell-fire? For instance, I've done some stupid things in my life, certainly you could say I've been bad, but I've never tried to kill another human being. Some Christians think you get another chance even after you do something as completely evil as that. On the other hand, some Christians think you get three strikes and you're out. On even another hand, some Christians think we're all going to be forgiven no matter what. If God really had a hand in writing a book, don't you think that book would be much clearer than it is? Heck, if God wrote it the thing should be transparent.

There are just too many ways to interpret the Bible, all of them as legitimate as the other, all of them able to back themselves up with whatever quotes from the Bible, all of them with totally different beliefs in what God is really like. Personally, I like your description of Him the best so far. I hope you're right.

First, I do not believe we are crea