But, before we get to that, a brief introduction:
My name is Hank & I run a blog called Ethics Gradient (which, it should be noted, may – does – contain some coarse language. In my mind, it’s all perfectly justified but I realise not everyone digs the sailor-talk). I also go by “Mandrellian” on various threads on various blogs, youtube videos and forums. After a few comments on a recent DI thread, Erich Vieth did me the honour of inviting me to be a contributor here at Dangerous Intersection. For my first post I’ve shared one of my previous works from my personal blog and edited it very, very slightly to improve the flow and readability [permalink]. Hopefully it will give people an idea where I’m coming from (besides Melbourne, Australia).
Many thanks to Erich for his faith in me. I shall attempt to justify it with my future posts. OK, let’s get on with it.
Why I am not an atheist …
… and why I am.
I am not an atheist because:
- I hate God
- I prayed to God and my prayers weren’t answered
- Militant/fundamentalist atheists converted me away from God
- I worship science and the works of man instead of God
- I’m rebelling against God like I rebelled against my parents & teachers in high school
- I think I’m better than God
- I had a bad experience with a priest or church or religious person
- I can’t decide which religion to subscribe to
- atheism is my religion
- I think religious people are idiots
- I worship Batman
- I worship Satan
- I’m immoral/amoral and would rather do what I want
- I want to destroy religion
I distrust and criticise (sometimes strongly) certain organised religions because:
- they are human inventions and many seem to be preoccupied with obsessively controlling aspects of peoples’ private lives instead of improving them
- many Christian churches seem primarily concerned with attracting money and then keeping it rather than using it charitably
- many holy books get descriptions of the world & nature completely wrong, which you would not expect had they been dictated by the omnipotent creator of the universe
- many holy books contain descriptions of human events that cannot be historically verified and in all likelihood never happened (eg. Exodus)
- many holy books contain numerous laws, acts & stories of a morality that modern, free societies find repugnant; these societies have passed many of their own laws contradicting such biblical “morality”
- as well as innumerable separate religions; there are so many separate & often violently opposed sects of each religion that it is more likely that none of them are correct than just one of them being so
- many religious groups demand special treatment such as the right not to be offended by statements, artworks, songs or anything else that may criticise or disagree with their dogma; their protests quite often run contrary to ideas such as free speech, beloved by most modern democratic societies
- religious groups frequently try to have laws passed which unfairly impose their narrow standards of behaviour, based on interpretations of specific holy commands, onto the rest of society
- religious people often tend to pick & choose from, or “interpret” their holy texts, discarding what does not conform to modern standards of morality, law & political freedom; they then bizarrely imply that modern morality, law and political freedom rests on the foundations of their particular religion
- there is such a wide spectrum of religious belief & adherence to dogma, ranging from light, barely-existent deism to the kind of rigid fundamentalism that oppresses and kills many, many people in its name, that it leads me to conclude that either their God wasn’t clear enough with his message, didn’t spread it to enough people or that humans have basically made their religions and associated rules up as they went along and have been in conflict with each other about them ever since
- many religious people & groups wilfully mis-characterise atheists as immoral, empty beings with no appreciation for beauty or mystery simply because we prefer natural explanations for the universe’s phenomena rather than defaulting to “God did it”; they believe that any explanation, even a wrong one, is better than “we just don’t know yet”
- many religious groups continue to deny long-accepted scientific facts such as the divergence of species through evolution and the verified age of the Earth; some wish their particular mythology taught as fact in science classes and go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it; some even insist there’s a huge, dark Scientist Conspiracy quashing “academic freedom”
- many religious people & groups attempt to cherry-pick science (as they do their scriptures) for those parts which conform to their belief system while actively denying others, e.g. creationists agreeing with “microevolution” while denying “macroevolution” (which is like believing that matches cannot start bushfires) or attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to debunk the theory of evolution (which is like ajudicating a baseball game with a cricket rulebook)
- some religious groups deny the efficacy of modern medicine in favour of treating an ill person with prayer, a practice which has led to many preventable deaths, often of children
- they all make extraordinary claims based on their scriptures, provide no evidence beyond referring to their (unsurprisingly) self-confirming scriptures and then insist that the onus is on non-believers to disprove their claims
- many religions have become inextricably intertwined with the laws of the patriarchal or tribal cultures which spawned or adopted them, leading to divine justifications for such horrors as female circumcision and “honour killings”, which more often than not punish women, already under the thumbs of domineering males, for seemingly minute transgressions of law
- when it comes to the hot-button issue of sexual abuse by priests, many religions seem more concerned with good public relations, shielding themselves from culpability and keeping numbers in churches than with compensating victims and being active about either punishing perpetrators or preventing further abuse
I am an atheist because:
- any & all claims of and explanations for the existence of God or any other gods have thus far fallen far short of my standards of evidence
- my understanding of the natural universe is that it functions in such a way that doesn’t require (or indicate) the presence of any supernatural entity intervening in either the laws of nature or selected peoples’ lives
That’s it. They are the only two things that I can say I absolutely have in common with any other atheist. In matters of sex, politics, architecture, gaming, interior design, pets, music, clothing, hobbies, language, philosophy, education, sports, typing speed, preferred drugs, affinity with beagles & frogs and any number of other categories I may be diametrically opposite to any (or every) other atheist in the world. To label one atheist with the same attributes you label another atheist is ignorant at best, flat-out dishonest at worst. As such, I try not to do the same thing with religious people.
But what could steer me in the opposite direction? Probably the same things that could steer any atheist …
I could be converted to theism if:
- God, or a god, showed himself or performed an act that unambiguously proved his existence as an immortal, omnipotent being. As to what that proof would constitute: that god himself would be the perfect arbiter of what would conclusively prove to six billion people that he existed.
Such things as tortillas depicting blurred, apparently Mary-shaped silhouettes do not count. If you’re there, God, you’re on notice! Any time is fine. But no tricks – and come alone (if indeed there’s only one of you, otherwise, bring the whole parthenon).
—
In hindsight, there are quite a few things I left off both of those two longer lists, but I haven’t added them here. To add a large amount of new content to a re-post in the hope that a “special edition” would make it heaps, heaps better might (a) make me feel a total hypocrite, like I’m pulling a George Lucas (may he drown in his money-bin) and (b) turn people off, TL;DR style. I also believe that excessive after-the-fact editing takes a bit of the “blogginess” away from what I write. I like the sort-of “stream of consciousness” aspect of blogging, in that it provides a snapshot of my mindset at the precise time I was writing a post, warts & all, as opposed to being a considered, well thought-out post that took a very long time to compile. I don’t do many drafts. If I can’t finish something the day I start, it simply never gets published. Suffice it to say that philosophy didn’t serve me well at school!
OK, that’s enough of that. Keep enjoying the DI experience, readers. I hope to get into some serious/thoughtful/entertaining dialogue with some of you soon.
Hank
Hank
I guess you did not read what I wrote (or you did not pay attention). God says that those who reject Him are depraved and you prove it by trying to fight against God (you will always loose that battle), hence depravity. He will be here long after you are gone so you fight in vain.
I never said that I was trying to convert you (that is not my job). My job is to present the Truth of the Word of God and God will do the converting.
The OT was a complete work before Jesus Christ came on the scene, so if it were not God then those so called people made an awful lot of “good” guesses. Sorry but your argument does not hold water. You are fighting against proven facts my friend and well, that again is a sign of depravity.
As far as Abraham goes, there is a two-fold response, 1)the literal children of Abraham have been multiplied as the stars of the sky and spread out to the ends of the earth. 2) there are also the spiritual children of Abraham (the father of the believers) so all born again Christians are children of Abraham and they are everywhere (the Apostle Paul explains it quite well, do you need the reference since you have already “read” the Bible?). One day the Hebrews will rule with Jesus Christ. Also the entire world has already been blessed in the “seed” of Abraham because again the Apostle Paul explains that the “seed” (singular/masculine) is Jesus Christ. So the whole world has the chance to become the children of Abraham. Now, as far as the suffering goes, I have already explained that so if you will read what I have written a little more carefully then you will have your answer. By the way, the promise to Abraham came in chapters 12 and 15 as well (but I guess you knew that). God never breaks His promises. Do not blame God for man’s ignorance (I know that is easier than admitting that you are wrong).
Here is why you could not continue to follow it, without a transformed heart you are wasting your time. This was the problem for the Hebrews in the OT. They had the Law but they had a heart of stone (stiff-necked people, hardheaded we would say). So, even though they wanted to be obedient they could not. God gives us an opportunity to receive a new heart (mind/way of thinking) in the New Covenant with Jesus Christ. Obviously you were trying to be obedient to God with a heart of stone, you need a change. I was like that too. I tried to do what the Bible said but could not, then God changed my heart when I repented (admitted that I was wrong and He is right and I need Him) and I began to live according to the Word of God. He gives me the ability and strength every single day. He would do that for you too but obviously you do not want it.
I would challenge you to retrace the steps of the Exodus and at the Red Sea there is quite a lot of evidence that an army was destroyed there (like the Egyptian army). Documents are being excavated that prove that the stories of the Bible are true even down to the names. You can try to deny the facts but again that is depravity.
Also my argument cannot be boiled down to “because the Bible says so”. The Bible says so and there is actual physical proof, I know it is hard to accept defeat.
By the way, you are telling me that I cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible but you are using the Bible to disprove God, can we say double standard? I have evidence of my conversion, you just have words of a chat with MLK, I have witnesses to my conversion, you are the only witness to you talk with MLK. Do you not see the difference? You are comparing apples to oranges (a very liberal tactic might I add).
So atheists are encouraged to share their beliefs but a Christian is asked to stop (“free thinking”?)
• Niklaus Pfirsig
I am not dictating my beliefs. I am simply sharing what the Bible says. You can choose to believe it or not. I do not need approval from anyone. I want people to have a chance to hear the Truth. If none ever believe it then that is ok, it is there choice. I am just sharing the message. What references would you like? I have usually quoted an entire Scripture. Are you paying attention to what you read? The whole idea of Separation of Church and State (not mentioned in the Constitution of course) is that the State would not have control over the Church. It was never intended to keep the church out of the state.
I do not hold to church dogma. I live by what the Bible says. There are many whose church dogma is quite different from what the Bible says.
Erik, I think you are mistaken on the meaning of John 9:31.
Chapter 9 of the book of John, describes the reaction of disbelief the Pharisees in the synagogue express toward the restoration of the eyesight of a blind man. Verse 31 details an argument of the Pharisees in their attempt to prove Jesus a fraud and a charlatan.
It is interesting that you should choose this verse to support your point of view, because referring this verse in this manner is an excellent example of how many fundamental Christians support their beliefs by quoting individual verses and passages form the scriptures, taken out of content and implying a different meaning.
• Niklaus Pfirsig
If you have paid attention to anything I have written then you would no that I am an advocate of the context of Scripture (something that those who say there are supposed contradictions know nothing about). Now you try to use the argument that I promote against me. Why would I contradict myself? I know the passage in its chapter context and book context. The thing with the Pharisees is that they did not recognize Truth even though He was standing among them. They spoke of Truth (even spoke Truth as in the verses I quoted) but did not know (recognize) It (Him). That is the irony with many who claim to be against God, they use His Word even though they do not understand It. So your argument falls short once again!!! Good try though. Keep on studying the Scriptures (even if it is for the purpose of trying to prove me wrong). Many have been converted during the same process.
• Mark Tiedemann
I know a loaded question when I see one so I was helping you unload it a bit. Suckers are born every day but I am not one of them.
I know how you guys try to trap people by latching on to words of phrases outside of the context so I am watching my back (I have dealt with you guys before, different group but same tactics). I studied the etymology of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek words used for the English word “fear”. Is that detailed enough for you. Etymology from Wikipedia Etymology is the study of the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over time.
Many English translations have some flaws but not all of them and in the good translations the mistakes are minor. There are some translations that are more interpretations than translation but that is a different story. With the NASB (New American Standard Bible) the translation is word for word from the original and it is very accurate. So in your words, going to the original for information is bad arguing, seems illogical to me on your part but if that is how you feel there are plenty of books that do the translation of the original for you even if you do not know the language. Don’t take the easy way out, be a scholar (I thought free thinkers boasted in their ability to learn. It is not my fault that you guys have to revert to insults an name calling when you loose the argument.
• Mike Pulcinella
How can you doubt what is a proven fact that keeps proving itself day after day?
How is sharing what the Word of God says conceited? If it were my own argument then their might be room for conceit but it is not my argument. I am just sharing what God says.
We, as people, are all the same. We are born into this world as slaves to sin. We live as slaves to sin until God sets us free or we die in our sins. That is what God says. I know my story. I know countless others with the same story. Every new country I visit I see the same story played over and over again. That is reality.
You need Jesus Christ to save you. Whether you want it or not is your choice. Please do not confuse need with want. We do not always want what we need. All I am saying is that either you are a slave to sin or you have been set free. Sin or vices that urge your everyday decisions are what enslave you. You know what they are (whether you admit it or not) usually denial is the first sign (like in AA, until you admit to yourself that you have a problem you will never get well, everyone else knows/sees your problem already).
No one is fine without God. If we do not worship God then we worship other things (mostly ourselves but also other things like money, sex, stuff, jobs, power, position, spouse, child, the list goes on and on). All of us have a god or the God. When you realize/admit that then you will be ready to understand life. Look around you, whatever a person dedicates the most of his time, efforts, energy, thoughts etc, to, that is his god, I do that for the God.
Be careful, Niklaus! You are risking conversion!
Thanks Karl
I arrived at atheism without even knowing it to begin with. First I lapsed from theism (I really don't think my heart was in it to begin with, despite going through all the motions); travelled briefly through mild spirituality & deism and eventually worked out that I didn't actually believe in any gods (or any supernatural phenomena) of any kind. My desire to avoid cognitive dissonance & protect intellectual integrity is sort of a byproduct of both my non-belief and my desire for objective truth.
As for my spiritual heritage, there really isn't any. My parents aren't religious (though my primary and high schools were, a little bit) and I became a "strong" Christian through a personal choice. Eventually I came to the decision that a person doesn't need to adhere to dogma or take the word of ancient scriptures (or their priestly interpreter) to be a good, honest & just person, which I hope I am. This post at my home blog might be interesting to you (http://generalsystemsvehicle.blogspot.com/2008/06/speedbumps-on-road-through-theism.html).
Cheers
h
Erik
Your assertion that I was using the Bible to disprove God is incorrect. I was pointing out events in the Bible which aren't true, can't be verified, didn't happen (at the very least didn't happen the way they're depicted) and other inconsistencies that undermine the foundation of Abrahamic religion. This fallacy that actual physical evidence exists which confirms the story of Exodus is trotted out every so often, but the sources of this information are never trustworthy or objective. No serious historian, archaeologist or anyone in related fields accepts this "evidence". Besides, most rational people see Exodus as an allegory rather than literal truth. Hell, most Jews don't even believe in Exodus these days and it's one of the cornerstones of the faith.
My private chat with MLK's ghost over some Coco Pops obviously wasn't literal, it was meant as an illustration that you simply can't take someone's else's word that something extraordinary happened. Hearsay and second-hand testimony is not evidence. I'm sure many people saw your conversion and I've no doubt that it affected you profoundly, however: your personal, subjective experience is absolutely no guarantee of the truth of the Bible, the existence of God, hell, Satan or anything else in the Christian scriptures.
The rest of your post, though coherent & intelligently written, is so rife with pasted Christian buzzwords & catchphrases it was, quite frankly, difficult to take seriously. I'd like to hear something from you which didn't sound like the kind of brochures I remove from my car's windscreen or my letterbox every so often. While I appreciate the positive impact your faith seems to have had on your life I don't need to hear about it in discussions such as these – nor do I wish to hear about how my heart was "made of stone" when I was a Christian, that I'm "depraved" for daring to question the veracity of Exodus or any other such insulting bullshit.
You also seem to have used the word "liberal" as some kind of slight on my character, revealing much about your own prejudices. One broad definition of "liberal" is: "having political or social views favoring reform and progress." If you consider having a wish for the advancement of humanity through progress and reform in the political, scientific, technological, medical, religious arena and in every other issue in the public domain to be something negative, that's your prerogative but it's difficult to sympathise with. Clearly "liberal" means something a lot more sinister in your country & your culture than it does here in Australia.
Now, to conclude, I'm through with responding to you for now and won't be looking for any of your responses. Though I disagree with you strongly, I respect your right to believe what you want & I've never once called you deluded, or a wishful thinker or insecure for needing divine intervention for your happiness ( or any other common insults levelled at religious people, which I like to avoid when engaging them in direct conversation). You simply haven't extended the same courtesy to me. You may think it's okay to label me "depraved" because your faith and scriptures justify it or for whatever other reason, but I won't tolerate it or encourage it by continuing this conversation. You say you're not out to convert me, but it doesn't seem to have stopped you insulting me in the name, and with the approval, of your religion.
Bye
H
I didn't read Mr Brewer's replies to the other commenters before but now I have it seems we have a bona fide young-earth creationist on our hands (and I thought he was just a very religious guy). Oy vay….while I respect anyone's right to believe what they choose, I certainly can't respect the choice – made in the face of an alarmingly large & inescapable mountain of evidence – to believe that this entire planet, including all its natural history, evolution and countless civilisations, is only 6000 years old. Religious belief is one thing and I can accept it – but creationism? Well, that really is a delusion.
H
Erik wrote:—"I know a loaded question when I see one so I was helping you unload it a bit. Suckers are born every day but I am not one of them."
Neither question was loaded, so I conclude you didn't understand them. And since you misunderstood Erich's arguments over the translation of the Hebrew word for fear, I conclude that, while you may know what these concepts mean, you don't know how to apply them.
I do not purport to be a scholar of these subjects, but I have studied them, and all I can say is that your take is wrong. Noe will you, evidently, go outside the bible to look at other evidence, hence once again you ignore my question about heat in the universe. It's a simple physics problem, but you won't even acknowledge the question.
As to your arguments about the depravity of those who reject what you say (or what you think god says)—it's a political trick, and a nasty one. A politician stands up and says "I am an American! All that I say comes from what it means to be an American! And if you disagree with me, you are obviously not an American!"
We wouldn't tolerate that kind of argument (though many do) and would call the politician what he is—a fraud. Why would we accept such an argument from you? (And before you misconstrue my meaning, you say "I am a christian because I believe in the bible! All I say comes from what it means to be a bible-believing christian! If you disagree, you are obviously not a christian—you are depraved!" Really, now—that's insulting, far more so than being called names.)
Hank,
You're a Larry Niven fan?
Hank,
Uh, scratch that. It's early and I've only had two cups of coffee.
An Iain M. Banks fan?
Once again Erik, your conceit knows no bounds and you are completely blind to it. You don't know what "God says". No one does. Many people would like you to THINK they do…but they don't.
You conceit also leads you to assume that I am a sinner. You assume that because I reject the bible that I am a bad person. You don't know that but you assume that I am like you and a slave to sin. I am not. But neither did I need God to help me with that and you can not accept that because that hasn't been your experience.
I'd like to ask you a question. It is one I have asked many other religious people before and rarely have I gotten a good answer. Please try to answer without bible quotations. I want to know what YOU think.
Is it possible that God created some men and women who are complete and whole and don't need Him? If not, why not? Don't you think it is a rather insecure God who would intentionally create creatures who feel so lost without Him that they must implore Him for help?
Mike,
Let's assume for the sake of debate that Erik, though badly misstating it, doesn't link "sin" with "bad"—that he has a more scholastic take on it, which means only that sin means corruption that leads to death. I don't mean corruption in the legal sense, either, only in the sense that perfection is lost.
In "purer" forms of christian thought, this is not tied to evil, only to being severed from god, and is a tragedy, to be sure, but does not automatically mean the sinner is a criminal or incapable of morality.
As I say, just to drag this thing out of the pit of despond Erik has (perhaps inadvertantly) dragged it into.
Mark, Hank: Jerry Pournelle?
Or maybe I was confused on that post and Pournelle fell for "Ebert's Fallacy"
Erik. The truth is that you referenced a single verse out of context and presented it as the word of god, while within its context we see that the verse contains the words of John, who is summarizing the opinions put forth by the pharisees. The pharisees were attemptimg to use the law to discredit Jesus.
Your rebuttal to this point is that you believe the statement true, even if the pharisees were using it to bolster their disbelief. I submit that the pharisees were using god's name in vain, which invalidates the meaning in this context.
However, you did take quote out of context, which proves my original point.
Erich, I am in no danger of being "converted". I don't think any of the regular posters on this site are likely to convert, either. I find Erik an interesting subject of study, as his long posts give a particular insight into the thought processes of a close minded fundamentalist.
Also I think is a good idea for non-believers to read the Bible, as a work of literature. There are lots of juicy stories that you don't hear the televangelists talk about. Like one guy whose wife gave him her personal slave (an Egyption girl !) to use for sex. Another story tells of two sisters who had sex with their father while he was sleeping, because there were no other men around. An there was another story about a man with 2 wsives and 2 sex-slaves…
• Hank
The events that you put out there are true and you are trying to use the Bible against the Bible (why else would you use the quote?) You keep changing your degrees of truth (either it happened or it did not). Again, where are the inconsistencies? God promised that a nation would come from one man (Abraham) and the Hebrews whom we still have today are living proof of that promise. Maybe you should study some other serious historians other than the ones who agree with you. You think a serious historian is above an agenda? Get real man, that is like saying scientist do not have an agenda. Maybe Al Gore did not have an agenda with all of his half truths about global warming. Just because people do or do not believe, that does not change reality. I thought that you would be smarter than that. Again I gave you 3 proofs and you cannot argue against all 3 of them (not even one of them really). By the way, how important is an eyewitness in court? If I had only one witness of my changed life that would be different but I have hundreds (all of the people whom I knew before I became a Christian).
Again, if the Truth of the Word of God is convicting you please do not blame me. I just delivered the message. You opened yourself up to the message when you wrote what you did. If you do not want to be corrected then either do not write anything or write what is correct (not so much based on your experience, I had a bad experience with a taco once but that does not mean tacos are bad).
You still have a heart of stone (it is evident). Jesus says you can know a man’s heart by what is on his lips (ie his words) because what he says comes from the heart (mind) revealing what kind of heart he has. I am just stating reality (you can choose to accept or reject). I understand cultural differences and language (I have lived in Europe). Liberal in the USA has a negative meaning because of their negative way of thinking (promoting immorality and murder). Immorality and murder do no progress a society, they digress it. I want progress but what the liberals here preach is not progress.
I have been very courteous with you. I used the word depraved because that is what the Bible says and it is a reality. I do not use it to offend you but to show you the reality of things. Again, I am not here to insult or convert. If you were insulted on my behalf I apologize. If the Word of God has insulted you then you need to deal with God and not me. Have a nice day.
• Mark Tiedemann
Here you are playing with words. Do not just blow off my argument saying that I do not understand. I answered the question about translation so do not even go there. Did you not ask that question in order to try and get a wrong answer from me so that you could disprove my argument? How about you explain the simple physics problem first and “enlighten” me. People say the same thing about the universal (worldwide) flood in the Bible. It would cook the earth if it rained that much. Well one the mountains were not there during the flood, plus subterranean water chambers opened up to let our much of the water and the firmament that surrounded the earth collapsed. So it did not cook the earth with heat because of all the rain in the flood during the days of Noah. Were you not trying to lead me into an answer similar to that? I do study outside sources. I have had physics (secular education let’s not forget). I have not lived a sheltered religious life like you seem to think. I was a grown man before I became a Christian.
It is not about “me thinking what God says” I know what He says, it is written in black and white for the world to see. The problem is most just do not look at it in an objective. I am not using trickery. You can disagree with me all day long (good for you). I am not sharing my ideas (you did try to set a good trap though it did not work). I am a Christian because I have been born again (total life transformation). I do not just talk about the Bible I live it daily. I have many witnesses to the way that God changed my life. Evidence is proof which I have, not just empty words.
• Mike Pulcinella
If you want to know what God says (He has spoken) look in His Word which He spoke, moved people to write exactly how He wanted It and preserved It for the ages (It was here before you and will be here after you are gone, like it or not). If you want to plug your ears and sing la la la when I speak of the Word of God then that is your choice. We all make bad choices from time to time. Just because you do not believe something that does not change the reality of things (how hard is that for you guys to understand?).
If God spoke about the children of Israel and everything is coming to pass as He said and if He spoke about changing people from the inside out (being born again) and it happens on a daily basis then how can you say that His Word is not from Him? You think people just happened to make a lot of really really good guesses. That is impossible, do the math.
I do not assume that anyone is a sinner. I know that we are all born sinners. Denying that does not change reality (once again). We are all slaves to sin from birth (ex. You do not have to teach a child to lie or steal or be selfish and self-centered, you have to teach them not to do these things, we have already been over this).
If you are not a sinner then answer a few questions honestly 1) Have you ever hated anyone? 2) Have you ever dwelt on sexual thoughts about a person who was not your spouse? 3) Have you ever told a lie (even a white lie)? 4) Have you ever worshipped and served anyone other than the God of the Bible? 5) Have you ever taken God’s name in vain (said that He cannot do what He claims)? 6) Have you ever been disobedient to your parents?
In answering those question honestly, you will know if you are a sinner or not.
God created us with His Holy Spirit in us (the original creation) so that we could have direct communion (communication) with Him. From the beginning we were created to depend on His presence. He did not need us and does not need us. He was fine without us and would be fine today without us. We need Him. When sin entered into the world the Holy Spirit of God was taken away from us and we were separated from Him because of sin (He is Holy and cannot be in the presence of sin). Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins, making it possible for us to come into God’s presence again. Through repentance and faith in Christ, God gives us His Holy Spirit again and we are made complete again (like the original creation). We still live in a body of flesh that is corrupted by sin but when God looks at us He sees the blood of Jesus Christ which washed away our sins. So, God created us to need Him (all people). There are those who realize that reality and then there are those who do not. God did not have to create us at all but He chose to do it so we live with it.
Mark T: large fan of Banks. Is it that obvious? 🙂
• Niklaus Pfirsig
You wrote “The pharisees were attemptimg to use the law to discredit Jesus”
That is correct, they are trying to use the Word of God to justify their argument but their usage of the Word of God backfires on them because they were trying to use the Word of God against the Word of God (Jesus). This is what most of you guys do when you reference the Bible. Just like it back fired on them it backfires on you.
Your statement helps my argument, do you not see that? Not knowing what you are talking about does not negate the Word of God. Not using the Word of God correctly does not negate It either. I know that you want to justify your point but do not throw logic out the window in an attempt at justification. Keep studying though, God will use His Word in a powerful way. I am as open minded as the liberal “free thinkers” of this site. As I said, my job is not to convert you, my job is to share the message and let God does the work. There are stories of real people in real life situations that we are to learn from (ie sex is for one man and one woman in marriage). People have done some stupid things throughout history so let us learn from their mistakes and not let history repeat itself. Why promote immorality when the Bible reveals its destructive power? Learn something useful for a change.
Sin is always bad because 1) it separates from God 2) it causes death
We will all die because we have all sinned. We have all sinned because we will all die.
The only person who had the choice was Jesus Christ. He had to sacrifice His life because otherwise He would not have died because He had never sinned.
Erik, I'm sorry. I've re-read your post several times and I'm still not quite understanding your answer to my question.
If God is all powerful and could have created us as perfect in a world without sin…why didn't he??
Last word to Mr Brewer:
Laying responsiblity at the feet of your god when it was you, personally, who had the nerve to label me "depraved" is childish – as is your presumption that you know me & my "heart" well enough to pass judgement on my entire being, simply because I don't agree with your philosophy. Your apology is hollow & meaningless, as you only apologise for the secondhand effect of the word of your god and not your own actions. This gutless buck-passing of yours is, unfortunately, typical of religious fundamentalists of all stripes, regardless of the god to whom they pray. The worst part is it stains your moderate brethren – you know, the people who know when to leave others alone and don't ram their faith down our throats at every opportunity – with your particular brand of over-inflated righteousness. If all you need to do is just spread the "Word" and leave it at that, I fail to see why you need to keep harping on it.
Now please, take your hollow, backhanded, cowardly & dishonest apology and do with it what you will. I have thus far responded only to your arguments (such as they are) and not labelled you with epithets or judged your character – you most certainly have NOT shown me that same courtesy. Additionally, you've elected to pass responsibility for what you personally chose to say on to your god and his word in an act of rank immaturity. You think my issue is with God? No, my issue is with dishonest & hypocritical Christians who hide behind God to absolve & excuse themselves when they're out of line. It is beyond pathetic.
At least if I were to call somebody, hypothetically, a "mendacious blinkered ignorant hypocritical theocratic delusional dominionist creo-tarded fundamentalist stormtrooping evangeliar", I'd bloody well take responsibility for it. Cheerfully.
But I wouldn't do that. It's just not nice.