JAY JAY WRITES:

The Bible says that you shouldn't listen to what the world teaches. You're saying that you shouldn't listen to what the Bible teaches.

You say how can you prove the Bible with the Bible. I say how can you prove the world with the world. Draw your own conclusions on that matter.

I also think that you rely on you're eyes too much (as the rest of the world does). If ya can't see it, it don't exist. Phooey! If you would take a moment and use all of you're senses and find the beuaty of natural things, you'll discover that there isn't any way that God couldn't have created the world and everything in it.

Its satan that deceives you my friend. atheism, evolution, whatever you want to call it, its a deception created by satan to dissalude any hope of going to heaven.

I hope that you come back to God, because he loves us all including you.

God Bless

Since Jay Jay didn't leave an email address, I'll respond here.

God's love?????????

Are you speaking of the Bible which describes biblegod who, through Moses, ordered all the young boy prisoners and non-virgin women executed in Numbers 31?

Is it the same Bible where in Ezekiel 9:6, biblegod ordered, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women. . ."?

Is it the same Bible where in Hosea 13:16 it is written, "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open"?

I never said "If ya can't see it, it don't exist." But you imply that I said it. Like so many Christians, you like to put your own spin on other's words - including the Bible.

You have no clue whether I take moments or longer to experience the beauties of the earth. You just assume I don't. Like most Christians.

Because I don't believe what you do, you allege that Satan deceives me with a 'deception'. The deception is yours. Your are deceived by the Bible. You claim it is the word of God but you cannot prove it is or even whether biblegod exists - or for that matter, whether Jesus Christ existed.

You refer to me as your friend, Jay and you don't even know me. Be assured I'm not your friend!

Then, in typical Christian fashion, you hit and run - no email address. No guts.

JA:
With all due respect, what makes you an expert?

MIKE:
There is no inference on any of my website pages that I am an expert.

My knowledge of the Bible and Bible history has come from formal college studies as well as supervised and unsupervised studies. While I am neither a Bible expert or scholar, it has become apparent to me that an extensive knowledge of the Bible is not necessary to realize that it is contradictory, inconsistent, errant and, above all, not the word of any "god".

JA:
For that matter, what makes me an expert? I don't know.

MIKE:
After reading your website http://www.theology. homestead.com, I suggest that you are not a biblical expert.

JA:
I've often had doubts, and I know there are inconsistencies and errors, but I do know this: There is a God. My God is your God,

MIKE:
There is a god? You make a claim for which you provide no evidence.

If your god is the god described in the Bible, then I suggest you've chosen an immature, changeable, destructive, murderous, vengeful god. The god of the Bible creates a world and populates it with humans. He later decides to destroy his creation and, except for 8 people, floods the earth to rid it of mankind.

He creates beings called angels, a large portion of which rebel against him.

Throughout the Old Testament, he destroys communities, kills their inhabitants (including infants and the elderly)¹ and advocates killing infants and children by smashing them against the ground², He requires constant blood sacrifices to atone for "sin" which he has imputed to man beginning with his original 'creation'. He changes his mind, makes promises and breaks them³. His demeanor is generally comparable to an extremely spoiled and sadistic five year old child.

You're welcome to claim him as your god. I don't. He's not my god. He doesn't exist.

JA:
and tomorrow is promised to no one.

MIKE:
Agreed. But why is this pertinent to your discussion here?

JA:
His son was Jesus. 95% of the English speaking world believes this. Can they all be wrong?

MIKE:
You are citing statistics with no references. The following are the approximate numbers of adherents to the specific religions indicated ⁴:

1. Christianity: 2 billion
   
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
   
3. Hinduism: 900 million
   
4. Secular: 850 million
   
5. Buddhism 360 million
   
6. Chinese traditional religion: 225 million
   
7. primal-indigenous: 190 million
   
8. Sikhism: 23 million
   
9. Yoruba religion: 20 million
   
10. Juche: 19 million
    
11. Spiritism: 14 million
    
12. Judaism: 14 million
    
13. Baha'i: 6 million
    
14. Jainism: 4 million
    
15. Shinto: 4 million
    
16. Cao Dai: 3 million
    
17. Tenrikyo: 2.4 million
    
18. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
    
19. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
    
20. Scientology: 750 thousand
    
21. Rastafarianism: 700 thousand
    
22. Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand
    

Your statement that Jesus IS the son of god is predicated on the basis that a large number of people believe it to be true, therefore it must be true. If we follow your statement "Can they all be wrong?" to its logical conclusion, all of the above beliefs are also valid and true beliefs.

Many of the cited belief systems have beliefs which are opposed to other systems on the list. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but not the son of god. Based on your statement that a large number of people believing a concept validates the concept as being true, Christianity and Islam must both be true. But how can they both be true if their basic doctrines oppose each other?

JA:
Now I know things like Jesus had brothers, but the Catholic church doesn't want you to know that. I know about the gospel of Thomas,

MIKE:
The Roman Catholic Church has had a huge influence on your Christian beliefs and doctrines whether you are a Protestant or a Catholic.

JA:
and the story of Moses is somewhat false, but what is your point, Man?!?

MIKE:
I"m not sure which story of Mose you are referring to. However, if even one statement in the Bible is false or misleading, it cannot be trusted as the word of any God!

JA:
Have you no God?

MIKE:
Certainly not Biblegod!

JA:
Did you evolve from the ocean or an ape? Look around you! Tell me how this is all possible without God?

MIKE:
Evolution theory is a far more viable solution to your question than the Bible which is bulging with superstition and errors.

JA:
I am skeptical myself, looking at other religions, including Muslim, but I'll say this: I know religion is man made, but God is not.

MIKE:
Another statement with no proof.

JA:
If it is some fairy tale that the Christians are living, then I want to live it.

MIKE:
I agree that the Christian religion is akin to a fairy tale. But I can't imagine wanting to live it, after having lived it for over 20 years prior to my deconversion.

JA:
I for one have personally witnessed many miracles, first hand. I could share them with you and hope you would open your heart, but I'm not so sure where your heart is.

MIKE:
You need to define "miracle". Many individuals have been diagnosed with a fatal disease after which the individual became healed and lived for many more years. You may consider this type of healing a miracle. This type of event occurs in the lives of people of many differing religious persuasions. Why would describing a 'miracle' cause me to change my mind about the existence of Biblegod, Jesus Christ or Christianity?

JA:
I too am searching for the truth, and my own web page challenges certain things, but I still believe in God, and I still believe in Jesus.

MIKE:
Your beliefs, however, do not validate your concepts as truths.

JA:
I can promise you that you will never physically go to heaven, but rather it's a state of mind. It's your soul that will go, and you must lay the groundwork here on earth.

MIKE:
See my statement above.

JA:
Let me put it to you this way... What if I am wrong and you are right? No harm done, correct? ...but what if you're wrong my friend?...

MIKE:
Your spin on "Pascal's Wager".

Pascal's wager is simply this. We don't know if God exists. Since we don't know, we are faced with making a choice of believing in him or not.

If we don't believe in (Bible)god, we can live whatever life we please on Earth, but we may end up in hell afterwards if god exists.

If we decide to believe, we will not enjoy some earthly pleasures presently, but we might possibly gain an everlasting life with god after we die.

Pascal’s conclusion is that we should opt for the belief in god. The possible end result is everlasting life with god, while the alternative is loss of everlasting life.

The concept is dishonest since it is not based on sincerity or faith in god but rather on chance and possibilities and having the best possible end result.

George H. Smith exposes Pascal's wager. Regarding what an individual may lose by making the wager, he said:

"What have we got to lose? Intellectual integrity, self-esteem, and a passionate, rewarding life for starters. In short, everything that makes life worth living. Far from being a safe bet, Pascal's wager requires the wager of one's life and happiness".⁵

See Playing The Odds by Farrell Till for more information on Pascal's Wager.

JA:
The definition of faith is beliving in the unseen.

MIKE:
The dictionary defines "faith" as, "Confidence or trust in a person or thing", "belief which is not based on proof", belief in the teaching or doctrines of religion" ⁶.

Faith is blind belief in the unknown.

FOOTNOTES:


(1)Exodus 12:29; Numbers 31:1-18; Ezekiel 9:4-6; I Samuel 15:2-3; Deuteronmy 32:25.
(2)Hosea 13:16
(3)Mal. 3:6; Num. 23:19; Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17 VS. Ex. 32:14; Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35
(4) Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents - adherents.com
(5)Atheism: The Case Against God, Prometheus Books, 1979, p. 184
(6)The American College Dictionary, Random House, New York, NY, 1962, p. 433.

Perfection and Contradictions I

Response to RES's Comments - "Yahoo Anti-Fundie Club"

RES
I know I said I agreed that definitions are not that important, but I am starting to think I do not fit the stereotype of the fundies you do not like.

MIKE
"Fundamentalism" probably is an ambiguous term and needs to be defined.

Merriam-Webster's has it as:

1. a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2. : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

I am concerned that you claim I don't like fundies. I didn't say or imply that and it is not the case. I heartily disagree with the fundamentalist belief. I do no dislike fundamentalists. A good friend and co-worker of mine is a fundamentalist Christian. We work together at least 8 hours each day. There is no dislike involved. We are both foster parents and that usually transcends our disagreement on spiritual values.

RES
Don't get me wrong, to you I am probably not much better with what I do believe. I would offer that I am more a very conservative Christian with very fundamental ideals.

MIKE
It sounds like you generally fit into the dictionary definition of 'fundamentalist'.

RES
I do not agree with many of the things that well know ministers say and I am offended by a lot of their actions. One of the biggest concerns I have seen in your messages is the use of dogma and doctrine as similar things. Doctrines arre what one believes, and dogma is belief with an arrogant attitude.

MIKE
Again, to go to Merriam Webster - the following is a definition of "dogma":
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

I've never thought of "dogma" as including arrogance. As you can see, the proper definition is a "doctrine" proclaimed by a church. I would add that "dogma' is a teaching (doctrine) which is a rigidly held.

RES
I believe strongly on the doctrines I hold to, but to try and force them upon anyone is not part of any doctrine I have. Warfare, yes! But unless God tells me to take up arms, He said the battle is His. We are not in battle over God given land as many of the verses you quote are about.

MIKE
I'm interested in knowing how Biblegod tells you to take up arms.

RES
Though many of your references bring questions to some people, some are singled out verses compared without contextual foundations given for comparison. Reading your posts, I do not find you stupid, but rather well versed in what you believe. In that light I think even you see some of your examples are not contradictions

MIKE
Although you claim the contradictions are somehow out of context, you offer no explanation for any of them, nor do you attempt to harmonize them. I've found that this is usually the case when a christian claims a contradiction really isn't a contradiction. If you can, please explain how the contradictions I have provided are not really contradictions.

Keep in mind that if the Bible contains even ONE error, contradiction or inconsistency, it cannot be the Word of an omnipotent, omniscient deity. Being all powerful and all knowing, the deity would not be given to mistakes, nor would 'he' provide a plan for mankind to live by which includes mistakes.

You also stated, ". . .some are singled out. . .". You imply that some are NOT singled out. Remember, just One contradiction renders the Bible errant and NOT the word of God.

RES
Are all Christians of one mind, not on your life.

MIKE
But why are all Christians not of one mind? They should be according to the Bible.

"That ye may with ONE MIND and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 15:6)

"Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of ONE MIND, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you." ( 2 Corinthians 13:11)

"Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be LIKEMINDED, having the same love, being of one accord, of ONE MIND." (Philippians 2:2)

"Finally, be ye all of ONE MIND, , ," (1 Peter 3:8)

There is no doubt that Christians are commanded to be of ONE MIND. Yet there are hundreds upon hundreds of differing Christian doctrines, many in direct opposition to one another. As you have stated, Christendom is not "one minded". This is in direct conflict with the teachings of both Christ and the Apostles. Christendom not being of one mind is simply further proof that the concept of "one mindedness" is unrealistic and unattainable. This is a glaring Biblical contradiction . .

RES
It is an old saying, but "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."

MIKE It may be an "old saying" but it is anti-scriptural. It opposes the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

I've seen the statement on bumperstickers.

Yet, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ commanded of His followers, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

If Christ taught perfection, then it seems reasonable to believe that perfection is attainable. Yet it is very popular for Christians to claim that they are not perfect. The "not perfect' claim allows plenty of "wiggle room" and provides an excuse for any wrong doing. I see it as just one more contradiction in terms.

RES
If people, including all Christians, would put away their pride and their Pharisee-like lives, there would be less confusion in the Church. Many people in the church today are nothing more than modern day Pharisees, they won't allow themselves to be broken for the glory of God.

MIKE
"All Christians" are not going to do everything in concert or agree on one true doctrine which attests to the failure and fallacy of the above scriptures.

RES
I am sory I haven't responded to all your thoughts, but I will end with this one. Since I beleive the Bible in it's whole, then God drowning the world is within His domain,

MIKE
It also appears to be within Biblegod's domain to impose double standards anytime it is convenient. He commands us not to kill but he constantly kills in the OT. He puts a lying spirit into someone's mouth and causes them to lie.(1 Kings 22:23). Then David later says, "I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love" (Psalm 119:163).

And remember, if you are a trinitarian, this is Jesus who is killing, executing, slicing pregnant women's bellies open, dashing infants to death on the ground, killing children, non-virgins, firstborn - including first born animals. But its OK. Its Biblegod doing it. What a twisted, convoluted set of double standards!

RES
Biblical teaching tells us all people are sinful(even children; but I do believe in an age of accountablility, not in years but understanding), and any child who was not clear of right and wrong may have died but not into damnation.

MIKE
Sin was invented by the Israelites.

You may believe in the "age of accountability" but it is not based on scriptural evidence and is no where to be found within the Bible. You are attempting to impute "fairness" to Biblegod with your reason but you can't support it with any scripture.

"The wages of sin is death. . ." (Romans 6:23) and there are no exceptions to this rule in the Bible.

Perfection and Contradictions II

Response to RES's Comments - "Yahoo Anti-Fundie Club"

MIKE
I'll do a little jumping around and respond first to your explanation of "perfect" as found in Matthew 5:48

RES
BTW- the reference to sinless perfect by mentioning Matt. 5:48 is extremely faulty. Perfection here implies without doubt to a Bible student across almost all denominational lines a growing into adulthood or maturity in being more like God.

MIKE
My reference to Matthew 5:48 is not at all faulty, but appropriate to your comment on "not perfect, just forgiven".

In context, Jesus allegedly spoke the words in Matthew 5:48 during his "sermon on the mount". He touches upon many facets of His teachings, not only Bible study.

He speaks of being poor in spirit, merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, persecuted, a light to the world, great in the kingdom of god, etc.

Yet Christians have the bold audacity to say, "I'm not pefect, just forgiven".

Jesus didn't say "Be *more* like God" or "Be *more* perfect". He said, "Be ye therefore perfect, EVEN AS YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN IS PERFECT". He made a very strong distinction when He used "his Father" as the ultimate example.

RES
Biblical perfection is a goal of matulirty, not an achievement of sinless perfection.

MIKE
Striving to reach a goal of perfection should not be a part of the equation since the born again Christian is supposedly indwelt by the Holy Spirit who does the work.

I am far from being an expert on Greek and depend upon study aids for the definitions of Greek words, espcially as they are applied to Biblical concepts¹.

The Greek word for "perfect" as used in Matthew 5:48 is "teleios"¹.

"Teleios" is generally used to convey the following concepts in the New Testament¹:

1) brought to its end, finished
2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness
3) perfect
4) that which is perfect
4a) consummate human integrity and virtue
4b) of men
4b1) full grown, adult, of full age, mature

You stated, "Perfection here implies without doubt to a Bible student across almost all denominational lines a growing into adulthood or maturity in being more like God."

The Greek word "teleios" includes growing and maturing but it also implies so much more. It implies being perfect, being complete, finished.

Unfortunately, you cannot divorce denomination from Bible study by a Bible student. Denominational teachings and doctrines determine *how* the student perceives what he studying in the Bible.

RES
Usually only a person trying to find problems in the Bible find those kind. You don't seem ignorant, don't assume I am.

MIKE
One need not look far to find examples such as the one I have given. Problems in contradictions, inconsistencies and ambiguity abound in the Bible.

When you mentioned "perfect", the scripture I quoted immediately came to mind. I wasn't *trying* to find a problem. The scripture is there! I researched it first to ascertain whether I was using it in its proper context.

RES
I truly thought I would get an agreement from you on why churches find themsleves in denominational differences. It simply comes down to pride and sometimes deceit.

MIKE
In some instances pride may be a factor, especially when a denominational split occurs.

Once again, and unfortunately, the Bible teaches that "pride goeth before a downfall" in a very negative sense. I frequently equate "pride" with "self esteem". I use them interchangeably. IMHO, self esteem/pride is absolutely necessary to operate with success in our daily lives. I'm a strong advocate of self esteem - being proud of one's accomplishments and abilities.

RES
It is a fooled person who thinks pride does not factor into what they do, say or how they live in some fashion or degree.

MIKE
I don't disagree at all with your statement. What I would disagree with is that pride is a negative (sinful) quality.

I have extensive experience in attempting to motivate and instill pride/self esteem in individuals who believe they have little or no worth to themselves or humanity, the lack of which can be a very devastating event in one's life.

Humility in moderation may be a virtue. However, to believe that one's self is a sinful entity, that his thoughts are only evil continually and that he is generally lower in stature than a worm is emotionally crippling, destructive and dangerous thinking.

To follow the commandment by Christ in the context in which he meant it, to "be perfect" and at the same time believe and advocate that one is constantly tainted with a sinful, evil nature (pride allegedly being a sin) is an excellent example of Biblical errancy. It is a Biblical paradox and a conflict which cannot be resolved.

FOOTNOTES:
1. Strong's number 5046. Blue Letter Bible

Lack of Understanding

Response to RES's Comments - "Yahoo Anti-Fundie Club"

RES
For someone who pulls a great many Scripture up, your understanding of the Bible, it's origins and it's history is poor. I don't say this insulting, just in the same forwardness that you present it.

MIKE
Not suprisingly, this is not the first time a born again Christian has claimed that my "understanding" of the Bible is incorrect.

I realize that conservative born again Christians believe that they have been 'indwelt' by the Holy Spirit and are taught the truths of the Bible by the Holy Spirit Himself. They believe they have "spiritual understanding' that the non-Christian simply cannot have or obtain without the 'indwelling'.

I suggest I have at least a fair understanding of the Bible, its history and its origins.

I am well aware of fundamentalist beliefs of the history and origins, having spent four years of my life in a fundamentalist Bible college and over twenty years as a born again fundamentalist Christian.

As usual, you have made allegations without support regarding my lack of understanding so I cannot pursue the subject any further than this

RES
First, read my responses closely. I said that God has never told me to take up arms, but if you would like instances in which God commanded it, read the Old Testament. God commanded Joshua, Moses, David, and a variety of others to fight against those that came against God's people.

MIKE
Being suprisingly familiar with the Old Testament for one not having understanding of the Bible, I immediately recall General Moses command to execute little Midianite boys who were taken as prisoners by his soldiers. The young lads were now fatherless since Moses army had decimated their cities and killed all their fathers.

Moses also commanded that all the non-virgin women prisoners be executed immediately BUT the virgin women were to be spared and used by Moses soldiers as they saw fit.

What was the misdeed of the Midianites which deserved their annihilation?

"It is not the attraction of vice that the children of Israel are faced with. That is something that is and always had been universal. It was not professional prostitutes who led Israel astray. It was the daughters of the Moabites and the Midianites, their own wives and sweethearts. They enticed and seduced the men of Israel to take parts in the rites of Baal, the fertility cult of Canaan. What Israel encountered while still on the other side of Jordan was the voluptuous worship of the Phoenician gods. The leaders of Israel struck swiftly and struck hard. They did not even spare their own men. Offenders were slaughtered and hanged. . .The people of Moab were spared since they were related to Israel-Lot, Abraham's nephew, was regarded as their ancestor¹ (Genesis 19). But against the Midianites, a war of extermination was let loose."²

The misdeed was not believing in Biblegod as the one and only true god! But according to the Bible, it was so serious, it motivated Biblegod to order all Midianites killed.

Although the Moabites were guilty of the same "crime", they were spared because they were "relatives".

Double standard? If it was, its was OK because we just dont question the fairness of Biblegod.

RES
If you wish to trivialize and try to put into your humanistic understanding the spoken Word of God and it's merits, feel free. But undesrtand that if I am wrong it is unpleasant to some while I live, if you are wrong, it will unpleasant for you forever.

MIKE
Sort of a variation on Pascal's Wager.

At any rate, you define an attempt to understand the Bible as "trivializing". I can't understand the Bible as anything but a human being. Nor can you.

RES
I have no reason to try and impute fairness into God. God is just, but moreso He is merciful.

MIKE
Please explain how the execution of little boys and non-virgin women who were prisoners of war is just and merciful. Explain how keeping alive the young virgin Midianite women for the sexual pleasures of the Israelites soldiers was just and merciful.

RES
Scripturally you are correct, there is no verse that claims an age of accountablility, but the notion of God watching over the children is undisputable. Jesus said Himself in Matt., Mark, and Luke that if anyone should come against a little one that they would be better off if they had a millstone hung around their neck and drowned.

MIKE
See my comment above. According to the Bible, Moses, under Biblegods' authority, executed defenseless young children and women captured as prisoners of war. Remember, according to Trinitarians, Jesus Christ IS Biblegod. Jesus/Biblegod has children and women executed but Jesus/Biblegod says if anyone should come against a little one they will be severly punished.

Apparently we have a kinder, gentler Jesus/Biblegod now than we did when the Midianites existed. But how could that be? Biblegod never changes>

RES
Now 2 out of the 3 given here does mention that the little ones He speaks of are believers in Him. One might say that makes them Christians, but to believe alone is not salvation. James 2:19 even shows that the devils of hell believe, yet this does not give them salvation.

MIKE
So Biblegod had children executed, knowing they could not "enter into the kingdom of heaven". The "age of accountablity" theory is just that. Its not a new doctrine. Its a convenience fundamentalists have conjured up in an attempt to explain what happens to the souls of children who aren't saved or "under the blood".

RES
Back to your Bible understanding. Read all of your translations and you will find subject matter that can be construed as faulty. But every single thing you read is just TRANSLATION. There in essence is no HOLY BIBLE as we use it today. Search for the word Bible in the Bible and see what you find. The Bible is an accumulation of writings by men of God. It is even a man's test given to produce which writing will make it into the total work. Have men made mistakes is the preparing the total work? Probably. Can God use even that which man messes up? Absolutely.

MIKE
The "original MSS" of the Bible no longer exist. Since they do not exist, there is no way to compare the copies of copies of copies of scripture we presently have to verify their accuracy. We cannot proofread them. We have nothing against which to proofread them.

So once again, you are claiming that the all powerful, all knowing, all present Biblegod has allowed "His Word" to become corrupted by men and yet we are still to use it as our life's guide and learn of Biblegod through its corrupted, errant pages.

The more I learn and discuss Christianity, Jesus Christ and Biblegod, the more ludicrous they become!

RES
If Marley is reading, can you understand it at all without reading it or asking for guidance? Not a chance.

MIKE
Of course he can't. Nor can I. We don't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all understanding. Only born again Christians such as you, ENKRAW, have that Biblegod given ability to understand.

Yet you have not attempted to harmonize even one of the contadictions I provided in an earlier post. Nor have you responded to comments I have made in previous posts which question your Biblegod given logic.

Here is a comment from a previous post to which you have not responded:

"Although you claim the contradictions are somehow out of context, you offer no explanation for any of them, nor do you attempt to harmonize them. I've found that this is usually the case when a christian claims a contradiction really isn't a contradiction. If you can, please explain how the contradictions I have provided are not really contradictions."

You freely admitted that all Christians are not of one mind. I provided five scriptures very specific to the requirement and commandment that all Christians be of one mind. How is this possible?

RES
Again, not insulting, just responding. If I am wrong, so be it. But if I am right in just the basics, then any man's idea of what is right, proper, just, mercifull, contradictory, lawful or fair is inconsequential to God. If God creates and says this is how it will be and here are your options and consequences, then it is that way,... FOR US. We only live by the law and we will not change the maker of the law. And even by your idea of right and wrong, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Right and wrongs in their most basic elements have absolutes. It is interesting how those who habve self proclaimed enlightenment see so much gray.

MIKE
I have presented sufficient examples of scriptures to provide a great deal of gray area. It is not so interesting to me as it is a puzzle to understand how you are unable to see the gray.

FOOTNOTES:
1. Genesis 19
2. Werner Keller, The Bible As History, William Morton & Co., Inc., New York, 1982, p. 154

Censorship

Response to Greg's Guestbook Comments - (Very Short)

GREG
Forgive them father for they know not what they do...Through FAITH and BELIEVING this web site will no longer be. . .

MIKE
Greg is another Dark Ages, hit-and-run-Christian who didn't leave his Email address.

Greg has resolved that the best solution to anything which disagrees with his beliefs is to simply believe and pray it into "non-existence".

Greg is not alone in his thinking. History recounts many instances where Christians judged certain information as dangerous to their doctrines and dogmas. Solution? Get rid of the problem. Burn the books. Execute those who disagree.

The Church threatened Galileo with death if he did not recant his scientific theory that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice-versa.

Greg's fundamentalist mindset is not unusual among born again Christians. His thought should cause grave concern. People who think like Greg are busy making plans to run for and be elected to public offices where they can legislate or otherwise put their dangerous fundamentalist beliefs into action.

In some fundamentalist Islamic countries, spoken disagreement with the state religion is punishable by death.

While fundamentalists of various beliefs may disagree on doctrine, they often agree on the method of suppressing the opposition.

Religion Versus Jesus Christ

Response to Marty's Guestbook Comments

MARTY
Problem is that people think's this is a religion.

MIKE
You haven't defined Christianity but you state people "think" it is a religion.

Let me guess what Christianity is. Christianity is not a religion. It is Jesus Christ Himself who rose from the dead and lives. When one becomes a born again Christian, saved by the grace of God, he embraces the living Christ and Christ then comes to live within him and he is quickened, or made spiritually alive by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Did I come close? The above is a compendium of unproven, Bible and pulpit rhetoric and pure superstition which I regulary receive from born again Christians who attempt to set Christianity aside from the rest of the religions of the world.

Let's have a look at the definition of "religion" as defined in the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary:

Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural.

: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

In spite of your belief, Marty, Christianity IS a religion. It is one of many religious belief systems in the world.

MARTY
They are the ones who I see weekly coming to church and are totally fake. They throw their hands up and say amen all the time but when push comes to shove they run.

MIKE
Then "the ones" you refer to are subject to your judgment. YOU have decided they are "fake". In fact, "totally fake".

I'm not sure what you are attempting to say with regard to "them" throwing their hands up, saying amen and then running when push comes to shove. What are they running from? What are they running to? What is "push comes to shove" in this instance?

MARTY
Christ is not a religion based on what we think. Christ is Christ.

MIKE
Christ IS a religion. Christ IS based on what one thinks. Christ is whatever the particular believer wishes to make him, be the believer a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, a Christian Scientist or a Muslim.

The problem is, the proof that Jesus Christ even existed is very difficult to find. If you have extra-biblical proof, please present it. But please, no subjective, "I just know" or "He lives within me" dogmatic rhetoric. I'm talking about actual historical proof.

MARTY
We can deny him totally and beleive we came from monkey's.

MIKE
If I understand your statement with the intent you mean't it, The two actions exist together. If anyone "denies" Christ, he must also believe we came from monkeys.

You are trying to refer to evolution, however, evolution theory does not espouse the teaching that "man came from monkeys" but rather that man and other primates probably evolved from a common ancestor¹.

I question whether Christ existed. The evidence is, at best, a stretch. If you don't agree with that, again, provide extrabiblical evidence.

I don't believe we came from monkeys. At least not directly. But I do believe Darwin came much closer to truth than the Biblegod fairytale. The evolution theory is not a perfect theory but is far more logical than the creation myth which, incidentally, depending upon which variation you wish to believe in Genesis, changes depending upon which narration you choose.

Here are just a couple of inconstencies regarding creation²:

GEN 1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

GEN 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

VERSUS:

GEN 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

GEN 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof"

Which came first, man or animals? Take your pick. The Bible tells us both came first.

Here are a couple of more enigmas from the Bible regarding "creation":

Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (GENESIS 1), the Priestly tradition:

• Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
  
• Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
  
• Day 3: Plants
  
• Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
  
• Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
  
• Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
  
• Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
  

  Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".

  The second one (GENESIS 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

  
  
  • Earth and heavens (misty)
    
  • Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth) Plants
    
  • Animals
    
  • Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
    

    ---

    How orderly were things created?
    #1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days".

    #2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

    ---

    How satisfied with creation was he?
    #1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.

    #2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
    

    ---

    MARTY
    That's our right. He gave us the freedom to choose.

    MIKE
    I completely question the freedom of choice. The two choices are:

    1. Totally embrace the Bible and its teachings and live according to its dictates.

    2. Burn in an everlasting fire - that is - for all eternity. Forever.

    I see no REAL choice. If the born again fundamentalist Christian doctrine and dogma is true, either embrace the born again belief system or live an excruciating life in hell for eternity.

    At any rate, it would be impossible to live according to the Bible's dictates. It is too contradictory and inconsistent.

    MARTY
    What we choose though is just like the guy who robbed the bank when he knew what he should do! That did not save him from the judge and courts. So shall everybody rather they beleive or not stand before the judgement seat of Christ!

    "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb.4:12)

    MIKE
    Circular reasoning. You use the Bible to attempt to prove the Bible.

    You believe the Israelite invention that all men are sinners because the Bible says it.

    You believe the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is the Word of God.

    You believe the scripture you quoted from the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.

    Can you offer any valid extrabiblical proof that the Bible is the inspired word of any god?
    
    
    
    

    FOOTNOTES:

    1. What Is Evolution?, Lawrence Moran, 1993
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    

    Subscribe to TheJesusDebates
    Powered by groups.yahoo.com

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    FastCounter by bCentral
    Created 8/11/01
    
    
    
    Created February 14, 1999
    Revised August 12, 2003