Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from ack Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Please people, everyone arguing about God and what it is to be Christian. Nothing in the evangelical or ecumenical rites have much to do with original Christianity. Other than the name Jesus. So go on and tout your superior "education" to one another, all the while you argue about who has the best imaginary friend! Let's look at this scientifically. Here's what well do, say three prayers. One for world peace, one for world domination, and one that your life goes on uneventfully changed for the moment. Now, can we guess which one will be answered? And if God has the power to make a universe, I'm sure He'll have the power to her you without a hearing aid. I'm sure one prayer will suffice. (hmm, the first time I've conceptualized an imaginary hearing aid...) ack (reply to this comment)

from Baxter Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 03:03 (Agree/Disagree?) 'The Absurd is sin without God.' Albert Camus (reply to this comment)

from Samuel Monday, January 03, 2005 - 12:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Radhakrishnan should have stepped out of his bubble and become better informed about Christianity. Then he would have had an educated opinion. I do not know who Radhakrishnan is- or even if he is still alive- but his opinion makes it obvious to me that he did not take the time to study the facts and make an informed decision. Christianity has nothing to do with worshipping a group of authority, it has to do with worshipping God. I should know, I was in a cult where the group of authority was worshipped, and I assume you were as well. I assume that Radhakrishnan was not a Christian, but that is no excuse to voice an uneducated opinion. (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Tuesday, January 04, 2005, 03:12 (Agree/Disagree?) This is in serious danger of degenerating into a mudslinging contest, but a lot of us may find your perspective as,if not uneducated, at least as limited. What is God if not an edifice of authority and power? all that is being suggested here is that this edifice is of human rather than divine construction. Hence, the suggestion is that man rather than 'God' is being worshipped. There is no shortage of historical precedents that can arguably be seen to correlate this speculation. Essentially, what is required is an examination of your definition of the term 'God' in itself. (reply to this comment)

From Gothsmack Monday, January 03, 2005, 17:12 (Agree/Disagree?) A famous atheist once said, "All men are in some ways atheists, the only difference is what degree. When you understand why you choose to reject other gods, you will then understand why I choose to reject yours."(reply to this comment)

From Monday, January 03, 2005, 16:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, are you aware that many people who are not Christians have a religion that "has to do with worshipping God?" Two biggies being Islam and Judaism. Others have more that one god, and admittedly a somewhat different conception of deity, such as Hinduism. (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Monday, January 03, 2005, 13:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, your comment above portrays you as still being in a state of denial. Are you not aware of the fact that your beliefs are based on the accounts of other people and their beliefs (i.e. the Bible)? Have you forgotten that your entire belief system cannot be proven as a fact and is thus highly subjective to familial, social, and moral influence? You seem to be ignorant of the fact that you are worshiping a God as described to you by other human beings; that you follow laws made by human beings and attributed to God. The feelings you have towards God, the manner in which you worship him, the devotion to the Christian religion that you feel -- these are not human instinct. They are learned. Until the day you meet God and/or have irrefutable evidence as to His existence, character and disposition, you are relying completely and utterly on a "group or (supposed) authority" to define your beliefs and concept of Him. Of course, if you admit that you are aware of this, yet choose to continue in your beliefs because you feel it makes you a better person, that is entirely your prerogative.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, January 03, 2005, 18:52 (Agree/Disagree?) My answer is this: I am not in a state of denial, I am in the state of Florida. Just because I believe in God does not mean that I rely on a "group or authority". If I elect not to follow God, that is my perogative. According to The Family, this would not jeopardize my salvation because their theology is based on "Once Saved, Always Saved". The funny thing is, "Once Saved, Always Saved" was David Berg's only chance of getting to Heaven considering all the wicked things he did, which probably continued until he died. To be honest, I'm not sure about the "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS) doctrine, but I would like to believe that it is true. Churches across the country and across the world discuss OSAS. That is because there is no "group or authority" except The Bible, with the exception of Catholicism, which has The Pope as its "group or authority". Priests are not allowed to marry, which really sucks, considering that there is no scriptural basis for that commandment. If the "group or authority" which you speak of existed, this group or authority figure would send out a mass e-mail to all churches in the World letting them know whether or not OSAS is true. In my opinion, that "group or authority" would then condemn the Catholic church's view on priests marrying. The next thing this "group or authority" would probably do is declare once and for all whether homosexuals can be allowed in the clergy. I am aware that The Bible is written by man. So is the Koran, so is the Torah, so is every book. That The Bible is written by man should come as no surprise. I still hold The Bible to be the inspired, infallible Word of God. I could care less that it was written by men. I guess one could also say that our posts on this web site mean absolutely nothing because they have all been written via a computer. I will have to correct on your next point. There are scholars on this planet as we speak trying to prove to people of their own faith that that faith can be proven. The problem is, no one outside their broad circle will believe it. If one of my atheist professors were to bring in evidence that atheism can be proven as fact- I would not believe it. Likewise, if I were to walk into his classroom with boards from Mt. Ararat that prove Noah's Ark existed and the Bible is true- he would not believe that either, although he may acknowledge that most civilizations have records of a flood like the one described in Genesis. Actually, I am well aware of the fact that the God I worship cannot be described. A good preacher once said "If you can describe God, then your (impression of) God is too small". The laws I follow are attributed to both God and human beings. There is a law here in Florida that says you can't buy alcohol until 11:00am on Sunday. God did not write this law, it is not mentioned anywhere in The Bible. In fact, I'm sure you realize that Sunday is not the Lord's day, but Saturday. In other words, people rush into my grocery store on Saturday night (The Lord's day) to buy alcohol for their football game, date, or whatever they have planned. God would not make such a law. Priests follow a law that is made by human beings, the law that forbids them from marrying. But as I already mentioned, there is no scriptural basis for this. One cannot refute the fact that American laws against murder, purgery, and theft are derived from the Ten Commandments- whether or not you believe that God wrote them. The devotion that one has toward their religion IS human instinct. I love God not because I have been taught to, but because I understand the sacrifices that he has made for me and how he has blessed me. Every morning when I wake up, the sun is out to keep me from having to go to work in the dark. If for some reason I have to walk back from work, the moon is out to make sure there is enough light for me to see where I'm going. The nice bonus that I got from work back in October was God's way of blessing me. My grocery chain does well, while other chains in the area are going under because God has blessed them. With this is mind, why would I NOT want to bless the Lord, not only on his day, but every day? My friend who sings in the choir with me has a daughter in New York who attends a Methodist church. Her daughter has our own life, is married, holds down a job and pays her own bills-she is no way controlled by her mother. She continues to praise the Lord in her Methodist church- not because she wants her mother's approval, not because she's in a Pentacostal church, not because she feels obligated to, but because she loves the Lord and wants to please him. This is not learned, it is human instinct and emotion. You may claim that this is learned, but atheism is learned just as well. I currently do not have irrefutable evidence of God's existent. But at the same, no one has even tried to present to me irrefutable evidence that there is no God. I am aware of the following: That people doubt God's existence. That because people doubt God's existence, scholars will never be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt God's existence or that laws on the books to this day are derived from him. That people will always claim that The Bible is useless because it is written because it is man's account of God's word. People say the same thing about the Torah, and the Koran, and the Vedas. But whenever you read or listen to the news, you are reading or listening to someone else's account of what happened at a certain place. This does not stop people from watching CBS News, it didn't stop people from watching "NOW" on NBC (the fact that NOW was canceled did that), and it won't stop me from reading my Bible and believing it to the the only infallible, inspired word of God. (reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Many of this comments inconsistencies have been critiqued. However the most disconserting one which I think you will find even most thinking Christians to be wary of, is the classifications of "Gods Blessings". Your statement: "The nice bonus that I got from work back in October was God's way of blessing me. My grocery chain does well, while other chains in the area are going under because God has blessed them." Sent shudders down my spine. If these things are God's blessings, then the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" are on the flip side "God's curses". If the reason to praise God lies in the positive experiences you encounter in life then you must say the death of at least 150.000 people is reason to curse God. Forget trying to classify such things as the work of God good or bad (that is if you have any hope whatsoever of seeing a loving God in the world around us). I would also add that I am far from decided in my theology regarding the existence of God etc so I am not coming at this from a place you might consider negative. Let me know if you see the point.(reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Many of this (reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Many of (reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, January 06, 2005, 10:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Many (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Tuesday, January 04, 2005, 07:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, the inconsistencies in your logic are far to many for me to point out at this time, so I will stick to the main points. 1) You say: "I'm not sure about the "Once Saved, Always Saved" (OSAS) doctrine, but I would like to believe that it is true." Why not first study where the concept of being "saved" began? You might be surprised to learn that many Bible scholars agree that Jesus didn't actually say many of the things he is attributed as saying. One of the first of many passages that comes to mind is the last several verses of the book of Mark (including 16:15) -- a classic case of someone putting words in Jesus' mouth. You might also be surprised to find out that your beliefs in salvation are actually based more on the Pauline (St. Paul) gospel, than on what Jesus himself taught. Here is an interesting site you might want to read through. Don't visit it if you prefer to not have your child-like faith shattered. If you follow all the internal links in the articles (which I highly recommend) it becomes a long read, but well worth it if you are truly interested in finding out what your faith is based on. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin (for those wondering: no, I am not a paid spokesperson for that site :) ) You say: "If the "group or authority" which you speak of existed, this group or authority figure would send out a mass e-mail to all churches in the World letting them know whether or not OSAS is true." But they already did. Only way back then they didn't have email yet and the letters were called epistles. You say: "I still hold The Bible to be the inspired, infallible Word of God" That's entirely your choice. But think about it this way: If it was indeed infallible then the entire world would accept it as being such. That's what happens when a concept or theory holds water, just like it did with the theory of gravity, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, etc. If it was, as you say, infallible, then people would be stupid not to believe in it, and yet, those who don't believe in it have logical, definable, tangible reasons for not doing so. You say: "No one has even tried to present to me irrefutable evidence that there is no God". Correct, because it is near impossible to prove a negative. The more abstract the concept, the more difficult it is to disprove. Sorry, Samuel. No case closing statement there. You say: "I am aware of the following: That people doubt God's existence" You should get out more. There are millions of people out there who _know_ God doesn't exist just like you _know_ the earth rotates around the sun. You say: "That because people doubt God's existence, scholars will never be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt God's existence or that laws on the books to this day are derived from him." Are you sure you meant to say that? Because it sounds a tad bit naive. If something can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (scholarly support or no), people who don't believe in it are usually called crazy. You say: "This does not stop people from watching CBS News [...] and it won't stop me from reading my Bible and believing it to the only infallible, inspired word of God." It seems you have trouble distinguishing between things that have even a small chance of being proven as fact (i.e. a news report) and things that must be taken entirely by faith (i.e. that Jesus was the Son of God). The difference is that with one, you have a consistent and traceable line of logic, which if it was fragmented or broken at any place would give one reason enough to conclude the it is, in this case, a false news report. With the other, you have extrapolation built on extrapolation and a conclusion that is left dangling in mid-air, meaning the entire concept must be believed -- as in faith. When I left the Family, the first thing I did when it came to my religion was study everything I could find on the subject of the Bible -- both pro and con. In doing so, I discovered for myself what it was my beliefs were founded on. I gained as full of a knowledge as I could on both sides of the subject, approaching it with an open mind, unafraid of what the outcome might have been. I can honestly say I have made an educated choice. I wonder if you can say the same for yourself.(reply to this comment)

From whatever1037 Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 02:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Just a few things: Why not first study where the concept of being "saved" began? You might be surprised to learn that many (comon dude, you meant 0.01% right) Bible scholars agree that Jesus didn't actually say many of the things he is attributed as saying. One of the first of many passages that comes to mind is the last several verses of the book of Mark (including 16:15) -- a classic case of someone putting words in Jesus' mouth. Actually you cant prove that someone made that up. As for the web page I've been trough it and 90% of it is pure bull. But of course thats my opinion. But even if if wasnt , the rock solid proof of the page is that the Bible is wrong because of the "mistakes" or how I have called it "lack of understanding" this person has encounterd. So following that formula I would have to state that the page is wrong due to the fact i have also found many mistakes in the page (90%) right? So now that I have the web page out of the way like you have the Bible out of your way. There's a question. Why is the Bible the worlds Best Seller Year after Year after Year ? Many people tell me : Are you saying that God is gonna throw the poor Africans and Chinese in hell ? The Bible doesnt say that. Although I cant say the same about Atheists. How ever if you were looking for the truth you need only buy the worlds best seller so you can see who made it all. (reply to this comment)

From night_raver Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 08:49 (Agree/Disagree?) What an impressively exhaustive critique: "Actually you cant prove that someone made that up." Do you understand the difference between giving reasons and citing evidence to back up your assertion vs. just making an assertion "it just aint so"? "As for the web page I've been trough it and 90% of it is pure bull" Okay, again, give reasons WHY for starters (probably too much to ask for you to give evidence from independent sources to support your reasons). "So now that I have the web page out of the way like you have the Bible out of your way..." Umm, 'out of the way'? The website made an assertion and backed it up by quoting independent sources, while you just made an assertion. While one may choose to reject the authority of the website's source(s) as biased, unreliable, or of doubtful authorship, at least it cites sources and gives reasons (unlike you). "There's a question. Why is the Bible the worlds Best Seller Year after Year after Year ?...if you were looking for the truth you need only buy the worlds best seller so you can see who made it all" John Grisham, Tom Clancy, & Steven King are & have been best-sellers year after year, I guess I can find 'the truth' from them too...or maybe they can tell me 'who made it all'...or maybe 'who made it some' since the Bible is a bigger bestseller than they are (I'm assuming the Bible is). (reply to this comment)

From whatever1037 Thursday, January 06, 2005, 00:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Evidence ? There is no EVIDENCE. There is CHOICE. Which is based from where the individual is standing. Thus the differnt ways of thinking. -The website made an assertion and backed it up by quoting independent sources... Yes the page claims Something and backs it up by independent sources. Which you have mistaken by calling EVIDENCE. They're really just References from a bunch of atheist BOOKS. Books = Assertions. So really its just an Assertion backed up by another ONE. Also known as "Circular Reasoning". Or faith. -Do you understand the difference between giving reasons and citing evidence ( again What Evid.. ? ) to back up your assertion vs. just making an assertion "it just aint so". 1st- Didnt you notice your non-beliefs are based on a "group of authority" ? Either that or you really havent taken the time see the masive group of atheists it took to put that webpage together. Right? 2- My opinion has been plucked straight out of my expieriences. Unlike the many people who have entered the page and come out saying "the Bible is crap". Why is it then YOU must enter the page to get your conclusion of the Bible ? Couldn't you have done that on your own ? So much for originality. -Okay, again, give reasons WHY for starters (probably too much to ask for you to give evidence from independent sources to support your reasons). It would take me whole article just to begin. Is that really what you want ? -Stephen King , John ... and Glancy ? Was that an insult to your inteligence ??? Dont worry I'll take it as a joke. I hope for your sake God will too. (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Thursday, January 06, 2005, 06:53 (Agree/Disagree?) So if Books = Assertions, wouldn't it be true that THE Book = THE Assertion? The books you criticize are at least backed up by other books. What book is the Bible backed up by? (Trick question alert!)(reply to this comment)

From whatever1037 Thursday, January 06, 2005, 16:17 (Agree/Disagree?) The Bible is backed up by Itself and hundreds of Christian authors. However you are correct the real Rock is the Bible itself.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Friday, January 07, 2005, 02:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Do me a favour, look up "circular reasoning" in a reputable dictionary sometime, specifically why it's generally fallacious, and then let's talk, mkay? (reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 08:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Even if that stat is true, it just disturbs me. It sounds too much like one of those bogus cult facts that was spread around to facilitate other bogus stats, ie. "TYJ! We just won one million souls!!". Never mind the fact that some of those countries don't even have one million people inhabiting them in the first place. Another thing that disturbs me is the way Chrisitians really get off on preaching to athiests and agnostics. The cult was big on that too. I remember in one home some of the adults were really into seeing who could convert a jew as if it would be more "powerful" in heaven, or maybe the "crown" of whoever did would shine even brighter with a jew-turned-christian star on it (the main perpetrator in this case was an ex jew himself). Note to all Christians--LEAVE THE UNBELIEVING THE FUCK ALONE!!! After all, didn't we hear all this stuff already? Some of us grew up not just reading the bible but memorizing it as well.(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 08:11 (Agree/Disagree?) You asked: "Why is the Bible the worlds Best Seller Year after Year after Year?" My answer: Probably the same reason why people believed the word was flat for centuries and centuries, and probably the same reason why McDonald's business is still thriving inspite of many exposes: Too few stop to take a closer look, or if they do, they are too uncomfortable with the outcome. You say: "However if you were looking for the truth you need only buy the worlds best seller so you can see who made it all." Your false assumptions aside, you are again slipping into the realm of circular logic: The Bible is the truth because it says that God says its the truth... Why is it that you say this stuff so often without thinking about it?(reply to this comment)

From whatever1037 Thursday, January 06, 2005, 01:19 (Agree/Disagree?) "Why is the Bible the worlds Best Seller Year after Year after Year" -My answer: Probably the same reason why people believed the word was flat for centuries and centuries, and probably the same reason why McDonald's business is still thriving inspite of many exposes: Too few stop to take a closer look, or if they do, they are too uncomfortable with the outcome. Yes thats one way to see it. Although an athiest once said : Think about it this way: If it was indeed infallible then the entire world would accept it as being such. That's what happens when a concept or theory holds water, just like it did with the theory of gravity, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, etc. Okay now you've got me all mixed up. If I recall the majority of the world belives The Planet is round except for a few ppl who live in NUTHOUSES. Is this why atheists hold a mere 2% of the worlds population ? Or do you just not know what in the heck you're talking about ? (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Thursday, January 06, 2005, 06:45 (Agree/Disagree?) So you're saying that 98% of the world's population believes the Bible to be the infallible Word of God? That's the topic were were discussing. Remember?(reply to this comment)

From whatever1037 Thursday, January 06, 2005, 16:05 (Agree/Disagree?) 1) I never said that 98% of the world population accepts the Bible as the word of God. I know I'm steping a little out of context. But what I am getting into is Religion vs Atheism. Here is one chart I found. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html Feel free to post your own if you dont concur. Anyway it states : Non religious-14% This however includes 4 differnet categories: 1- "none" 2- Agnostics. Somebody denying God’s existence is provable 3- Secular Humanists. 4- Atheist. Someone who doesnt belive in God or dieties Deity: a god, goddess, or other divine being or somebody or something like god somebody or something that is treated like a god. God: Supernatural Being. In other words an Atheist belives in Nothing. I'll be fair now and give you a total of 3.5 percent ok *Fish: Read the link in the chart of the Non-Religious for clarification. Now this is where you have me mixed up : If it was indeed "infallible" then the "entire world" would accept it... that's what happens when a "concept or theory" ... the earth revolves around the sun, etc. Looks to me like your saying here that the concept or theory of a God or a Diety is as reasonable as the "earth revolves around the sun" theory, but actually you are also saying that it is "infallible" due to the fact that 86% of the planet accepts it. But you can also give it a B and I will then give you an F Now if the "CONCEPT"(GOD) infallible, then WHY ? is that "SOMETHING"(the BIBLE) ,that is trying to "EXPLAIN"(THE THEORY) itself to the world, although rejected by a 70 percent of the planet, still the Worlds Best Seller ? I'll use Gothsmacks words (taken from the Bible) and your own (taken from Rejection of Pascal Wag.) -Mattew 7:13,14 Enter YE IN AT THE STRAIT GATE: FOR WIDE IS THE GATE, AND BROAD IS THE GATE, THAT LEADETH TO DESTRUCTION, AND MANY THERE BE WHICH GO IN THEREAT: BECAUSE STRAIT IS THE GATE, AND NARROW IS THE WAY, WHICH LEADETH UNTO LIFE, AND FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT. -Your answer: Probably the same reason why people believed the world was flat (ALTHOUGH THE BIBLE STATES OTHERWISE) for centuries and centuries, and probably the same reason why McDonald's business is still thriving inspite of many exposes: "Too few stop to take a closer look, or if they do, they are too uncomfortable with the outcome". My Answer ? I think by now you may have a clue. (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Friday, January 07, 2005, 06:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, you're absolutely right. I do have a clue. And having said that, I now leave you to the comfort of your circular logic.(reply to this comment)

From Gothsmack Thursday, January 06, 2005, 05:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Why do atheists hold a mere 2% of the worlds population? Perhaps your holy book could provide us with the answers. Mattew 7:13,14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Wednesday, January 05, 2005, 07:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Clarify the “poor Africans and Chinese”. Smells like white supremacy.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Tuesday, January 04, 2005, 03:49 (Agree/Disagree?) "That The Bible is written by man should come as no surprise. I still hold The Bible to be the inspired, infallible Word of God." Am I the only one who sees the inherent contradiction in these statements? In one breath you say that the Bible was written by man (making it, therefore, the quite fallible word of man), yet in the next you say it is the inspired, infallible Word of God. Which is it, bub? Man's writings or God's? You can't have it both ways. - Unless of coure you're a closet Thelemite who proclaims that Thou Art God when nobody is looking. Seems your philosophy could use some thinking through at the very least. Oh, and by the way, Atheism is the logical choice of the hardcore rationalist - which you obviously are not, as you are apparently content to let long dead "seers", "prophets" and other sundry madmen do the bulk of your thinking for you. I propose your motto be that of Lewis Carroll's White Queen: I've believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast. :) (reply to this comment)

From neez Monday, January 03, 2005, 19:19 (Agree/Disagree?) For someone who seems to think they have meaning of life nailed. You still use phrases like "According to The Family" way to much. Like JW said why don't you try coming up with your own set of morals & ideas instead of repeating the same crap that other like-minded fools have been spouting for centuries. & I really don't understand do-gooder types that think they're always the first to tell ppl the joys & wonders of following a non-existent entity. & they usually assume that we haven't already had 300 other gimps here trying to get someone to argue their archaic theories with them. It's OLD NEWS & it's fuckin boring news.(reply to this comment)

From breakaway Monday, January 03, 2005, 13:23 (Agree/Disagree?) No one was speaking about Christianity in general in this post. You're looking too deep. Talk about making an uniformed decision! This quote is about cults, sects and branches of organized religion in which there is an "authority" that claims to speak in the name of God. When there is this type of authority, everything the leader says becomes "God's word". Therefore, any opinion that differs from the “authority” is considered sin. I was referring to TF in this quote. The author was not only talking about Christianity since there are many other religions that have a God or gods. Or do you, like every devoutly religious person, think that the only God is the one you know? Talk about uneducated. (reply to this comment)