Reasons to Reject or Not Reject the Christian Faith

[BobL]

Hi everybody,

Richard and I just met and have had a couple of chats before now. I appreciate his inviting me to come and discuss the topic of Reasons for Rejecting or Not Rejecting the Christian faith.

I am impressed that he has been so gracious in our conversations, and in his answers to the posts that I have read. I am impressed with his background and acumen. However, I am even more impressed that (from my perspective), God has so highly favored him to discover the Bible Wheel.

I know that there are probably more critics of the Wheel; however, the one Christian apologist who wrote the one critique that I read, obviously had not made a thorough investigation of the Wheel. He did not specifically address all the important facts/factors in the Bible that have confluences in the Wheel that are very highly unlikely. The likelihood of the confluences of those biblical "factors" go far beyond mere happenstance. In my opinion, the Wheel is a real manifestation of proof of the supernatural design of the Bible by an Intelligence none other than God, Himself. Once again, that the Creator of the Universe would reveal the Wheel to Richard, makes him so immensely blessed and so highly favored.

Richard, I am taken aback however, by the fact that after such an amazing discovery which you still believe is bonifide, you consider yourself to have left the Christian faith. May I ask, which essential aspects of Christianity that make a person a Christian, have you given up?

Respectfully yours,

Bob

[BobL]

Richard,

I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. Personal or organizational Christian creeds or tenets of faith may or may not be biblical. What I should have asked you is: What BIBLICAL components of or specifications for the biblically-defined condition of salvation do you reject and no longer want applied to yourself, that make you non-Christian?

Regards,

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. Personal or organizational Christian creeds or tenets of faith may or may not be biblical. What I should have asked you is: What BIBLICAL components of or specifications for the biblically-defined condition of salvation do you reject and no longer want applied to yourself, that make you non-Christian?

Regards,

Bob

Good morning Bob, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I'm really glad you have posted your questions. I began answering last night but it got too late before I could finish. I'll compose my answer now. I just wanted to say "welcome" to our forum and let you know that I appreciate your questions.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi everybody,

Richard and I just met and have had a couple of chats before now. I appreciate his inviting me to come and discuss the topic of Reasons for Rejecting or Not Rejecting the Christian faith.

I am impressed that he has been so gracious in our conversations, and in his answers to the posts that I have read. I am impressed with his background and acumen. However, I am even more impressed that (from my perspective), God has so highly favored him to discover the Bible Wheel.

I know that there are probably more critics of the Wheel; however, the one Christian apologist who wrote the one critique that I read, obviously had not made a thorough investigation of the Wheel. He did not specifically address all the important facts/factors in the Bible that have confluences in the Wheel that are very highly unlikely. The likelihood of the confluences of those biblical "factors" go far beyond mere happenstance. In my opinion, the Wheel is a real manifestation of proof of the supernatural design of the Bible by an Intelligence none other than God, Himself. Once again, that the Creator of the Universe would reveal the Wheel to Richard, makes him so immensely blessed and so highly favored.

Richard, I am taken aback however, by the fact that after such an amazing discovery which you still believe is bonifide, you consider yourself to have left the Christian faith. May I ask, which essential aspects of Christianity that make a person a Christian, have you given up?

Respectfully yours,

Bob
Good morning Bob,

I really appreciate your tone, and am glad you asked these questions since many other folks have similar questions and it gives me a chance to clarify my position both for myself and others. I still have a lot to figure out.

My departure from Christianity was a long slow process. At no stage did I make any rash decisions. My interaction with other Christians on internet forums played a big role. The more I talked with other believers, the more I found that there is no such thing as "Christianity" per se, but rather a broad range of contradictory "Christianities" based on widely divergent presuppositions and interpretations. You know the nature of Christendom. It is populated by Catholics, Greek Orthodox, ten thousand varieties of Protestants and the menagerie of fringe groups that sprang from them like JW, Mormonism, Christadelphian, Branch Davidian, Armstrongism, etc., etc., etc. It became obvious to me that it was entirely irrational to think that God would demand that a person must sort through all this confusion and come to the "correct interpretation" in order to be saved.

These problems were greatly amplified when I began to see that Christianity functions as an agent of corruption in many, if not most, public expressions of that religion. For example, in 2010 Ergun Caner was exposed as a serial liar who had been lying for TEN YEARS about being a former Muslim terrorist when in fact he grew up as an ordinary American kid in Columbus, Ohio. He was president and dean of Jerry Fallwel's seminary at Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the world. I watched dumbfounded as the entire LEADERSHIP of Liberty University systematically LIED to cover up Caner's crimes. My disgust grew as I watched one of the most prominent Christian apologists, Norm Geisler, do everything in his power to cover up Caner's lies. And John Ankerberg lied too, and many small Christian ministries removed the evidence of Caner's lies from their websites. I finally realized that the entire body of Evangelical Christianity was entirely corrupt and saturated with perverse people who would knowingly lie to protect other liars. See my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/03/ergun-caners-crimes-against-god-and-the-global-community/) if you are interested in the scatology of Christianity.

This forum also contributed largely to the demise of my faith. I started it back in 2007 hoping folks would come and discuss the Bible Wheel, but all anyone wanted to talk about was the end of the world, the rapture, and the Second Coming. This drew me in to a detailed study of eschatology (which never was of much interest to me when writing the Bible Wheel book) and I found that the vast majority of Christians adamantly held to irrational, unbiblical, and unsupportable beliefs. So again, I found that professing "faith" in the Bible meant nothing because everyone just believes what they want, and more often than not, folks will twist the Bible to fit their beliefs rather than conforming their beliefs to the Bible. What good then was the Bible?

And this brings us to your question posed in your second post: "What BIBLICAL components of or specifications for the biblically-defined condition of salvation do you reject and no longer want applied to yourself, that make you non-Christian?"

My answer: All of them. I do not believe that God is going to save or damn anyone based on what they believe about what is written in the Bible. That would be radically irrational for may reasons. First, most people in history never heard of the Bible, and of those who did, they were taught whatever doctrines flowed from the religion they were born into. Mormon children are taught Mormon doctrines, etc. God cannot use "doctrines" as a righteous standard of judgment. Furthermore, the Bible is much too ambiguous to function as any kind of guide, as is obvious from the ten thousand varieties of Christianities out there. And besides that, I now reject the Christian concept of theism. I do not believe that there is a theistic style God who is a personal agent who "does things" like answer prayers, part the Red Sea, flood the planet, design the Bible Wheel, command genocide, judge people for their sins, etc. But don't get me wrong. I'm open to the possibility of spiritual/mental "Ground of Being" or "Cosmic Mind." I just don't think there is any evidence for a theistic style God.

So what about the evidence of the Bible Wheel? As far as I know, it stands. I began presenting it on the internet in 2001. I discussed it on many forums such as theologyweb.com, the Christian ASA (American Scientific Association) mailing list, the Catholic Answers forum, and the Jews for Judaism forum. I have left a very long trail on the internet. I have responded to thousands of posts written by opponents. I consistently met with vehement opposition (or blunt dismissal) everywhere I went, but one thing stood out. To the best of my knowledge, no opponent has ever exposed any fundamental flaw or systematic error in the evidence. So from an evidentiary stance, the Bible Wheel stands. I have no option there.

So what does it mean? I don't know. I am mystified. But I am convinced it cannot be what you suggest (and which I once firmly believed). It cannot be proof that the Bible was designed by Yahweh, because God cannot be as described in its pages.

I look forward to discussing this with you more.

All the very best,

Richard

[Rose]

Richard,

I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. Personal or organizational Christian creeds or tenets of faith may or may not be biblical. What I should have asked you is: What BIBLICAL components of or specifications for the biblically-defined condition of salvation do you reject and no longer want applied to yourself, that make you non-Christian?

Regards,

Bob

Hello Bob and welcome to our forum :welcome:

I am Richards wife and would also like to answer your question as to why I'm a non-Christian. Richard and I both began our journey out of the Christian faith at the same time, but for different reasons. Unbeknownst to me at the time, my journey began with an in-depth study of Revelation, which quotes extensively from the Old Testament, so I was compelled to read its text in detail. The more I studied, the more its masculine god revealed his biased nature towards the female gender. At every turn in Scripture, the male god Yahweh was giving commands and laws to make a distinction in the treatment of women as opposed to men. Gender determined what human rights a person was afforded, with men being given the preference and ruler-ship over women. This study led me to write an article called The Male Bias of the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/) which can be found on my Blog.

A true god cannot be just while holding to a bias based solely on gender. Using logic and reason I determined that if the god of the Old Testament is biased, then he cannot be a true god. With this in mind I naturally had to reflect on the New Testament, which shared the same god. If Jesus called the god of the Old Testament his father and said that not one "jot" or "tittle" would be changed from its law, then logic follows that the god that Jesus called father was also biased, being one and the same god. We also know from the writings of Paul that he also held to the biased laws given in the Old Testament concerning women.

The biased nature of god was just the first stepping stone on my path out of Christianity, there are many other things in the nature of Yahweh, such as his gross immorality, and unrighteousness that added to the pile and led me to reject him as a true god. This of course is a very broad overview of my journey out of the faith that I had held for close to 28 years, but I wanted to give you another reason why a person would leave Christianity.

Take care,
Rose

[BobL]

Hello Bob and welcome to our forum :welcome:

I am Richards wife and would also like to answer your question as to why I'm a non-Christian. Richard and I both began our journey out of the Christian faith at the same time, but for different reasons. Unbeknownst to me at the time, my journey began with an in-depth study of Revelation, which quotes extensively from the Old Testament, so I was compelled to read its text in detail. The more I studied, the more its masculine god revealed his biased nature towards the female gender. At every turn in Scripture, the male god Yahweh was giving commands and laws to make a distinction in the treatment of women as opposed to men. Gender determined what human rights a person was afforded, with men being given the preference and ruler-ship over women. This study led me to write an article called The Male Bias of the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/) which can be found on my Blog.

A true god cannot be just while holding to a bias based solely on gender. Using logic and reason I determined that if the god of the Old Testament is biased, then he cannot be a true god. With this in mind I naturally had to reflect on the New Testament, which shared the same god. If Jesus called the god of the Old Testament his father and said that not one "jot" or "tittle" would be changed from its law, then logic follows that the god that Jesus called father was also biased, being one and the same god. We also know from the writings of Paul that he also held to the biased laws given in the Old Testament concerning women.

The biased nature of god was just the first stepping stone on my path out of Christianity, there are many other things in the nature of Yahweh, such as his gross immorality, and unrighteousness that added to the pile and led me to reject him as a true god. This of course is a very broad overview of my journey out of the faith that I had held for close to 28 years, but I wanted to give you another reason why a person would leave Christianity.

Take care,
Rose

Richard and Rose,

Thank you for answering my post so soon. I am so appreciative that you are gracious people, unlike those Christian apologists and atheists one finds at other religious debate websites.

I have never encountered "non-Christians" like you before (meaning nothing derogatory by the term, "non-Christian"). Not only am I not really experienced at discussing my or anyone else's belief or faith in a forum like this, but I have not done much of it face-to-face either; and so, I want to move forward in our discussion very thoughtfully and carefully, which will take me a little time to think and do some research, before I get back to you. I hope you don't mind. I will respond in a little bit.

Best Regards,

Bob

[BobL]

Good morning Bob,

I really appreciate your tone, and am glad you asked these questions since many other folks have similar questions and it gives me a chance to clarify my position both for myself and others. I still have a lot to figure out.

My departure from Christianity was a long slow process. At no stage did I make any rash decisions. My interaction with other Christians on internet forums played a big role. The more I talked with other believers, the more I found that there is no such thing as "Christianity" per se, but rather a broad range of contradictory "Christianities" based on widely divergent presuppositions and interpretations. You know the nature of Christendom. It is populated by Catholics, Greek Orthodox, ten thousand varieties of Protestants and the menagerie of fringe groups that sprang from them like JW, Mormonism, Christadelphian, Branch Davidian, Armstrongism, etc., etc., etc. It became obvious to me that it was entirely irrational to think that God would demand that a person must sort through all this confusion and come to the "correct interpretation" in order to be saved.

These problems were greatly amplified when I began to see that Christianity functions as an agent of corruption in many, if not most, public expressions of that religion. For example, in 2010 Ergun Caner was exposed as a serial liar who had been lying for TEN YEARS about being a former Muslim terrorist when in fact he grew up as an ordinary American kid in Columbus, Ohio. He was president and dean of Jerry Fallwel's seminary at Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the world. I watched dumbfounded as the entire LEADERSHIP of Liberty University systematically LIED to cover up Caner's crimes. My disgust grew as I watched one of the most prominent Christian apologists, Norm Geisler, do everything in his power to cover up Caner's lies. And John Ankerberg lied too, and many small Christian ministries removed the evidence of Caner's lies from their websites. I finally realized that the entire body of Evangelical Christianity was entirely corrupt and saturated with perverse people who would knowingly lie to protect other liars. See my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/03/ergun-caners-crimes-against-god-and-the-global-community/) if you are interested in the scatology of Christianity.

This forum also contributed largely to the demise of my faith. I started it back in 2007 hoping folks would come and discuss the Bible Wheel, but all anyone wanted to talk about was the end of the world, the rapture, and the Second Coming. This drew me in to a detailed study of eschatology (which never was of much interest to me when writing the Bible Wheel book) and I found that the vast majority of Christians adamantly held to irrational, unbiblical, and unsupportable beliefs. So again, I found that professing "faith" in the Bible meant nothing because everyone just believes what they want, and more often than not, folks will twist the Bible to fit their beliefs rather than conforming their beliefs to the Bible. What good then was the Bible?

And this brings us to your question posed in your second post: "What BIBLICAL components of or specifications for the biblically-defined condition of salvation do you reject and no longer want applied to yourself, that make you non-Christian?"

My answer: All of them. I do not believe that God is going to save or damn anyone based on what they believe about what is written in the Bible. That would be radically irrational for may reasons. First, most people in history never heard of the Bible, and of those who did, they were taught whatever doctrines flowed from the religion they were born into. Mormon children are taught Mormon doctrines, etc. God cannot use "doctrines" as a righteous standard of judgment. Furthermore, the Bible is much too ambiguous to function as any kind of guide, as is obvious from the ten thousand varieties of Christianities out there. And besides that, I now reject the Christian concept of theism. I do not believe that there is a theistic style God who is a personal agent who "does things" like answer prayers, part the Red Sea, flood the planet, design the Bible Wheel, command genocide, judge people for their sins, etc. But don't get me wrong. I'm open to the possibility of spiritual/mental "Ground of Being" or "Cosmic Mind." I just don't think there is any evidence for a theistic style God.

So what about the evidence of the Bible Wheel? As far as I know, it stands. I began presenting it on the internet in 2001. I discussed it on many forums such as theologyweb.com, the Christian ASA (American Scientific Association) mailing list, the Catholic Answers forum, and the Jews for Judaism forum. I have left a very long trail on the internet. I have responded to thousands of posts written by opponents. I consistently met with vehement opposition (or blunt dismissal) everywhere I went, but one thing stood out. To the best of my knowledge, no opponent has ever exposed any fundamental flaw or systematic error in the evidence. So from an evidentiary stance, the Bible Wheel stands. I have no option there.

So what does it mean? I don't know. I am mystified. But I am convinced it cannot be what you suggest (and which I once firmly believed). It cannot be proof that the Bible was designed by Yahweh, because God cannot be as described in its pages.

I look forward to discussing this with you more.

All the very best,

Richard

Richard and Rose,

Thank you for answering my post so soon. I am so appreciative that you are gracious people, unlike those Christian apologists and atheists one finds at other religious debate websites.

I have never encountered "non-Christians" like you before (meaning nothing derogatory by the term, "non-Christian"). Not only am I not really experienced at discussing my or anyone else's belief or faith in a forum like this, but I have not done much of it face-to-face either; and so, I want to move forward in our discussion very thoughtfully and carefully, which will take me a little time to think and do some research, before I get back to you. I hope you don't mind. I will respond in a little bit.

Best Regards,

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard and Rose,

Thank you for answering my post so soon. I am so appreciative that you are gracious people, unlike those Christian apologists and atheists one finds at other religious debate websites.

I have never encountered "non-Christians" like you before (meaning nothing derogatory by the term, "non-Christian"). Not only am I not really experienced at discussing my or anyone else's belief or faith in a forum like this, but I have not done much of it face-to-face either; and so, I want to move forward in our discussion very thoughtfully and carefully, which will take me a little time to think and do some research, before I get back to you. I hope you don't mind. I will respond in a little bit.

Best Regards,

Bob

Hey there Bob,

Take all the time you need to think about things. There is no rush. Rose and I are completely open-minded to where ever the evidence may lead. Don't worry - we are not interested in "debate" for its own sake, but rather the articulation of truth as best as possible.

All the best,

Richard

[Christopher Pierce]

Hello,

I just have a quick question for both Richard and Rose.

First Richard, it sounds to me as if your position is Christians don't agree on Christianity. If God exists a consensus should also exist. God doesn't exist. That's my simplified version of what I think you are saying could you clarify for me?

Second Rose, if God does something that you perceive as unfair and/or sexist, is it possible that you are looking at it from a smaller perspective and thereby missing the good reasons that God does things? I ask this because there are some things that didn't make sense to me, that even seemed cruel, but after closer examination found to be a very good choice. It's like when children don't understand some of the good choices their parents make and instead think those choices are very wrong. Often as they grow older they change their minds because they have a different perspective.

Just Curious.

[BobL]

Good morning Bob,

I really appreciate your tone, and am glad you asked these questions since many other folks have similar questions and it gives me a chance to clarify my position both for myself and others. I still have a lot to figure out.

My departure from Christianity was a long slow process. At no stage did I make any rash decisions. My interaction with other Christians on internet forums played a big role. The more I talked with other believers, the more I found that there is no such thing as "Christianity" per se, but rather a broad range of contradictory "Christianities" based on widely divergent presuppositions and interpretations. You know the nature of Christendom. It is populated by Catholics, Greek Orthodox, ten thousand varieties of Protestants and the menagerie of fringe groups that sprang from them like JW, Mormonism, Christadelphian, Branch Davidian, Armstrongism, etc., etc., etc. It became obvious to me that it was entirely irrational to think that God would demand that a person must sort through all this confusion and come to the "correct interpretation" in order to be saved.

These problems were greatly amplified when I began to see that Christianity functions as an agent of corruption in many, if not most, public expressions of that religion. For example, in 2010 Ergun Caner was exposed as a serial liar who had been lying for TEN YEARS about being a former Muslim terrorist when in fact he grew up as an ordinary American kid in Columbus, Ohio. He was president and dean of Jerry Fallwel's seminary at Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the world. I watched dumbfounded as the entire LEADERSHIP of Liberty University systematically LIED to cover up Caner's crimes. My disgust grew as I watched one of the most prominent Christian apologists, Norm Geisler, do everything in his power to cover up Caner's lies. And John Ankerberg lied too, and many small Christian ministries removed the evidence of Caner's lies from their websites. I finally realized that the entire body of Evangelical Christianity was entirely corrupt and saturated with perverse people who would knowingly lie to protect other liars. See my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/03/ergun-caners-crimes-against-god-and-the-global-community/) if you are interested in the scatology of Christianity.

This forum also contributed largely to the demise of my faith. I started it back in 2007 hoping folks would come and discuss the Bible Wheel, but all anyone wanted to talk about was the end of the world, the rapture, and the Second Coming. This drew me in to a detailed study of eschatology (which never was of much interest to me when writing the Bible Wheel book) and I found that the vast majority of Christians adamantly held to irrational, unbiblical, and unsupportable beliefs. So again, I found that professing "faith" in the Bible meant nothing because everyone just believes what they want, and more often than not, folks will twist the Bible to fit their beliefs rather than conforming their beliefs to the Bible. What good then was the Bible?

And this brings us to your question posed in your second post: "What BIBLICAL components of or specifications for the biblically-defined condition of salvation do you reject and no longer want applied to yourself, that make you non-Christian?"

My answer: All of them. I do not believe that God is going to save or damn anyone based on what they believe about what is written in the Bible. That would be radically irrational for may reasons. First, most people in history never heard of the Bible, and of those who did, they were taught whatever doctrines flowed from the religion they were born into. Mormon children are taught Mormon doctrines, etc. God cannot use "doctrines" as a righteous standard of judgment. Furthermore, the Bible is much too ambiguous to function as any kind of guide, as is obvious from the ten thousand varieties of Christianities out there. And besides that, I now reject the Christian concept of theism. I do not believe that there is a theistic style God who is a personal agent who "does things" like answer prayers, part the Red Sea, flood the planet, design the Bible Wheel, command genocide, judge people for their sins, etc. But don't get me wrong. I'm open to the possibility of spiritual/mental "Ground of Being" or "Cosmic Mind." I just don't think there is any evidence for a theistic style God.

So what about the evidence of the Bible Wheel? As far as I know, it stands. I began presenting it on the internet in 2001. I discussed it on many forums such as theologyweb.com, the Christian ASA (American Scientific Association) mailing list, the Catholic Answers forum, and the Jews for Judaism forum. I have left a very long trail on the internet. I have responded to thousands of posts written by opponents. I consistently met with vehement opposition (or blunt dismissal) everywhere I went, but one thing stood out. To the best of my knowledge, no opponent has ever exposed any fundamental flaw or systematic error in the evidence. So from an evidentiary stance, the Bible Wheel stands. I have no option there.

So what does it mean? I don't know. I am mystified. But I am convinced it cannot be what you suggest (and which I once firmly believed). It cannot be proof that the Bible was designed by Yahweh, because God cannot be as described in its pages.

I look forward to discussing this with you more.

All the very best,

Richard

[BobL]

Hi, Richard!

Thanks so much for your very thorough explanation of why you have rejected Christianity and the tenets of the Bible which Christians consider to be the truth.

You said:




These problems were greatly amplified when I began to see that Christianity functions as an agent of corruption in many, if not most, public expressions of that religion.
Richard

However, isn't it true that there are corrupt people in almost every, not only religious system and institution, but EVERY institution, including institutions and systems of government, non-religious benevolent organizations, sports organizations, etc., etc., etc. -- you name it -- in virtually every society on the face of the earth? So, it would seem that it's not Christianity that functions as an agent of corruption, but the commonality between those institutions, which is the evil tendencies of human nature that functions as an agent of corruption. It has been many years since I have studied formal logic, but to find fault with Christianity, because of the moral failures of individuals or sub-groups of people associated with it, seems to be a kind of guilt by association. Just because people who have moral failures are associated with other people, their family members, or an organization, or a religious system, does not mean that the other people, their family, or that organization or that religious system are inherently faulty, evil or morally bankrupt. Would you agree with me on that?




For example, in 2010 Ergun Caner was exposed as a serial liar who had been lying for TEN YEARS about being a former Muslim terrorist when in fact he grew up as an ordinary American kid in Columbus, Ohio. He was president and dean of Jerry Fallwel's seminary at Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the world. I watched dumbfounded as the entire LEADERSHIP of Liberty University systematically LIED to cover up Caner's crimes. My disgust grew as I watched one of the most prominent Christian apologists, Norm Geisler, do everything in his power to cover up Caner's lies. And John Ankerberg lied too, and many small Christian ministries removed the evidence of Caner's lies from their websites. I finally realized that the entire body of Evangelical Christianity was entirely corrupt and saturated with perverse people who would knowingly lie to protect other liars. See my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/03/ergun-caners-crimes-against-god-and-the-global-community/) if you are interested in the scatology of Christianity.


So, if the tenets of Christianity are perceived as an embodiment of constructs of moral integrity (which you obviously in part accept, as is evident by the way you have judged/evaluated those men), one should be able to see that it is not Christianity that is the agent or purveyer of corruption. The source of corruption is those who are associated with Christianity who show a measure of corruption as evidenced by their failer at some point, to embody the integrity that comes from executing or exercising those tenets -- tenets, the practice of which are meant to help engender integrity in the people who practice them.

In regard to the supposed "representatives" of the tenets of Christianity (who in my view should only be God and Jesus Christ, because according to the Scriptures, even the patriarchs and apostles had moral failures), like all other people, neither Caner nor Geisler are perferctly moral men and did not claim to be, but tried (and I assume continue) to practice the tenets in order to grow toward the model of integrity that the tenets represent. In putting into perspective the degree of moral violation committed by these morally imperfect men: the Hebrew patriarchs Abraham lied, and Jacob stole from his brother; the prophet and king of Israel, David committed adultery with and killed the husband of Bathsheba; Peter showed racial favoritism/bigotry; and Paul the apostle, confessed that he did not keep the tenets of Christianity in the way that he wanted. There is no one reading this post who has never lied. We all have lied or will lie, i.e., flex or color the truth to one degree or another, at some point. Even children, as "innocent" as they are, do lie. Because God and God alone is perfect morally, we might ask, as a way for finding some standard of moral integrity, "How do we ourselves measure up to our perceptions of God's integrity as a measure of our own?" To go a step "lower, even if we have our own personal standards of integrity and God judged us by our personal standards, instead of His own, we would be guilty, because we all violate even our own personal moral standards and consciences, unless our standards and consciences hinge upon situational ethics, in which, the case can be made that those standards would be either very loose standards or no standards at all.

For virtually anyone reading this post who has a strong moral standard for lying, if you have said to yourself that you have not lied, you've lied to yourself. Even slightly flexing or shading the truth is not the total truth, so that part of "the truth" is really a lie! There is no one reading this post that has not done it in one form or another. All men are morally faulty, to one degree or another and have or will lie, to one degree or another ("All have sinned [even in violating their own moral standards and moral consciences] and fall short of the grace of God;" "...all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory which God bestows and receives." [Rom. 3:23, NIV, AMP]). The virtue and value of a religious or moral philosophical system or their set of tenets is not in the followers, but in the construct of moral integrity that they embody, as perceived from the perspective of the human evaluator of that construct and in the potential virtue developed in the one who practices them.

Most of us would say that breaking the standard of lying maybe morally ok, in some cases. It depends upon the motive. If you consider lying to be morally wrong, you might do it, to help or save someone from an uncomfortable or emotionally or physical painful situation -- possibly death. Richard, Rose and my other dear readers, would you lie to save a parent or a child from death? Would you lie to save a parent or child from emotionally or mentally debilitating or injurious worry? If you were a teacher hiding terrified kids during the Newtown shootings, if a child asked you, "Are we going to get killed?," most of you would take the babes in your harms and say, "No honey, you're going to be ok." However, that wouldn't be the whole truth. A truthful answer would be, "I'm sorry honey, I truthfully don't really know!" And, you would say that it was ok to break your moral standard to not lie (if you have one), but "My motive was right; so that makes it ok." Or, "It was not ok to lie, but I had to choose the lesser of the two evils -- to scare the kids out of their minds, so that they scream and possible bring the killer to our location, or to lie to make them feel safe and keep them quiet." My whole point is this: There is no perfect man or woman reading this post who who has not lied. Motive matters. A key question is: Do you truly know the motives of all of the people who committed all the supposed "cover ups?" (We don't truly know if they are cover ups until we truly know the motives -- what was in their thoughts/hearts/emotions -- that made them remove the information from the websites. Otherwise, we would be judging them by outer appearances.) A second key question is: Could removal of the information by those ministers/ministries from their websites been motivated by or for the sake of avoiding inflicting some form of pain to all who may have been directly or indirectly involved? The one single primary tenet of Christianity is love. The Scripture says, "Love covers a multitude of sins." ("Above all things have intense and unfailing love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins [forgives and disregards the offenses of others]." 1 Pet. 4:8, AMP) As evil as you may think Caner is, compared to whomever, another question is: Is he a human being, who despite his moral failures or mistakes, once his sin was discovered, needed to get this lie behind him and to get on with his life? (Before answering that question, read the example, below.) No one reading this post has not made big moral mistakes that they don't want others to focus on. Regardless of what yours are, would you would others to cover your sins, instead of broadcasting them all over the world?

Example: You discover that your teen-aged daughter, the president of her graduating class, has been stealing from several stores (which is worse a lier or a theif?). She's been published on the school website as a leader and one of the most promising and popular girls at her high school. What are you going to do -- go up to the school and make sure that the school publishes her sins on the web? "You guys -- teachers, principal or whoever -- need to make sure that everyone knows of my daughter's great moral failire, because she represented the integrity of this school and my integrity as a parent!!! We both stand for moral integrity and her moral failure needs to be EXPOSED!!!" I would hope that you would not do that because this might hurt the school's reputation, the emotions of the students and staff, your relatives and your parents, as well as you, as a parent who obviously would love your child very much! You would love your daughter and hopefully, all the people involved as well, too much, to do that! So, because Caner, Geisler and all those ministries are Christian, that makes it different? Where is the love for them? Or, would you have greater love for your daughter than for them? So, can you say that you know all the motives of all the people involved in the Caner-Geisler situation and that having the love "to cover a multitude of sins" was not a motive in the hearts of ANY of them?

We, as human beings, cannot depend even on our own selves to keep our own personal moral standards or depend on ourselves to not violate our own personal moral consciences, 100% of the time, in every instance (of course, unless you have vague nebulous standards of situational ethics, e.g., the ends justifies the means). In light of that fact, it is a severe mistake to base the acceptance or rejection of a faith or a religious or moral philosophical system on the basis of the integrity of the people who are supposed to be representatives or practitioners of that faith/system. One of the other serious faults in human nature is that we all tend to do it.

Once again, you said:




These problems were greatly amplified when I began to see that Christianity functions as an agent of corruption in many, if not most, public expressions of that religion.
Richard

In answer to your statment, I have listed below, groups that comprise "public expressions of that religion," "most" of which you say function as agents of corruption. Each one has it's own number of individual congregations which are all public expressions of Chritianity. My question to you is: Which "public expressions" below, have been agents of which moral failures? (Please do consider the public expressions of the individual congregations in those organizations, as well. Along with that, I would like for you to be balanced and list all the loving, humanitarian aid that your list of the culprits have given to their own immediate communities and societies and the world).

Best Regards,

Bob

Catholicism - 1.2 billion people.
Catholic Church - 1,166 million[1] Latin Church - 1,149 million
Eastern Catholic Churches - 17 million Alexandrian Rite Ethiopian Catholic Church - 0.2 million[2]
Coptic Catholic Church - 0.2 million[2]

Antiochene Rite Maronite Catholic Church - 3.1 million[2]
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church - 0.4 million[2]
Syriac Catholic Church - 0.1 million[2]

Armenian Rite Armenian Catholic Church - 0.4 million[2]

Chaldean Rite Syro-Malabar Catholic Church - 3.8 million[2]
Chaldean Catholic Church - 0.4 million[2]

Byzantine Rite Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - 4.3 million[2]
Melkite Greek Catholic Church - 1.3 million[2]
Romanian Catholic Church - 0.7 million[2]
Ruthenian Catholic Church - 0.5 million[2]
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church - 0.3 million[2]
Slovak Greek Catholic Church - 0.2 million[2]
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church - 0.1 million[2]
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church - 0.1 million[2]
Georgian Byzantine Catholic Church - 0.01 million[3]
Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Croatian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Russian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]

Breakaway Catholic Churches - 25 million

Apostolic Catholic Church - 8 million[4]
Philippine Independent Church - 6 million[5]
Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association - 5 million[6]
Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church - 5 million[7]
Old Catholic Church - 0.6 million
Society of St. Pius X - 0.5 million

Historical Protestantism - 350 million Baptist churches - 100 million[11] Southern Baptist Convention - 16.3 million[12]
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. - 8.5 million[13]
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. - 3.1 million[13]
Nigerian Baptist Convention - 2.5 million[13]
Progressive National Baptist Convention - 2.5 million[13]
Baptist General Convention of Texas - 2.3 million[13]
Baptist Union of Uganda - 1.5 million[13]
American Baptist Churches USA - 1.4 million[13]
Brazilian Baptist Convention - 1.3 million[13]
Baptist Bible Fellowship International - 1.2 million[14]
Baptist Community of the Congo River - 1 million[13]
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A. - 1 million[14]
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America - 1 million
Myanmar Baptist Convention - 0.9 million[13]
Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches - 0.8 million[15]
Korea Baptist Convention - 0.8 million[13]
Baptist Convention of Kenya - 0.8 million[13]
Myanmar Baptist Convention - 0.7 million[13]
Council of Baptist Churches in Northeast India - 0.6 million[16]
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship - 0.5 million[13]
Nagaland Baptist Church Council - 0.5 million[13]
Baptist Convention in Tanzania - 0.5 million[13]
Orissa Evangelical Baptist Crusade - 0.5 million[13]
Baptist General Association of Virginia - 0.5 million[13]
National Baptist Convention (Brazil) - 0.4 million[13]
Church of Christ in Congo–Baptist Community of Congo - 0.4 million[17]
Convention of Philippine Baptist Churches - 0.3[13]
American Baptist Association - 0.3 million[18]
Union of Baptist Churches in Rwanda - 0.3 million[13]
Association of Baptist Churches in Rwanda - 0.3 million[13]
Garo Baptist Convention - 0.2 million[13]
Baptist Community of Western Congo - 0.2 million[13]
Baptist Missionary Association of America - 0.2 million[19]
Conservative Baptist Association of America - 0.2 million[20]
National Association of Free Will Baptists - 0.2 million[21]
Canadian Baptist Ministries - 0.2 million[13]
National Baptist Convention of Mexico - 0.2 million[13]
Manipur Baptist Convention - 0.2 million[13]
Convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars - 0.2 million[13]
Baptist Community in Central Africa - 0.2 million[13]
Baptist Convention of Malawi - 0.2 million[13]

Lutheranism - 75 million[22] Evangelical Church in Germany - 24.5 million[23]
Church of Sweden - 6.7 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania - 5.6 million[24]
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus - 5.3 million[24]
United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India - 4.5 million[25]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - 4.5 million[24]
Church of Denmark - 4.5 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland - 4.4 million[24]
Batak Christian Protestant Church - 4.2 million[24]
Church of Norway - 4.0 million[24]
Christian Protestant Church in Indonesia - 3.6 million[24]
Malagasy Lutheran Church - 3.0 million[24]
Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod - 2.5 million[26]
The Lutheran Church of Christ in Nigeria - 1.9 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea - 0.9 million[24]
Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil - 0.7 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia - 0.7 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa - 0.6 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Republic of Namibia - 0.4 million[24]
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - 0.4 million[27]
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia - 0.4 million[24]
The Indonesian Protestant Church - 0.4 million[24]
The Protestant Christian Church - 0.4 million[24]
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Austria - 0.3 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Cameroon - 0.2 million[24]
Church of Iceland - 0.2 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil - 0.2 million[28]
Simalungun Protestant Christian Church - 0.2 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Zimbabwe - 0.2 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia - 0.2 million[24]
Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Hungary - 0.2 million[24]
Union of Protestant Churches of Alsace and Lorraine - 0.2 million[24]
The Lutheran Council of Great Britain - 0.2 million[24]
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church - 0.2 million[24]

Methodism - 75 million United Methodist Church - 12 million[29]
African Methodist Episcopal Church - 2.5 million[30]
Methodist Church Nigeria - 2 million[31]
Church of the Nazarene - 2 million[32]
Methodist Church of Southern Africa - 1.7 million[33]
Korean Methodist Church - 1.5 million[34]
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church - 1.5 million[35]
The Salvation Army - 1.4 million [36]
United Methodist Church of Ivory Coast - 1 million[37]
Free Methodist Church - 0.9 million[38]
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church - 0.9 million[39]
Methodist Church Ghana - 0.8 million[40]
Methodist Church in India - 0.6 million[41]
Methodist Church in Kenya - 0.5 million[42]
Wesleyan Church - 0.4 million[43]
Evangelical Free Church of America - 0.4 million[44]
Methodist Church of Great Britain - 0.3 million[45]
Methodist Church in Brazil - 0.2 million[46]

Reformed churches - 75 million Presbyterianism - 40 million Presbyterian Church of East Africa - 4.0 million[47]
Presbyterian Church of Africa - 3.4 million[48]
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - 3.0 million[49]
United Church of Canada - 2.8 million[50]
Church of Christ in Congo–Presbyterian Community of Congo - 2.5 million[51]
Presbyterian Church of Korea - 2.4 million[52]
Presbyterian Church of Cameroon - 1.8 million[53]
Church of Central Africa, Presbyterian - 1.3 million[54]
Church of Scotland - 1.1 million[55]
Presbyterian Church of the Sudan - 1.0 million[56]
Presbyterian Church in Cameroon - 0.7 million[57]
Presbyterian Church of Brazil - 0.7 million [58]
Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana - 0.6 million[59]
United Church of Christ in the Philippines - 0.5 million[60]
Presbyterian Church of Nigeria - 0.5 million[61]
Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa - 0.5 million[62]
Presbyterian Church of Pakistan - 0.4 million[63]
Presbyterian Church in Ireland - 0.3 million
Uniting Church in Australia - 0.3 million[64]
Presbyterian Church in America - 0.3 million[65]
Presbyterian Church of Korea - 0.3 million[66]
Presbyterian Church in Rwanda - 0.3 million[67]
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan - 0.3 million[68]

Continental Reformed churches - 30 million Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar - 3.5 million[69]
United Church of Zambia - 3.0 million[70]
Protestant Church in the Netherlands - 2.5 million[71]
Swiss Reformed Church - 2.4 million[72]
Evangelical Church of Cameroon - 2.0 million[73]
Protestant Evangelical Church in Timor - 2.0 million[74]
Dutch Reformed Church - 1.1 million
Christian Evangelical Church in Minahasa - 0.7 million[75]
United Church in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands - 0.6 million[76]
Protestant Church in Western Indonesia - 0.6 million[77]
Evangelical Christian Church in Tanah Papua - 0.6 million[78]
Protestant Church in the Moluccas - 0.6 million[79]
Reformed Church in Hungary - 0.6 million[80]
Reformed Church in Romania - 0.6 million[81]
Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa - 0.5 million[82]
Toraja Church - 0.4 million[83]
Reformed Church of France - 0.4 million[84]
Lesotho Evangelical Church - 0.3 million[85]
Evangelical Christian Church in Halmahera - 0.3 million[86]
Christian Church of Sumba - 0.3 million[87]
Karo Batak Protestant Church - 0.3 million[88]
Reformed Church in America - 0.3 million[89]
Christian Reformed Church in North America - 0.3 million[90]
Christian Reformed Church of Nigeria - 0.3 million[91]
Reformed Church in Zambia - 0.3 million[92]
Kalimantan Evangelical Church - 0.2 million[93]
Javanese Christian Churches - 0.2 million[94]
Indonesia Christian Church - 0.2 million[95]
Church of Christ in the Sudan Among the Tiv - 0.2 million[96]
Church of Lippe - 0.2 million[97]
Evangelical Church of Congo - 0.2 million[98]
Evangelical Church of Gabon - 0.2 million[99]
Christian Evangelical Church of Sangihe Talaud - 0.2 million[100]
Central Sulawesi Christian Church - 0.2 million[101]
Evangelical Reformed Church in Bavaria and Northwestern Germany - 0.2 million[102]

Congregationalism - 5 million United Church of Christ - 1.2 million[103]
Evangelical Congregational Church in Angola - 0.9 million[104]
United Congregational Church of Southern Africa - 0.5 million[105]

Anabaptism and Free churches - 5 million Schwarzenau Brethren/German Baptist groups - 1.5 million[106]
Mennonites - 1.5 million
Plymouth Brethren - 1 million[107]
Moravians - 0.7 million[108]
Amish - 0.2 million
Hutterites - 0.2 million

Quakers - 0.4 million
Waldensians - 0.05 million

Modern Protestantism - 274 million[citation needed] Pentecostalism - 130 million Assemblies of God - 60 million
International Circle of Faith - 11 million[109]
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)- 9 million
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel - 8 million
Apostolic Church - 6 million
Church of God in Christ - 6.5 million[110]
United Pentecostal Church International - 4 million
The Pentecostal Mission - 2.5 million
Christian Congregation of Brazil - 2.5 million
Universal Church of the Kingdom of God - 2 million
Church of God of Prophecy - 1 million
God is Love Pentecostal Church - 0.8 million

Nondenominational evangelicalism - 80 million Calvary Chapel - 25 million
Born Again Movement - 20 million
Association of Vineyard Churches - 15 million
Christian and Missionary Alliance - 4 million[111]
True Jesus Church - 2.5 million
Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) - 1.2 million

African initiated churches - 40 million Zion Christian Church - 15 million
Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim - 10 million
Kimbanguist Church - 5.5 million
Church of the Lord (Aladura) - 3.6 million[112]
Council of African Instituted Churches - 3 million[113]
Church of Christ Light of the Holy Spirit - 1.4 million[114]
African Church of the Holy Spirit - 0.7 million[115]
African Israel Church Nineveh - 0.5 million[116]

Seventh-day Adventist Church - 17 million
Restoration Movement - 7 million Churches of Christ - 5 million
Christian churches and churches of Christ - 1.1 million[14]
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - 0.7 million[117]

Oneness Pentecostalism - 6 million United Pentecostal Church International - 4 million
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World - 1.5 million

Eastern Orthodoxy - 230 million
Autocephalous churches Russian Orthodox Church - 125 million
Romanian Orthodox Church - 23 million
Serbian Orthodox Church - 11.5 million
Church of Greece - 11 million
Bulgarian Orthodox Church - 10 million
Georgian Orthodox Church - 5 million
Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople - 3.5 million
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch - 2.5 million
Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria - 1.5 million
Orthodox Church in America - 1.2 million
Polish Orthodox Church - 1 million
Albanian Orthodox Church - 0.8 million
Church of Cyprus - 0.7 million
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 0.14 million
Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church - 0.07 million

Autonomous churches Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) - 7.2 million[118]
Moldovan Orthodox Church - 3.2 million
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia - 1.25 million
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia - 0.62 million
Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric - 0.34 million
Estonian Orthodox Church - 0.3 million
Patriarchal Exarchate in Western Europe - 0.15 million
Finnish Orthodox Church - 0.08 million
Chinese Orthodox Church - 0.03 million
Japanese Orthodox Church - 0.02 million
Latvian Orthodox Church - 0.02 million

Non-universally recognized churches Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) - 5.5 million[118]
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - 3.8 million
Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - 2.4 million
Macedonian Orthodox Church - 2 million
Orthodox Church of Greece (Holy Synod in Resistance) - 0.75 million
Old Calendar Romanian Orthodox Church - 0.50 million
Old Calendar Bulgarian Orthodox Church - 0.45 million
Croatian Orthodox Church - 0.36 million
Orthodox Church in Italy - 0.12 million
Montenegrin Orthodox Church - 0.05 million

Other separated Orthodox groups Old Believers - 5.5 million
Greek Old Calendarists - 0.86 million
True Orthodox Church - 0.85 million

Anglicanism - 85 million
Anglican Communion - 80 million[119] Church of England - 25.0 million[120]
Church of Nigeria - 18.0 million[121]
Church of Uganda - 8.1 million[122]
Anglican Church of Kenya - 5.0 million[123]
Episcopal Church of Sudan - 4.5 million[124]
Church of South India - 4 million[125]
Anglican Church of Australia - 3.9 million[126]
Episcopal Church in the United States - 2.4 million[127]
Anglican Church of Southern Africa - 2.3 million[128]
Anglican Church of Tanzania - 2.0 million[129]
Anglican Church of Canada - 2.0 million[130]
Church of North India - 1.5 million[131]
Anglican Church of Rwanda - 1.0 million[132]
Church of the Province of Central Africa - 0.9 million[133]
Anglican Church of Burundi - 0.8 million[134]
Church in the Province of the West Indies - 0.8 million[135]
Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean - 0.5 million[136]
Church of Christ in Congo–Anglican Community of Congo - 0.5 million[137]
Church of Pakistan - 0.5 million[138]
Church of Ireland - 0.4 million[139]
Church of the Province of West Africa - 0.3 million[140]
Church of the Province of Melanesia - 0.2 million[141]

Continuing Anglican movement and independent Anglican churches - 1.5 million Traditional Anglican Communion - 0.4 million[142]
Church of England in South Africa - 0.1 million[143]


Oriental Orthodoxy - 82 million
Autocephalous churches in communion Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church - 48 million[144]
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - 15.5 million
Armenian Orthodox Church - 8 million
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church - 2.5 million
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church - 2 million[145]
Armenian Orthodox Church of Cilicia - 1.5 million
Syriac Orthodox Church - 1.05 million

Autonomous churches in communion Jacobite Syrian Christian Church - 1.2 million[146]
Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople - 0.42 million
Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem - 0.34 million
French Coptic Orthodox Church - 0.01 million
British Orthodox Church - 0.01 million

Churches not in communion Mar Thoma Syrian Church - 1.1 million
Malabar Independent Syrian Church - 0.06 million

Restorationism - 45 million
Latter Day Saint movement - 14.7 million The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) - 14.4 million[147]
Community of Christ - 0.2 million[148]

Members Church of God International - 7 million
New Apostolic Church - 10 million[149]
Jehovah's Witnesses - 7.65 million [150][151]
Iglesia ni Cristo - 6 million[152]
Church of Christ, Scientist - 0.4 million
Friends of Man - 0.07 million
Christadelphians - 0.06 million

Unitarian Universalism - 0.6 million[153]
Unitarian Universalist Association - 0.2 million[154]

Nestorianism - 0.6 million
Assyrian Church of the East - 0.5 million
Ancient Church of the East - 0.1 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_membe rs

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello,

I just have a quick question for both Richard and Rose.

First Richard, it sounds to me as if your position is Christians don't agree on Christianity. If God exists a consensus should also exist. God doesn't exist. That's my simplified version of what I think you are saying could you clarify for me?

Second Rose, if God does something that you perceive as unfair and/or sexist, is it possible that you are looking at it from a smaller perspective and thereby missing the good reasons that God does things? I ask this because there are some things that didn't make sense to me, that even seemed cruel, but after closer examination found to be a very good choice. It's like when children don't understand some of the good choices their parents make and instead think those choices are very wrong. Often as they grow older they change their minds because they have a different perspective.

Just Curious.
Hey there Christopher,

The problem is not merely that "Christians don't agree." The problem is the reason they do not agree, which is that the Bible is far too ambiguous to serve as any kind of objective guide in morality or religion. The fact that the Bible has spawned such a wide range of contradictory interpretations only demonstrates this fact.

The shortcomings of the Bible have nothing to do with the question of whether "God" exists. That's an entirely different issue. The problems with the Bible only prove that the Bible is not anything like the "authoritative Word of God" as evangelical Christians insist, let alone the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."

As for your comment to Rose: It is certainly possible that we are offended by some things in the Bible because of our limited perspective, but if you want to pursue that possibility you will have to cite a specific example. As far as I know, none of our critiques would be explained that way.

Thanks for taking time to comment. I hope the conversation continues.

All the best,

Richard

[Rose]

Hello,

I just have a quick question for both Richard and Rose.

First Richard, it sounds to me as if your position is Christians don't agree on Christianity. If God exists a consensus should also exist. God doesn't exist. That's my simplified version of what I think you are saying could you clarify for me?

Second Rose, if God does something that you perceive as unfair and/or sexist, is it possible that you are looking at it from a smaller perspective and thereby missing the good reasons that God does things? I ask this because there are some things that didn't make sense to me, that even seemed cruel, but after closer examination found to be a very good choice. It's like when children don't understand some of the good choices their parents make and instead think those choices are very wrong. Often as they grow older they change their minds because they have a different perspective.

Just Curious.

Hi Christopher,

Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with us. You make a very good point of bringing our attention to individual perspectives, which at times is the case. I have been very careful in the examples I use in my article The Male Bias of the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/) to only focus on those incidences where true unequal treatment of women takes place, which is based solely on gender. It is one thing to set up an order based on abilities and quite another to set up an order based on gender alone. Things like women being the property of men, and being put under the rule and authority of men, because they are female is intrinsically unfair. These things have nothing to do with perspective and everything to do with the male-dominated and male-bias of the Bible.

Unfortunately there is no resolution to the numerous cases of gender bias found in Scripture, but there is an explanation. The Bible was written in an era that was dominated by men who viewed the world through masculine eyes, consequently the god they constructed was of a male warrior nature, which put women as the property of men and under their rule. There is no reason people today should take at face value the god that primitive man invented, we know why many things happen that at one time needed a god to explain.

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi, Richard!

Thanks so much for your very thorough explanation of why you have rejected Christianity and the tenets of the Bible which Christians consider to be the truth.

You said:


These problems were greatly amplified when I began to see that Christianity functions as an agent of corruption in many, if not most, public expressions of that religion.

However, isn't it true that there are corrupt people in almost every, not only religious system and institution, but EVERY institution, including institutions and systems of government, non-religious benevolent organizations, sports organizations, etc., etc., etc. -- you name it -- in virtually every society on the face of the earth? So, it would seem that it's not Christianity that functions as an agent of corruption, but the commonality between those institutions, which is the evil tendencies of human nature that functions as an agent of corruption. It has been many years since I have studied formal logic, but to find fault with Christianity, because of the moral failures of individuals or sub-groups of people associated with it, seems to be a kind of guilt by association. Just because people who have moral failures are associated with other people, their family members, or an organization, or a religious system, does not mean that the other people, their family, or that organization or that religious system are inherently faulty, evil or morally bankrupt. Would you agree with me on that?

Hey there Bob! :yo:

I'm really glad you found time to share you insights.

I agree, of course, that there are corrupt people in any human activity. But some activities, such as science, have built in corrections for corruption. The Piltdown man, for example, was a hoax. Scientists corrected that error and very publicly rejected it and very publicly exposed the perpetrator. They know that this is absolutely necessary for science to thrive. We don't see anything like this in religion. Indeed, creationists know that the Piltdown man hoax was just that, a hoax, and that it does not represent evolutionary scientists at all, but they continue to CONSISTENTLY LIE and say that it does [see here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=46962#post46962)]. This is despite the fact that the KNOW they are lying and have been corrected a million times. This is how I know that they are corrupt in a much deeper way than any ordinary group of people. Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church consistently covers up the crimes of their members and actually aides and abets them. Likewise, the entire leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, the entire leadership of Liberty University, and countless other leading Christians did everything in their power to cover up the gross crimes of Egrun Caner who to this day sits as professor in a fundamentalist Christian college. The corruption found in religious groups is much worse than most others, and they consistently fail to clean it up.

Now it is important to note that I am usually more careful with my words. It was a slip for me to blame "Christianity" without qualification. I am usually very careful to make it clear that I am talking about "evangelical/fundamentalist" Christianity and more generally all dogmatic religions and even more generally, dogmatic ideological systems. But now that I think about it, there is good reason to conclude that all "faith based" religions are indeed the root source of the kind of corruption of which I speak, as explained below.

I agree that it would be a logical error to conclude that evangelical Christianity is a corrupting influence merely because of a few bad apples. That would be the fallacies of hasty generalization and guilt by association. But that's not how I came to my conclusion. After noting the broad corruption found throughout evangelical Christianity, I asked the simple question "Why?". The answer was easy to find. Evangelical Christians are explicitly committed to falsehood. They actively pervert logic and deny facts in their efforts to justify a false presumption, namely, that the Bible is the "authoritative" or "inerrant and infallible" Word of God. That doctrine is the root of their corruption. Furthermore, I think it likely that the fundamental doctrine of Christianity may be to blame, namely, the doctrine that blind faith is a "virtue." If people are taught that their eternal destiny depends critically upon believing propositions that cannot be proven, and then they are taught doctrines that directly contradict reality, they must corrupt their minds to save their souls!




For example, in 2010 Ergun Caner was exposed as a serial liar who had been lying for TEN YEARS about being a former Muslim terrorist when in fact he grew up as an ordinary American kid in Columbus, Ohio. He was president and dean of Jerry Fallwel's seminary at Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the world. I watched dumbfounded as the entire LEADERSHIP of Liberty University systematically LIED to cover up Caner's crimes. My disgust grew as I watched one of the most prominent Christian apologists, Norm Geisler, do everything in his power to cover up Caner's lies. And John Ankerberg lied too, and many small Christian ministries removed the evidence of Caner's lies from their websites. I finally realized that the entire body of Evangelical Christianity was entirely corrupt and saturated with perverse people who would knowingly lie to protect other liars. See my article Ergun Caner's Crimes against God and the Global Community (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/03/ergun-caners-crimes-against-god-and-the-global-community/) if you are interested in the scatology of Christianity.
So, if the tenets of Christianity are perceived as an embodiment of constructs of moral integrity (which you obviously in part accept, as is evident by the way you have judged/evaluated those men), one should be able to see that it is not Christianity that is the agent or purveyer of corruption. The source of corruption is those who are associated with Christianity who show a measure of corruption as evidenced by their failer at some point, to embody the integrity that comes from executing or exercising those tenets -- tenets, the practice of which are meant to help engender integrity in the people who practice them.

You begin with a false premise. There is no reason to believe that "the tenets of Christianity are perceived as an embodiment of constructs of moral integrity." Yes, some of the tenets are, but others most certainly are not. For example, the sexism taught throughout the Bible is definitely immoral (see my article The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?32-The-Inextricable-Sexism-of-the-Bible)). Likewise, the Gospel itself is problematic because it is impossible to transfer judgment from the guilty to the just. That idea makes no sense at all. And worse, God is unfair to the guilty. Some he punished forever (damnation, however you interpret it) while he rewards others who are equally wicked with eternal happiness in heaven. Thus, the Gospel appears to be both immoral and irrational.

And most significantly, the doctrine that the Bible is the "authoritative" or "inerrant and infallible" Word of God most certainly contradicts all reason and so corrupts both the minds and morals of those who try to defend it. This fact is confirmed by an analysis of any such defense. They are universally corrupt as far as I can tell.

Again, I did not mean to say that "Christianity" itself is the source of the corruption, but rather the kind of Christianity that asserts the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. That is the primary root of the corruption. But then there is the deeper root which stems from the central doctrines of Christianity, such as the teaching that a person must have unfounded "faith" in a set of propositions, and that the eternal welfare of your very soul depends critically upon the acceptance of those propositions. Such teachings are a profound agent of corruption because the believers must corrupt their minds to save their souls!



In regard to the supposed "representatives" of the tenets of Christianity (who in my view should only be God and Jesus Christ, because according to the Scriptures, even the patriarchs and apostles had moral failures), like all other people, neither Caner nor Geisler are perferctly moral men and did not claim to be, but tried (and I assume continue) to practice the tenets in order to grow toward the model of integrity that the tenets represent. In putting into perspective the degree of moral violation committed by these morally imperfect men: the Hebrew patriarchs Abraham lied, and Jacob stole from his brother; the prophet and king of Israel, David committed adultery with and killed the husband of Bathsheba; Peter showed racial favoritism/bigotry; and Paul the apostle, confessed that he did not keep the tenets of Christianity in the way that he wanted. There is no one reading this post who has never lied. We all have lied or will lie, i.e., flex or color the truth to one degree or another, at some point. Even children, as "innocent" as they are, do lie. Because God and God alone is perfect morally, we might ask, as a way for finding some standard of moral integrity, "How do we ourselves measure up to our perceptions of God's integrity as a measure of our own?" To go a step "lower, even if we have our own personal standards of integrity and God judged us by our personal standards, instead of His own, we would be guilty, because we all violate even our own personal moral standards and consciences, unless our standards and consciences hinge upon situational ethics, in which, the case can be made that those standards would be either very loose standards or no standards at all.

Your assertion that Geisler and Caner have "tried (and I assume continue) to practice the tenets in order to grow toward the model of integrity that the tenets represent" is directly contradicted by the facts. Caner has never admitted to any of his many lies repeated over and over and over again during his ten year marathon of deception despite the fact that the evidence is absolutely incontrovertible and undeniable. And Geisler continues to promote him and has never admitted he lied. Furthermore, his brother Emir knew without any doubt that Egun was lying, but continues to participate in the cover up even as he "serves Christ" at a Christian college, just like his brother. The corruption of their minds and morals is total and complete. From a Christian perspective, they are sons of the devil.

Your assertion that "all have lied" seems irrelevant to me. We are not talking about normal moral failings common to humanity. We are talking about a level of corruption that totally contradicts any claim to any truth of their belief in God. From a Biblical perspective, we are talking about reprobates.

The idea that Yahweh is "morally perfect" is problematic because there are many moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible. You assume it is true merely because some passages say so. But why believe those passages? Why begin with the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God? As shown above, it is that very assumption that corrupts the minds and morals of believers.

As for your idea that "situational ethics" allows for our standards to change - that is a common misconception. All moral questions are "situational." If you believe in objective morality as I do, the same standard is applied to each situation. I believe in objective morality, but it has nothing to do with any God. I explain my position in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?37-The-Logic-of-Love-A-Natural-Theory-of-Morality).



For virtually anyone reading this post who has a strong moral standard for lying, if you have said to yourself that you have not lied, you've lied to yourself. Even slightly flexing or shading the truth is not the total truth, so that part of "the truth" is really a lie! There is no one reading this post that has not done it in one form or another. All men are morally faulty, to one degree or another and have or will lie, to one degree or another ("All have sinned [even in violating their own moral standards and moral consciences] and fall short of the grace of God;" "...all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory which God bestows and receives." [Rom. 3:23, NIV, AMP]). The virtue and value of a religious or moral philosophical system or their set of tenets is not in the followers, but in the construct of moral integrity that they embody, as perceived from the perspective of the human evaluator of that construct and in the potential virtue developed in the one who practices them.

I agree that all people "lie" in the sense of not speaking the "full truth" - that is a consequence of the limitations of language if nothing else. But it also is because we are limited beings with conflicting desires and partial understanding. Many factors come into play. But none of this has anything to do with the point being discussed. Evangelical Christianity is an agent of corruption. False doctrines force Christians to believe and defend lies to save their souls. That's the problem.

Your appeal to the universal moral failings is a profound error. It suggests that the best of us are no different than the worst of us. It suggests that feeding the poor is as evil as genocide, since surely some minor sins (such as pride) may have been part of my motivation for doing good. This is a prime example of how Christian philosophy corrupts the minds and morals of believers. Such issues should never be raised in defense of the kind of corruption we are discussing.



Most of us would say that breaking the standard of lying maybe morally ok, in some cases. It depends upon the motive. If you consider lying to be morally wrong, you might do it, to help or save someone from an uncomfortable or emotionally or physical painful situation -- possibly death. Richard, Rose and my other dear readers, would you lie to save a parent or a child from death? Would you lie to save a parent or child from emotionally or mentally debilitating or injurious worry? If you were a teacher hiding terrified kids during the Newtown shootings, if a child asked you, "Are we going to get killed?," most of you would take the babes in your harms and say, "No honey, you're going to be ok." However, that wouldn't be the whole truth. A truthful answer would be, "I'm sorry honey, I truthfully don't really know!" And, you would say that it was ok to break your moral standard to not lie (if you have one), but "My motive was right; so that makes it ok." Or, "It was not ok to lie, but I had to choose the lesser of the two evils -- to scare the kids out of their minds, so that they scream and possible bring the killer to our location, or to lie to make them feel safe and keep them quiet." My whole point is this: There is no perfect man or woman reading this post who who has not lied. Motive matters.

I totally agree that "motive matters." There are no "absolute moral rules" in the sense of regulations like "do not lie." For every such rule, I can give you an example of when it would be morally right to violate that rule. That's why it is impossible to define morality by a list of rules. Morality is defined by empathy and love. That's why the "Divine Command Theory" of morality is so utterly absurd.



A key question is: Do you truly know the motives of all of the people who committed all the supposed "cover ups?" (We don't truly know if they are cover ups until we truly know the motives -- what was in their thoughts/hearts/emotions -- that made them remove the information from the websites. Otherwise, we would be judging them by outer appearances.) A second key question is: Could removal of the information by those ministers/ministries from their websites been motivated by or for the sake of avoiding inflicting some form of pain to all who may have been directly or indirectly involved? The one single primary tenet of Christianity is love. The Scripture says, "Love covers a multitude of sins." ("Above all things have intense and unfailing love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins [forgives and disregards the offenses of others]." 1 Pet. 4:8, AMP) As evil as you may think Caner is, compared to whomever, another question is: Is he a human being, who despite his moral failures or mistakes, once his sin was discovered, needed to get this lie behind him and to get on with his life? (Before answering that question, read the example, below.) No one reading this post has not made big moral mistakes that they don't want others to focus on. Regardless of what yours are, would you would others to cover your sins, instead of broadcasting them all over the world?

There are no "supposed" cover ups. The evidence is absolute and incontrovertible and very public. Their cover up was also public. They had only one morally valid choice - to come clean, admit the truth, and repent. There is no more fundamental doctrine of Christianity than repentance, so they directly contradicted their fundamental claim to being Christian. They made a mockery of their claim to be followers of Christ. And I know their motives. To protect their jobs and their pride and their positions of power. I know it was not love because LOVE DOES NOT LIE FOR TEN YEARS ABOUT BEING A TERRORIST!!! Love does not choose to offend my moral sense by covering up sins so that the sinners can continue in their deceit, keep their jobs and pride and positions of power. When leaders are allowed to publicly sin and not repent, it teaches all the "sheep" that repentance is unnecessary and makes Christianity a farce.



Example: You discover that your teen-aged daughter, the president of her graduating class, has been stealing from several stores (which is worse a lier or a theif?). She's been published on the school website as a leader and one of the most promising and popular girls at her high school. What are you going to do -- go up to the school and make sure that the school publishes her sins on the web? "You guys -- teachers, principal or whoever -- need to make sure that everyone knows of my daughter's great moral failire, because she represented the integrity of this school and my integrity as a parent!!! We both stand for moral integrity and her moral failure needs to be EXPOSED!!!" I would hope that you would not do that because this might hurt the school's reputation, the emotions of the students and staff, your relatives and your parents, as well as you, as a parent who obviously would love your child very much! You would love your daughter and hopefully, all the people involved as well, too much, to do that! So, because Caner, Geisler and all those ministries are Christian, that makes it different? Where is the love for them? Or, would you have greater love for your daughter than for them? So, can you say that you know all the motives of all the people involved in the Caner-Geisler situation and that having the love "to cover a multitude of sins" was not a motive in the hearts of ANY of them?

So you think that it is LOVING to let a bunch of perverse lying WOLVES lead the flock, take their money, LIE LIE LIE to them and not be exposed? Do you think it was LOVING for the Catholic Church to move the PEDOPHILE PRIESTS from parish to parish so the could continue RAPING LITTLE BOYS?

I'm sorry Bob, but your answers seem morally perverse to me, and I'm an atheist. How ironic is that?



We, as human beings, cannot depend even on our own selves to keep our own personal moral standards or depend on ourselves to not violate our own personal moral consciences, 100% of the time, in every instance (of course, unless you have vague nebulous standards of situational ethics, e.g., the ends justifies the means). In light of that fact, it is a severe mistake to base the acceptance or rejection of a faith or a religious or moral philosophical system on the basis of the integrity of the people who are supposed to be representatives or practitioners of that faith/system. One of the other serious faults in human nature is that we all tend to do it.

As noted above, I agree it would be a logical error to reject Christianity merely because some followers are morally corrupt. But as I also explained, there is good reason to reject Christianity if it is found to be the REASON for the corruption. It's too bad you wrote all those words defending the liars since that really has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that Evangelical Christianity is an agent of corruption because it teaches people that they must corrupt their minds to save their souls.

All the best,

Richard

[BobL]

Hey there Bob! :yo:


As noted above, I agree it would be a logical error to reject Christianity merely because some followers are morally corrupt. But as I also explained, there is good reason to reject Christianity if it is found to be the REASON for the corruption. It's too bad you wrote all those words defending the liars since that really has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that Evangelical Christianity is an agent of corruption because it teaches people that they must corrupt their minds to save their souls.
Richard

Hi, Richard.

A little piece at a time. From my perspective, my defending the liars would be if I had said something like, "Yes, it was ok for Caner, Geisler and all the others to lie in that situation because of...(whatever)." I was assenting to possibilities of unknown factors in the situation that may have precluded my ability to rightly judge the people involved in the "cover up" (again, that term, IMHO, may not convey what may have been motives coming from redeeming qualities of the human heart). I did not say that I thought it was ok for Caner or those involved to lie or hide truth that "should" have been exposed (from God's point of view; I don't really have His omniscience or wisdom). Defending liars was not my intent. My intent was to point out the fact that as human beings, we are all flawed and that some people's motives in that situation (not mine) may have been to: 1) save the innocent from pain and suffering and 2) make an attempt at redemption by lovingly "covering" the sins of a repentent violator of a moral code, the way a parent might cover those of a beloved child. Whether Caner repented after ten years of lying, I have no idea. Whether he in private, confessed his sin to and asked for forgiveness from his superiors, colleagues, and maybe other parts of that community, I have no idea. If that is what happened, was public confession to the whole world also required? IMHO, maybe; maybe not. Whether all of them should have come forward and confessed to the public, I'll leave that to their consciences and others like you to judge that, who probably know much better than I do, in that regard. I'm just saying that I don't know every factor in that situation. I don't know anything about whether he confessed being a liar and was truly repentent (unfortunately, after caught), to whom he may have confessed and whether or not everyone did all that was required, from God's point of view. I don't know if confessing to the public personally should have been done or not. I won't judge hearts; I just don't feel that I know enough factors about the situation to judge. If I were God, with the my limited ability to judge, His Power and a desire to punish people (of course this statement is kind of self contradictory), the world and its people would really be a mess and in a "world of trouble." :-)

My analogy of the high school daughter was to show that if love was involved, i.e., if those around Caner who may have really grown to love the guy from knowing many other things about him -- his heart and his character, in many other situations -- if he showed a true attitude of repentence that they felt was real, they may in love, like one might treat their own son or daughter -- tried to protect him; or they might have tried to protect others (possibly many) who might potentially have been hurt by his exposure. And, I'm aware that all analogies break down somewhere. So, there may be a breakdown in mine. By the same token, I personally, would not equate the Catholic situation to Caner's.

You said:


I'm sorry Bob, but your answers seem morally perverse to me, and I'm an atheist. How ironic is that?

Richard, I was under the impression that you believed in God. Guess I was mistaken. My experience is that atheists and believers in God (whether Christian or not) operate in philosophical systems that are so diametrically opposite, that there will never, ever be much agreement. If you truly are an atheist, I can totally understand why my answers seem morally perverse to you. My experience is that the differences in values, points of reference and points of view between believers in God and atheists is such a great "divide" -- such a vast chasm -- that the meaning of the saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" is "exponentially" amplified. So, if you are truly an atheist, I believe that our discussion will be of no practical value to either of us. I misunderstood you and still am a bit confused in that regard. Please clarify your position. If you are, then, this is our last conversation, no ill feelings at all; I don't have any criticism of you personally; and Richard, incredible scholar and discoverer of the awesome Bible Wheel, I wish you all the very best!

Bob

[BobL]

PS: Forgot to thank you for taking the time out to read all my patter and to explain and help me understand your viewpoints and opinions.

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi, Richard.

A little piece at a time. From my perspective, my defending the liars would be if I had said something like, "Yes, it was ok for Caner, Geisler and all the others to lie in that situation because of...(whatever)." I was assenting to possibilities of unknown factors in the situation that may have precluded my ability to rightly judge the people involved in the "cover up" (again, that term, IMHO, may not convey what may have been motives coming from redeeming qualities of the human heart). I did not say that I thought it was ok for Caner or those involved to lie or hide truth that "should" have been exposed (from God's point of view; I don't really have His omniscience or wisdom). Defending liars was not my intent. My intent was to point out the fact that as human beings, we are all flawed and that some people's motives in that situation (not mine) may have been to: 1) save the innocent from pain and suffering and 2) make an attempt at redemption by lovingly "covering" the sins of a repentent violator of a moral code, the way a parent might cover those of a beloved child. Whether Caner repented after ten years of lying, I have no idea. Whether he in private, confessed his sin to and asked for forgiveness from his superiors, colleagues, and maybe other parts of that community, I have no idea. If that is what happened, was public confession to the whole world also required? IMHO, maybe; maybe not. Whether all of them should have come forward and confessed to the public, I'll leave that to their consciences and others like you to judge that, who probably know much better than I do, in that regard. I'm just saying that I don't know every factor in that situation. I don't know anything about whether he confessed being a liar and was truly repentent (unfortunately, after caught), to whom he may have confessed and whether or not everyone did all that was required, from God's point of view. I don't know if confessing to the public personally should have been done or not. I won't judge hearts; I just don't feel that I know enough factors about the situation to judge. If I were God, with the my limited ability to judge, His Power and a desire to punish people (of course this statement is kind of self contradictory), the world and its people would really be a mess and in a "world of trouble." :-)

My analogy of the high school daughter was to show that if love was involved, i.e., if those around Caner who may have really grown to love the guy from knowing many other things about him -- his heart and his character, in many other situations -- if he showed a true attitude of repentence that they felt was real, they may in love, like one might treat their own son or daughter -- tried to protect him; or they might have tried to protect others (possibly many) who might potentially have been hurt by his exposure. And, I'm aware that all analogies break down somewhere. So, there may be a breakdown in mine. By the same token, I personally, would not equate the Catholic situation to Caner's.

Hey there Bob,

I understood that you were not consciously trying to defend lying, but rather how to deal with it. But to my mind, your answer only exemplifies why it is so rampant in evangelical Christianity. We are told that the early Christian were willing to DIE for the truth. That's a far cry from your response to the corruption in the church. To me, the corruption revealed by Caner, the apologists, and the leaders like Jerry Falwell who installed him in his office as President and Dean of Liberty Theological Seminary, proves absolutely that they are utterly corrupt and are as far from Christ as Satan himself (to use a biblical metaphor). If you can't see this, then you and I are entirely different kinds of people. Its one thing to see people consciously and deliberately persist in such blatant corruption, coupled with greed, perverse arrogance, and SLANDER they spewed out on those who exposed their crimes. Its quite another to see it coming from people who claim to be followers of CHRIST! It makes my blood boil, as I'm sure you can see.

I think the conversation got distracted with the examples of corruption. It would have been much more interesting (and fruitful) if you had answered my answer to your question. Here it is again:

And this brings us to your question posed in your second post: "What BIBLICAL components of or specifications for the biblically-defined condition of salvation do you reject and no longer want applied to yourself, that make you non-Christian?"

My answer: All of them. I do not believe that God is going to save or damn anyone based on what they believe about what is written in the Bible. That would be radically irrational for may reasons. First, most people in history never heard of the Bible, and of those who did, they were taught whatever doctrines flowed from the religion they were born into. Mormon children are taught Mormon doctrines, etc. God cannot use "doctrines" as a righteous standard of judgment. Furthermore, the Bible is much too ambiguous to function as any kind of guide, as is obvious from the ten thousand varieties of Christianities out there. And besides that, I now reject the Christian concept of theism. I do not believe that there is a theistic style God who is a personal agent who "does things" like answer prayers, part the Red Sea, flood the planet, design the Bible Wheel, command genocide, judge people for their sins, etc. But don't get me wrong. I'm open to the possibility of spiritual/mental "Ground of Being" or "Cosmic Mind." I just don't think there is any evidence for a theistic style God.



You said:

I'm sorry Bob, but your answers seem morally perverse to me, and I'm an atheist. How ironic is that?

Richard, I was under the impression that you believed in God. Guess I was mistaken. My experience is that atheists and believers in God (whether Christian or not) operate in philosophical systems that are so diametrically opposite, that there will never, ever be much agreement. If you truly are an atheist, I can totally understand why my answers seem morally perverse to you. My experience is that the differences in values, points of reference and points of view between believers in God and atheists is such a great "divide" -- such a vast chasm -- that the meaning of the saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" is "exponentially" amplified. So, if you are truly an atheist, I believe that our discussion will be of no practical value to either of us. I misunderstood you and still am a bit confused in that regard. Please clarify your position. If you are, then, this is our last conversation, no ill feelings at all; I don't have any criticism of you personally; and Richard, incredible scholar and discoverer of the awesome Bible Wheel, I wish you all the very best!

Bob

You answer mystifies me. I had a problem with your answer because it appears that by your standards evil people would continue to rule in the church. How is it possible that an atheist would find this morally perverse, and a Christian not?

Your assertion that our "philosophical differences" are "diametrically opposite" is probably based on a false understanding of what "atheist" means. It means only that I reject theistic style gods. It does not mean that I am a materialist. It says nothing about my metaphysical or philosophical understanding. So please, don't jump to conclusions. I see nothing that would stop us from having a fruitful discussion, unless, of course, you insist on propositions that have no foundation in any logic or facts. Of course, I can understand why you might be confused about atheism, since Christians almost universally teach that atheism is identical to materialism. And there are plenty of atheists that are materialists, so the confusion is compounded. But there is nothing about the rejection of theistic style gods like Allah, Apollo, Brahman, Yahweh, or Zeus that implies materialism. Atheists can be every bit as "spiritual" as anyone. Personally, I am inclined towards something like the Perennial Philosophy that sees a spiritual "Ground of Being" or "Cosmic Mind." I'm not committed to any view because it is beyond the limits of my knowledge. But I am completely open to such ideas. I just don't believe in theism because it seems obvious to me that none of the theistic style gods proposed by the religions is true.

And I don't see why we would have any fundamental differences in values. I am committed to nothing but truth. I believe in objective morality. See my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?37-The-Logic-of-Love-A-Natural-Theory-of-Morality).

I hope this clarifies my position. I am totally open minded to where ever the evidence leads. I am an atheist because that is the word that describes people who don't believe in theistic style gods.

And I hope the conversation will continue. I think it could be very fruitful. And remember, there are many people who will be reading both our comments, so many could benefit. And besides, I'm in a very strange position and I want someone to talk to because I am mystified by the Bible Wheel. The evidence stands but I don't know what it means. The simplistic answer, which seemed self-evident to me for all the years I was a Christian, that it was proof that God inspired the Bible doesn't work anymore because I can't believe that the God described in its pages is true. I doubt that will change, but I think it would be great if you wanted to explore and challenge my reasons.

In any case, you will always be welcome here. And I really appreciate the time you have taken to share you insights.

All the very best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

PS: Forgot to thank you for taking the time out to read all my patter and to explain and help me understand your viewpoints and opinions.

Bob

That's what I just said to you (before I saw your comment)! I said "In any case, you will always be welcome here. And I really appreciate the time you have taken to share you insights."

So there you go - we obviously share many values. Great minds think alike.

[Christopher Pierce]

When I discuss things I like to keep things simple and cut through clutter. I say that because it seems that much of the discussion on this thread has been about the alleged corrupting influence of Christianity. To me that is a point that, no disrespect to what I understand Richard to believe, is moot. The root religion of Christianity is Judaism and Jesus himself had many problems with the leaders of Judaism and Paul pointed out that the very giving of law encourages lawlessness. So I would like to start by asking is it possible that there is a personal God that exists. At this point I'm not asking if it is the God of the bible or if there is any evidence of such a God. At this point to establish a base line in the discussion I want to know if such a God is possible. If he is I will move on from there if not than I will (or anyone else can) attempt to establish a base to build the conversation on.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When I discuss things I like to keep things simple and cut through clutter. I say that because it seems that much of the discussion on this thread has been about the alleged corrupting influence of Christianity. To me that is a point that, no disrespect to what I understand Richard to believe, is moot. The root religion of Christianity is Judaism and Jesus himself had many problems with the leaders of Judaism and Paul pointed out that the very giving of law encourages lawlessness. So I would like to start by asking is it possible that there is a personal God that exists. At this point I'm not asking if it is the God of the bible or if there is any evidence of such a God. At this point to establish a base line in the discussion I want to know if such a God is possible. If he is I will move on from there if not than I will (or anyone else can) attempt to establish a base to build the conversation on.

Hey there Christopher,

We have two things in common. First, I very much like to keep things simple and cut through the clutter. One question at the time is best since the answer will usually evoke two or three questions. It's a big challenge to stay focused because good conversations tend to branch exponentially.

Second, I also desire to find a "base line" of agreement based on clear definitions. Voltaire said it right: "If you want to discourse with me, define your terms."

Is it possible that there is a personal God that exists? The answer depends entirely upon how we define God and what we mean by "personal" with respect to God. In the broadest sense, there is no reason such a God could not exist. I am partial to the idea that there is a metaphysical (mental/spiritual) "Ground of Being" that could be called "God." The idea of that God having "personality" is problematic though. It's may be possible, but it may be that the concept of personality is restricted to finite localized beings. There is something about "omnipresence" that seems to suggest the category of "personality" (which is an entirely human concept) probably does not apply to the conscious Ground of Being. Or if it does, it would probably not have a "will" in the sense that we think of persons having a will. It's a very complex subject.

Bottom line: I have no problem with the possibility of a God, but it would require a lot of conversation to clarify what that really mean.

I will be on the road today, going to visit family in Seattle (a 150 miles away) so I won't be available for most of the day. So don't be surprised if you don't get a quick answer.

But while I'm here, I'll give you a little more information so you know where I'm coming from and can think about it when I'm gone. I have no reason to believe in the speculative Christian philosophical concepts of God that were largely invented during the Medieval times and which are often contrary to the God as portrayed in the Bible. I'm talking about the idea that that God is "eternal" in the sense of "timeless and unchanging" (in an absolute sense). That entails some serious logical conundrums and it may be that such a god is logically incoherent and so could not exist in "any possible world" as the philosophers like to say. Ironically, such a God could not even be a creator because he could never do anything since all actions are done in time and entail a change in the changeless cause. We have a direct contradiction. We have a similar problem with the idea of absolute omniscience. A God who knows all things never had a chance to make any decisions. He could never choose anyone or anything. He is more like a brute unchanging fact than a loving person. Indeed, he is nothing like a "person" and so is not "personal." And of course, all these philosophical speculations about God are not well-defined in the bible, and they seem entirely contrary to the God portrayed therein.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Unregistered]

The way I see it is you are lumping all christians into 1 group "christians". But, looking at all the "christian" groups you mention are - not christian! Take for example a traditionally thought of protestant group - the presbyterians. If you read their statement of faith not one thing is biblical. And so it goes with 99% of these or better. so what separates real christians from false christians? Let us ask a couple questions. What are the typical, generic questions someone asks? Q. what makes someone a christian? A. they believe in Jesus Christ. Yes & really NO! Why because just proclaiming you believe in A "jesus christ" is too vague because muslims believe in a j.c. - he was a great prophet before mohammed. Jehovas Witnesses believe in a j.c. he is a great arcangel who is yet to come. Mormons believe in a j.c. but he is just a lesser god and spirit brother of satan - do you see where this is going? or how about this? Q. are you born again? A. yes I have been born again. Well even satanic churches, witches covens, luciferians, freemasons all get born "again" into their religion! Or how about - Q. have you been baptized? A. all these same groups baptize each other also! So what separates a real believer from a false believer? Awnser, That you believe what/who Jesus Christ is and that you hear/understand what he has commanded and you do it, and keep at it, not just hear it and put it to the side. - This is why the "lukewarm" will be spit out of his mouth. This is why the road to heaven is narrow and difficult compared to the road to hell being wide and broad and easy. Also, this is the "great falling away" not that people are falling away from "church" but, people are falling away from the true gospel/doctrine that has bee given to us. Now the reason why paul and all others still sin is not because of any other reason except we are trapped in sinful human bodies. That doesn't mean that we sin willingly it means when we do sin we feel bad about it and try not to ever do it again, and if possible make it right. We can't reach perfection - no one can. Now sexism is not biblical - yes women do have a lesser role to a point but, look at the biblical examples - women are given great honor and are great examples for all people. Deborah, Esther, the 6 mary's, etc. Eve caused sin in the beginning and was rightly judged because of it, she wasn't killed off - she still was the progenitor of us all. Denominations are wrong also, we are not to follow "man" we are to follow GOD, we can learn from some of the denominations but we can also be heavily misled. This is why there is so many "christian denominations" to confuse and destroy all those that might possibly be saved. satans master plan to kill, lie and destroy. This is why there is so many bible versions - look at the niv - missing 1/6th or 66,000 words and everything that leads to salvation and most miracles or supernatural events. Please don't look for the 1 true church, look for the true belief. Don't look for the fruit only because even non-believers can have great fruit. Do this read the KJV or any other "textus receptus" based bible, repent, fast, pray and trust in the 1 true living GOD, Jesus the Christ. and you will be saved. There is no other choice for all other roads lead to death. And don't blindly trust look at the evidence still here on earth, the rock at Horeb, the real Mt. Sinai., the chariots at the bottom of the red sea, Noah's Ark in the mountains of Ararat, plus many more - no other faith even has anything as far as proof. God's works are proveable in multiple ways. but especially in the lives of true faithful believers. Please think and pray and you will find - GOD. Stay true.

[Christopher Pierce]

Richard,

First of all, let me say have a great time in Seattle. Second, let me say that "will" is a difficult word for both God and man. I have studied "will" or choice and have narrowed it down to three possible things: One, it's totally deterministic; two, it's in some way random; or three it's something that I do not understand. There is no way, at least no way that I have found, to prove which of the three it is without some type of absolute reference such as the bible or a belief in naturalism. Third let me say it is important to be careful about how one deals with logical conundrums. Logical conundrums seem to exist in science like the particle wave duality of matter or the counter intuitive ways that objects display at the quantum level.

I, myself, am a firm believer in the bible and try to shed false beliefs when I encounter them. I have also spent a large amount of time asking myself difficult questions because, as I believe is true of you and your wife, am looking for truth. As an example, I looked at the "timeless and unchanging" issue and believed that the conundrum is solved if you think of God as a static computer program. A computer program can be unchanging but respond to stimuli in different ways based on it's programming. A simple example of this is a program that says hello in different languages as people log in and tells them the number of people that logged in before. A program like this is unchanging but interacts a little different to each user.

So second baseline question: can this possible God be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Also, give me your definition of the God of the bible so I can better understand where you are coming from.

I myself don't try to hold to any tradition because I believe that if something is true it won't need tradition to hold it up.

Rose,
I haven't read your blog yet but I plan to so we can tackle that bias God thing :)

[duxrow]

"God of the Bible" caught my eye, Chris, so thought I'd jump in while RAM goes to Seattle, and recommend:
www.GospelSmiths.com It's mine, of course, so saves me from much repetition... hah. /s/ duxrow/BobSmith

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

First of all, let me say have a great time in Seattle. Second, let me say that "will" is a difficult word for both God and man. I have studied "will" or choice and have narrowed it down to three possible things: One, it's totally deterministic; two, it's in some way random; or three it's something that I do not understand. There is no way, at least no way that I have found, to prove which of the three it is without some type of absolute reference such as the bible or a belief in naturalism. Third let me say it is important to be careful about how one deals with logical conundrums. Logical conundrums seem to exist in science like the particle wave duality of matter or the counter intuitive ways that objects display at the quantum level.

I, myself, am a firm believer in the bible and try to shed false beliefs when I encounter them. I have also spent a large amount of time asking myself difficult questions because, as I believe is true of you and your wife, am looking for truth. As an example, I looked at the "timeless and unchanging" issue and believed that the conundrum is solved if you think of God as a static computer program. A computer program can be unchanging but respond to stimuli in different ways based on it's programming. A simple example of this is a program that says hello in different languages as people log in and tells them the number of people that logged in before. A program like this is unchanging but interacts a little different to each user.

So second baseline question: can this possible God be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Also, give me your definition of the God of the bible so I can better understand where you are coming from.

I myself don't try to hold to any tradition because I believe that if something is true it won't need tradition to hold it up.

Rose,
I haven't read your blog yet but I plan to so we can tackle that bias God thing :)
Hey there Christopher,

Sorry for the slow response. After a 350 mile round trip to Seattle and back, I didn't have much energy left. But we had a good visit. It's always nice to connect with the family.

It's great that you are a self-conscious seeker of truth, interested in asking the difficult questions. Your computer analogy works as far as it goes but it contradicts the idea that God is personal. I don't see how a computer program could "love" anyone or "choose" anyone in a meaningful way.

I agree with your three categories for "free will" though I would add one other possibility: Simply take free will as a primitive concept, like consciousness, that cannot be defined in terms of other concepts. This seems necessary since there is no solution to the question even after a couple millennia of philosophical discourse.

Now as for your second baseline question: can this possible God be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? By "this God" I presume you mean a "personal God" who has a localizable center of consciousness who goes about doing things, answering prayers, judging people, parting the Red Sea, and so forth. I do not know if that is philosophically impossible but it certainly entails a lot of logical conundrums and it certainly is nothing like the description of the God of the Bible. And it seems quite clear that there is no such God given the way the world works. Primitive man began with the idea that there were many gods ruling the forces of nature. A rain god, a fire god, etc. As humanity progressed, we developed the much more sophisticated idea of a single god that created everything, and then began to "absolutize" our concepts of sufficient foreknowledge to absolute omniscience. There are many other possibilities such as open theism which says that God only knows what is knowable, and denies that things with indeterminate values (like counterfactuals of freedom) are knowable.

As for the "definition" of the God of the Bible - there is none. The God of the Bible is described in many contradictory ways. In the more primitive parts of the Bible, he looks like a typical Iron Age war god competing with other war gods that are assumed to be real and commanding his armies to exterminate the inhabitants of the lands they wanted to take. The most advanced view is perhaps Pau's statement that makes God sound like the "Ground of being" in which we "move, and live and have our being." And the concepts that God is light and love. It seems obvious to me that these advanced concepts came from the mind of man just like the primitive concepts. The Bible records the evolution of the human concept of god.

Now that I've answered a few of your questions, perhaps you could answer a few of mine. You say that you are a "firm bible believer" but that doesn't tell me anything about the content of your beliefs. It would help a lot if you could briefly answer a couple baseline questions for me:

1) Where do you stand on science and the Bible? Are you a Young Earth or Old Earth Creationist? Where do you stand on evolution?

2) Where do you stand on Biblical inspiration? Is the Bible the inerrant and infallible Word of God?

Great chatting!

Richard

PS: My graduate work was on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, so feel free to use scientific analogies in our discussion.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The way I see it is you are lumping all christians into 1 group "christians". But, looking at all the "christian" groups you mention are - not christian! Take for example a traditionally thought of protestant group - the presbyterians. If you read their statement of faith not one thing is biblical. And so it goes with 99% of these or better. so what separates real christians from false christians? Let us ask a couple questions. What are the typical, generic questions someone asks? Q. what makes someone a christian? A. they believe in Jesus Christ. Yes & really NO! Why because just proclaiming you believe in A "jesus christ" is too vague because muslims believe in a j.c. - he was a great prophet before mohammed. Jehovas Witnesses believe in a j.c. he is a great arcangel who is yet to come. Mormons believe in a j.c. but he is just a lesser god and spirit brother of satan - do you see where this is going? or how about this? Q. are you born again? A. yes I have been born again. Well even satanic churches, witches covens, luciferians, freemasons all get born "again" into their religion! Or how about - Q. have you been baptized? A. all these same groups baptize each other also! So what separates a real believer from a false believer? Awnser, That you believe what/who Jesus Christ is and that you hear/understand what he has commanded and you do it, and keep at it, not just hear it and put it to the side. - This is why the "lukewarm" will be spit out of his mouth. This is why the road to heaven is narrow and difficult compared to the road to hell being wide and broad and easy. Also, this is the "great falling away" not that people are falling away from "church" but, people are falling away from the true gospel/doctrine that has bee given to us.

Your comment that "not one thing is biblical" is the Presbyterian Statement of faith makes no sense. Here is the first statement in the Presbyterian Church in America's Statement of Faith (http://www.pcanet.org/about/beliefs):
We believe the Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.

And your definition of a "true believer" makes no sense because it's all just your own interpretation. You have no way to tell who is or is not a "true believer." The fact that there is nothing but confusion about what defines a Christian only shows, yet again, that the Bible is useless as a guide. It is so confused that each person who reads it comes to different conclusions, and often declares that everyone who disagrees with their fallible human opinion is wrong.



Now sexism is not biblical - yes women do have a lesser role to a point but, look at the biblical examples - women are given great honor and are great examples for all people. Deborah, Esther, the 6 mary's, etc. Eve caused sin in the beginning and was rightly judged because of it, she wasn't killed off - she still was the progenitor of us all.

Your comment is confused. The fact that some women were "given great honor" does not contradict the fact that the Bible is sexist. Sexism is defined as discrimination based on sex, and that's what the Bible does when it teaches that "women have a lesser role" and that they cannot teach, or be in authority, and especially when it bases this sexism on the very nature of God as head of man and man as head of the woman. That is sexism, pure and simple. See my article The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?32-The-Inextricable-Sexism-of-the-Bible) for more evidence.



Denominations are wrong also, we are not to follow "man" we are to follow GOD, we can learn from some of the denominations but we can also be heavily misled. This is why there is so many "christian denominations" to confuse and destroy all those that might possibly be saved. satans master plan to kill, lie and destroy. This is why there is so many bible versions - look at the niv - missing 1/6th or 66,000 words and everything that leads to salvation and most miracles or supernatural events. Please don't look for the 1 true church, look for the true belief. Don't look for the fruit only because even non-believers can have great fruit. Do this read the KJV or any other "textus receptus" based bible, repent, fast, pray and trust in the 1 true living GOD, Jesus the Christ. and you will be saved. There is no other choice for all other roads lead to death. And don't blindly trust look at the evidence still here on earth, the rock at Horeb, the real Mt. Sinai., the chariots at the bottom of the red sea, Noah's Ark in the mountains of Ararat, plus many more - no other faith even has anything as far as proof. God's works are proveable in multiple ways. but especially in the lives of true faithful believers. Please think and pray and you will find - GOD. Stay true.
Your comments are entirely inconsistent. You follow "traditions of men" when you assume that the Protestant Bible is God's inerrant and infallible Word. The Bible certainly does not say that - it doesn't even define which books belong in it. So you are following traditions of men. And there is no more ridiculous man-made doctrine than that the King James Bible or the TR based texts are the only Bible anyone should use. The TR is just one family of manuscripts. There is much evidence that it was corrupted like all other texts. You have no evidence that it is superior to any others. You need to evaluate all the evidence. The KJV is nothing but a translation made by fallible men and filled with many errors. You've believed deceptive propaganda taught by the fundamentalist traditions when you say the NIV is "missing" verses. You simply don't understand the most basic facts concerning how we got the Bible. The KJV did not drop from heaven!

And that so-called "evidence" - the rock at Horeb, the real Mt. Sinai., the chariots at the bottom of the red sea, Noah's Ark in the mountains of Ararat - that you blindly believe is questionable at best and most of it is blatantly false crap made up by liars to FLEECE GULLIBLE CHRISTIANS who never check the facts.

If you really think that "God's works are proveable" then I invite you to share some evidence that would stand under more than half a second of scrutiny.

[Gil]

Howdy Richard,


Richard > Simply take free will as a primitive concept, like consciousness, that cannot be defined in terms of other concepts. This seems necessary since there is no solution to the question even after a couple millennia of philosophical discourse.

Gil > If you hold that consciousness is a concept, then life itself must be seen as a concept, as life must have preceded the consciousness of man.
I thought you mentioned once that you did not believe in Philosophical dogma.

Isn't free will demonstrated through the progressive concept of the Logos.

Richard > The most advanced view is perhaps Paul's statement that makes God sound like the "Ground of being" in which we "move, and live and have our being." And the concepts that God is light and love. It seems obvious to me that these advanced concepts came from the mind of man just like the primitive concepts. The Bible records the evolution of the human concept of god.

Gil > So it does , yet at the same time didn't science develop the ideas and concepts of the evolution of man and the systematic origins of matter and biological organisms.
One can see the progressive change within the ideas and concepts of origins
within science as well. They to were formed and developed through the consciousness of man, the mind.

The ground of being that you mention and the sea/ocean of conscious energy of which Rose speaks of sound like an identical concept, and can be looked at from two or more perspectives.

The consciousness of God ( the one you see as only a concept)
The consciousness of man as a whole ( mass consciousness )
Or both being as One.

Just out of curiosity, do you and Rose see this enfolded/unfolded consciousness as where the individual consciousness returns after death.

The philosophers who came up over time and the new age conceptualists
seem to have different ideas .

I'm leaving Paul's Christology out of the question.

Gil :pop2:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Howdy Richard,

Howdy hi Gil, :yo:



Richard > Simply take free will as a primitive concept, like consciousness, that cannot be defined in terms of other concepts. This seems necessary since there is no solution to the question even after a couple millennia of philosophical discourse.

Gil > If you hold that consciousness is a concept, then life itself must be seen as a concept, as life must have preceded the consciousness of man.
I thought you mentioned once that you did not believe in Philosophical dogma.

Isn't free will demonstrated through the progressive concept of the Logos.

All concepts are concepts. That does not mean that the underlying reality (if such exists) represented by the concept is also a concept. That's a confusion of words.

And you are correct, I do not subscribe to any "philosophical dogma." What "dogma" were you talking about?

What do you mean by the "progressive concept of the Logos" and how is it related to free will?



Richard > The most advanced view is perhaps Paul's statement that makes God sound like the "Ground of being" in which we "move, and live and have our being." And the concepts that God is light and love. It seems obvious to me that these advanced concepts came from the mind of man just like the primitive concepts. The Bible records the evolution of the human concept of god.

Gil > So it does , yet at the same time didn't science develop the ideas and concepts of the evolution of man and the systematic origins of matter and biological organisms.
One can see the progressive change within the ideas and concepts of origins
within science as well. They to were formed and developed through the consciousness of man, the mind.

Yes, of course science was "formed and developed through the consciousness of man." How does that relate to the fact that the concepts taught in the Bible were likewise developed in the mind of man? Are you suggesting a kind of equivalence between objectively testable science and religious assertions that cannot be verified?



The ground of being that you mention and the sea/ocean of conscious energy of which Rose speaks of sound like an identical concept, and can be looked at from two or more perspectives.

The consciousness of God ( the one you see as only a concept)
The consciousness of man as a whole ( mass consciousness )
Or both being as One.

I never said that the "consciousness of God" was "only a concept." It could be a reality. And it could be identical to the Universal Consciousness (if such exists). All these questions are highly speculative, and that's why I am not committed to any of them (since I have no way to know if they are true).



Just out of curiosity, do you and Rose see this enfolded/unfolded consciousness as where the individual consciousness returns after death.

I'll let Rose speak for herself, but personally, I allow for the possibility that the consciousness I experience as "mine" is just a "fragment" of the Universal Consciousness focused through the lens of my brain. It seems possible that the focused consciousness could exist independent of the body, but I don't have any knowledge about that. It may be that death is an awakening to our true identity as the "one self" that is Universal Consciousness.



The philosophers who came up over time and the new age conceptualists
seem to have different ideas .

Yes, we should expect everyone to have different ideas on issues that go beyond human knowledge. That's why I'm not dogmatic about such things.



I'm leaving Paul's Christology out of the question.

Why?

[samar]

Richard,

I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. Personal or organizational Christian creeds or tenets of faith may or may not be biblical. What I should have asked you is: What BIBLICAL components of or specifications for the biblically-defined condition of salvation do you reject and no longer want applied to yourself, that make you non-Christian?

Regards,

Bob

Bob, I pray these passages will ENLIGHTEN U as they have me in DISCERNING the DARKNESS from the LIGHT:

Exo 10:23 But ALL the CHILDREN of ISRAEL had LIGHT in their dwellings

II Sam 23:2 The SPIRIT of the LORD spake by me, and His WORD was in my [tongue]

Prov 15:4 A WHOLESOME TONGUE [is] a TREE OF LIFE: but PERVERSENESS therein [is] a BREACH in the [spirit]

I Tim 6:3 If a man [teach] otherwise and consent not to WHOLESOME WORDS, even the WORDS of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, and to the
[doctrine] which [is] according to [godliness];

I Tim 6:4 He [is] PROUD, knowing [nothing], but DOTING about QUESTIONS and STRIFES of words, whereof cometh ENVY, STRIFE, RAILINGS,
EVIL SURMISINGS,

I Tim 6:5 PERVERSE DISPUTINGS of men of CORRUPT MINDS, and DESTITUTE of the TRUTH, supposing that GAIN is [godliness] : from [such]
WITHDRAW thyself


I Tim 6:6 But GODLINESS with CONTENTMENT [is] GREAT GAIN


II Cor 6:14 Be not UNEQUALLY YOKED [together] with UNBELIEVERS: for what FELLOWSHIP hath RIGHTEOUSNESS with UNRIGHTEOUSNESS ?
And what COMMUNION hath LIGHT with DARKNESS ?


Jer 24:7 And I WILL [give] them an HEART to KNOW ME that I AM the LORD: and they [shall be] MY [people] and I WILL BE [their] G-D:
for they [shall] RETURN unto ME with their WHOLE HEART


I Sam 12:23 Moreover as for me, G-d forbid that I should [sin] against the LORD in [ceasing] to [pray] for U: but I WILL [teach] U the GOOD and
the RIGHT WAY

Rom 6:2 G-d forbid . How shall we, that [are] DEAD to SIN [live] any [longer] therein ?

Rom 6:15 What then ? shall we SIN, because we are not [under] the LAW but [under] GRACE ? G-D forbid

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then ? Is there UNRIGHTEOUSNESS with G-D ? G-D forbid

I Cor 6:17 But he that is JOINED unto the Lord [is] ONE spirit

Heb 3:7 Wherefore as the HOLY GHOST saith, Today [if] ye [will] [hear] His [voice]

Heb 3:8 Harden [not] your [hearts] as in the [provocation] , in the [day] of [temptation] in the [wilderness] = 2012 EVER PRESENT REAL TIME NOW !!


Heb 3:12 Take [heed], brethren , lest there be [any] of U with an EVIL HEART of UNBELIEF in DEPARTING from the LIVING G-D

Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let [us] go on to [perfection]; not [laying again] the foundation of
[repentance], of [dead works] and of [faith] towards G-d,

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment

Heb 6:3 And this [will] we do [if] G-d [permit]

Heb 6:4 For it is [impossible] for [those] who were once [enlightened], and have [tasted] of the [heavenly gift], and that were made
[partakers] of the HOLY GHOST

Heb 6:5 And have [tasted] the [good word] of G-d , and the [powers] of the [world] to come

Heb 6:6 If they [shall fall away] , to [renew] them [again] unto [repentance] ; seeing they [crucify] to [themselves] the Son of G-d
[afresh], and put Him to an [open shame]

Prov 21:16 The man that [wandereth] out of the [way] of [understanding] [shall ] [remain] in the [congregation] of the [dead]

Jud 1:12 These [are] [spots] in your feasts of charity, when they feast with U, [feeding ] themselves without [fear]: [clouds] they are
[ without] water, carried about of winds; [trees] whose [fruit] [withereth], [without] fruit , [twice dead] plucked up by the [roots]

II Tim 3:5 Having a [form] of [godliness] but [denying] the [power] thereof: from [such] [turn away]

II Tim 3:13 But [evil] men and [seducers] shall was [worse and worse], [deceiving] , and being [deceived]

I Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit g [speaketh] expressly, that in the [latter times] [some] shall [depart] from the [faith], giving heed to [seducing]
[spirits] and the [doctrine of devils]

I Tim 4:2 Speaking [lies] in [hypocrisy] ; having their [conscience] [seared] with a [hot iron]

hypocrisy = G5272 hupokrisis hoop-ok-ree-sis dissimulation condemnation the act of a stage player

conscience = G4893 suneidesis soon-i-day-sis the consciousness of anything) the soul as distinguishing what is morally good and bad
prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other

seared = G2743 kauteriazo kow-tat-ree-ad-zo sear with a hot iron , to mark by branding, branded with their own consciences
whose souls are branded with the marks of sin, who carry about with them the
perpetual consciousness of sin ) in a medical sense to cauterise, to remove by cautery

Psa 53:1 The [fool] hath [said] in his [heart], There [is no] G-d. [ Corrupt] are they, and have [done] [abominable iniquity] : there is none that doeth good

Prov 10:8 The [wise] man in [heart] will [receive] [commandments]: but a [prating] fool [shall] fall

Prov 23:9 Speak [not] in the [ears] of a [fool] : for he [will] [despise] the [wisdom] of thy words


Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, unto U it is [given] to know the [mystery] of the [kingdom] of G-d: but unto them that are [without], all these things
are done in [parables]

Isa 28:9 Whom [shall] He [teach] [knowledge] ? and whom [shall] He [make] to [understand] [doctrine] ? them that are [weaned] from the [milk],
and [drawn] from the [breasts]

Matt 16:6 And Jesus said unto them, take [heed] and [beware] of the [leaven] of the Pharisees and the Sadducees

Matt 16:24 And Jesus said unto His [disciples] [if] any man [will] come after ME, let him [deny] himself, and take up his [cross], and [follow] ME

Matt 24:12 And because [iniquity] [shall ] abound the [love] of [many] shall [wax] [cold]

Matt 24:13 But he that [shall endure] unto the [end] the same [shall be] [saved]

Prov 26:12 Seeth thou a man [wise] in his [own] conceit ? there is more [hope] of a [fool] than of him

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Prov 21:16 The man that [wandereth] out of the [way] of [understanding] [shall ] [remain] in the [congregation] of the [dead]

Jud 1:12 These [are] [spots] in your feasts of charity, when they feast with U, [feeding ] themselves without [fear]: [clouds] they are
[ without] water, carried about of winds; [trees] whose [fruit] [withereth], [without] fruit , [twice dead] plucked up by the [roots]

II Tim 3:5 Having a [form] of [godliness] but [denying] the [power] thereof: from [such] [turn away]

II Tim 3:13 But [evil] men and [seducers] shall was [worse and worse], [deceiving] , and being [deceived]

I Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit g [speaketh] expressly, that in the [latter times] [some] shall [depart] from the [faith], giving heed to [seducing]
[spirits] and the [doctrine of devils]

I Tim 4:2 Speaking [lies] in [hypocrisy] ; having their [conscience] [seared] with a [hot iron]

hypocrisy = G5272 hupokrisis hoop-ok-ree-sis dissimulation condemnation the act of a stage player

conscience = G4893 suneidesis soon-i-day-sis the consciousness of anything) the soul as distinguishing what is morally good and bad
prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending one, condemning the other

seared = G2743 kauteriazo kow-tat-ree-ad-zo sear with a hot iron , to mark by branding, branded with their own consciences
whose souls are branded with the marks of sin, who carry about with them the
perpetual consciousness of sin ) in a medical sense to cauterise, to remove by cautery

Psa 53:1 The [fool] hath [said] in his [heart], There [is no] G-d. [ Corrupt] are they, and have [done] [abominable iniquity] : there is none that doeth good

Prov 10:8 The [wise] man in [heart] will [receive] [commandments]: but a [prating] fool [shall] fall

Prov 23:9 Speak [not] in the [ears] of a [fool] : for he [will] [despise] the [wisdom] of thy words


Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, unto U it is [given] to know the [mystery] of the [kingdom] of G-d: but unto them that are [without], all these things
are done in [parables]

Isa 28:9 Whom [shall] He [teach] [knowledge] ? and whom [shall] He [make] to [understand] [doctrine] ? them that are [weaned] from the [milk],
and [drawn] from the [breasts]

Matt 16:6 And Jesus said unto them, take [heed] and [beware] of the [leaven] of the Pharisees and the Sadducees

Matt 16:24 And Jesus said unto His [disciples] [if] any man [will] come after ME, let him [deny] himself, and take up his [cross], and [follow] ME

Matt 24:12 And because [iniquity] [shall ] abound the [love] of [many] shall [wax] [cold]

Matt 24:13 But he that [shall endure] unto the [end] the same [shall be] [saved]

Prov 26:12 Seeth thou a man [wise] in his [own] conceit ? there is more [hope] of a [fool] than of him
samar,

Is it possible that you don't realize that you are using the Bible to spew out venom and slander on people like me who disagree with you?

Do you not realize what you were doing? Look at those words of condemnation you posted!

Just thought you should know how your post seems to those you were condemning.

Richard

[Nancy]

Hi Richard and Rose,

As someone who lost their faith in the past and found life very uncomfortable without it, I am not about to criticize either of you for your stand on faith, morals, existence of God, or anything else. I used to pray from Nietszche, for crying out loud! Do you remember the Drunken Song from Thus Spake Zarathrusta? OK, then you know my spirit was bitter and crying out, cause I would pray that to the God I refused to believe in for His meanness to me. Anyway, guess what I learned, and not from a pulpit, the Bible, Christian or Jew, but from personal experience? It is pride that blinds a person, and the minute you surrender your pride and really tell Life "Okay, You win! I'll live You Your way! What do You want me to do?" you WILL have your eyes opened.

By the way, Rose, what's with the girlie pictures on the Bible Wheel site? I'm not just talking about the dating services, but I'm reading and all of a sudden there's a tee-shirt ad with a girl with big boobs falling out of a tee-shirt. Soft porn, and there's nothing more degrading to women. What's with that?

Nancy

[Rose]

Matt 24:12 And because [iniquity] [shall ] abound the [love] of [many] shall [wax] [cold]



Hello Samar,

From all the hate you spewed forth in the verses you quoted, I think Matt. 24:12 applies to you. I find no "Christian" love in your post, and think Jesus would be very disappointed in you.

Rose

[samar]

samar,

Is it possible that you don't realize that you are using the Bible to spew out venom and slander on people like me who disagree with you?

Do you not realize what you were doing? Look at those words of condemnation you posted!

Just thought you should know how you post seems to those you were condemning.

Richard

I find your

Richard, my response wasn't intended to slander U, I directed my response to Bob in hopes to shew him from a biblical perspective what the Logos
says regarding the topics of discussion mentioned in his posts
I apologize if my post offends U in any way
I only wanted to encourage and help to sharpen iron to iron a fellow believer in Christ
If I come across boldly it isn't meant to brow beat anyone else and I'll be more temperate in the future

Please know that I don't know U personally and have no rational reason to attack your beliefs
I respect U as a human being irrespective of religion
Again please accept my humble apology
Samar

[samar]

Richard, my response wasn't intended to slander U, I directed my response to Bob in hopes to shew him from a biblical perspective what the Logos
says regarding the topics of discussion mentioned in his posts
I apologize if my post offends U in any way
I only wanted to encourage and help to sharpen iron to iron a fellow believer in Christ
If I come across boldly it isn't meant to brow beat anyone else and I'll be more temperate in the future

Please know that I don't know U personally and have no rational reason to attack your beliefs
I respect U as a human being irrespective of religion
Again please accept my humble apology
Samar

[Christopher Pierce]

Richard,

1) I believe in Science and I believe in the bible. I am young Earth and don't believe in evolution. But I am neither young Earth or anti-evolution by dogma. I have done research and, while I always believed that way, had no problem being wrong. For the longest time it didn't matter to much to me because I hadn't done enough research into the topics.

2) And as far as the bible I do believe it is the inerrant and infallible word of God but, and this may sound contradictory, don't put much stock in that view. What I mean is I don't care if people don't agree with that because my faith is in God himself more than it is in the bible. I am the type of person who tries to stay open. If someone can prove me wrong I am open to change my beliefs.

Now I have a few questions. Where does the bible indicate that God is not all powerful? All knowing? And present everywhere? Those questions were out of curiosity because I don't believe that it is 100% necessary for God to be those things in an absolute sense although I believe he is. Also, what do you believe as far as Jesus is concerned?

I am almost ready to start getting into an actual discussion because I am beginning to get a sense of your position. At least I think I am :) never can be too sure :yo:

[David M]

Hello Samar,

From all the hate you spewed forth in the verses you quoted, I think Matt. 24:12 applies to you. I find no "Christian" love in your post, and think Jesus would be very disappointed in you.

Rose

Hello Rose

From the long list of quotes from the Bible quoted by Samar, I think you and Richard have unfairly accused him of slander and things he has not done. No-way has his post slandered anyone. How can you even mention ""Christian" love" when you are no longer a Christian. From what I have read (so far), I think Jesus would be far more disappointed in you than he is of Samar or me (not that I should esteem myself better than any other).

I have appreciated the posts from:- unregistered, BobL, Christopher Pierce, Samar, and Nancy on the topic of this thread. They have given you and Richard many answers/reasons and you both remain spiritually blind. I wish you were not and I with others hope you will come to see the error or your ways. Alas, I also think you are amongst those who as the Bible says; "are willingly ignorant", i.e. those people refuse to hear the words of the Bible and act in accordance with them. You have not demonstrated any spiritual insight as far as I have read and you do not demonstrate spiritual Wisdom that I read of in other people's posts. If you have a grain of Christianity left in you, this is most likely going to leave you amongst the 99% of Christians who will be rejected. The reasons why 99% of Christians will be rejected have already been given in this thread. You can say I am a fallible human and that I have completely misunderstood the Bible but that would be your opinion and I doubt those who I have mentioned would agree with you.

I am only sorry, that I feel so compelled to speak bluntly once again. I expect this will invoke the usual reply from both you and Richard which I have got used to and is so predictable. I expect the same rhetoric you have used to reply to many of my posts and the rhetoric I read in your replies to others. Alas, the rhetoric becomes boring so please if you feel compelled to respond in the way I expect, then I will not feel compelled to reply. If I have accused you incorrectly, then please give the evidence of recent posts which demonstrate your spiritual wisdom and understanding of the spiritual message of the Bible.

You can accuse me of being non-Christian (or anything you like), for the tone of my post and I will remind you that Jesus was not reserved when it came to his condemnation of the Pharisees for teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. Did Jesus hate the Pharisees or was it what the teaching of the Pharisees that Jesus hated? Jesus goes to the heart of the matter when he said; those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. Jesus is not just talking about general profanities, Jesus is also including the lies that are spoken.

I let the words of Jesus influence my mind so his words will cause me to act in the correct way. It is the message of Jesus I promote. I would prefer our conversations to be based on the word of God, but alas your total rejection of all God's word does not make this possible. I will close by letting Jesus have the last word;
(John 12)
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

I sincerely wish you "all the best" and you come to change back to believing in God and His Son, the same as Nancy has changed.


David

[Gil]

Howdy Richard,

Richard > And you are correct, I do not subscribe to any "philosophical dogma." What "dogma" were you talking about?

Gil > Weren't the philosophers ( of Greek origin ) considered the scientist/theologians of their time. The forerunners of modern science.
If they represented the duality of thought then, why can't it also be true that science and theology may have kept in step with each other, but now in modern times, the modern scientist and philosopher/ theologian have separated themselves .
I take it then that you do not consider philosophy and psychology as a part of the sciences.
I know that you do not speak for Rose, but she appears to be utilizing philosophical ideas in her new thoughts.

Richard > The most advanced view is perhaps Paul's statement that makes God sound like the "Ground of being" in which we "move, and live and have our being." And the concepts that God is light and love. It seems obvious to me that these advanced concepts came from the mind of man just like the primitive concepts. The Bible records the evolution of the human concept of god.

Gil > So it does , yet at the same time didn't science develop the ideas and concepts of the evolution of man and the systematic origins of matter and biological organisms.
One can see the progressive change within the ideas and concepts of origins
within science as well. They to were formed and developed through the consciousness of man, the mind.

Richard > Yes, of course science was "formed and developed through the consciousness of man." How does that relate to the fact that the concepts taught in the Bible were likewise developed in the mind of man? Are you suggesting a kind of equivalence between objectively testable science and religious assertions that cannot be verified?

Gil > No. I read into the Bible [ old testament] the ideas and concepts of early man as a progressive awareness/consciousness of God in its development. Not as if they were making things up, but a slow process in thought form. A part of the purpose and function of mental evolutionary change. I don't see it ,as if man was trying to form a God to explain creation and his own being ,but man creating/forming a God that was his own consciousness as a whole. The consciousness that Rose seems to see. [that of man]. A God to suit his own will and purposes.
However the prophets seen glimpses of a true God consciousness at times, however a relationship was never established.
The old testament was allowed to express the words of man [ in his own words], to make manifest the darkness and evil of evolutionary chaos.
Without which, when the seed to come that was promised in Genesis , would have had no real meaning in regard to good and evil/ light and darkness.
Some see John the Baptist and the repentance he desired in others ,as one of change from the Law unto the way of achieving Grace. I see it as a greater change. A change that would led to the consciousness of Christ.
The progression of consciousness. No different than arithmetic being the first step to higher mathematics.

Gil > Just out of curiosity, do you and Rose see this enfolded/unfolded consciousness as where the individual consciousness returns after death.

Richard > I'll let Rose speak for herself, but personally, I allow for the possibility that the consciousness I experience as "mine" is just a "fragment" of the Universal Consciousness focused through the lens of my brain. It seems possible that the focused consciousness could exist independent of the body, but I don't have any knowledge about that. It may be that death is an awakening to our true identity as the "one self" that is Universal Consciousness.

Gil > The consciousness of the true God and the universal consciousness formed by man are not the same thing. Universal consciousness has been made manifest through man .
Paul said that one must be dead to the flesh, to be made alive in the spirit.
The soul is associated with the flesh/matter, yet the mind/conscience and consciousness are also soul related. It was the transformation of man's consciousness to that of the cosmic Christ consciousness that Paul was relating to.
He meant now then and it is also now, in the now.

Gil > I'm leaving Paul's Christology out of the question.

Richard > Why?

Gil > It is more in line with Rose's concepts on consciousness.
I'll have to read more on what she thinks.
Paul's Cosmic Christ (consciousness) is the manifestation of the Cosmic consciousness through man as being the pre-destined function of mans own consciousness. One of direct relationship with his creator and creation.

All accomplished through Jesus > Jesus Christ and presents itself as such within the BOC.
There is an inner side and outer side to both man and the BOC.

The BOC as seen by many to be the church is far more complex than that.
It relates to man now upon this earth and the future of individual man.

It to has its philosophical roots which you see as dogma.

Sure it is speculative.

It can only be experienced subjectively by the individual , not proven through scientific empirical experimentation.

Gil :pop2:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Howdy Richard,

Richard > And you are correct, I do not subscribe to any "philosophical dogma." What "dogma" were you talking about?

Gil > Weren't the philosophers ( of Greek origin ) considered the scientist/theologians of their time. The forerunners of modern science.
If they represented the duality of thought then, why can't it also be true that science and theology may have kept in step with each other, but now in modern times, the modern scientist and philosopher/ theologian have separated themselves .
I take it then that you do not consider philosophy and psychology as a part of the sciences.
I know that you do not speak for Rose, but she appears to be utilizing philosophical ideas in her new thoughts.

Good morning Gil,

What we now call science was once called "natural philosophy."

But in our modern definitions, philosophy per se is not part of science, though the philosophy of science is important.

I do not think that psychology is not science.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "duality of thought" between science and theology.



Richard > The most advanced view is perhaps Paul's statement that makes God sound like the "Ground of being" in which we "move, and live and have our being." And the concepts that God is light and love. It seems obvious to me that these advanced concepts came from the mind of man just like the primitive concepts. The Bible records the evolution of the human concept of god.

Gil > So it does , yet at the same time didn't science develop the ideas and concepts of the evolution of man and the systematic origins of matter and biological organisms.
One can see the progressive change within the ideas and concepts of origins
within science as well. They to were formed and developed through the consciousness of man, the mind.

I agree, but I don't get your point.



Richard > Yes, of course science was "formed and developed through the consciousness of man." How does that relate to the fact that the concepts taught in the Bible were likewise developed in the mind of man? Are you suggesting a kind of equivalence between objectively testable science and religious assertions that cannot be verified?

Gil > No. I read into the Bible [ old testament] the ideas and concepts of early man as a progressive awareness/consciousness of God in its development. Not as if they were making things up, but a slow process in thought form. A part of the purpose and function of mental evolutionary change. I don't see it ,as if man was trying to form a God to explain creation and his own being ,but man creating/forming a God that was his own consciousness as a whole. The consciousness that Rose seems to see. [that of man]. A God to suit his own will and purposes.
However the prophets seen glimpses of a true God consciousness at times, however a relationship was never established.
The old testament was allowed to express the words of man [ in his own words], to make manifest the darkness and evil of evolutionary chaos.
Without which, when the seed to come that was promised in Genesis , would have had no real meaning in regard to good and evil/ light and darkness.
Some see John the Baptist and the repentance he desired in others ,as one of change from the Law unto the way of achieving Grace. I see it as a greater change. A change that would led to the consciousness of Christ.
The progression of consciousness. No different than arithmetic being the first step to higher mathematics.

It sounds like we were more or less talking about the same thing.



Gil > Just out of curiosity, do you and Rose see this enfolded/unfolded consciousness as where the individual consciousness returns after death.

Richard > I'll let Rose speak for herself, but personally, I allow for the possibility that the consciousness I experience as "mine" is just a "fragment" of the Universal Consciousness focused through the lens of my brain. It seems possible that the focused consciousness could exist independent of the body, but I don't have any knowledge about that. It may be that death is an awakening to our true identity as the "one self" that is Universal Consciousness.

Gil > The consciousness of the true God and the universal consciousness formed by man are not the same thing. Universal consciousness has been made manifest through man .
Paul said that one must be dead to the flesh, to be made alive in the spirit.
The soul is associated with the flesh/matter, yet the mind/conscience and consciousness are also soul related. It was the transformation of man's consciousness to that of the cosmic Christ consciousness that Paul was relating to.
He meant now then and it is also now, in the now.

I find it difficult to follow your comment. The concept of "universal consciousness" is not something that is "formed by man." It is identical to "consciousness of the true God" if such a God exists. Else it could be the very definition of God. Or perhaps there is no need for the God-concept at all. But in any case, I was not using that phrase in the way your comment suggests.



Gil > I'm leaving Paul's Christology out of the question.

Richard > Why?

Gil > It is more in line with Rose's concepts on consciousness.
I'll have to read more on what she thinks.
Paul's Cosmic Christ (consciousness) is the manifestation of the Cosmic consciousness through man as being the pre-destined function of mans own consciousness. One of direct relationship with his creator and creation.

All accomplished through Jesus > Jesus Christ and presents itself as such within the BOC.
There is an inner side and outer side to both man and the BOC.

The BOC as seen by many to be the church is far more complex than that.
It relates to man now upon this earth and the future of individual man.

It to has its philosophical roots which you see as dogma.

Sure it is speculative.

It can only be experienced subjectively by the individual , not proven through scientific empirical experimentation.

Gil :pop2:
Well, I can see how you could make a metaphysical world-view with those ideas. But as you and I both know, they are fundamentally speculative and so I have no way to know or reason to think they are true.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

1) I believe in Science and I believe in the bible. I am young Earth and don't believe in evolution. But I am neither young Earth or anti-evolution by dogma. I have done research and, while I always believed that way, had no problem being wrong. For the longest time it didn't matter to much to me because I hadn't done enough research into the topics.

2) And as far as the bible I do believe it is the inerrant and infallible word of God but, and this may sound contradictory, don't put much stock in that view. What I mean is I don't care if people don't agree with that because my faith is in God himself more than it is in the bible. I am the type of person who tries to stay open. If someone can prove me wrong I am open to change my beliefs.

Now I have a few questions. Where does the bible indicate that God is not all powerful? All knowing? And present everywhere? Those questions were out of curiosity because I don't believe that it is 100% necessary for God to be those things in an absolute sense although I believe he is. Also, what do you believe as far as Jesus is concerned?

I am almost ready to start getting into an actual discussion because I am beginning to get a sense of your position. At least I think I am :) never can be too sure :yo:

Hey there Christopher, :tea:

Thanks for filling in some of those details. It's very helpful to know where you are coming from. You will find some like-minded folks here, and some who strongly disagree. It's a good place for discourse on these issues.

Concerning your Young Earth belief - do you have any scientific training? What is your level of education?

As for your questions: "Where does the bible indicate that God is not all powerful? All knowing? And present everywhere?" The bible contradicts itself on its presentation of God. Every time the Bible says God learned something or changed his mind suggests that he is not all-knowing. And when the Bible says God "knows everything" it doesn't have to be taken in an absolute sense. And as for all powerful, there is the classic verse about iron chariots:
Judges 1:19 So the LORD was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

The real issue is that the modern concepts of God are not what we see in the Bible. The concept of "eternity" as "timeless" for example is not found in the Bible.

I look forward to when we can "start getting into an actual discussion."

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, my response wasn't intended to slander U, I directed my response to Bob in hopes to shew him from a biblical perspective what the Logos
says regarding the topics of discussion mentioned in his posts
I apologize if my post offends U in any way
I only wanted to encourage and help to sharpen iron to iron a fellow believer in Christ
If I come across boldly it isn't meant to brow beat anyone else and I'll be more temperate in the future

Please know that I don't know U personally and have no rational reason to attack your beliefs
I respect U as a human being irrespective of religion
Again please accept my humble apology
Samar
Hey there Samar, :yo:

Apology accepted. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. :hug:

The problem was that you posted a lot of "condemnation verses" and it seemed as if you were implying that they applied to anyone (such as Rose and myself) who disagreed with your beliefs about the Bible. Do you understand how I got that impression?

All the best,

Richard

[Rose]

Hello Rose

From the long list of quotes from the Bible quoted by Samar, I think you and Richard have unfairly accused him of slander and things he has not done. No-way has his post slandered anyone. How can you even mention ""Christian" love" when you are no longer a Christian. From what I have read (so far), I think Jesus would be far more disappointed in you than he is of Samar or me (not that I should esteem myself better than any other).

Hello David,

First off I did not accuse Samar of slander, I merely said that there was no Christian love in his/her post. There was nothing unfair in saying that the verses quoted spewed forth hate and condemnation, because they did. Just because I am no longer a Christian, does not mean I don't believe that Jesus was a man who spoke words telling people to love their enemies and treat their neighbors as themselves. And for your information, Christians do not have a market on love, in fact the history of the Church is filled with hate filled Christians killing those who didn't follow their doctrines.

Take care,
Rose

[Rose]

Hi Richard and Rose,

As someone who lost their faith in the past and found life very uncomfortable without it, I am not about to criticize either of you for your stand on faith, morals, existence of God, or anything else. I used to pray from Nietszche, for crying out loud! Do you remember the Drunken Song from Thus Spake Zarathrusta? OK, then you know my spirit was bitter and crying out, cause I would pray that to the God I refused to believe in for His meanness to me. Anyway, guess what I learned, and not from a pulpit, the Bible, Christian or Jew, but from personal experience? It is pride that blinds a person, and the minute you surrender your pride and really tell Life "Okay, You win! I'll live You Your way! What do You want me to do?" you WILL have your eyes opened.

Nancy

Hello Nancy,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. The reason I lost my faith had nothing to do with me being angry or bitter at god. For me it happened quite unexpectedly, the more I freed my mind to see the truth the more I realized that the god of the Bible was an invention of the minds of men. I am not a Christian anymore, because I don't believe the god described within it pages is real, it has nothing to do with pride. Here is a link to an article on my blog that will help you understand why I can no longer believe the Bible to be the word of god. The Male Bias of the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/).

I am quite the opposite of your friend who felt uncomfortable without their faith. I find myself feeling much more free and alive then I ever felt before. The more my mind flourishes with ideas, the more the well being of my body increases. My eyes are open and I am the happiest I have ever been, and I know Richard feels the same way.

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard and Rose,

As someone who lost their faith in the past and found life very uncomfortable without it, I am not about to criticize either of you for your stand on faith, morals, existence of God, or anything else. I used to pray from Nietszche, for crying out loud! Do you remember the Drunken Song from Thus Spake Zarathrusta? OK, then you know my spirit was bitter and crying out, cause I would pray that to the God I refused to believe in for His meanness to me. Anyway, guess what I learned, and not from a pulpit, the Bible, Christian or Jew, but from personal experience? It is pride that blinds a person, and the minute you surrender your pride and really tell Life "Okay, You win! I'll live You Your way! What do You want me to do?" you WILL have your eyes opened.


Hey there Nancy,

Sorry for the slow response. Your reference to Thus Spake Zarathustra made me want to read a little of it before responding and I got distracted.

Your comment seems to indicate that you never actually "lost your faith" since you continued to "pray to God" and apparently believed he existed. You statement that you "refused to believe in" Him because of "His meanness" indicates that you continued to believe in him but that you were merely mad at him. So I get the impression you never really experienced the point of view where he simply does not exist. I would think this is what left you such a distressing situation - both believing in God and not trusting him. I can certainly understand why this left you feeling "bitter and crying out."

My experience is entirely different. Rose and I began talking a lot about what we believe and why. As the conversations progressed false beliefs began to fall away on their own. We did not "try" to believe anything for or against Christianity. We just talked about how things looked with open eyes and open minds, and then next thing we knew, we were no longer Christians. There were a few moments when the new world with its open (and empty) sky struck as a rather unsettling because we were so habituated to imagining God as a parent watching over us, but that quickly faded as fell into our stride as independent free-thinking adults who understand we must rely on our own strength, knowledge, and wisdom. This is the truth that Christianity denies. Believers are told they must NOT rely on their own abilities, but rather must "trust God" to take care of them. Of course, everyone knows that is absurd, that we would die in short order if we really put that teaching into practice. So Christians learn to hold contradictions in their minds, and this corrupts their minds. This is why breaking free from the shackles of false religion is so incredibly liberating and empowering. It's like having a computer that could do nothing because thousands viruses were using all the CPU. We've cleaned out the "viruses" that were hogging our CPU and now have minds that function as they should.

I am somewhat mystified by your idea that "pride" is what "blinds a person." Sure, I've seen plenty of people blinded by pride, but it doesn't seem like a general principle, and it is pretty easy to avoid by committing oneself to being honest and open to all criticism which I have been practicing for many years. Your suggested solution of merely saying to Life "Okay, You win! I'll live You Your way!" makes no sense to me. It is not connected to the source of the blindness you suggest (pride, the holding to false ideas despite all the evidence). And how can you speak to "Life" as if it were a person? And what does it really mean to lay down your will and let "Life" direct your life?



By the way, Rose, what's with the girlie pictures on the Bible Wheel site? I'm not just talking about the dating services, but I'm reading and all of a sudden there's a tee-shirt ad with a girl with big boobs falling out of a tee-shirt. Soft porn, and there's nothing more degrading to women. What's with that?

Thanks for letting me know. The ads controlled by Google. They allow me to control the ads to a degree, such as "no sexually explicit ads." But the ads are customized to each user as well as the content of my site. I've never seen any with "boobs falling out." Do you have a teenage son who uses your computer? If someone has looked at some "racy" sites using your computer, Google will remember that and show related ads. If you could note the specific sponsor of an offending ad I will see if there is a way to block them.

Thanks for taking time to comment.

All the best,

Richard

[Gil]

Howdy Richard,

Richard> I do not think that psychology is not science.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "duality of thought" between science and theology.

Gil > At least you qualify psychology as a science. Will leave out philosophical thoughts altogether then ,even though the images/forms presented are psychological.
Theology seeks out the creator of all things and how the term's [ God/ cosmic consciousness] relate themselves with the consciousness of man .Man being the focal point of the evolution of consciousness through lower forms of life. It was through man that God would begin to manifest himself as consciousness.
I see it as a pre-destined function. God and man in a meaningful relationship, with man maintaining his individuality.
Science seeks out the properties and origins of matter .How and by which means did the cosmos come into being. [ although I think they leave out , "the what for ?"].
Unless one believes in throwing the dice of random chance into the big bang model and sees life as being formed through material means alone , intellect must become a part of the creation process.
So what does that leave ,but duality of thought.
Theology looks at life , and reasons for its meaning, as being within the creation.
( subjectively).
Science looks at the physical side of creation and seeks out the reality of its manifestation. (objectively).
Underlying both is cosmic consciousness.
Leaving out all theory and concepts of prior to big bang, cosmic consciousness can be seen as the a-prior beginning, invisible sub-structure of both matter and life within the creation process. [ essence and substance]



Richard > I'll let Rose speak for herself, but personally, I allow for the possibility that the consciousness I experience as "mine" is just a "fragment" of the Universal Consciousness focused through the lens of my brain. It seems possible that the focused consciousness could exist independent of the body, but I don't have any knowledge about that. It may be that death is an awakening to our true identity as the "one self" that is Universal Consciousness.

Gil > The consciousness of the true God and the universal consciousness formed by man are not the same thing. Universal consciousness has been made manifest through man .
Paul said that one must be dead to the flesh, to be made alive in the spirit.
The soul is associated with the flesh/matter, yet the mind/conscience and consciousness are also soul related. It was the transformation of man's consciousness to that of the cosmic Christ consciousness that Paul was relating to. He meant now then and it is also now, in the now.

Richard > I find it difficult to follow your comment. The concept of "universal consciousness" is not something that is "formed by man." It is identical to "consciousness of the true God" if such a God exists. Else it could be the very definition of God. Or perhaps there is no need for the God-concept at all. But in any case, I was not using that phrase in the way your comment suggests.

Gil > Either I did not clarify sufficiently or I would disagree here.
By universal consciousness, I meant mans own consciousness which was given /allowed
to have free will. A consciousness that is bound to this earth by man's own self conception. The consciousness of Ego .
Mans Ego formed consciousness was and is formed by man himself and for the most part
is not identical to the consciousness of the true God.

Again ,I will leave out the unfolding cosmic Christ and his relationship with man according to Jesus Christ and Paul. [ for philosophical reasons].

You say that there may be no reason for a God concept at all.
Then you rule out a plan of God, a purpose and function for all that has been created.

I don't think you are going to convince many Christians of that concept.

I think the Bible as a whole is the greatest book ever written. Without the Faith demanded , there is no hope.
The New Testament gives man the way, the path he must follow to find an individual
continuation of life after we physically die in the flesh.

Richard > It may be that death is an awakening to our true identity as the "one self" that is Universal Consciousness.

Gil > Death is an awakening to ones true identity.
It is being raised up, resurrected from the universal consciousness of man unto a new consciousness. That of Christ consciousness.
It was the unfolding of the cosmic consciousness within the new man as Christ consciousness.
Biblically speaking it is the fulfillment of all Law and the prophets.

Christ consciousness is a dual form of consciousness. The consciousness of man and the cosmic consciousness. As One ,they are the Christ consciousness, with man maintaining his individuality.


Gil :pop2: