1

Before I was a Christian, I had a lot of difficulty with the statement "fear the lord". This is expecially true because who would be saying it but the likes of Oral Roberts or Falwell.

Today, I see it differently. Of course there is a fear of the Lord. He is all powerful. But that fear is actually the fear of separation from God, the fear of eternal damnation and not being in his presence.

Fear the Lord indeed.

2

"Fear the Lord" has a difficult history. This is because 90% of the time the phrase is used it's said by people who really mean "Fear the Lord if you don't do what I say the Lord says to do". Or in other words, "Fear Me". And it's probably used (or mis-used) by parents much more than preachers. Another form of the phrase is "You are going to go to Hell if...".

First we believe, then we act, and only then we can we claim to “know.”

I don't agree with this, but thats just because of my own personal experience in coming to believe in God. When I decided to let go of my own will and place my trust in God rather than myself alone, I didn't believe He existed. But I was at such a low point in my life that when caring individuals around me said to give it a try, and that my life would get better, I was desperate enough to give it a shot. It was, and still sometimes is, a terrifying experience. But low and behold, my life did get better and I came to believe in God based on the evidence of my own life before me. So you might say I tested a theory, tried an experiment, and found confirmation in the results. All perfectly reasonable in a non-reasoning way...;-)

But the point I'm making is that my actions, that of giving up my will, took place before the belief, not after. I took the route of a leap of blind faith.

It's taken awhile, but I've come to realize that this is one strong reason why I'm not a Christian. Christians have always told me that faith in God is not needed, only unquestioning obedience, because there is empirical, historical truth that Jesus was God and that the Bible is the literal word of God. So when people tell me that I'm going to Hell because I'm gay, I'm never to have any doubts about that statement because its a proven "fact" by the words written in the Bible. The problem however is that this just doesn't match up to my personal experiences with God, whom when I'm willing to trust in Him, does take care of me, and does help me to become a better person. It's not always or even often an easy road, but it is a right and true one.

It's a cliché, but my relationship with God gives me a true sense of "inner peace". While what comes from Christians and the Bible is often just ignorance and anger and blatant falsehood and petty blanket condemnation of everything from me being gay to eating shellfish. It's just plain silly and doesn't make any sense.

3

[Patrick: You would go to hell if you do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and dedicate your life to Him. Your sin problem is ultimately between you and the Lord.]

WWJF: What Would Jesus Fear?
I'm tempted to say that He feared nothing, yet if he had not feared then His claim to being fully human could be questioned. You could attribute fear to Jesus when He was in the garden questioning his trip to Calvary, knowing that He would be separated from the Father, disconnected from the source of life.

It's a difficult question to wrap my weak human logic around. There's a part of me that does not want to admit that Jesus experienced fear, yet the other part says it's possible. I'll attribute Godly fear to Him, and continue to worship Him as best as I can.

4

If Gethsemane wasn't an expression of fear and dread on Jesus' part, then just what was it?

5

Patrick,

Your last paragraph, as written, indicates that you trust your feelings (your "sense" of inner peace), but not what the Bible says. It is possible that you meant what Christians say the Bible says, but as the sentence reads, it sounds like you believe the Bible to be less reliable than your feelings.

Most self-professing gay Christians dismiss the Old Testament condemnation of homosexual behavior as pre-Jesus, and therefore null, since they consider the New Testament either silent or vague, but definitely more authoritative. This is one of the lamentable results of the evangelical predilection for Dispensational theology.

Joe, your compulsion to re-post this article sounds a little like the positive residue of your days in a charismatic church. Cool with me.

To make this comment even more rambling: I can foresee the day when there is a TrollBlogCon; Lord knows you've got enough of 'em to convene. But the room had better be padded.

6

Your last paragraph, as written, indicates that you trust your feelings (your "sense" of inner peace), but not what the Bible says. It is possible that you meant what Christians say the Bible says, but as the sentence reads, it sounds like you believe the Bible to be less reliable than your feelings.

Well, when I'm told to obey what other people say the Bible says, such as the absolutist statement above by MarcV, I have a difficult time understanding why the way they feel about what the Bible says is any less or more valid than the way I feel about it. Especially when what they say is framed in the rhetoric of hatred or ignorance. Or simple authoritarianism, as above.

But to say that I trust only my own feelings is not accurate. My sense of "inner peace" arrives usually in spite of what I feel, not because of it. I do turn my will over to God in prayer and in actions. I do trust my feelings, but that is with the knowledge of human fallibility. Most often the path before me is not the one I would have freely chosen if left to my sense of what "feels" comfortable. And I do trust the Bible, but I simply do not trust it alone. Joe once called me "Kierkegaardian". I didn't know what that meant and had to look it up. He's not that far off. ;-)

7

I stumbled upon this blog about a week or so ago. I was looking up some information on Babylon and I don't know how but I ended on this blog. Of course I was initially quite cynical about it but thought I would read a little bit.
Okay, well now I read it almost daily and am enthusiastic about the philisophical thought put into the majority of the entries and comments. At the very least there a some fairly intellectual thoughts lobbed about. Not much of anything has been empowering or changed my deep level of confusion about the church but I have to say it is infinitely more interesting than I originally expected.
I think that Patrick should continue in his search and communication with the almighty. What better way to find peace than to actually communicate or worship or whatever it is one has to do? I definitely wouldnt want to negatively judge anyone that is at the very least seeking.

8

I think of "fear the Lord" in the same sense that my children are afraid of me. They love me, and are not afraid of me so much as they are afraid of crossing me, or displeasing me. It's possible to have both things going on at the same time - they gang-tackle me when I come through the door, but hate to have me hear how they've crossed the line.

As as for Patrick, I think that while Homosexuality is important, the key issue (and this is for all of us, not just for Patrick) is "Are we willing to follow where God leads us?". If yes, He will reveal what he wills for us. If not, it's just silly intellectual games.

However, it's hard to be in that place. I can usually find a way to convince myself that God wants what I want. I'm a "smart person", so I'm really good at xoming up with ways to convince myself that what I want is really O.K. with God.

And this issue comes into play in ALL things, not just the "Big" issues like sexuality, or alcohol, or fidelity, or (fill in your own favorite issue here). It's about the heart, and the heart is a hard thing to tame and train.

9

Patrick,

Sorry to be so slow in responding. I've just flown from FL to CA and got in late last night. You said:

Well, when I'm told to obey what other people say the Bible says, such as the absolutist statement above by MarcV, I have a difficult time understanding why the way they feel about what the Bible says is any less or more valid than the way I feel about it.

You've stated the best case for the existence of the Church and pastoral responsibility. Even though there are schisms, nonetheless there is general unity concerning many important doctrines, beginning with those stated in the creeds. In turn, those churches who are faithful to the creeds also tend to subscribe to historical interpretation regarding other important doctrines, such as those on sexual conduct.

Patrick, since we both contritbute here frequently, I encourage you to write with such civility more often.

Joe, if I could figure out a way to relate this little exchange more to the fear of the Lord and/or bravery I certainly would. Sorry to hijack the subject.

10

The problem however is that this just doesn't match up to my personal experiences with God

This is a crucial point: no one simply decides to believe the Bible or become Christian. Instead, we reason our way there. A large component of that reasoning is this "matching up": if the bible or christianity fits some of our strong pre-existing ethical and ontological beliefs ("SPEB"), then we'll buy the package. We may disagree with some of what the bible says, but so long as those are weaker or less important beliefs, we'll allow those beliefs at the margins to be altered.

Patrick and I both have SPEB re: homosexuality that can't be altered without radically realigning other SPEBs. For instance, I could accept the condemnation of homosexuality only on pains of dropping my belief that God is just and not insane (for those of you familiar with philosophy, or with me, this is straight Quine).

Someone like my brother, on the other hand, who never cared about homosexuality as an issue of fairness, found it relatively easy to alter his weak pre-existing belief that homosexuality is acceptable.

So this statement: "Are we willing to follow where God leads us?" is, at a minimum, misleading and reductive. It's never the case that we just see God is the light and then follow where he wants to go. There are two steps elided here: first, in order to identify a particular reading of God as The God, the moral and ontological propositions advanced by that God have to track our SPEBs. This process is then replicated in deciding on a particular sect within the religion of said God.

Further, I'd suggest, the above elisions aren't mere oversight: the "just listen to God!" is a silly philosophical parlor trick that attempts to reinscribe the speaker's favored interpretation as the only one a person in good conscience can accept.

11

JPE said: Further, I'd suggest, the above elisions aren't mere oversight: the "just listen to God!" is a silly philosophical parlor trick that attempts to reinscribe the speaker's favored interpretation as the only one a person in good conscience can accept.

I'd agree, unless God is the one Who says it! What I'm getting at, JPE, is that your argument relies entirely upon human perception rather than divine initiative, including the inevitable human perception of divine initiative. But revelation is first of all God's Self-revelation, and although I don't think you're denying it, your SPEB argument seems to filter even God's voice entirely through human perception.

In other words, if God speaks in the forest and no one is there to hear Him, did He make a sound?

What do you say?

12

your SPEB argument seems to filter even God's voice entirely through human perception.

I didn't know I was capable of any kind of perception other than human perception. You aren't some evil scientist that's spliced a dog's hearing into your genes, are you?

That possiblity aside, I take it that you meant to point to some experience of the divine as compelling reason to adpot religion X. That's fine, but incomplete. You'd still need minimal tracking of your SPEBs for that experience of the divine to become belief in concrete religion X.

For example: I'm reading some text of a religion that condones murder. Even if I had some divine experience, I still wouldn't accept that religion after the experience. Why? To do so would be to contravene either my SPEB that murder is wrong or that God is just.

Regardless of the experience of the divine, some minimal "fit" between my ethical norms and those of the religion I'm asked to follow is necessary.

13

Patrick,

I don't believe in God, and I have led a happy and fruitful enough life. I certainly don't regret not being a Christian or a theist.

If you want to believe in God and not be a Christian, more power to you. You've found something that works for you, so go run with it.

The Bible says many things. Some are true, some are false, and some things in the Bible even contradict some other things in the Bible. So those who claim an inerrant authority for the Bible are mistaken.

I know it's not easy to be homosexual sometimes, but I hope you have found strength in whatever it is you believe. I'm sure you know that life in general can be extremely difficult no matter who you are or what you believe.

Peace/cheers!

14

interesting to write about fear, yet support an administration that strives on orwellian fear to control the masses. the OT is all about fear, god smote ..., repeat. yet, we are not fear? whatever.

15

Matthew,

You stated that some of the things said in the Bible were "false."
Could you be more specific?

Aloha,

16

Hi Terence,

Here's a specific example:

Genesis 22

1) And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2) And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

3) And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

4) Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

5) And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

6) And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7) And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8) And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9) And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10) And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11) And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12) And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

13) And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

14) And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

15) And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

16) And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17) That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18) And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

19) So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

20) And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother Nahor;

21) Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram,

22) And Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel.

23) And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham's brother.

24) And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.

Why is Genesis 22, the story of God testing Abraham, a false story?

Because it is morally repugnant.

It tells us to put our faith in God above all things, above everything we hold dear. It tells us to be willing to sacrifice the most precious things, the most precious people in our lives, even if there is no apparent reason to do so other than what we understand to be God's will.

I cannot begin to explain how horrible and evil this story is. It is just as bad and barbaric as anything to be found in the Koran, and it is just one step above the blood sacrifices of the Aztecs.

There are different ways to interpret the story, and perhaps some are not quite so evil as others. But if God were to appear to me and ask me to sacrifice my son, I would tell him to go to hell, and I would mean it.

I don't mean to be insulting to anyone by pointing these things out. But there are some things in the Bible that are wrong and false, and I would be dishonest to deny it.

I'm sorry if I am offending you or anyone else, but the offense is in the Bible, and I am just passing it along. I hope you can understand that, even if you don't agree with me.

I think the vast majority of Christians understand that you can't just take everything in the Bible on faith. You have to accept the good things, and reject the bad things, and puzzle over the things that are ambiguous or confusing.

There are no easy answers to life's questions. Using the Bible as if it were a compendium of all the right answers is going to lead one astray sometimes.

At least that's my humble opinion. :)

17

Matthew--you seem to be using your standard of right and wrong to determine whether or not something is true or false. I fail to see the connection. You are getting all wrapped around the axle in Gen 22, but you fail to place proper emphasis on the fact that God did not make Abraham sacrifice Issac, in fact he went and made Issac a great nation. Furthermore it is through Issac that mankind is saved in the person and through the sacrifice of God's son, Jesus Christ. Hard to compare to the Aztecs, but the I believe the Koran has a similiar story involving Ishmael (Abraham's son through Haggar).

BTW--what makes your standard of morality superior to others? Child sacrifice is a relatively common practice, in fact I would argue that abortion (other than to save the life of the mother) is a form of child sacrifice. I fail to see the difference between sacrificing a child to ensure a good harvest and sacrificing one to ensure that I don't have to get up at 3AM to comfort a teething 14 month-old (my current situation).

18

Ucfengr,

Thank you for the courteous and thoughtful reply.

... you fail to place proper emphasis on the fact that God did not make Abraham sacrifice Issac, in fact he went and made Issac a great nation.

Yes, God is revealing the manipulative and sadistic side of his nature, but he refrains from allowing pointless human sacrifice itself. So the story could be worse, in that sense.

But the fact that God rewards Abraham's willingness to shed the blood of his dear son by granting Abraham's wish to be the patriarch of a great nation just compounds the monstrousness of this story. If God had tricked me or frightened me into doing what Abraham did to Isaac, I would not want any blessings from such a God and I would curse any reward that he would offer me.

Furthermore it is through Issac that mankind is saved in the person and through the sacrifice of God's son, Jesus Christ.

That's one reason I chose this particular story. It illustrates the moral contradictions that are central to the Bible narrative, and not just some peripheral anachronisms or other low priority issues.

Hard to compare to the Aztecs, but the I believe the Koran has a similiar story involving Ishmael (Abraham's son through Haggar).

The Koran has plenty of messed up stuff too. No argument here.

The Aztecs were propitiating a demanding deity. The story of God testing Abraham has strong parallels, although you are correct to point out it has a "happy" ending.

BTW--what makes your standard of morality superior to others?

I'm sure my standard of morality is far from perfect. But when it comes to demanding blind obedience based on religious faith alone, even to the point of violence against innocents, I will defend my morality against all comers.

Thanks again for your comments, and for taking mine in the spirit in which they were made.

19

Yes, God is revealing the manipulative and sadistic side of his nature, but he refrains from allowing pointless human sacrifice itself. So the story could be worse, in that sense.

Taking Gen 22 in isolation, I might agree, but I see the story of Abraham and Issac as a parallel and prelude to the actual sacrifice of God's Son, Jesus Christ. God showed how much he loved the world by allowing his Son to bear the burden of his wrath for mankind's sin.

20

Ucfengr,

... I see the story of Abraham and Issac as a parallel and prelude to the actual sacrifice of God's Son, Jesus Christ. God showed how much he loved the world by allowing his Son to bear the burden of his wrath for mankind's sin.

Part of the problem with Genesis 22 is that it could serve as a parallel and a prelude to a lot of things:

-- Should we be willing to save the lives of the unborn by taking it upon ourselves to shed the blood of a notorious abortionist?

-- Should we encourage and support suicide bombers, or even become one ourselves, in order to further jihad and the dominion of Allah?

-- Should we be willing to teach our children to take the Bible on faith even when it seems somewhat counter-intuitive or, heaven forbid, possibly, perhaps, could-it-be ... wrong? I mean, suspending our faculties of critical reasoning to a certain extent is nothing compared to what Abraham and Isaac went through, right?

I grant you that my examples, especially the first two, will seem over the top to most people. But they seem absurd only because we are willing to exercise our judgement and our consciences when confronted with the moral problems of abortion and trying to convert infidels to our way of thinking.

People who take Genesis 22 and other similar religious stories seriously do have to think about how far they are willing to go to submit to the sometimes mysterious decrees of God's will. If their only frame of reference is the Bible or the Koran or some other sacred scripture, then they may eventually be confronted with some grave moral decisions without the proper tools to choose wisely.

Of course, there is a lot of very, very good stuff in the Bible as well. But my point is not that the Bible is evil, but that you have to read it and use it with your brain turned on. You have to be willing to say, "That makes sense, that doesn't make sense, and I'm not so sure of that bit over there." We need to engage the world around us without getting stuck in the dictates of a catechism that has been set in concrete.

21

But my point is not that the Bible is evil, but that you have to read it and use it with your brain turned on. You have to be willing to say, "That makes sense, that doesn't make sense, and I'm not so sure of that bit over there." We need to engage the world around us without getting stuck in the dictates of a catechism that has been set in concrete.

Seems to me that this happens quite a lot. Ask 5 Bible scholars for an opinion on a particular chapter and you'll get 8 different opinions. I don't march in lockstep with folks like Jerry Falwell or even my church pastor. Not too many Christians making "fatwahs" over doctrinal differences or even against abortionists and the ones that are pretty far on the lunatic fringe, you know Fred Phelps-types whose church mainly consists of their family members, but who gets lots of air-time because they fit the stereotype.

22

Ucfengr,

Ask 5 Bible scholars for an opinion on a particular chapter and you'll get 8 different opinions.

But how often does a Bible scholar say, "This bit of the Bible is not just hard to interpret correctly, but is actually wrong, and should not be used to help us make moral decisions"?

23

Hello, Matthew,

First, appreciate your posting the entire text of Genesis 22, it makes it alot easier to reference.

"Why is Genesis 22, the story of God testing Abraham, a false story?
Because it is morally repugnant."

I agree with ucfengr's reaction to the above statement:
"You seem to be using your standard of right and wrong to determine whether or not something is true or false." By that standard we could say that the history of warfare is categorically "false" because we believe that war is "morally repugnant." Genesis 22 is written as space-time history, not as a series of moral platitudes that are falsified by our personal feelings.

"But if God were to appear to me and ask me to sacrifice my son, I would tell him to go to hell, and I would mean it."

The irony here is that, as ucfengr pointed out, God did sacrifice his son so that you would never have to go to hell. "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotton son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."
He never asked you to sacrifice your son, and in the end he did not require it of Abraham or anyone else. It is interesting that the first time the word "love" appears in the OT is in 22:2 "Take thy son, thy only son, Isaac, whom thou lovest . . " The first time the word love is used in the NT is at Christ's baptism, " This is my beloved son . . ." Without the illustration of Genesis 22 (it's intended purpose) the sacrifice of Christ would never be adequately understood or appreciated.

"I think the vast majority of Christians understand that you can't just take everything in the Bible on faith. You have to accept the good things, and reject the bad things, and puzzle over the things that are ambiguous or confusing."

Perhaps, if you use the word "Christians" as a metaphor for church goers. . . but the vast majority of Christians that I know take a much more conservative approach to scripture. They would tell you that the majority of the Bible (say 90%) can be proven to be historically accurate and the remaning 10% dealing with the supernatural, they may puzzle over it, but in the end, they accept it on faith.

"Yes, God is revealing the manipulative and sadistic side of his nature, but he refrains from allowing pointless human sacrifice itself. So the story could be worse, in that sense."

If on the other hand God had made Abraham sacrifice his son and refused to do the same with his own son (even though that was the only way to save mankind), then you may have had some justification for these characterizations. But instead God only made an illustration of Abraham to communicate the depth of his own sacrifice. It is significant that the scene of Genesis 22 takes place on Mt. Moria, the same mountain in Jerusalem where 2000 years later, Christ was to be crucified.

"But the fact that God rewards Abraham's willingness to shed the blood of his dear son by granting Abraham's wish to be the patriarch of a great nation just compounds the monstrousness of this story."

It was never Abraham's "wish" to become a great nation, nor was greatness ever offered as a reward for obedience in sacrificing his son. The word "tempted" in 22:1 is the Hebrew word, "nachah" meaning "to prove." In this case it was to prove his fidelity, not to tempt him with a reward. Only after this absolute fidelity was established was any reward offered. Note 22:17
"I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven."
Here is the point that evades the understanding of both Jews and Christians. Paul says in the NT: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Galations 3:16) This passage has given rise to what is called "Replacement Theology" by those who do not understand that Christians are merely grafted into the promises made to the descendants of Abraham.

"If God had tricked me or frightened me into doing what Abraham did to Isaac, I would not want any blessings from such a God and I would curse any reward that he would offer me."

The narrative does not describe that Abraham was given anything but a straight command, without any coercion or compensation offered.

"Furthermore it is through Issac that mankind is saved in the person and through the sacrifice of God's son, Jesus Christ."

It was not through Isaac that mankind was saved, but through his lineage -- Jesus Christ.

"That's one reason I chose this particular story. It illustrates the moral contradictions that are central to the Bible narrative, and not just some peripheral anachronisms or other low priority issues."

As mentioned before, the real contradiction would have been if God had made Abraham do what he was unwilling to do in order to redeem mankind. If you were going to sacrifice your son to save your neighbors and you wanted them to understand the profound depth of your sacrifice, you might begin by asking one of them to do the same thing first. Even if you had no intention of following through with your request, in doing so, you would be communicating what was at stake, in no clearer way than this.

"Hard to compare to the Aztecs, but the I believe the Koran has a similiar story involving Ishmael (Abraham's son through Haggar)."

Yes, the Koran simply plagiarizes the Bible and replaces Ishmael with Issac, so that the Muslims are the heirs of the promise.

"The Aztecs were propitiating a demanding deity. The story of God testing Abraham has strong parallels . . ."

The difference is that the Aztecs sacrificed perhaps hundreds of thousands of men and God only required one, which he never followed through with. Job said, "Yea, though he would slay me, still would I trust in him."

"I'm sure my standard of morality is far from perfect. But when it comes to demanding blind obedience based on religious faith alone, even to the point of violence against innocents, I will defend my morality against all comers."

Suspend your disbelief. Suppose you are in a burning house. Someone loves you so much that he sacrifices his son to save you. The son reluctantly accepts the mission and dies an agonizing death in the process. But instead of accepting the sacrifice you weigh the motivations of the father against your own more highly evolved standards of morality. The door is open, but you say, 'go to hell . . . I am unwilling to accept this, so called, sacrifice because it involved violence against the innocent.'

If that scenerio were true, do you see what folly it would be to remain there because of a philosophical predisposition towards
what constitutes a moral reason for sacrifice and what does not. I am convinced that the enemy of our souls does not care if the reason for rejecting the sacrifice is on moral, religious, or any other grounds as long as we remain in the burning house.

aloha

24

"This bit of the Bible is not just hard to interpret correctly, but is actually wrong, and should not be used to help us make moral decisions"?

The "Jesus Seminar" eliminates whole swaths of quotes attributed to Jesus, IMO using nothing more than their personal opinion.

25

Terence,

Thank you very much for your cogent and very polite response to my strong comments. Your gentlemanliness reflects highly on you and your church.

You seem to be using your standard of right and wrong to determine whether or not something is true or false. By that standard we could say that the history of warfare is categorically "false" because we believe that war is "morally repugnant." Genesis 22 is written as space-time history, not as a series of moral platitudes that are falsified by our personal feelings.

As an atheist, I believe that all the stories in the Bible which involve personal appearances by God or personal intervention by God are inaccurate. So I would dismiss the literal story of Genesis 22 out of hand as obviously false.

But I think stories like Genesis 22 are much more important as didactic myths than as literal historic truth. If someone believes Genesis 22 to be literally true, then I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince him otherwise. I might as well try to convince a Muslim that Mohammed was not a prophet of God.

But even if Genesis 22 is not literally, historically true in every detail, it still serves a purpose as a moral fable, an illustration of how a Jew or a Christian who follows the Bible should view his/her relationship with God. And as we all agree, it also foreshadows the Christian myth of Jesus as messianic sacrificial lamb.

It is as a moral fable that I am challenging the truth of Genesis 22. I am saying that a true Christian should abhor the relationship between Abraham and God that is told in this story. If I were God, I would have stayed Abraham's hand and said to him, "What the heck are you doing? Do you believe me to be a God of arbitrary whimsy, or of meaningless violence? Why do you not challenge me and defend that which you hold so dear? How can you submit the fruit of your loins to such shameful torture? I do not seek sheep blinded by faith, I seek men and women who are moral agents who strive always to do good and spurn evil. Go ponder your foolishness while I think of some other test for you to take. Go on, move it!"

But of course, I don't get to write the Bible! :)

The irony here is that, as ucfengr pointed out, God did sacrifice his son so that you would never have to go to hell.

Yeah, I've got problems with that story too!

... the vast majority of Christians that I know take a much more conservative approach to scripture. They would tell you that the majority of the Bible (say 90%) can be proven to be historically accurate and the remaning 10% dealing with the supernatural, they may puzzle over it, but in the end, they accept it on faith.

The Garden of Eden, Noah's ark, and all the rest is historically accurate?

With all due respect, this goes from the realm of religious belief into cult territory. It may not be a dangerous cult, but the hard-line dismissal of alternative historical narratives is scary and psychologically damaging. One should be able to be a member of a church in good standing without having to worry about getting kicked out because one is skeptical about polar bears or koala bears being on the guest list for Noah's ark. I wish I could be more accommodating of your beliefs, but this is like a four-year-old's view of the Bible. Sorry.

If on the other hand God had made Abraham sacrifice his son and refused to do the same with his own son (even though that was the only way to save mankind), then you may have had some justification for these characterizations. But instead God only made an illustration of Abraham to communicate the depth of his own sacrifice. It is significant that the scene of Genesis 22 takes place on Mt. Moria, the same mountain in Jerusalem where 2000 years later, Christ was to be crucified.

I'm not sure which is worse, Abraham's modelling of blindly obedient faith, or Jesus' modelling of the messiah complex. I find Abraham's story to be more repugnant, but I think Jesus' story has been more influential and therefore probably more harmful.

Jesus was a great moral reformer, and I am very grateful for his teachings on love, forgiveness, and the importance of the individual. But the whole angle of sacrificing the son of God to wash away the sin of Adam is just as morally flawed in its own way as the story of Genesis 22.

It was never Abraham's "wish" to become a great nation, nor was greatness ever offered as a reward for obedience in sacrificing his son. The word "tempted" in 22:1 is the Hebrew word, "nachah" meaning "to prove." In this case it was to prove his fidelity, not to tempt him with a reward. Only after this absolute fidelity was established was any reward offered.

You are right that Genesis does not speak of Abraham's "wish". The choice of that word was sloppiness on my part.

Yet God does make a covenant with Abraham earlier on in Genesis. See Genesis 12:2 for example:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Or Genesis 15:18 :

In the same day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

So while God was indeed proving or testing Abraham's fidelity in Genesis 22, the element of a great reward was already in the mix.

The narrative does not describe that Abraham was given anything but a straight command, without any coercion or compensation offered.

So let's see. God gives a straight command, but there is no element of coercion or compensation. I don't agree with this, and I suspect that if you think about this a little while, you won't agree with it yourself. But it doesn't really matter one way or the other -- God is still being a manipulative sadist, and if I were Abraham, I would hate God for it. Coercion and compensation are just secondary issues.

As mentioned before, the real contradiction would have been if God had made Abraham do what he was unwilling to do in order to redeem mankind. If you were going to sacrifice your son to save your neighbors and you wanted them to understand the profound depth of your sacrifice, you might begin by asking one of them to do the same thing first. Even if you had no intention of following through with your request, in doing so, you would be communicating what was at stake, in no clearer way than this.

I understand what you are saying, Terence, and it does have a solid logic to it. But if you take a good, hard look at it, it is just such baloney. Either God is just and loving, or he is not. If he is just and loving, then he wouldn't torture Abraham and Isaac the way he does in Genesis 22. He just wouldn't. To try to justify it just degrading.

Suspend your disbelief. Suppose you are in a burning house. Someone loves you so much that he sacrifices his son to save you. The son reluctantly accepts the mission and dies an agonizing death in the process. But instead of accepting the sacrifice you weigh the motivations of the father against your own more highly evolved standards of morality. The door is open, but you say, 'go to hell . . . I am unwilling to accept this, so called, sacrifice because it involved violence against the innocent.'

This is a good analogy. But God was not asking Abraham to save someone else. He was issuing a command and demanding obedience. And God's motivation was to test Abraham's faith and will -- how tyrannical and abusive is that?

If a father were to offer his son to save me, I hope I would have the goodness and the bravery to refuse such a kind and generous offer. But there is no way I would respond by saying "go to hell" or anything of the sort.

Likewise, to God the Father, I say, "Thank you for offering Jesus, but if it's all the same to you, I'd much prefer you forget about all this Passion and crucifixion stuff. I'll just take my chances on judgement day, thank you very much!"

Terence, I think you and the other biblical inerrantists who come to the E.O. are good people. It is good that you take morality and religion and theology seriously, and try to incorporate goodness into your daily life.

But I think you need to strike a better balance in your life between submitting to biblical authority and thinking for yourself. I'm afraid that one day you may find yourself in for a rude awakening. It may be very painful indeed to come to terms with what you had believed for such a long time to be true. Maybe if you embrace a little skepticism now, you can save yourself a lot of grief later.

If there is some way I can help you with that, please let me know. My e-mail is mjpgoggins@att.net .

Peace,
Matthew

26

Jesus was a great moral reformer, and I am very grateful for his teachings on love, forgiveness, and the importance of the individual.

But Jesus does not give you that option, He's either the Son of God or a madman, there is no middle ground (I know that Islam makes the same demand WRT Mohommed). On what basis, other than personal preference can you say that his instructions on loving your enemies are any more valid than his claims to be the Messiah? If you set aside his divinity, why is it more moral to love your enemies as opposed to killing them and selling their children into slavery? Without His divinity, why is helping the poor any more morally valid than the Hindu's treatment of their lowest caste members? I know you may prefer one to the other, but why is your personal preference morally superior to our Hindu or even our Islamic brothers?

27

Ucfengr,

The truth is, it is often very difficult for one culture to impose its idea of morality or civilization upon another. I can make arguments for why my morality is superior on some point than someone else's morality, but there has to be a certain willingness to be open-minded (on both sides) or I'm not going to get very far.

I (and some of the other non-Christian "trolls") have discussed the objective basis for morality in other comment threads. It comes down to the fact that all humans want to be happy, and that everyone can agree in principle (most of the time) that it is good to help people and bad to hurt people.

If we can accept those two principles, then a lot of morality can be teased out from that. If we can't accept those principles (to help, and not to hurt), then I can at the very least present my morality in a conditional form (that is to say, "If one stipulates that helping is good and that hurting is bad, it follows that ...") and leave it at that.

Perhaps in some sense it is more satisfying to have a divine legislator passing moral laws for our benefit. But we need to use our judgement and consciences anyway to evaluate whatever is alleged to be God's law, so it actually doesn't really make any difference whether God exists or not. Unless, of course, the only reason someone chooses to behave morally is to be rewarded by God and not be punished by god -- but I personally don't know anyone who lives on such a basis, religious or not.

28

It comes down to the fact that all humans want to be happy

This premise is almost universally true.

everyone can agree in principle (most of the time) that it is good to help people and bad to hurt people.

I think you have problems with this one. I don't think Muslims have a problem with hurting non-Muslims. Historically, Christians have not had a problem with hurting Jews** (most prominantly in Europe, but not unheard of in the US), and Communists have never had a problem hurting anyone. If you are an "Untouchable", you are pretty much free game in the Hindu relion.

When you boil it down, if morality is based on personal preference, then you have to accept that your basis is no more valid than our hypothetical Muslim, Christian, Communist, or Hindu and quite frankly, you are in the minority.

**For the record, I don't think there is any Biblical foundation for the persecution of Jews, gays, blacks, or women. I know some will quote the Pentateuch for a basis wrt gays, but I think Levitical Law is superseded by the Cross. Christ did not advocate setting up a theocracy like historic Israel.

29

"But Jesus does not give you that option, He's either the Son of God or a madman, there is no middle ground"

You should probably attribute this paraphrase of C.S. Lewis. At any rate, you are wrong for the same reason he was wrong: Jesus might have been misquoted and/or misrepresented in the bible. If you are a biblical inerrantist, your statement holds for you. Others, as crazy as it sounds, believe part of the bible but not all. The guys who decided which books "made the cut" and which did not may have not been divinely inspired. They may have screwed up. Some of the bible's authors may have screwed up. One can have faith in God without believing everything said of him. Indeed, it seems to me that Jesus as depicted in the bible has a bit of a split personality. The guy kicking ass in the temple bears little resemblance to the "turn the other cheek" guy. And guess which one gets more attention from religious fundamentalists today? Violent Jesus, of course. :-(

30

Matthew:

"Your gentlemanliness reflects highly on you and your church."

Gee, no one has ever said that to me, much less thought it. I guess I have always been an inconoclast. This may surprise you to know that I have never been a member of a particular church, or a political party. I want to remain objective in these matters and once you are a member of either there is an inclination to compromise your beliefs to fit in.

"As an atheist, I believe that all the stories in the Bible which involve personal appearances by God or personal intervention by God are inaccurate. So I would dismiss the literal story of Genesis 22 out of hand as obviously false."

That is hardly a scientific criteria for the charge of falsity, which is what this conversation began with. I don't believe in Shakespeare. Whenever Shakespeare appears in his plays, it is catagorically false. Therefore the works of Shakespeare, as a whole, are full of error.

"But even if Genesis 22 is not literally, historically true in every detail, it still serves a purpose as a moral fable, an illustration of how a Jew or a Christian who follows the Bible should view his/her relationship with God. And as we all agree, it also foreshadows the Christian myth of Jesus as messianic sacrificial lamb."

Interesting the word allegory only appears once in the Bible in reference to Hagar and Sarah. (Galatians 4:24) These women are treated as historical figures throughout the Bible. This tells me that we can draw allegorical applications from historical realities.
As far as the allegation that the Christ story was a conglameration of myths, the prophecies concerning his virgin birth, sacrifice, etc. were written long before before the Greeks came on the scene.

"It is as a moral fable that I am challenging the truth of Genesis 22. I am saying that a true Christian should abhor the relationship between Abraham and God that is told in this story."

Again we have a different idea of what a true Christian is. Your idea is akin to a cafeteria approach to scripture . . . I'll take a little of this and a little of that . . . but that I loath. It doesn't work that way. Jesus accepted the entire OT as settled history and a true Christian should do no less. I acknowledge that I have serious questions about some things that Abraham and Lot did. But it would be presumptuous to dismiss them as non-historical because of moral questions or, in your case, an anti-supernatural presuppositions.

"The Garden of Eden, Noah's ark, and all the rest is historically accurate?"

Yes. It's amazing. But it's all true! On the surface it may look implausable, but the more you dig the more you discover that the evidence for it. Two quick examples:
The Bible says that civilization began in the Mesopotomian Valley about six thousand years ago. I have read a stack of books on Babylonian archeology and lo, they almost all concur that civilization began in Sumer about six thousand years ago. Specifically in a place called Eridu -- where the creation story emerged. In the first cuniform outline of world history called the "Weld Dynastic Prism," Eridu is mentioned first and it's King was named Adapa, the "wise man of Eridu." This was the place that most archaeologists believe that farming and animal husbandry began as well.
The Bible says that the world was covered by a flood. A little research will reveal that 75% of the dry earth is covered with sedimentary rocks and in them are hundreds of billions of fossilized animals that obviously were covered quickly. That is essentially how fossils are formed. Circumstantial evidence, yes. But if you put aside your anti-supernatural biases, a strong case for a biblical worldview begins to emerge.

"With all due respect, this goes from the realm of religious belief into cult territory. It may not be a dangerous cult, but the hard-line dismissal of alternative historical narratives is scary and psychologically damaging."

These alternative historical narratives look equally cultish to me. In fact they were neither historical nor a narrative. They are dogmatic assertions about the past put forth in the last 150 years. When you think about how unscientific and absurd it is to believe that nothing became everything, the Genesis narrative appears much more reasonable by comparison.

"One should be able to be a member of a church in good standing without having to worry about getting kicked out because one is skeptical about polar bears or koala bears being on the guest list for Noah's ark. I wish I could be more accommodating of your beliefs, but this is like a four-year-old's view of the Bible. Sorry."

FYI i believe that God created animals with enough genetic potential to require that only one pair of each "kind" board the ark. For example you could potentially get 200 species of dog from one canine. Therefore it follows that they can stay in church in good standing w/out believing in polar bears on the ark.

"I'm not sure which is worse, Abraham's modelling of blindly obedient faith, or Jesus' modelling of the messiah complex. I find Abraham's story to be more repugnant, but I think Jesus' story has been more influential and therefore probably more harmful."

You next statement contradicts the above.

"Jesus was a great moral reformer, and I am very grateful for his teachings on love, forgiveness, and the importance of the individual."

Hmmm. Jesus' story, you say, was more "influential and therefore more harmful" but his greatness was in that he was a "moral reformer?"

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but by me." If this was false, then he could not have been a great moral teacher. As it has been said, he was either Lord, liar or lunatic - not a little of all three.
How do you explain the three hundred OT prophecies concerning his birth, death and resurrection in this context?

"So let's see. God gives a straight command, but there is no element of coercion or compensation. I don't agree with this, and I suspect that if you think about this a little while, you won't agree with it yourself."

You have shown ample evidence from earlier chapters that a reward was on the table before the command was given, but coercion is only your speculation - not part of the narrative. So you only get half credit for that one.

"But it doesn't really matter one way or the other -- God is still being a manipulative sadist, and if I were Abraham, I would hate God for it. Coercion and compensation are just secondary issues."

The creator of the universe causes one of his creatures emotional distress 3000 years ago and therefore is undeserving of you to recognize his existence? It appears that you are merely looking for excuses to reject him.

"Either God is just and loving, or he is not. If he is just and loving, then he wouldn't torture Abraham and Isaac the way he does in Genesis 22. He just wouldn't. To try to justify it just degrading."

If you look at it only in the context of Genesis 22 you may have serious doubts about God's motives. But in the context of the whole Bible, with Isaac being a mere forshadowing of Christ, then what happened in Genesis 22 was a trifle by comparison. In other words, if God did indeed sacrifice his son to save mankind, then mankind can certainly overlook any imaginary transgressions on his part in dealing with Abraham.

"But God was not asking Abraham to save someone else. He was issuing a command and demanding obedience. And God's motivation was to test Abraham's faith and will -- how tyrannical and abusive is that?"

He was asking Abraham to illustrate what He would have to do a thousand years later to save mankind; sacrifice His son. So there is a direct link. From the Genesis 22 narrative, he did not demand obedience as if to say that Abraham would be punished for disobeying.

"If a father were to offer his son to save me, I hope I would have the goodness and the bravery to refuse such a kind and generous offer. But there is no way I would respond by saying "go to hell" or anything of the sort."

In the heat of the moment (a burning house) I think anyone would accept the sacrifice. The "go to hell" part is what you claim you would have said to God if you were Abraham and, figuratively speaking, what you are saying in refusing to accept the sacrifice of Christ.

"Likewise, to God the Father, I say, "Thank you for offering Jesus, but if it's all the same to you, I'd much prefer you forget about all this Passion and crucifixion stuff. I'll just take my chances on judgement day, thank you very much!"

Again, in the heat of the moment, on judgement day, I think your words will be different. You will give an account of yourself and hope by then that your name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

"Terence, I think you and the other biblical inerrantists who come to the E.O. are good people. It is good that you take morality and religion and theology seriously, and try to incorporate goodness into your daily life."

Actually because I have such low esteem for religion, if I had not found the truth of the Gospels, I would probably be an atheist. But then again, there are far too many logical inconsistencies for me to even seriously contemplate such a thing.

"But I think you need to strike a better balance in your life between submitting to biblical authority and thinking for yourself. I'm afraid that one day you may find yourself in for a rude awakening. It may be very painful indeed to come to terms with what you had believed for such a long time to be true. Maybe if you embrace a little skepticism now, you can save yourself a lot of grief later."

I have spent my entire adult life thinking independently, free from the traditions of men and their dogmas. I have examined a great deal of what the biblioskeptics have had to say and found it wanting. I am totally unfettered by what is considered cool, politically correct, or what is the prevailing opinion of the intelligentsia, religionists, atheists or IDers (for that matter). Since almost everyone I know is fettered by these influences, I am constantly breaking new ground and finding it fertile. In other words, I am at peace believing the word of God and I think that the "rude awakening" will not be finding some transcriptural error in the Bible. It will be in discovering that it was all true and that I have wasted precious time on this earth pursuing that which is temporal instead of storing up treasures that God says are eternal.

Bounds were placed upon the earth and set upon the sea, but none were placed upon your heart to hold eternity.
TM
My email is kauaiterry@yahoo.com

Aloha

31

You should probably attribute this paraphrase of C.S. Lewis.

You are probably right, you can take 5% off my grade;).

Jesus might have been misquoted and/or misrepresented in the bible.

So essentially, when Jesus is quoted as saying something you like, he probably said it, but when he is quoted saying something you don't like, he probably didn't. That's fine, but then on what basis, other than personal preference can you say that the Hindus treatment of their lower castes or Muslims treatment of Jews or Christians treatment of gays is wrong?

One can have faith in God without believing everything said of him.

This is a bit obvious, but not everything said about God is in the Bible. The Koran talks quite a lot about God, but I don't believe a word of it (at least not much).

Indeed, it seems to me that Jesus as depicted in the bible has a bit of a split personality. The guy kicking ass in the temple bears little resemblance to the "turn the other cheek" guy

(To the Shaft theme song)
He's a complicated man and no one understands him but his woman, Jesus Christ.

They say that cat Christ is a bad mother..Shut your mouth....

32

"So essentially, when Jesus is quoted as saying something you like, he probably said it, but when he is quoted saying something you don't like, he probably didn't."

That, or perhaps the opposite, depending on how one wishes to portray him. Some, like Jefferson, prefer "cuddly Jesus". Others may prefer to portray him more unfavorably. I don't really care, since I don't know even if such a man existed. I like your "Shaft" allusion, though. ;-)

"That's fine, but then on what basis, other than personal preference can you say that the Hindus treatment of their lower castes or Muslims treatment of Jews or Christians treatment of gays is wrong?"

We've had this discussion here on many occasions. I view morals as subjective. You may find such a scenario frightening; I find it merely realistic.

33

I view morals as subjective. You may find such a scenario frightening

Not frightening, just puzzling. You may as well say "I only believe in morals when I feel like it."

34

"Actually because I have such low esteem for religion, if I had not found the truth of the Gospels, I would probably be an atheist. But then again, there are far too many logical inconsistencies for me to even seriously contemplate such a thing."

Name just one.

35

"You may as well say "I only believe in morals when I feel like it.""

Not really. You are equating subjectivity with whims. Morals, like other matters of opinion, can be well thought out and consistently applied.

36

Morals, like other matters of opinion, can be well thought out and consistently applied.

Except when you don't feel like it;).

37

Rob,

Inconsistancies? For starters, how about hydrogen gasses given enough time becoming man?

38

Ucfengr,

"Personal preference" is a powerful thing when the the preferences we are talking about are universal or nearly universal.

Even in the examples you give (Christian vs. Jew, Muslim vs. non-Muslim, communist vs. everybody), there is always some kind of an alleged grievance that serves as a rationalization for the persecution of one group by another (respectively: Jews are christ-killers, usurers, or drinkers of baby blood; non-Muslims are defying the will of Allah; some given person acts like a counter-revolutionary or parasite on the collective). As C.S. Lewis points out, everyone reverts to some over-arching sense of fairness and rightness in just about every dispute.

So if you find someone who believes in a revealed truth that you don't buy into, you can still appeal to an objective sense of morality (or at least a conditional sense of morality) that is based on the principles of "help, and don't hurt".

In other words, what you see as personal preference is actually a reflection of the objective human condition. The human condition is an objective factual base that serves as a foundation for morality, and for culture in general.

Rob,

I agree with with you when you point out that we can't be sure about what Jesus said and did.

The New Testament was written 30, 50, 70 years after the death of Jesus. It is not credible that everything in the New Testament happened just the way it was written, even if one does believe in God and miracles.

There is such debate over what President Bush is supposed to have said or not have said just three years ago, that I would be shocked if it turned out that the Gospel writers were able to get most of their Jesus quotes correct, or even more than a handful of them.

But even if one discounts the reliability of everything in the New Testament, it is still quite possible that Jesus did think he was the son of God, the messiah of the Jews.

If Jesus did believe that, one cannot conclude that he had to be crazy. He was a product of the times he lived in, a time rich in religious traditions that seem "crazy" to our modern sensibilities. It was not such a stretch for Jesus to think he had a super-special relationship with God, even if in fact he didn't.

There's a big difference between being mistaken, even to the point of being deluded about yourself, and being a "madman". Jesus may have thought he was the son of God, but he had good reasons to believe that, so it's unfair to call him crazy.

Terence,

Aloha!

I guess I have always been an inconoclast. This may surprise you to know that I have never been a member of a particular church, or a political party. I want to remain objective in these matters and once you are a member of either there is an inclination to compromise your beliefs to fit in.

Well, you are still a credit to your church, even if you are the sole member.

Sometimes being a member of a group that compromises your beliefs is a good thing, though. The lone wolf thinks deep thoughts, but his thoughts can easily get stuck in a self-referential rut if he doesn't make a habit of seeking out and digesting independent viewpoints. Especially viewpoints that contradict (or appear to contradict) his own.

I'm all for independent thought. [ Have you noticed that? :) ]

But thought degenerates into a strange wilderness unless it is fed regularly by interaction with the outside world. Independent does not mean isolated from outside influences; independent means not taking things for granted, not being complacent. It means being skeptical of others -- but ideally it also means being just as skeptical of yourself. And to be truly skeptical of yourself, you definitely need the help of people who think independently of you.

That is hardly a scientific criteria for the charge of falsity, which is what this conversation began with.

Actually this conversation started when I addressed Patrick's wrestling to reconcile his sexual identity with his religious beliefs.

You then asked me to give a specific example of something in the Bible that is false. If I were to give a scientific example of a Biblical falsehood, there's not much point in that: either you agree with it, or you don't -- either way it's kind of a big "So what?"

So I chose to give an example of a moral falsehood in the Bible. Now it is harder, if not impossible, to prove a story is morally false -- I could never do so to everyone's satisfaction. I'd probably be lucky if I could do so to one person's satisfaction.

But the Bible is above all a moral document, a great moral epic and statement. Even if, or especially if you think it also an accurate historical document. So to look for "scientific" falsehoods as opposed to moral falsehoods is kind of missing the point of the Bible.

Interesting the word allegory only appears once in the Bible in reference to Hagar and Sarah. (Galatians 4:24) These women are treated as historical figures throughout the Bible. This tells me that we can draw allegorical applications from historical realities.
As far as the allegation that the Christ story was a conglameration of myths, the prophecies concerning his virgin birth, sacrifice, etc. were written long before before the Greeks came on the scene.

I don't think the writers of the Bible thought they were writing myths. Just the opposite.

I call Bible stories myths because I myself believe them to be historically false in many respects.

Again we have a different idea of what a true Christian is. Your idea is akin to a cafeteria approach to scripture . . . I'll take a little of this and a little of that . . . but that I loathe. It doesn't work that way. Jesus accepted the entire OT as settled history and a true Christian should do no less.

If I believed the Bible were literally true, I would loathe the cafeteria approach too. So I definitely understand where you are coming from.

I acknowledge that I have serious questions about some things that Abraham and Lot did. But it would be presumptuous to dismiss them as non-historical because of moral questions or, in your case, an anti-supernatural presuppositions.

Presumptuous? How would it be presumptuous?

You believe the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, a true historical document. But what if it isn't? Wouldn't it be presumptuous to say the Bible is the word of God when it isn't the word of God? Wouldn't it be presumptuous to say a Bible story is true when the story is not true?

So the question really becomes, how do you know the Bible is true? How do you know the Bible is divinely inspired? How do you know that everything in the Bible is purely correct and factual?

Did God tell you? Did you read it in the Bible? Did you conduct an experiment? You're telling me and everyone else, you're telling yourself, for Pete's sake, that the story of Noah and the ark and the flood is the god's-honest unvarnished truth, no doubt about it -- but how do you know that? Did you meditate upon it and wait for the Holy Spirit to guide you?

Jesus believed the Old Testament because back then, all pious Jews believed it. Virtually no one had any experience of the world outside of a few miles of where they were born and lived. Nobody had access to science or books or television -- most people didn't even know logic or the simplest facts of arithmetic. We don't have that excuse, we know better, we know a lot better.

So we know why Jesus believed the Old Testament. The question is: why do you believe it?

The Bible says that the world was covered by a flood. A little research will reveal that 75% of the dry earth is covered with sedimentary rocks and in them are hundreds of billions of fossilized animals that obviously were covered quickly. That is essentially how fossils are formed. Circumstantial evidence, yes. But if you put aside your anti-supernatural biases, a strong case for a biblical worldview begins to emerge.

You have decided the Bible is literally true. Therefore you believe the story of Noah and the flood to be true. True in every detail.

So you look at geological evidence, and you read it to support your pre-determined position.

You did not say, "Oh, is the Bible true? -- let me check the geological evidence for Noah's flood, and then I will be able to say."

No, you said, "Oh, the Bible is true -- so if the geological evidence is such-and-such (for example, thousands of feet of mixed layers of rock in the Grand Canyon), then this is how the geological evidence must be interpreted (um, it was raining for forty days and forty nights and lots of stuff got washed down all over the earth and arranged itself with all the fossils in the right layers, and -- wait don't go, I'm not done yet!)."

You might as well not bother even looking at or thinking about geology at all. You'll just end up finding some explanation that shows how everything is consistent with the Genesis account.

You mention my anti-supernatural biases. Fair enough. But why should I give up my anti-supernatural biases? Can you show me or tell me about something that is supernatural? Something in the world, and not just in the Bible?

"With all due respect, this goes from the realm of religious belief into cult territory. It may not be a dangerous cult, but the hard-line dismissal of alternative historical narratives is scary and psychologically damaging."

These alternative historical narratives look equally cultish to me. In fact they were neither historical nor a narrative. They are dogmatic assertions about the past put forth in the last 150 years. When you think about how unscientific and absurd it is to believe that nothing became everything, the Genesis narrative appears much more reasonable by comparison.

Terence, I wasn't actually talking about science (such as evolution or geology) when I said "alternative historical narratives".

All I meant was the following:

-- The possibility that God didn't purposefully destroy the world with a flood, and that Noah and his family didn't build a big ark with pairs of all the animals.

-- The possibility that God didn't make Abraham bind his son up and put a knife to his throat in a test of Abraham's fidelity.

-- The possibility that any of a number of other unusual Bible stories may have happened in a way different from the way it was written.

The Bible is a whole lot to swallow, even if you believe in God, even if you don't believe in scientific theories of evolution and geology. If you are unwilling to seriously consider any deviation whatsoever from the strict Bible narrative, then you are seriously stunting your thought processes. You are administering yourself a lobotomy (although unlike a real lobotomy, your self-imposed Bible-blinders are not necessarily permanent).

FYI i believe that God created animals with enough genetic potential to require that only one pair of each "kind" board the ark. For example you could potentially get 200 species of dog from one canine. Therefore it follows that they can stay in church in good standing w/out believing in polar bears on the ark.

All domestic dogs are one species. They mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. There are different breeds of dogs, but a breed is more like the equivalent of a "race" of human beings: we are all the same species, no matter our race or ethnic group.

The first sentence above, "I believe that God created animals with enough genetic potential to require that only one pair of each "kind" board the ark", is just mind-blowingly ignorant or totally crazy. Maybe God just shrank all the bigger animals down, like biological micro-film, and expanded them back up to normal size when the flood was over? You are in way too deep, sir, you are not making any sense.

"I'm not sure which is worse, Abraham's modelling of blindly obedient faith, or Jesus' modelling of the messiah complex. I find Abraham's story to be more repugnant, but I think Jesus' story has been more influential and therefore probably more harmful."

Your next statement contradicts the above.

"Jesus was a great moral reformer, and I am very grateful for his teachings on love, forgiveness, and the importance of the individual."

Hmmm. Jesus' story, you say, was more "influential and therefore more harmful" but his greatness was in that he was a "moral reformer?"

I am saying that the part of Jesus' story that says he died to redeem our sinful souls is bogus. I am saying that the part of Jesus' story that says we should love each other, we should forgive each other, and we should respect and honor each other -- that part of Jesus' story is good.

Part is good, and part is bad. It's a mixed bag. I accept the good, and I reject the bad. If you or anyone else disagrees, that's quite reasonable, but the good/bad combination is the way I see it.

How do you explain the three hundred OT prophecies concerning his birth, death and resurrection in this context?

The OT prophecies are the equivalent of astrology. If you talk long and hard enough about everything, you too can make some amazing predictions that turn out correct (just don't pay attention to all those other statements/foreshadowings/predictions that don't quite pan out).

The creator of the universe causes one of his creatures emotional distress 3000 years ago and therefore is undeserving of you to recognize his existence? It appears that you are merely looking for excuses to reject him.

I "rejected" God over 25 years ago. I am just giving you my honest reaction to Genesis 22 -- it's raw, fanatical garbage. I'd feel the same way even if I believed in God.

By the way, if you were in Abraham's (or Isaac's) shoes, I doubt you would casually dismiss God's test as "emotional distress".

In other words, if God did indeed sacrifice his son to save mankind, then mankind can certainly overlook any imaginary transgressions on his part in dealing with Abraham.

There was nothing imaginary about it -- God really did do something to Abraham. He really demanded that Abraham take his son to the mount, bind him up, and pull out his blade to slay him. He really waited until the last possible moment to keep Abraham from killing his beloved son, Isaac. That really happened. (According to the Bible that is.)

He was asking Abraham to illustrate what He would have to do a thousand years later to save mankind; sacrifice His son.

That is your interpretation, and perhaps it is a correct interpretation. But the plain purpose of God's demand according to the plain words of the Bible is that God was testing Abraham, probing Abraham's fidelity:

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham...

God wanted to be sure that Abraham trusted God to the point of sacrificing his son -- that is what the Bible is saying.

If God was thinking about Jesus' sacrifice, then that would be an additional aspect of the story. But the original context of the story still remains.

I am at peace believing the word of God and I think that the "rude awakening" will not be finding some transcriptural error in the Bible. It will be in discovering that it was all true and that I have wasted precious time on this earth pursuing that which is temporal instead of storing up treasures that God says are eternal.

If you ever start to think that you have wasted precious time doing something misguided and mistaken, then I strongly urge you to take heart.

You could spend fifty years or more on the "wrong" path, but should you end up finally choosing a different path, I hope you would have the strength to realize that you hadn't been wasting your time all those years.

Time spent on the "wrong" path can be like a beautiful piece of music that finally comes to an end, but leads into another selection that is just as beautiful as the one you have just finished. Your appreciation for the second piece of music may well have been enhanced by the time you spent with the first piece. The time on the second path is even better than it would have been without taking the circuitous detour of the "wrong" path.

Thank you, Terence, for sharing so much of your spiritual journey and attitudes. I hope my responses to you haven't been too obnoxious.

While I disagree with some of your views and with your approach to the Bible, I respect your quest for the truth and for the good.

Aloha,
Matthew

39

"For starters, how about hydrogen gasses given enough time becoming man?"

Since this is not a tenet of atheism, it doesn't qualify as an inconsistency with regard to that worldview (if, in fact, the lack of a god-belief may be deemed a worldview at all). My own opinion is that atheism is merely a small part of any atheist's worldview and has no tenets at all. Being the lack of a god-belief, it has no demonstrable inconsistencies until the existence of a god or gods is proven.

40

Matt,

I am also responding to statements you made to ucfengr and Rob . . .

"Even in the examples you give (Christian vs. Jew . . . "

In my humble opinion this Christian vs. Jew stereotype goes back to the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church and to general secular anti-semitism. It has little or nothing to do with a Biblical Christianity. Take a look today at the conservative evangelical church, which are known for their literalist views. I think they alone, among the world council of churches and the world at large, support the nation of Israel. This is in spite of the fact that Christianity is an an anathema in Zionist circles. The point is that what we call "Christian persecution" is not from true Bible believing Christians. Unlike the Muslims, who denounce terrorism falsely contending that this is not advocated in the Koran, there is no place in the Bible that calls for the persecution of the Jews.

"Rob, I agree with with you when you point out that we can't be sure about what Jesus said and did. The New Testament was written 30, 50, 70 years after the death of Jesus. It is not credible that everything in the New Testament happened just the way it was written, even if one does believe in God and miracles."

The time span cited, 30-70 yrs, would indicate when the earliest extant copies were dated, not necessairly when the Gospels were first written. It would be highly unusaual for all 4 authors to wait an entire generation to record their message. Judging from the harmony of the Gospels, it appears that they were originally written very early on. Consider this, the NT has more manuscript authority than any 10 books of classical literature put together. There are over 24,000 NT manuscripts in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. The #2 book in all of history, "The Iliad," has only 643 copies with a 400 yr gap between the authorship and the earliest extant copy.
If you extended the same rigid standards of authenticity (30-70 yrs) to the works of Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Caesar, Tacitus, or Pliny, you would have not only good reason to doubt what they wrote but whether or not they existed at all. Plato, for example, was written in 400 B.C. The earliest copy a.d. 900. Number of extant copies 7. When was the last time you heard someone question the authenticity of Plato?

"Jesus may have thought he was the son of God, but he had good reasons to believe that, so it's unfair to call him crazy."

What Lewis was getting at was that he would have been crazy to make his claims if he was not who he said he was. You have to understand Messianic prophecy in the OT to appreciate the complexity of who exactly the Messiah was. He wasn't the "tip toe through the tulips" kinda guy portrayed in godspell or superstar. He fully understood the implications of what he was saying about himself. That is why the priests rent their garments when he spoke.
He claimed to be God.

"Well, you are still a credit to your church, even if you are the sole member."

Actually it's a mobile church called, "Where Two or More are Gathered."
It's really growing fast, but tithing is kinda slow these days. Would you care to contribute?

"I'm all for independent thought. [ Have you noticed that? :)"

I noticed first that you were not a rude, left wing moonbat, which reflects a certain degree of independent thinking for most atheists in my book. Neither of us would be here if we were afraid of putting our ideas on the table. But you're right. I do need to get out more.

"But the Bible is above all a moral document, a great moral epic and statement. Even if, or especially if you think it also an accurate historical document. So to look for "scientific" falsehoods as opposed to moral falsehoods is kind of missing the point of the Bible."

I doubt that looking for "moral falsehoods" is the point of the Bible either, Matthew.

"I don't think the writers of the Bible thought they were writing myths. Just the opposite. I call Bible stories myths because I myself believe them to be historically false in many respects."

Nor do I think that the Genesis' author thought that he was writing anything but history. But in order to call something "historically false," there must be some solid premise for doing so. A subjective appraisal of the morality of one passage or another is insufficient grounds for these accusations. You could falsify any historic literature on that basis alone.

"If I believed the Bible were literally true, I would loathe the cafeteria approach too. So I definitely understand where you are coming from."

Now there is independant thinking!

"You believe the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, a true historical document. But what if it isn't? Wouldn't it be presumptuous to say the Bible is the word of God when it isn't the word of God? Wouldn't it be presumptuous to say a Bible story is true when the story is not true?"

Yes, either believing it or not believing it involves presumptions.
But if either position is based soley on subjective feelings rather than empirical evidence, then it is not much of a case to stand on.

"So the question really becomes, how do you know the Bible is true? How do you know the Bible is divinely inspired? How do you know that everything in the Bible is purely correct and factual?"

It is the proponderence of evidence. The Bible is the only book written over a 1500 year span, by 40 different authors, on three different continents, in three languages, in a wide variety of literary styles covering hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet from Genesis to Revelation these writers demonstrate an amazing degree of harmony. Paradise lost in Genesis is paradise found in Revelation. That does not constitute proof but it is a strong indication of inspiration.

"Did God tell you? Did you read it in the Bible? Did you conduct an experiment? You're telling me and everyone else, you're telling yourself, for Pete's sake, that the story of Noah and the ark and the flood is the god's-honest unvarnished truth, no doubt about it -- but how do you know that? Did you meditate upon it and wait for the Holy Spirit to guide you?"

To your last question the answer is yes. But that does not imply that research did not play a major role in building my confidence in the text.

"Jesus believed the Old Testament because back then, all pious Jews believed it. Virtually no one had any experience of the world outside of a few miles of where they were born and lived. Nobody had access to science or books or television -- most people didn't even know logic or the simplest facts of arithmetic. We don't have that excuse, we know better, we know a lot better."

We may think we know better. But as God asked Job, "Were you there when I created the foundations of the earth? It is a common error to believe that modern science has disproven the Bible. Take a look at science throughout history and on any given subject the prevailing scientific opinion was usually wrong. Information is constantly being improved and refined and no doubt a hundred years from now what is accepted will not resemble what today is considered to be settled fact. When the ratio of the known, in respect to that which can be known, approaches zero, then scientists have a tendency to manufacture knowledge at an alarming rate. I am constantly amazed at the double standard of proof that atheists require of Bible believers and the unflappable confidence they have in the unproven, untestable and unscientific tennents of evolutionary theory. If you asked them "what came first the chicken or the egg" you get three different answers. The third being "neither."

"So we know why Jesus believed the Old Testament. The question is: why do you believe it?"

I believe it because Jesus believed it and I believe him -- the strong accuracy of the textual transmission and the strong testimony of archaeology notwithstanding.

"You have decided the Bible is literally true. Therefore you believe the story of Noah and the flood to be true. True in every detail."

I take it literally unless the context indicates otherwise.

"So you look at geological evidence, and you read it to support your pre-determined position."

My pre-determined view was that evolution was true and the geology courses that I took at SFASU were accurate. It was not until I independantly studied the geologic column in light of the scriptures that an alternate interpretation slowly began to emerge.

"You might as well not bother even looking at or thinking about geology at all. You'll just end up finding some explanation that shows how everything is consistent with the Genesis account."

Please answer me this, if there were a worldwide flood within the Genesis time frame, how would you expect the world and the geologic column to look any different than it does today?

"You mention my anti-supernatural biases. Fair enough. But why should I give up my anti-supernatural biases? Can you show me or tell me about something that is supernatural? Something in the world, and not just in the Bible?"

That is a good question. I think trancendant love has a supernatural element. My life has been a series of supernatural events. The circumstances that involved my recieving Christ were nothing less than phenomenal. I once gave a Bible to a man and when he opened it, it had his grandmothers name handwritten on the cover! I once brought a Muslim with me to hear astronaut James Erwin talk about his search for Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat in Eastern Turkey. Outside the hotel in Austin I handed the Muslim a debate of Christian apologist, Josh McDowell in Africa. That moment McDowell walked out of the hotel and introduced himself to the Muslim. In recent years I sub taught a special ed class with a hissing 10 year old demoniac. After he hit me in the face with a pair of scissors I settled him down to look at a National Geographic. There was a mosaic of Jesus in it and I asked "who is that?" This kid who literally could hardly speak said and I quote, "He is the dead god of Israel." I said, "The Lord rebuke you." The autistic child who could have never known what I meant by rebuke responded, "He can't get me from up there."
Speaking of Israel. I think that re-establishment of the nation of Israel after 2000 years exile (and according to prophecy), qualifies as supernatural. So does the migration of geese in some respects.

"Terence, I wasn't actually talking about science (such as evolution or geology) when I said "alternative historical narratives".

Whatever those alternative historical narratives may be should be evaluated on their individual merits.The Hindu narrative suggests that earthquakes come from underground elelphants knocking their heads together. Scatch that one off.

"The Bible is a whole lot to swallow, even if you believe in God, even if you don't believe in scientific theories of evolution and geology. If you are unwilling to seriously consider any deviation whatsoever from the strict Bible narrative, then you are seriously stunting your thought processes. You are administering yourself a lobotomy (although unlike a real lobotomy, your self-imposed Bible-blinders are not necessarily permanent)."

I could say the same of your accepting unconditionally evolutionary theory - or someone believing that Bush stole the 2000 election, etc. You are stunting your thought processes by categorically rejecting the possibility that these Bible narratives are true. And the consequences of misreading this important communique is far more serious if it is true and rejected than if it weren't true and believed.

"All domestic dogs are one species."

I meant to say breed.

"The first sentence above, "I believe that God created animals with enough genetic potential to require that only one pair of each "kind" board the ark", is just mind-blowingly ignorant or totally crazy."

On the contrary, it is perfectly logical to assume that inherent within the genetic makeup of each species is the ability to change, adapt and to produce other breeds of the same "kind." The change of color of a polar bear's hair represents a loss of information not a gain. Some call these changes micro-evolution. I think of it as genetic potential which produces horizontal changes, with genetic mutations as the vehicle. Example: On one particular windy island the beetles have lost their ability to fly and it is speculated that this enables them to survive, by not being blown away. This disability represented a net loss of information, but the change was beneficial. The beetle has thousands of different breeds. What I am saying it is that it far more logical to assume that they all came from one prototype of beetle than it is to assume that literally all creatures on earth came from a single (yet unidentifed) source of life. What would qualify as silly is believing the vast vertical changes follow from these horizontal changes observed in nature. Did frogs really become princes of men?

"I am saying that the part of Jesus' story that says he died to redeem our sinful souls is bogus. I am saying that the part of Jesus' story that says we should love each other, we should forgive each other, and we should respect and honor each other -- that part of Jesus' story is good."

What Lewis said still applies. If, for example, Jesus was just a philospher and not the Messiah, then his cleansing of the temple, castigation of the Pharisees, and lectures on hell and damnation was to say the least inconsistant with the one demensional image most atheists have of him. He had the authority to do these things and still be consistant with his message of love and forgivness because he was who he said he was.

"Part is good, and part is bad. It's a mixed bag. I accept the good, and I reject the bad. If you or anyone else disagrees, that's quite reasonable, but the good/bad combination is the way I see it."

Quite "reasonable" is an improvement over "mind blowingly ignorant," but either way, I still believe in Noah's Ark.

"The OT prophecies are the equivalent of astrology. If you talk long and hard enough about everything, you too can make some amazing predictions that turn out correct (just don't pay attention to all those other statements/foreshadowings/predictions that don't quite pan out)."

Name one of those OT prophecies that didn't "pan out."
Born of a virgin, Seed of Abraham, Son of Issac, son of Jacob, Tribe of Judah, Family of Jesse, House of David, Born in Bethlehem, Presented with gifts, Shall be Immanuel (God with us) Shall be a prophet, Judge, King, Ministry in Galilee, Miracles, Enter Jerusalem on a donkey, Stone of stumbling to the Jews, Light to the gentiles, Forsaken by disciples, Betrayed by a friend, For thirty pieces of silver, Lots cast for his garments, Smitten and spit upon, Hands and feet pierced, Side pierced, Resurection, Ascention. These are only a few of 300 prophecies fullfilled in Jesus. To compare these prophecies with astrology is silly. The odds against half of these prophecies being fullfilled in one man was something like 10 to the 40th power. The odds of all 300 prophecies coming true in one man are impossible unless Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

"There was nothing imaginary about it -- God really did do something to Abraham. He really demanded that Abraham take his son to the mount, bind him up, and pull out his blade to slay him. He really waited until the last possible moment to keep Abraham from killing his beloved son, Isaac. That really happened. (According to the Bible that is.)"

The word "imaginary transgressions" was used because you have imagined all of the most evil possible motives for God in this case. If "fear of the Lord," which is what this thread is about, means an awsome respect and reverence, then accusing God of personal transgressions should be taken seriously.

"Time spent on the "wrong" path can be like a beautiful piece of music that finally comes to an end, but leads into another selection that is just as beautiful as the one you have just finished. Your appreciation for the second piece of music may well have been enhanced by the time you spent with the first piece. The time on the second path is even better than it would have been without taking the circuitous detour of the "wrong" path."

In life one must go out of focus to realise what true focus is. Likewise when tuning an instrument one must go out of tune to understand what perfect pitch is. For that reason atheists often become the greastest Christain teachers.

Time to hit the beach!

Aloha

41

In life one must go out of focus to realise what true focus is. Likewise when tuning an instrument one must go out of tune to understand what perfect pitch is. For that reason atheists often become the greastest Christain teachers.

I'd make an awesome preacher. All I need is a sign from God and a professional hair stylist.

42

"Since this is not a tenet of atheism, it doesn't qualify as an inconsistency with regard to that worldview (if, in fact, the lack of a god-belief may be deemed a worldview at all). My own opinion is that atheism is merely a small part of any atheist's worldview and has no tenets at all. Being the lack of a god-belief, it has no demonstrable inconsistencies until the existence of a god or gods is proven."

Hydrogen to man is a major tenet of evolutionary theory and evolutionary theory is major a tenet of atheism -- no matter how untenable it may be.

If I understand the your above statement, atheism may (not?) be deemed a worldview at all. It has no tenets except for a lack of god-belief and therefore the burden of proof is on those who believe.

This sounds like a theory that is maintained by the fear of not having an alternative to creationism. Whatever you cannot measure, you anthropocentrically claim does not exist. If the creator doesn't appear . . . case closed. In practice it forces a superstitious interpretation of scientific data and refuses to be held accountable for it. Fantastic miracles of nature are attributed to evolution, but never seen, or proved or accounted for. At least the agnostic has the intellectual honesty to say that he does not know. The atheist assumes omniscience, as if he could say, there is no God because I have surveyed the universe and short of an appearance by the creator, I am proven right by default. Out of nothing developed life forms. All human, animal, and plant behavior is driven by intention and goal, yet life itself has no intention or goal.

Forget the 1st law of thermodynamics which postulates that there is no process in nature that can create matter. Dumb matter magically created itself without either the ability or the reason to do so; the universe was created 'by nothing out of nothing with nothing using nothing for nothing only to eventually become nothing. That is their message of hope. It's all about being a religious fanatic about not being religious.

Forget the 2nd law of thermodynamics too (which Einstein said was the the "paradigm of all scientic law"). This universe (supposedly an isolated system) somehow magically reversed the 2nd Law and produced order out of chaos. Don't hold the atheists responsible for that inconsistency, they have "no tenets, even though when pressed, they would ALL agree on basically the same cosmology. Something outside and greater than itself is a concept alien to them. Matter created itself without any ability, intention, purpose, or desire to do so. It just happened and if you don't want to be marginalized, in you better believe it. They know without knowing the limits of knowing. They have nothing to prove and are never held accountable. If they can't fathom how God exists, God doesn't exist. Inconsistancies? They make sport of trying to dismantle the faith of others while denying the fact that the edifice of their own belief system is based upon an abiding faith in materialism. They are the first to pontificate about moral issues, but refuse to acknowledge that on the basis of their belief system, right and wrong have no meaning beyond what they ascribe to it. They claim to be empiricists but invariable refuse to acknowledge any evidence that may threaten their worldview.

Hup. . . I've had my say.

43

"evolutionary theory is major a tenet of atheism"

Wrong! Atheism has no tenets. Athough many atheists fully subscribe to the TOE, it is not a requirement. Atheism doesn't speak directly to the origins of man; it is merely the lack of a god-belief.

"If I understand the your above statement, atheism may (not?) be deemed a worldview at all. It has no tenets except for a lack of god-belief and therefore the burden of proof is on those who believe."

Now you're getting it.

"This sounds like a theory that is maintained by the fear of not having an alternative to creationism."

????? Who NEEDS an alternative to creationism? Sure, I'd LIKE to have all the answers, but lacking them won't lead me to accept the ready-made and unsubstantiated theory of others.

"At least the agnostic has the intellectual honesty to say that he does not know."

Haven't I said the same thing? You aren't paying attention, Terence. You are too busy riffing on your talking points. I bet the "subtext" approach comes next.

"They are the first to pontificate about moral issues, but refuse to acknowledge that on the basis of their belief system, right and wrong have no meaning beyond what they ascribe to it."

Wrong! Criminy! I acknowledge that very thing every time morality comes up. Quit hitting the strawman and read the following carefully:

1. I do not know precisely how life began and developed into its present diversity. I know a lot, but there is much more I don't know.

2. Since morals are subjective, "right" and "wrong" have no meaning beyond that which humans ascribe to them.

Please remember the two s