Check Out The Video Page!

Just a reminder- even though it may look like I there isn't much activity sometimes on this blog, I am adding videos to the video page on an almost daily basis. So don't forget to check out all of the great videos on the internet that I've compiled for your viewing pleasure.

Atheist Video Page!

Imprecatory Prayer

Prayer for opponent's misfortune finds little support

Responding to pastor's controversial statement, authorities on various faiths see little justification for wishing harm to befall enemies.

By K. Connie Kang, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 25, 2007

Until last week, "imprecatory prayer" was not in many people's vocabularies.But then the Rev. Wiley S. Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, urged his supporters to use Psalm 109 to focus prayers directed at the "enemies of God" -- including the leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Drake was urging the use of imprecatory prayer -- prayers for another's misfortune or for vengeance against God's enemies. Now such prayer is the talk of blogs and letters to the editor.

The controversy flared Aug. 14, the day the Washington-based group asked the Internal Revenue Service to probe the tax-exempt status of Drake's congregation.Churches, as tax-exempt organizations, are prohibited from campaigning for candidates. Drake had earlier issued a statement on a church letterhead endorsing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate.

Drake told his supporters that he attempted to talk to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State about the issue. He cited a verse from the Gospel of Matthew that says "if your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you." Drake said his efforts were rebuffed.

"Now that all efforts have been exhausted, we must begin our Imprecatory Prayer, at the key points of the parliamentary role in the earth where we live," Drake wrote.Under the heading, "HOW TO PRAY," he listed all 31 verses of Psalm 109, in which King David appeals to divine justice. Drake provided his congregation the King James Version of the psalm, including Verse 9, which says: Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

On the advice of his attorneys, Drake has since declined to be interviewed.Experts in Scripture say it's easy to misread David's intentions and the purpose of imprecatory prayer in general.There needs to be a distinction between one's personal enemies and the enemies of God, said Sister Thomas Bernard MacConnell, founder of the Spirituality Center on the campus of Mount St. Mary's College and a veteran teacher of spiritual direction.

"It is very possible that my enemies are not God's enemies," she said. Referring to Drake's targets, she added, "Who is to say that those people are God's enemies?"The Rev. Kurt Fredrickson, who directs doctoral programs for 700 working pastors from around the world at Fuller Theological Seminary, says imprecatory prayers are atypical."They are more of a window into the sinfulness of human beings," said Fredrickson, an assistant professor of pastoral ministry at the Pasadena school.

"Normally when we think about praying, we're thinking about prayers of adoration, prayers of confession, prayers for someone we're concerned about who is sick or going through a hard time, or those sort of prayers for ourselves -- not the sort of vindictive, revengeful statements. These prayers are contrary to the way of Jesus."Clearly, David is angry in Psalm 109, he said. But David's words are less an example for others than a window into the troubled king's mind. As Fredrickson put it, "Is this David just letting off steam?"Fredrickson said when his daughter was going through a tough time a year ago when her kidneys shut down, he sometimes was so "mad at God" that he said things he wouldn't want to see in print. (He was able to donate one of his kidneys to save her life.)

Scripture, especially the psalms, gives humans "permission," in the worst of times, just to be human, as David is in Psalm 109, he said. That's the wonderful thing about the psalms, he said.The Rev. John Goldingay, a professor of the Old Testament at Fuller, said that one value of imprecatory prayer is that it asks God to take action -- not for humans to take matters into their own hands."When you're calling down trouble, calamity and disaster on somebody else, you're saying to God, 'You've got to bring trouble on those people,' " he said. "It's not just asking for trouble because you don't like them or you're a nasty person. You're asking for justice."Other faiths take varying views of such prayers.

Does one even need to comment on this? I find it amusing that, historically, Christians have been so afraid of witches casting spells on them that they've burned them at the stake for centuries (and continue to do so today), and yet, here is a pastor in the national media calling for a curse to be placed on someone, and I have heard very little outcry. The hypocrisy of some Christians never ceases to amaze me.

My Debate with a Pastor (cont)

(See Full Debate Here)

(9/20/07)
Infidel,
It is interesting that you say you are in awe of so many things (music, etc.) that are far less complex than your body and yet require a creator: music performance had a musician, poetry, art, telescope, etc. To have such complexity points to intelligence to create it.
-Saul

(9/20/07)
Infidel,
Here are many verses showing the practice of homosexuality to be sin:

Rom 1:27
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
NIV

Gen 13:13
13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
NIV

Gen 19:5-8
5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
NIV

Lev 18:22
22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
NIV

Lev 20:13
13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
NIV

Judg 19:22-23
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing.
NIV

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
NIV

Jude 7
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
NIV


(9/20/07)
Saul- thanks for the verses. Let me give you my interpretation of what they say, because I think a compelling case can be made that the bible is not as anti-gay as you think (aside from Leviticus)

Here are many verses showing the practice of homosexuality to be sin:
Rom 1:27
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
This does seem to condemn the mens' behavior. However it goes on to say that these people are worthy of death, are in favor of the biblical punishment? If not, isn't that hypocritical?

Gen 13:13
13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
Do we have any evidence that the crimes committed by Soddom were homosexual in nature?

Gen 19:5-8
5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
What if a mob of men came to your house and said "let your Daughter come out of the house so we can have sex with her." Might you not say something like, "That's a wicked thing, go away." Since you brought up this story, isn't Lot's offer extremely immoral when he offers his own daughters up for gang rape? How does this action make him the most moral guy in the city? I don't see how this action by the men necessarily is an indictment of homosexuality, more an indictment that it is wicked of any group to demand to have sex with anyone, male or female.

Lev 18:22
22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Lev 20:13
13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Okay, Leviticus is straightforward. However do you eat shellfish or trim your beard? You easily throw out one outdated standard but keep the other under the guise of a 'new covenant.' Please show me the verse where Jesus said which parts of the 'old covenant' still applied, and which did not. And where he specifically condemned homosexuality.

Judg 19:22-23
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing.
Hmm, sounds an awful lot like plagiarism of Gen 19:5-8. My comments previously apply to this as well.

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Cor 6:9-11
6:9 And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan,
6:10 And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)
6:11 And Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub,
????

Jude 7
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Again, we know Sodom and Gomorrah were sinning nations, but where does it say that they were homosexuals? It very well may say that somewhere, but please tell me the verse.
So there's my take on the verses you provided. Maybe some food for thought there, maybe not if you are very entrenched in your conviction that homosexuality is wrong, just as Larry Craig and Ted Haggard were.
-Infidel

(9/20/07)
Bible is not “anti-gay” but rather pro sexual purity as God designed it and He created male and female and called them to become one in flesh and not male and male to become one in flesh. Romans 1 is the most clear: it is unnatural and not as God intended. Jesus affirmed the one man and one woman relationship in the Gospels. He loves all people and wants to forgive and heal and purify if they allow him to.

I have a very busy week so can’t do much corresponding. Keep seeking truth. God is going to show Himself to you. I really believe that. I am going to do less and less intellectual dialogue on these emails. I am more and more about the heart and our relationship with God and not doing too much arguing about issues, etc.
John 10:10,
Saul

Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god

Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Officials at Nepal's state-run airline have sacrificed two goats to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft, the carrier said Tuesday.

Nepal Airlines, which has two Boeing aircraft, has had to suspend some services in recent weeks due the problem.

The goats were sacrificed in front of the troublesome aircraft Sunday at Nepal's only international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions, an official said.
"The snag in the plane has now been fixed and the aircraft has resumed its flights," said Raju K.C., a senior airline official, without explaining what the problem had been.
Local media last week blamed the company's woes on an electrical fault. The carrier runs international flights to five cities in Asia.
It is common in Nepal to sacrifice animals like goats and buffaloes to appease different Hindu deities.


Okay, enough is enough. If people want to take stupid risks with their own lives based on their faith that is one thing, but has the whole country gone completely insane to let this sort of thing go unchecked? This is a risk to everyone's life that flys on that aircraft! How do you know which plane you're flying on there? I'm sure most of us flying into India would like to know that the plane we're flying on didn't have the Hindu sky god perform the last maintenance check. Who will be at fault when the problem that this plane is having comes back, and possibly mid-flight? Any Christians who object to this have no ground. Clearly, your god loves this sort of thing as well, so if you wouldn't fly on a plane that was divinely repaired through animal sacrifice, then maybe your faith is not as strong as you thought.

PS- And that's a good thing

Debate with a Pastor (continued)

(9/16/07)

Saul,
since my last e-mail referenced my understanding that evolution is established
fact, I wanted to pass along some more information on why that is so.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Pay particular attention to the endogenous retrovirus section. This is proof positive that evolution is how we all got here. I know it's hard to wrap one's head around how we went from single celled organisms to the complex thinking beings we are today over a period of billions of years, but the evidence does not lie. One has to go where the evidence leads, and not be hindered by preconceived notions once evidence shows them to be wrong.

Do you still believe that the world is flat and supported by two giant tortoises? No? Why not? Because science told you (because the bible certainly didn't). It's time you acknowledged the same with evolution.

-Infidel

(9/16/07)

Maybe I am not understanding this, but I don't see where it supports the mechanism of natural selection that evolutionary theory calls for. Full evolutionary theory seems to call for common descent and the mechanism of natural selection.

Best regards,

Mike

(9/16/07)

OK- Now that I have read the conclusion, I understand the focus of the article:

"As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred; nevertheless, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether Darwinism, Lamarckism (i.e. inheritance of acquired characaters), or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change."

This is because there is no universal consensus on the mechanism. It seems that there is a lively ongoing debate within evolutionary circles about the nature of whatever mechanism is really at work.

If you found this article interesting, you might find this book by Stephen Barr a well-reasoned discussion from the Christian perspective on matters covered in the article.

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Ancient-Faith-Stephen/dp/0268034710

Some articles by Barr:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=111

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=87

Barr is respected by a many members of the scientific community - deist, theist, agnostic and atheist.

Mike

(9/17/07)

Looks like an interesting book, I may have to check it out at some point. Right now, I have so many others I need to read. I just ordered Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" and Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great: How religion poisons everything". After that, I plan to read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", "God: The Failed Hypothesis", "The End of Faith", and others. So many books, not enough time.

Anyway, on evolution, my point on mentioning it is not to talk about the mechanism. While hopefully we'll learn more about the mechanism as time goes on, the important thing right now in this country is to establish evolution with common descent as a fact in the minds of the
people. People continue to be misled by their pastors, and politicians, and our science classrooms are falling further behind on the world stage. I try to show people that evolution is fact, because in doing so I show that the bible is wrong in Genesis. If evolution is true, than there is no Adam and Eve. If there is no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no
original sin, the bible starts to unravel. If the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, than the geneologies of Jesus are wrong. If that is wrong than what else is wrong?

Mechanism is unimportant when considering these points, which we must do.

-Infidel

(9/17/07)

Infidel,
see my responses below

I: I try to show people that evolution is fact, because in doing so I show that the bible is wrong in Genesis.

M: I find this to be a curious statement: if E then !G. I think you are begging the question here.

M: What does is mean to say that evolution is fact? If you do not have a mechanism, then you do not have evolution by any definition that I am aware of. Common descent + mechanism.

M: I am not sure what it means then that this would demonstrate that Genesis is wrong? Perhaps what you mean is that this would be evidence against certain literalist young earth creationist positions. There are many who would still state that Genesis is true in that it shows God as creator and sustainer - which I think is the primary teaching in Genesis 1-11.

I: If the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, than the geneologies of Jesus are wrong.

M: I do not think that any reputable scholar - Christian or not - would ever make that claim. The geneologies are quite like other ancient geneologies. The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are two different kinds - and were written for two different purposes. Neither purports to be a timeline, calendar or any such thing.

M: If you want to say that this challenges certain young earth creationist positions, that is true.

M: Dawkins, Harris et al are quite adept at painting a caricature of Christian faith and practice. What I find in their writings is equivalent to me describing all atheists in terms of Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot and a few selected atheist mass murderers. I cannot do that - it would be dishonest by my standards of what is right and wrong. However, they do not seem to be bound by any need to be fair, even-handed and reasonable when engaging Christian faith and practice. Perhaps that is because of a differing value system.

Mike

(9/18/07)

Mike- See my comments in blue.

I: I try to show people that evolution is fact, because in doing so I show that the bible is wrong in Genesis.

M: I find this to be a curious statement: if E then !G. I think you are begging the question here

Hmm, I'm not sure about this. I'm not sure how evolution can coincide with a literal reading of Genesis. If we're taking about a non-literal meaning, then you may be right. More on that later.

M: What does it mean to say that evolution is fact? If you do not have a mechanism, then you do not have evolution by any definition that I am aware of. Common descent + mechanism.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/. "There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)³ happens, just like gravity does. ... But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution."

M: I am not sure what it means then that this would demonstrate that Genesis is wrong? Perhaps what you mean is that this would be evidence against certain literalist young earth creationist positions. There are many who would still state that Genesis is true in that it shows God as creator and sustainer - which I think is the primary teaching in Genesis 1-11.

I think this is dodging the truth. I can respect literalist interpreters (even though I think they're wrong) because at least they maintain that the bible means what it says. Once one starts down the road of "well, that's not supposed to be taken literally," then we have a situation where a person can take the bible and make it say whatever they want it to say, and it becomes worthless as a source of knowledge or morality. When the bible says that God formed Adam out of dirt, and Eve from his rib, and the earth was created in 6 days- It means what it says.

J: If the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, than the geneologies of Jesus are wrong.

M: I do not think that any reputable scholar - Christian or not - would ever make that claim. The geneologies are quite like other ancient geneologies. The geneologies in Matthew and Luke are two different kinds - and were written for two different purposes. Neither purports to be a timeline, calendar or any such thing.

I don't understand this reasoning. Then what is the point of their inclusion if not to show that Jesus had king blood through Saul, and to show his lineage all the way to Adam and Eve? What is the purpose of a geneology if not to show who your ancestors are? And if either is incorrect (which one would have to be), than how can anyone claim the bible is inerrant?
Is this not the method that Young Earthers use to determine the age of the Earth to be 6-10,000 years old? If not, where are they getting this?

M: If you want to say that this challenges certain young earth creationist positions, that is true.

M: Dawkins, Harris et al are quite adept at painting a caricature of Christian faith and practice. What I find in their writings is equivalent to me describing all atheists in terms of Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot and a few selected atheist mass murderers. I cannot do that - it would be dishonest by my standards of what is right and wrong. However, they do not seem to be bound by any need to be fair, even-handed and reasonable when engaging Christian faith and practice. Perhaps that is because of a differing value system.

What is the caricature? I don't see one. In "Letter to a Christian Nation," Harris shows statistics that he's not attacking a minority belief. He's attacking beliefs that close to half of
the nation holds. Christians believe that Jesus will return within their lifetimes hastening the apocalypse, that creationism is fact, that evolution is fiction, that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark, that belief in Jesus is the only path to salvation, etc. Please tell me where they are making caricatures. This is a far cry from a list of famous murderous atheists that can be counted on one hand.

-Infidel

(9/18/07)

Infidel my friend,

Evolution will be fact only when it can demonstrate that from slimy algae we can actually produce a human being. Your belief in evolution is just as much faith as my believe in creationism. You just have more faith.

Since science seems to be your god, tell me how much can science help you with personal struggles and purpose in life? Can science help you with sin? Can science help you when you die? I’ll take what I have in Jesus over what you have any day of the week.

The bible never teaches that the world is flat, just the opposite: the bible teaches that the world is round, even though for years many believers thought the world to be flat. Check out this verse:

Isa 40:22

22- He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

I am really saddened by your insistence that evolution is your all in all answer for these things. You truly cannot look at the human body and at least be in awe that the heart keeps pumping, the brain functions as it does, fingerprints are all unique, etc. etc.? I mean even if evolution is the reason we came about, you don’t see how amazing the human body is? I just don’t get your inability to see the awe of the human body.

What do you mean Josephus’ statement is a forgery. What evidence do you have for this? I have “The Works of Josephus” from a non Christian publisher and the quote is there, so what’s up with your claim????

And regarding Jesus: all that is in the Holy Land today concerning His life is a big joke? All the places the bible speaks of that he ministered in are there to see today (Jerusalem, Garden of Gathsemane, place of His death, Sea of Galilee, etc.). What about the 500 eyewitness accounts, many of which were martyred for faith in Jesus: all made up? The first hand accounts of his life and ministry: fabrications? The book of Peter written by Peter saying he saw it all with his eyes. John saying in 1 John that his hands handled the evidence. Luke a physician giving a precise account. So what if written 40 years later. That was common in that period. Oral tradition was
common. You have to be kidding me that you just discount all this stuff and more? How can you rationally say that you do not even believe Jesus existed? Read “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell and “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel.

By saying “Open your heart” I do not mean your literal blood pumping heart but the inner part of who you are. The part within you that cries out for love and meaning and purpose and eternity. If you will sincerely from this part of you seek God, I know He will show Himself to you (Jeremiah 29:11-13), unless you are so unwilling to yield if He does show Himself to you, and if that is so, then it is your pride and self-reliance that is keeping you from God, and if that doesn’t change, then you will
never know God. We must humble ourselves. I sincerely hope you do not have such pride that you will forever miss your Creator.

Sincerely,

Saul

(9/18/07)

Saul, see my comments in blue.

Infidel my friend,

Evolution will be fact only when it can demonstrate that from slimy algae we can actually produce a human being.

Wow. I think this video was made for you personally- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RojR-50_5Y. If that is the level of evidence you require to believe a scientific claim, then I want you on the jury if I ever get accused of a crime. Nothing short of
videotape + confession + DNA + 'caught weapon in hand over the body' would be sufficient to convince you. The truth is that evolution is a fact (you can look it up), whether you personally want to admit it or not. Watch this short video to see a computer demonstration of how
minor changes (influenced by the environment) over time can modify a gene pool-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZwUV-auY4w.
Here's how evolution explains an increase in information- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg.
Here's another short video in explanation- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPuKoEYCs2o.
And finally, here's how it was proven that organic molecules can be formed by
inert chemicals- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Y9w6fo_zY

There are many others, but I know you're a busy guy, so feel free to check out the
rest on my site (under Evolution/science)- http://midwestatheist.blogspot.com/2007/08/favorite-atheist-videos-links.html.

Your belief in evolution is just as much faith as my believe in creationism. You just have more faith.

I thought I explained this in the past.

Faith- 1. a : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
2 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs ;"the Protestant faith"

Usually when the word faith is used, it is used to explain how people believe something without proof or evidence. That's when you take it on faith. I suppose one could argue that my beliefs fall under definition 2, because I do believe strongly in evolution under the sheer weight of the proof and evidence. However, if evidence were to surface that were to show that evolution did not happen, I would readily change my beliefs to be in step with the evidence. So hopefully you now understand that my belief in this matter has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with evidence. I've heard faith described as the permission slip we give ourselves to believe things for which there is no good evidence.

Since science seems to be your god,

Whoa.... Since this gets trotted out a lot, I'll address it first. Science is not my God. I know theists have a hard time understanding that because God is such a big part of their lives, that they think everyone must have 'version' of it. Let me assure you that I acknowledge no God. Not science, not $, not Satan.

tell me how much can science help you with personal struggles and purpose in life?

That's not science's job. What helps me with personal struggles and purpose in life? Myself, my family, my parents and co-workers. And if I were to get bad off, I would turn to a therapist. But in all actuality, believe it or not, I'm one of the happiest guys you'd meet. I
love life and have a passion for it and my family.

Can science help you with sin?

I don't believe in sin, it is a wound that religion invented so they could sell you a band-aid. That's not to say that I don't believe that some things are good (volunteering time to help those in need) and that some things are bad (rape, murder, theft), of course I do. But the word sin, to me, implies the categorizing of the bad things by a deity. So I don't believe in the
concept of sin.

Can science help you when you die?

Nothing can help me when I die. When I die, I'll be dead. The End. Is it comforting? Not particularly. But often the truth is uncomfortable; but its veracity is none the less. For instance, there are some people who would say, "I don't want to know if I have cancer. The knowledge would ruin my remaining time alive." Not knowing that one has cancer does not change the reality of it. It may be more comfortable to not know, but its existence is a fact nonetheless. I forget now who said it or what the quote was exactly, but it was something
like- 'I did not exist for millions of years before I was born, and I don't recall the slightest inconvenience from it.'

I’ll take what I have in Jesus over what you have any day of the week.

If Jesus is what it takes for you to be happy, then by all means, continue to believe. For me, I don't define what is real by what is comfortable. "It makes me happy" is about as poor of a measure of reality as one can conceive.

The bible never teaches that the world is flat, just the opposite: the bible teaches that the world is round, even though for years many believers thought the world to be flat. Check out this verse: Isa 40:22

22- He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Interesting verse. However it seems to make the case for geocentrism, and it also describes the Earth as a circle, when it's not, it's a sphere (there was a hebrew word for ball which would have been more accurate if the authors knew that the earth was actually spherical). It talks about the heavens 'like a canopy' over the earth, hardly an accurate description of the universe. It is an accurate of what ancient people thought though, a flat earth with the stars being mere pinpricks of light suspended on a dome high above the earth.

In fact, there are Christians that still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This is why the refusal to accept evolution on biblical grounds is disturbing to us skeptics. Go here to see why the bible contradicts reality on the the Earth's shape and movement- http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/ Many verses talk about the corners of the earth, the ends of the earth, etc.

Also, one can make a strong case that the bible supports geocentrism. Josh 10:12-13- Implies that the sun is in movement, and that god commanded that it stop. Also Psalms 93:1 is used by some to say that the earth does not move so indeed the sun must move around it.

This is the problem when you use an ancient text to stand up against the scientific method. People will believe all kinds of weird things just because it is written in the text, and ignore good science simply because it contradicts scripture.

I am really saddened by your insistence that evolution is your all in all answer for these things. You truly cannot look at the human body and at least be in awe that the heart keeps pumping, the brain functions as it does, fingerprints are all unique, etc. etc.? I mean even if evolution is the reason we came about, you don’t see how amazing the human body is? I just don’t get your inability to see the awe of the human body.

Of course I am in awe. Awe does not equal supernatural origin. I am in awe of classical music performed by talented musicians. I am in awe of beautiful poetry, art and movies. Things that are big usually leave people in Awe- The Grand Canyon, Hubble telescope pictures, the amount of money Bill Gates has, etc. When our rational mind cannot explain something, often the sensation that fills the void is awe. Certainly I am in awe of the human body, as well as all of these other things, but that does not mean that I am willing to dismiss proven natural mechanisms for their origin in favor of supernatural ones. If I stay in a house that is reportedly haunted and I hear strange noises in the middle of the night, is that evidence for undead spirits or is ancient plumbing more likely?

"Feelings" and "Awe" do not replace the requirement of scientific evidence to come to rational decisions. Bush "felt" that God told him there were WMDs in Iraq. Either he was wrong or
god wasn't very helpful with the details of their location. Again, feelings, awe, and faith, are poor methods at arriving at the truth. The scientific method is the best way we have found to date to arrive at valid conclusions.

What do you mean Josephus’ statement is a forgery. What evidence do you have for this? I have “The Works of Josephus” from a non Christian publisher and the quote is there, so what’s up with your claim????

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm. Here is one of many sites.

And regarding Jesus: all that is in the Holy Land today concerning His life is a big joke? All the places the bible speaks of that he ministered in are there to see today (Jerusalem, Garden of Gathsemane, place of His death, Sea of Galilee, etc.).

I'm not sure what is meant by this. To say that the bible is historically accurate because it takes place in historically real places is like saying that Spiderman is real because the comic book takes place in New York City.

What about the 500 eyewitness accounts, many of which were martyred for faith in Jesus:
all made up?

As I have said before, Martyrdom is not proof of anything. Just because Muslims are blowing themselves up on a daily basis does not mean that they are going to receive 72 regenerating virgins in the afterlife.

The first hand accounts of his life and ministry: fabrications? The book of Peter written by Peter saying he saw it all with his eyes. John saying in 1 John that his hands handled the evidence. Luke a physician giving a precise account. So what if written 40 years later. That has common in that period. Oral tradition was common. You have to be kidding me that you just discount all this stuff and more?

A lot of what I have read says that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mike, Luke, and John were not written by the actual disciples they are attributed to. Mike was the earliest one written, with the others coming much later, and even Mike was at least 40 years after Jesus' death, which means that they were all third-hand accounts at best.

How can you rationally say that you do not even believe Jesus existed?

I'm not sure I'd say definitively that Jesus did not exist, but historically, so many of his traits were common to many other previous pagan gods (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8A7DD3268ECA2F83, http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godmen, htp://www.thegodmovie.com/index.php). This makes a compelling case that Jesus was quite possibly a reinvention of previous Gods, which was not an uncommon practice of the time. Do I think that there was a real philosopher named Jesus who lived around that time? There very well may have been. But what I don't believe is that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and flew into the sky. I don't believe these things for the same reasons that we both disbelieve in the claims that Muhammad was visited by the archangel Gabriel, and that the angel Maroni visited Joseph Smith.

Read “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell and “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel.

I'll try to read them when I get a chance. I just started reading "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. I recommend that both of you read this. At only 90 pages, it's hardly more than a pamphlet, but it does a great job of eloquently laying out the position that most of us atheists ake.

By saying “Open your heart” I do not mean your literal blood pumping heart but the inner part of who you are. The part within you that cries out for love and meaning and purpose and eternity. If you will sincerely from this part of you seek God, I know He will show Himself to you (Jeremiah 29:11-13), unless you are so unwilling to yield if He does show Himself to you, and if that is so, then it is your pride and self-reliance that is keeping you from God, and if that doesn't change, then you will never know God. We must humble ourselves. I sincerely hope you do not have such pride that you will forever miss your Creator.

For the record- I sincerely do seek to know God's presence, as I've said. I'll also go on record as saying I'd bet that almost all atheists (>90%) also want to know if God really exists. I was willing to let Him show himself quite dramatically on your show this past spring, as you'll recall. I also know that in his omniscience, he knows how to show himself to me in a way that will compel me to believe. So I will continue to humbly await that sign. Until then, I will disbelieve.

-Infidel

PS- please forward me those verses you mentioned that condemn homosexuality. Thanks.

(9/18/07)

M: I am not sure what it means then that this would demonstrate that Genesis is wrong? Perhaps what you mean is that this would be evidence against certain literalist young earth creationist positions. There are many who would still state that Genesis is true in that it shows God as creator and sustainer - which I think is the primary teaching in Genesis 1-11.

I think this is dodging the truth. I can respect literalist interpreters (even though I think they're wrong) because at least they maintain that the bible means what it says. Once one starts down the road of "well, that's not supposed to be taken literally," then we have a situation where a person can take the bible and make it say whatever they want it to say, and it becomes worthless as a source of knowledge or morality. When the bible says that God formed Adam out of dirt, and Eve from his rib, and the earth was created in 6 days- It means what it says.

This smacks of the tactic that says: "Hey Christian, unless you interpret the entire Bible literally, you are playing fast and loose." That is simply a way to back someone into a position that no one would take - that all of the Bible should be taken literally - because no one believes it to be true. This seems like you are advocating a position that says genre, culture, theme - all the analytical tools we bring to bear on any ancient manuscript - do not apply here because
you say that they do not.

You can go back to the earliest Christian writers and before that Hebrew scholars and you will find a lively and thorough discussion about whether the creation accounts in Genesis are entirely literal, partially literal or figurative. One would also find that virtually all believe that the central theme being communicated is that God is both creator and sustainer. Or you can chose to ignore that and simply demand that I defend one position. ;-)

Why is mining this rich tradition of thought not worthy of respect? If you are not familiar with it, it may seem like I am just pulling things out of thin air. I assure you I am not.

Best regards,

Mike

My Debate with a Pastor (Continued)

(9/11/07)

Saul & Mike,
Just a quick question I had: Why don't we see God demonstrating himself more like he did in the Bible? In the Bible, He led the Isrealites with a column of fire by night, and cloud by day, fed them with mana from the sky, parted seas, rained down brimstone, stopped the sun in the sky for a day, spoke from heaven, raised people from the dead, cured blindness, destroyed armies with columns of fire, etc.
Why don't we see any of that today? I'd find it easier to believe He existed if I saw any of this.
-Infidel


(9/11/07)
Infidel,
I think for several reasons:
1. I don’t know fully. How’s that for a start!
2. Sometimes our lack of faith. I do hear about this stuff happening more in 3rd world countries where they aren’t as “intellectually sophisticated” and perhaps hindered by this.
3. It is happening in ways that I think we often miss really recognizing. Every time our blood clots I think it is a miracle of God.
Just a few quick thoughts before I go to a meeting. Good to hear from you. I am back on the air on Saturdays from 11 – noon.
Saul


(9/12/07)

Saul,
See my replies to your responses below:
Saul wrote:
I think for several reasons:
1. I don’t know fully. How’s that for a start!
I can appreciate this as an honest answer.

2. Sometimes our lack of faith. I do hear about this stuff happening more in 3rd world countries where they aren’t as “intellectually sophisticated” and perhaps hindered by this.
Interesting. So the reason god doesn’t show his power by raising the dead, wiping out disobedient nations with divine fire, etc is because of our lack of faith? Seems far more reasonable to me that these 3rd world countries that are “intellectually unsophisticated” are simply wrong in interpreting events as divine. I’d be willing to bet that if I took a TV and a remote to an isolated tribe who’d never heard of one, they would regard me as a god for my power to create images at will from across a room. These cultures you mention probably still believe rainbows are magic and do rain dances. This is not an illustration of God’s willingness to show himself to these people, it is instead an illustration of their lack of knowledge about how the world works.

3. It is happening in ways that I think we often miss really recognizing. Every time our blood clots I think it is a miracle of God.
So is it a miracle when a chimp’s blood clots? How about a bird’s? Is it a miracle when DNA replicates? How about when there are errors during replication? Is it a miracle that my pencil falls to the floor reliably when I let it go? Is it a miracle when the sun rises every day? Is it a miracle that there exists this computer for me to type on? How do you differentiate between what is a miracle of God, and what is simply nature?
This skirts the question I posed. Where are the columns of fire? Where are the parted seas? Where are the men with superhuman strength? Since none of it has been reliably witnessed, it seems far more likely to me that they are simply fables.
-Infidel


(9/12/07)

Infidel -
A question about the problem of evil/suffering. Would you personally believe that it is evidence against the the existence of God because:

(a) Any evil/suffering at all exists?- or - (b) The degree to which evil/suffering exists?
I find that the vast majority of atheistic philosophers would not claim (a). Considering the amputee site, I was wondering what your position would be.
Mike


(9/12/07)
Mike-
I guess I'm not not sure how to answer that. I'd say the problem of evil becomes more obvious when major events happen (natural disasters, severe birth defects, etc), but I suppose that when it's boiled down, one could say that it's a problem with the presence of evil at all. And personally, I'd say it's more a problem of pointless pain/suffering- end-stage cancer, etc. It's clearly a contradiction to the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.
-Infidel


(9/13/07)
Infidel,
Great to hear from you again. I only have a little time today so this will be brief:


Evil due to man’s action is simply because out of love God gives us freedom of the will, and because we do not obey Him we do bad things that hurt others and God. God as a loving Father hurts more than anyone over how the people He created misuse their freedom of the will and thus bring evil into the world.


As for the other issues, pain in life and suffering is not pointless and certainly doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, because through pain and suffering many have come to experience the love and mercy and compassion of God.
Saul


(9/13/07)

Saul,
Where was the god-father in this instance?- http://midwestatheist.blogspot.com/2007/08/boy-5-doused-in-gas-set-on-fire-by.html


Where is the “love, mercy, and compassion” with these children?- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY


Also, I’m still waiting for god to show himself to me. Why don’t you think that he has? Is it moral of him to cast me into hellfire because I will not believe without good evidence, especially because he is the one withholding that evidence? Like I said, if god exists, I want to know, so why won’t he show me the evidence?

Infidel


(9/14/07)

Infidel,
He has give you evidence! Look outside and behold His creation. Look at your awesome body and behold His marvelous creation in giving you blood and kidneys and a heart and ….. And He has given the greatest evidence of His reality in coming to earth as a man (Jesus) who loved you enough to die for yours sins so that you could be forgiven and have a living, daily, intimate relationship with the God of the universe. I don’t say these things as some religious cliché but as the truth declared in God’s Word. I truly believe if you are willing to open your heart (not just your mind) He will show Himself to you, it just might not come in the exact package you are expecting.

Let’s keep talking,
Saul


(9/15/07)
Saul,
Let me point out the problems I have with your last e-mail:

Infidel, He has give you evidence! Look outside and behold His creation.
As I've said, there's nothing that can be seen in nature that requires a supernatural creator to explain it. In fact, when looking at nature and observing geology (strata layers, fossils, etc), plate tectonics (look at how the continents used to fit together), biology (the fact of evolution), and many other fields, it actually is evidence against the bible. If the world is only 6000 to 10,000 years old (as the bible says), then there is no way to reconcile this timeline with the timeline necessary to form the geological, continental, and biological remnants that we can witness today.

Look at your awesome body and behold His marvelous creation in giving you blood and kidneys and a heart and …..
I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but evolution is more than adequate to explain all of the biological evidences you cite. Evolution is a fact (and a theory), and is almost universally accepted among elite biological scientists. There is no need to posit a supernatural creator to explain natural phenomenon which need no such supernatural intervention.
Even Francis Collins (evangelical head of the human genome project) said:
Evolution is about as solid a theory as one will ever see....
you cannot claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old unless you're ready to reject all of the fundamental findings of geology, cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology. You really have to throw out all of the sciences in order to draw that conclusion.

And He has given the greatest evidence of His reality in coming to earth as a man (Jesus) who loved you enough to die for yours sins so that you could be forgiven and have a living, daily, intimate relationship with the God of the universe.
There is little evidence to confirm that jesus even existed. There is no contemoporary account of his existance. Even the earliest gospel wasn't written until at least 40 years after Jesus' death. Your previous example of Josephus has been shown to be a forgery, and it's a shame that it keeps getting trodded out as proof.
Next, I question the logic and sense behind the self suicide of God. See my previous post for this.
Also, where is this "living, daily, intimate relationship with god" that I'm supposed to have? I've told you that I desire to know the presence of god, and that it would be extremely easy for god to show himself to me. Yet he refuses to do so, so I must continue to question.

I don’t say these things as some religious cliché but as the truth declared in God’s Word. I truly believe if you are willing to open your heart (not just your mind) He will show Himself to you, it just might not come in the exact package you are expecting.
Again, I've said that I'm willing and eager to know of god's existance. I'm not sure what is meant by "open my heart". It is an overused cliche. My heart is an organ that pumps blood, nothing more. But I am desirious of this knowledge, so I don't know what more you think he expects of me. So I continue to wait for some real evidence or experience to change my beliefs. Until then, I maintain that it is immoral of God to punish me for his withholding of evidence that he knows in his omniscience that I require to believe. Belief is not a choice. It is a result of experience and knowledge. One cannot choose to believe something. They either do or do not believe it based on their knowledge and experience.

-Infidel

See The Full Debate Here