Who the hell is God?

72 Responses to “SO JESUS DIED FOR MY SINS?”

1. By Matt Whaley on Apr 11, 2009 at 4:59 pm | Reply

   “But hang on, what was he saving me from? God’s judgement? He’s God though, so if he wanted to save me why not just not go through all the bother of getting nailed to a cross.”

   I went to a Good Friday service at my church, and afterwards we went to a coffeeshop/bar and were talking about this very question. One guy said something that made sense to me, by relating it to our legal system. He equated God’s law to the laws of our land. If someone breaks the law here there is some legal punishment. If someone breaks God’s law (aka sin), there is a consequence for that. According to the Bible that punishment is spiritual death – eternal separation from a holy God who cannot co-exist with sin. So the analogy of Jesus’ death was like me being convicted of a capital offense but the judge allowing someone else to be put to death in my place since the law demands a punishment. If there were no punishment the justice system would be artibrary, and therefore null and void. It made sense to me, so I thought I’d share.

   “But dude, couldn’t you have just not created the serpent in the Garden of Eden in the first place, I mean surely that would have saved the both of us a whole lot of trouble, right?”

   I think this is the more difficult question. If God is truly God then he had to know how everything would turn out, as you said. But he chose to create beings that would willfully turn against the one who created them. You said, “If God wanted us to all be as dumb as bricks, I think he would have made us bricks.” That made me think…if God hadn’t have created Lucifer/the devil/the serpent/whatever you want to call him with the ability to freely choose to love him or not, he might as well have made bricks. Or at least robots that just did whatever he wanted rather than spiritual beings/humanity.



2. By Anne on Apr 11, 2009 at 5:07 pm | Reply

   I was going to say something similar. God didn’t want us to be bricks, he wanted us to choose. Choose God or don’t choose God. Real love is a choice.

   There is more but I have think on it. Real love is a choice. Where do I go from there?



3. By Bob on Apr 11, 2009 at 5:39 pm | Reply

   Great post SImon. I think I’m in Matt’s ballpark though his explanation my not be perfect I don’t know I could give a better one. I can add that love always feels better when you know a person is choosing to love you, not made to love. Then it’s just superficial.



4. By marcie on Apr 11, 2009 at 8:47 pm | Reply

   i like this line you wrote: “I don’t understand a lot of things that I willingly accept, like drugs, electricity, and sleep”

   Keep questioning God and you will find the answers, slowly over time. if it all came easily, it wouldn’t be worth garbage. and i can’t explain it to you and neither can anyone else – you have to have it for yourself. i love it that you are out there searching. and don’t accept any crap. get the good stuff.

   I think the only thing that’s sacrilegious or whatever is to give up and just consume your life like it’s a nice tall glass of milk. I mean, great – enjoy it. but dang it, save a drop so you can question and figure it out. that milk came from somewhere. someone got you that glass. don’t be a dope and just take it for granted.

   that’s why i like this site. you question the milk.



5. By Existential Punk on Apr 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm | Reply

   THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for your honest reflections. Christmas and Easter as ritual have no meaning for me anymore. My faith is one i wrestle with everyday and don’t need two special holidays a year to make it more special. i am grateful everyday even in my doubts, questions, and uncertainties. Reading a GREAT book called ‘The Christian Agnostic’ by Leslie D. Weatherhead from the mid 1960’s that still has much relevance today. He says, ‘I am writing for the Christian Agnostic, by which I mean a person qho . . .though he is sure of many Christian truths, feels that he cannot “sign on the dotted line” that he believes certain theological ideas about what some branches of the Church dogmatize.’

   i too have similar questions about G-D and why G-D chose to do certain things. i really do not see the Adam and Eve story as anything other than a metaphor rather than a literal happening. Still truth to be found despite not believing it to be a literal happening in time.

   i also agree that G-D gave us a brain and abilities to reason and question. WE are not Stepford Wives for G-D’s sake! We are not supposed to check our brains at the proverbial door.

   Enjoy your time at the ‘beach watching the sunset, awestruck by the wonder of God because I can, to some degree, understand that much of him.’

   Warm Regards,

   EP



6. By Chloe on Apr 12, 2009 at 8:20 pm | Reply

   You want to take a look at Kierkegaard’s ‘Philosophical Fragments’ fella…not an attractive prospect for someone who professes a dislike of reading…but he has an interesting idea of faith…a holistic idea i think…



7. By Tim Mills on Apr 12, 2009 at 8:36 pm | Reply

   The Biele says:
   But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8 NAS)
   The death of Jesus was God’s (the Father’s) demonstration of His love for us, that He would sacrifice His Son for us.

   John 3:16
   “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
   God gave His Son so that we could have eternal life.

   Romans 14:9
   For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

   1 Cor. 15:3-5
   For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, [4] and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, [5] and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

   Galatians 2:20-21
   “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. [21] “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

   1 Peter 3:18
   For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

   The Bible taks about this so much!
   God is good, but He is also just. The penalty for sin had to be paid. We could not pay it ourselves, we are tainted with the sins we try to expiate. Besides expiation only satisifes the demands of the Law, and does not provide propitiation. Propitiation was necessary to satisfy God. Sin is personal, so propitiation is required and not just expiation, which is impersonal.
   You expect God to just “write off” our sins, and not satisfy His justice?
   If God were to forego justice, then all the sins and wrongs of the world would simply not count, not matter; but they do matter. They matter very much; they matter to God. The woman raped wants justice, not just healing. The blood spilt by murderers cries out from the ground for justice.
   Yes there is a mystery to the way God does things, Isaiah 55:8-9
   “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
   Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
   [9] “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
   So are My ways higher than your ways
   And My thoughts than your thoughts.



8. By Simon Jones on Apr 15, 2009 at 2:57 am | Reply

   I understand the concept of wrong doings needing to be punished or at the very least addressed. But it’s something of a head bender isn’t it. I mean if you’re a parent could you put your child to death if they did something wrong? I assume not, so why then could God, and that’s the reality as I understand it. If you don’t believe in Jesus then you’re going to be sent to hell by God your father.

   You know what though, here’s the thing… I am not sidetracked by this question. I thought about it a lot over the Easter weekend, I didn’t pray so much as I just kinda mentioned it to God in my head in passing, you know like a kind of “Oh by the way, I’m sorta thinking about this thing.” After that the whole question sort of faded from my mind like something that wasn’t overly important.

   I don’t understand it, but I kind of got this feeling that I’d be missing the picture if I stood to close to the painting to examine this small part of it. In fact, that seemed to dawn on me this weekend like something of a revelation, that I do stand too close to the painting sometimes and that I need to step back and remember to look at the whole picture more often.

   I feel like maybe I’ve been wandering around a gallery like an art critic who has forgotten how to just spend time enjoying great art.



9. By FreeThinker on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm | Reply

   Simon, I don’t usually recommending books to people, but you sound to me like you would really benefit from and enjoy a book called ‘A course in Miracles.’ You can find it on Amazon but there is a website you can also check at http://www.acim.org. I think you would find the book very enlightening.



10. By Ray on Apr 16, 2009 at 1:23 am | Reply

    Simon, I have a radical proposition for you. Why don’t you drop all the confusion and start from square one? Your intuition and reason are obviously giving you warning signs; you can’t make sense of these things and are looking for answers. That’s good, but my friendly advice would be to take a deep breath, take a step back and be 100% honest with yourself. You will then notice a few things:

    - Although you’re skeptical, you’re still willing to believe things blindly, such as the basic assumption that the Bible is in any way significant in describing reality. Ask yourself: Is there any proof to support that? Why should the Bible be true? Why not the Quran? Why not any of the countless other scriptures of other countless religions? Why do you buy into the existence of the Christian god? Is he any more probable or is there any more evidence for that particular god’s existence than for any of the thousands of other gods that human mythology has provided?

    - Many people who are offering you their answers are actually not helping you because they are simply making assertions and re-phrasing the very claims you’re having difficulties with. Do their explanations really convince you?

    - Some people are criticizing you for the very act of questioning. They might call you a blasphemer or “too proud to be Christian”, etc. But what does that really mean? It means: Shut up, don’t think, blindly follow the claims of this religion without asking for evidence. It means: You’re a bad guy for using your brain and trusting your reason and intuition — you better feel bad about yourself. My advice: You can do without these people who have nothing better to offer than trying to make you feel guilty.

    Look at the core of the matter. Don’t accept any assumptions. Don’t build on any unsubstantiated claims. Be brutally honest with yourself. If you’re really trying to make sense of it all, you owe that to yourself.

    I guess what it comes down to is: Why are you struggling with details of a theology which is almost entirely certain to be man-made?



11. By skye on Apr 16, 2009 at 8:05 am | Reply

    I have to agree to some extent I dont think that the details particularly matter if we spent time pndering every detail we would never make any decisions to follow God. I find theology mindbending but aside from all those arguements I have found God and I know that this can be true of anyone else. He’s not looking for theologically correct people He’s looking for us to come as little children not knowing all the answers just trusting that God is our Father and that He has our wellbeing on His mind. It was necessary for Jesus to die on the cross because no other sacrifice would do to save mankind from His sin it says that He could swear by no one greater than Himself to establish His plan in the earth Hebrews 6v13. Jesus isour example of how we should live our lives on the earth, a servant, afriend, a son, and a child. He had to come as a man so He could sypathise with our weakness and show us how we can walk aside from our weaknesses Hebrews 4v15+16. We are to be obedient even to the death of ourselves which is our own will and lusts Romans and find out what is the good pleasing and perfect will of God Romans 12v1+2. He is good and He has a plan to prosper you give you hope and a future He doesnt want to harm you Jeremiah 29V11.
    God just wants you to have faith and come to the cross as a little child and accept that this is just the way He has chosen to do things and He will make known to you the details along the way Revelation should be apart of every believers life and we need to put the books and intellect down and allow God to speak to us directly, dont make faith complicated it doesnt need to be. Look upon the child and act like the child and God will make Himself known to you, A child doesnt know anything except simple faith



12. By Rodney on Apr 16, 2009 at 2:19 pm | Reply

    Simon:

    You’re being bombarded with a lot of information. I pray you don’t end up confused.

    Easter falls on various dates because it is based on the Jewish calendar, not our Roman-based solar calendar. The Jews celebrated the passover, which falls on the first full moon after the vernal equinox (the first day of Spring). Jesus died on the Friday of Passover, before the Sabbath, and rose again on the Sunday, the first day of the week.

    It’s ironic that I just read today, there were two reasons for Christ’s death, one-for us, most obviously, but two- for Himself. What He got out of Christ’s death was a people that would be cleansed from sin so that He could be in relationship with them. Titus 2:14 verifies that by saying “Christ died to redeem us from sin, and to set aside for Himself a peculiar people, anxious to do good works.”



13. By Rodney on Apr 16, 2009 at 2:33 pm | Reply

    I’m going to add to my earlier comments by saying, you’re doing the right thing. Apostle Paul wrote in Romans (chapter 1, verse 20) that “the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” The light of creation should lead you to seek God, and as you have been told by many people before, when you seek Him, you will find Him. That’s what He wants you to do…and when you find Him, you’ll know beyond a shadow of a doubt, like the rest of us Believers, that God is real. You’ll then be able to share your knowledge with other skeptics and unbelievers. You absolutely should ask questions, because scripture admonishes us to “get an understanding,” and the only way to do that is to ask sincere questions.



14. By Ray on Apr 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm | Reply

    Rodney and skye:

    I’m not trying to be difficult, but how exactly does someone know they’ve found God? Sorry if I seem to be nitpicking but please describe exactly how this happens. Because it seems to me that anyone who is religiously inclined or has a desire to “find” God will at some stage convince him-/herself that they’re at that point, even though it could be nothing more than wishful thinking. What I’m saying is, anyone could reach a state of peacefulness, confidence, feeling uncaused love for the whole world, you know, that kind of thing. Great and sublime experiences certainly, but why call it “God” and specifically, why associate it with the Biblical concept of God? Does He actually then speak to you and say, “Yep, it’s me!” ? If so, do you hear voices? Do you physically see a being in front of you? The reason I’m asking is that most of the responses to these questions are very vague and unconvincing, along the lines of “it’s an inner feeling”. Well, any delusion is an inner feeling.

    My other point remains, too: On what basis do you think the Bible is telling you the truth? You have no way of verifying anything in it directly. Don’t you see the problem with trying to justify anything when you’re using mere claims and assertions as the basis of your whole worldview?

    Certainly, some of the teachings of the Jesus character are wonderful (some of it not so much). Why can’t you find inspiration in a virtuous life *without* buying into the whole other story, like virgin birth, original sin (a disguisting concept), redemption through divine suicide/murder etc? At least be honest enough to admit that there is no way you can claim these things to be true.



15. By Rodney on Apr 16, 2009 at 5:29 pm | Reply

    Ray:

    Okay, so you mean to tell me after years of trying, nature finally figured out the water cycle? After years of trying, nature finally figured out people need earwax in their ear to protect the ear canal? You mean that after millions of years, nature finally figured out that bisexual reproduction is better than asexual? You want to talk about deluded? Would you ever believe that the wind blew through an airport hangar and after years of blowing, an airplane developed? Obviously no one would ever believe that. So why do we believe that years of evolution brought about this cosmos, and the systems in it? Why can’t we believe that a God designed the human body and other fascinating systems in this world? Evolution IS falling apart, but yet, people still continue to believe it. There is no 100% proof of evolution, but its “validity” is not questioned.

    In terms of how does one know when they’ve found God, I know that I have “found God” because my life experience remarkably resembles that of scripture. For example, I see the hand of God in the events of my life, which underscores what the bible tells me that “the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord.” Then, as I study the bible, I find where a scripture in the old testament is clarified in the new, and vice versa. The package comes together and makes complete sense. Yes, I acknowledge there is a lot of feeling involved, but the majority of times I have to operate by what I know is contained in scripture.

    Which leads me to this point, I am inspired by scripture because subjective man cannot give me objective truth. To illustrate, there are some preferences that are up to me, such as determining the color of the car I want to buy. But I cannot take that same car and drive 100 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. There is a way we are supposed to live to best enjoy life, and in order to find that out, why not discover that way from the one who created and designed life? Man cannot truly determine what is truly ethical, because the nature of man makes him subjective. Truth has to be objective in order for it to be truth, and its source has to be objective. That source has to be above the fray, and must be able to see all sides in order to be objective. That, remarkably, resembles the God of the bible.



16. By Simon Jones on Apr 16, 2009 at 6:01 pm | Reply

    Thanks for your comments Ray. I have actually asked the question about how someone hears God and how they don’t know they’re just insane Go have a read of that post.

    As for committing “divine suicide/murder” I have to say I haven’t really ever heard of those things, but rest assured Ray, I’m not about to strap explosives to myself or seek to kill myself or anyone else.

    You make some good points though Ray, and believe me, they’re not new to me,. However, I appreciate you making them nonetheless.

    I’m no scholar, but I’ve not seen any evidence to suggest that “evolution is falling apart” as Rodney suggests (perhaps you would like to cite some evidence for us Rodney?) and personally I have no problem with the concept that God could use the evolutionary method to be creative. If I think of the way I design stuff much of those ideas evolve so evolution seems entirely reasonable to me.

    I’m still exploring this, and I appreciate hearing peoples opinions. That’s partly the reason why created this blog.



17. By Ray on Apr 16, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Reply

    Rodney: I’m not sure why you bring the “evolution vs. Design” subject into this. It does not answer my question. Anyway, creationism in all its forms has been so clearly disproved over and over, forgive me for not having the patience to go into that anymore. It’s simply not an argument worth having for any adult human beings endowed with average intelligence and a minimum of honesty.

    Your second paragraph is more to the point of answering me. Thank you. But I’m sorry to say, it’s still too vague and inconclusive. Anyone can claim they see the hand of God in the world or their life. The fact that you think the things you observe in your experience “remarkably resembles that of scripture” is hardly proof for anything. I can pick any piece of literature, philosophy or whatever and then notice certain correlations between that and my experience. And it is still a) selective and b) does not provide evidence for the claim that it’s a divinely inspired/revealed source of information.

    “There is a way we are supposed to live to best enjoy life, [...]”

    Says who? You can’t prove that, it’s just something anyone can claim.

    “[...] and in order to find that out, why not discover that way from the one who created and designed life?”

    Again, you presuppose that *someone* created and designed life. It’s alogical fallacy to argue from that. I’m sorry but it just doesn’t hold up.

    “Man cannot truly determine what is truly ethical, because the nature of man makes him subjective.”

    The idea that man cannot be ethical or have functioning morals without religion is an ancient claim that also doesn’t hold up to scrutiny: Remember, for instance, that *every* advancement in human rights has been made *against* the will of religious institutions. Think of the abolishment of slavery and serfdom, the right to free opinion and speech, and a host of others.

    As a species, we have an innate and intuitive sense of what is “right” and “wrong”. If morals only came by way of the Judaeo-Christian God, then humanity would not have made it that far in the first place. If the first 100000 years of humanity could not have depend on its own sense of ethics, there would have been wholesale murder, genocide and mass theft, rape etc. The human race would have lasted a couple of centuries, at most.

    In conclusion, you’ve not really offered anything new and convincing. I don’t want to abuse Simon’s blog for a long, useless, debate here, so I’ll just leave it at that and sincerely wish you all the best. From my subjective heart.



18. By Ray on Apr 16, 2009 at 6:15 pm | Reply

    Simon, ah looks like we posted in parallel..

    “As for committing “divine suicide/murder” I have to say I haven’t really ever heard of those things, but rest assured Ray, I’m not about to strap explosives to myself or seek to kill myself or anyone else.”

    No, I’m not referring to suicide bombing by believers. I mean the idea that Jesus was murdered for our sins. And since he’s God in human form and knew it would happen, it’s therefore also suicide. I’ve explained the whole original sin/salavation/atonement thing to various people who’ve never dealt with Christian theology and the unanimous reaction was “That’s totally sick.” Well, I’d have to agree.



19. By Rodney on Apr 16, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Reply

    Simon:

    I find this site quite useful http://www.icr.org/. The phrase “evolution falling apart” is my terminology, based on much information I have read and heard which seems to effectively refute evolution.

    I believe in MICROevolution, but not MACROevolution. I believe there are small changes in species over time that allows them to adapt to their surroundings, but I do not believe one species became another. My understanding is that the fossil records do not show transitions between species.

    Theistic evolution seems contradictory. You’ll have to explain that concept to me.



20. By Rodney on Apr 16, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Reply

    Sorry Ray. I guess I brought in the evolution argument because I misunderstood your first question.

    And creation has not been disproved.

    But, as you stated Ray, I won’t use Simon’s blog to argue.



21. By Simon Jones on Apr 16, 2009 at 6:37 pm | Reply

    Evolution is a whole different subject. It’s one that is a great deal of fun to throw around in the pub over a few beers. “So where did the molecules that made life come from then?” and “It’s an interesting theory, but at this stage it’s still just a theory” are the kind of things you hear a lot of in those conversations.

    The thing I like about any scientist that really respects science is that they are happy to have their theories disproved. As yet nobody has disproved evolution just as nobody has proved creationism.

    But as you chaps both point out, we’re heading off subject here



22. By Mark Raggett on Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47 pm | Reply

    “Remember, for instance, that *every* advancement in human rights has been made *against* the will of religious institutions. Think of the abolishment of slavery and serfdom, the right to free opinion and speech, and a host of others.”
    Don’t forget you’re on the blog of an Englishman. William Wilberforce. Yeah we beat you to that one, all because of a religious man. I’m pretty sure there are other examples but one will do to contradict your “*every*”.



23. By Ray on Apr 16, 2009 at 11:32 pm | Reply

    Mark, I seem to recall that Wilberforce wasn’t quite representative of the Church’s stance at the time. Why didn’t Christianity think of rectifying the slavery situation *before* the 19th Century? Correct me if I’m wrong. I’d never deny that single figures or dissenting groups have managed to do good. But as far as I know, the Bible is still the de facto standard work for Christian orientation. And in there, slavery (amongst other things) is expressly encouraged, both in the OT and NT. Universal secular values always had to be fought through a wall of religious “backwardness”.

    “Yeah we beat you to that one, all because of a religious man.”

    Who is ‘you’? I assume you mean Americans. I’m neither American nor English, but I see what you’re trying to say. The idea that morailty and ethics can only come from God is still absurd.



24. By skye on Apr 17, 2009 at 9:01 am | Reply

    God resists the proud and gives Grace strength to the humble and He will not reveal Himself to you just to prove a point. He is not a man like us and we can not understand His ways until we have been saved and born into His Holy Spirit. When you meet God you know it because you walk away changed forget the rest of the arguements about getting the world saved God is interested in you being saved and changed so that your life your opinions and your ways change and dont resemble the life you lived before. God works in Faith and He heals people who have faith, saves people who have faith and reveals Himself to people who have Faith. God is the rewarder of Faith and of them that diligently seek after Him not arguements and debates these things never change anyone you can not convince someone that God exists they have to find Him for themselves otherwise its manipulation. I cannot convince you that God exists I can only show you by the example of my own life. Gods people lead by example not fine sounding arguements. I know that the life I live now doesnt resemble the life I lived before and it is changing the lives of those around me and Im sorry Ray or anyone else for that matter if you are waiting to be conviced by man through debate that God exists you will be waiting along time because that is not faith. You must believe that He is God and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek after Him. God gives us the Faith that we need to be saved and come to Him in the first place this is not a manmade effort.



25. By Rodney on Apr 17, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Reply

    Thank you Skye, for correcting me. You’ve reminded me of the scripture that says “the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to those of us that are saved, it is the power of God.” Apostle Paul then went on to say (quoting something God had said before) “it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

    Simon, as I thought about your blog, I thought to myself you can keep asking the questions “why,” but I’m afraid there will never be a good enough answer for you. Some things you just have to accept that “it is what it is.” Not saying that you can’t ask any questions, however, you’ve already said you accept electricity, I think you should come to a point where you say the same thing about God. Either you believe that He is, or you don’t; accept it and move on. Christ died, either accept it or don’t. Some things you’ll learn if/as you pursue a relationship with Him.



26. By Simon Jones on Apr 17, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Reply

    Skye: “Im sorry Ray or anyone else for that matter if you are waiting to be conviced by man through debate that God exists you will be waiting along time because that is not faith. You must believe that He is God and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek after Him.

    I don’t agree with that. The “You must believe” bit of that statement reads as a command which if I am honest is deeply off-putting. I think that perhaps what Skye probably meant was that first you must be open to idea that God is the rewarder of them that diligently seek after him.

    The problem with saying things like “You must believe” is that it puts a barrier where a bridge should be. If I don’t believe but I am open to the concepts of your faith I am still an outsider when demands like “you must believe” are made. Language like that creates a exclusivity that sets a divide, creating a ‘them and us’ situation.

    People find it easier to walk across bridges rather than scale walls.



27. By Ray on Apr 17, 2009 at 2:30 pm | Reply

    The Great Pumpkin exists and will pumpkinize all those who do not believe in Him. Salvation is only possible by standing on your head for exactly 7.5 minutes every morning (except Thursdays) and uttering “Puuump” on the in-breath and “Kinnn” on the out-breath.

    I am completely serious. This is true because I know it in my heart. Don’t ask me why and don’t dare question it. Repent now and convert to Pumpkinism, ye wretched heathens! If you don’t you’ll be damned to being forced to listen to an Everlasting Loop Of Jason Donovan Records. In all eternity! Some things you just have to accept.



28. By Simon Jones on Apr 17, 2009 at 2:36 pm | Reply

    Ray, you’re a Pumpkinist too! That’s great! I’ll see you at the Pumkinist conference this year in Hamburg! I’ll be in the traditional dress of an Orange robe with the green bobble hat. Mind you I guess all of our brothers in Pumpkinism will be dressed the same to won’t they. Whatever, I trust in the great Pumpkin that we will find one another and embrace as brothers.

    



29. By Rodney on Apr 17, 2009 at 2:50 pm | Reply

    Okay. Bring the Pumpkin pie! Don’t forget the whipped cream! We can also talk about how the pumpkin evolved from elephant droppings!



30. By Simon Jones on Apr 17, 2009 at 2:59 pm | Reply

    Rodney wait, I can’t agree with you on that. I know it’s a minor thing, but come on, I think it’s fairly clear in the book of Cucumber that The Great Pumpkin evolved not just from the elephant droppings, but the dung beetles that ate the dung and fertilized the ground that from which our Lord Pumpkin grew forth.



31. By Ray on Apr 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm | Reply

    Hey Rodney, nice to see you’ve glimpsed the Mysteries of the Pumpkin. A slight correction is in order, though: The Great Pumpkin is in fact the First Squash, nothing existed before Him. He only incarnated into mortal fruit flesh form by way of evolved Elephant droppings. His real, formless form still remains unaltered. Hence, the Holy Duality. But don’t worry, that’s a little subtlety that trips up a lot of Believers in the beginning.

    Simon, I’m exalted to have found a Pumpkin Brother! Looking forward to the conference, and, more importantly, to be united with your Squashy Essence in the Eternal Patch once we leave behind our mortal shackles.

    Cucurbita in eternam!



32. By Rodney on Apr 17, 2009 at 3:27 pm | Reply

    Well Ray, thanks for the clarification. I believe now!!!!

    While we’re on the way to the Pumpkin festival, let’s stop at the airport and wait for the wind to blow through the hangar and watch an airplane develop, because the Great Pumpkin knows they’re not engineered, the just develop by natural processes. Silly, deluded people who think they’re designed. Oh, and I probably shouldn’t throw out the jello in the back of the refrigerator that has mold in it, because again, the Great Pumpkin knows it might be the start of a new cosmos!!!



33. By Ray on Apr 17, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Reply

    Rodney, the Pumpkin just revealed to me that you’re still struggling with a slight misconception, and that I am to guide you. So he inspired the following writings: http://xrl.us/747rodney



34. By Rodney on Apr 17, 2009 at 4:21 pm | Reply

    I’ll read that after that airplane comes into existence. So you’ll have to wait a couple billion years before we can discuss the Great Pumpkin writings. Have fun at the Great Pumpkin conference.



35. By Ray on Apr 17, 2009 at 4:35 pm | Reply

    “I’ll read that after that airplane comes into existence.”

    Umm.. you’re already sitting in the plane, so to speak. Refusing to face facts is even more fun than going to conferences. I envy you for the way you make life so simple for yourself. I can’t bring myself to do that, though. Bummer.



36. By Lisa Joy on Apr 18, 2009 at 12:00 am | Reply

    LOL! I love how these posts can lead into the ridiculous.

    I am not going to go into the reasons for my disbelief here. They are many and varied but as a scientist I suppose I am never going to believe in something I see as illogical. I spent many of my teenage/early 20s researching and thinking about it and have come to my conclusions irrespective of my Catholic background and my friends who at that time were all religious people. Not going to go into my opinions on Evolution here as it is off the subject but even most churches accept evolution, albeit as an instrument of god.

    Anyway on the subject! I have no problem with forgiveness and if there was a god him/her forgiving sin etc. I just think more personal responsibility is required.
    The biggest issue I have with forgiveness is the belief that IF there is a heaven and hell, I as a non-believer automatically go to hell no matter how I try to live. However somebody who has committed all sorts of atrocities but then accepts god back into their life and is forgiven can therefore go to heaven. I think I’d rather go to hell!



37. By Ralph on Apr 20, 2009 at 10:04 pm | Reply

    Simon, great questions, so some basic concepts.

    Why did God allow man to sin? The answer is that he knew it was for the greater good. If man had never sinned, then we could walk with him like Adam and Eve, but we’d never need faith, and unless we have faith we never learn to love him in a deep way, thus God allowed man to sin.

    Why did God have to die? The answer has to do with the concept of covenant. God made a covenant with Abraham and Abraham’s descendents. A covenant is like a strong form of a contract in which the two parties are bound to the terms of the covenant until one of the two parties die. God’s covenant was with the people of Abraham, i.e. the Isralites who later became the Jews. So in order for the covenant to end, God had to die, which is what he did on the cross. He ended the covenant for a greater good, and that is to begin a new covenant of grace and to bring in the whole world to that covenant. So that is why Jesus had to die, to fulfill the old covenant and to begin a new covenant that you could be a part of.



38. By Ray on Apr 20, 2009 at 11:00 pm | Reply

    @Ralph: I know your answer was directed at Simon, and I don’t want to interfere, but allow me to add some input on what you said.

    “[...] and unless we have faith we never learn to love him in a deep way [...]”

    That’s plain nonsense. I don’t need faith to love someone. If I love someone and have that love reciprocated, then I’ll develop faith (trust) in that someone. But the order is: First, I know there is someone (because I can see him/her). Then, there might be love. Then, only after that, faith comes in, so it’s not “blind” faith. Anyone can verify this in their experience. Did you have faith in your parents before you were born? Can there be love of or faith in a girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/etc before they actually first show up in your life? Of course not, and for any personal god the rules can’t be different.

    It’s pretty condescending and, frankly, stupid when religious people say you have to have faith in and love for someone/something when you have no evidence at all that he/she/it even exists. I know that especially Christians like to make a big noble thing out of this “struggle”. They’ll say it’s a “test of faith”, that everyone goes through it at some point, bla bla bla. Which is circular argumentation. I can’t see anything great about people getting guilt complexes because they’re having a hard time to believe in something without reason. What a waste of time.

    The existence of Abraham is far from certain, according to real world research. Don’t take my word for it, study some unbiased sources. There are good reasons for the conclusion that he was an idealized, archetypical figure uniting various historical figures.

    Independently of that: The whole story of the Old and New Covenant is just that: A nice-sounding story, which I might actually enjoy in a fantasy novel. But you have absolutely no acceptable reason to simply assert it as literal truth. As always, you owe us the evidence for your claims, not vice versa. Simply citing the Bible as evidence is like citing The Lord Of the Rings as evidence for the claim that Sauron really existed and bit the dust because a hairy-footed little guy chucked a ring into volcanic mass.

    @Lisa: You make some good points, especially about forgiveness vs. punishment for unbelievers.



39. By Simon Jones on Apr 21, 2009 at 11:12 am | Reply

    Thanks for the comment Ralph, and to everyone for their comments. The whole “you have to have faith” thing is a tough one. I completely see both sides of that discussion, Ralph’s and Ray’s.

    I think it’s the “having to” bit that I struggle with. How does someone come to have faith?

    Ralph would probably quickly dismiss a lot of what I think is God as something else. Like when he says there is no evidence of God, I don’t agree. I see God in many things, but this is because I am willing to accept the concept of a creative power. The God I believe in fits around the science we understand, by that I mean I don’t think the world is a 6000 year old place that was populated by Adam and Eve and flooded when Noah built the arc.

    Faith is a leap I am prepared to make, but in doing so I don’t want to abandon my ability to test, question, and doubt.



40. By Ralph on Apr 21, 2009 at 11:18 pm | Reply

    Hi Simon,

    Just a quick reply, as I’m on my way out the door. I think when you said “Ralph” in paragraph 3, you meant Ray, because I would absolutely agree with you about what you say when you see God in creation. This is nearly exactly how I came to believe. And there are even passages in the Bible which talk about what you are experiencing, which is called the “Natural Law”.

    Romans 1:20-21
    20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
    21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

    Simon, you don’t have to abandon your ability to test, question and doubt. That is what I do constantly. I don’t think that you will find a better combination of faith and reason than you would in the Catholic faith. I grew up in an agnostic family and I went to college and have studied a scientific background. I am a critical thinker. And I have found this faith to be true.

    God has already started nudging you, Simon. Just the fact that you are looking for him is an urging from God. God knows how to help you find faith. You just have to be patient about it, patient with yourself. If you start looking for him, he will reveal himself to you.



41. By Ralph on Apr 22, 2009 at 1:19 am | Reply

    Hi Ray,

    There is a God, and you know what? He loves you very, very much. And he longs for you to return to him.

    God Bless.

    Ralph



42. By Ray on Apr 22, 2009 at 1:20 am | Reply

    How exactly does one see God in creation? I’m fascinated by “creation” too, i.e. the physical universe, as well as my “inner universe” (the nature of consciousness et al). It is truly amazing to observe the sheer variety of phenomena, the way everything (well, almost everything) seems to “work together”. that’s one thing. But the idea that this has anything to do with, say, the god described by Christianity, has no basis in reality. Imagining that it’s all due to such a personal superhuman entity is probably an attractive conceptual model. For primitive man to do so is, in a way, excusable and understandable. But it’s the 21st Century, folks, and we know just a tiny little bit more about why things happen.

    I’m still waiting for someone to please explain

    how exactly God/Jesus reveals himself to believers, and
    how exactly one can “see” God in creation.

    Being in awe of the universe is fine. Inferring the existence of a specific supernatural entity with suspiciously human features seems — no offense intended — seriously problematic.



43. By Simon Jones on Apr 22, 2009 at 10:05 am | Reply

    Ray: “It is truly amazing to observe the sheer variety of phenomena, the way everything (well, almost everything) seems to “work together”. that’s one thing. But the idea that this has anything to do with, say, the god described by Christianity, has no basis in reality.”

    Come on Ray, that was a slip up. You did exactly what you criticize religious folk for doing, stating an assumption as a fact. If you are able to prove that God (any God) did not create the world, then you are the first person in the history of the world! But you can’t, as we both know. I’m not going to argue with you on this because there’s little point, but the “no basis in reality” takes your ‘no God’ argument to a place that quickly gets as close minded and ugly as all the things I find detestable about religion.

    How do I “see God” in creation? I have mentioned this before on my blog, but I see God in the sheer diversity, complex, and beauty of it all. I’m not saying science and molecules are wrong or anything as silly as that, I am just saying that I just think that something created this stuff.

    I guess it’s somewhat similar to the way beauty is different for different people. So where I might look at a girl and be blown away by the depth of her beauty, you might think she’s an ugly ol’ trog

    You see, I didn’t choose to see her as beautiful, that’s just how she seems to me. So I can respect that you don’t see God in creation, but I can no longer respect your claim that there is no basis for God in creation anymore than I could accept a claim that only your standard of beauty is beautiful.

    I don’t know how else I could explain that, so I hope that helps



44. By Ray on Apr 22, 2009 at 1:10 pm | Reply

    Simon, thanks for the reply, and I’m sorry if I seem to be harping on the same point like a broken record player, but this is a point where religious people can never give me a clear answer. All I want is to understand what exactly they mean.

    Just to make it clear: I don’t claim that it’s 100% certain that Yahweh (or Shiva, Ganesh, Zeus, Apollo, Thor etc etc) don’t exist. As you say, I’d be contradicting myself by doing so. It may be entirely possible that these gods, or some of them, exist. But for countless reasons, it’s highly improbably. But to claim with 100% certainty that they do exist is not feasible, either, especially since the “proof” believers cite is no real proof. It’s usually just claims made in books written by other humans, or personal opinions (“I feel that way” etc).

    So when you say “I am just saying that I just think that something created this stuff” that’s exactly my point. You think that something created the universe and then you infer the existence of a particular God. Question: Why specifically the Biblical God? Why not Zeus? Why not the trio of Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer and Shiva the Destroyer (these were written about millennia before Judaism/Christianity/Islam) ?

    I hope you’re seeing what I’m getting at



45. By Ralph on Apr 22, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Reply

    Simon,

    I found some podcasts that may be interesting to you on your faith journey. In particular this one:

    “God”
    http://media.podcastingmanager.com/0/7/6/7/1/126067-117670/Media/God.mp3

    and also this:
    “Faith”
    http://media.podcastingmanager.com/0/7/6/7/1/126067-117670/Media/Faith.mp3

    They have a little bit of a stilted feel because the narrator is reading from a book, but on the other hand what he is saying is very clear and I think this will make a lot of sense to you, Simon.



46. By Simon Jones on Apr 22, 2009 at 2:58 pm | Reply

    Thanks Ralph, I’ll check them out and I’ll also correct that comment where I got yours and Ray’s name muddled around.

    Ray, you and I agree on this to an extent and I am of the opinion that people who want to believe in God so be free to believe in whatever God they want. Where it gets into bad territory is when people start wanting to make sweeping rules or start wars because their God is right and my God (or lack thereof) is wrong. As you point out, without any resounding evidence to prove that Jesus is God and Thor isn’t, then nobody should consider that murder in the name of Jesus or Thor is righteous.

    People are guided by their feelings. So, as in my beautiful girl example, nobody but the saddest geek looks to disprove the beauty of one girl over another on some scientific beauty scale. People (thankfully) find different features beautiful and in their attractions they are willing to look beyond other aspects that someone else might not be able to overlook. I guess maybe the same is true with God and the God’s people choose.

    So choose one, don’t choose one. It’s up to you, it’s your choice and I would respect you either way. Where I think I would begin to feel disappointed is when a person (and this is not aimed at you) seeks to bash someone else over the head in an effort to prove their is no God, in the same way that some people bash others over the head in an effort to prove their is one.

    I’m asking questions, I like to ask questions. I’ve been annoying people for years by asking questions and I am not about to stop asking questions. I will be seeking answers until the day I die, because I believe to questions drive us forward, and I think you and I probably agree on that too.



47. By Ralph on Apr 22, 2009 at 9:32 pm | Reply

    Ray, you said “Why didn’t Christianity think of rectifying the slavery situation *before* the 19th Century? Correct me if I’m wrong. ”

    You’re wrong. http://users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html Slavery was condemned by popes, and this was recorded as early as 1435.

    Keep in mind that there are many kinds of slavery, some which are actually valid (read the link). The kind that most people think of when they hear the word “slavery” (racial slavery) was not really used until that same 15th century, and Christianity (apparently) immediately condemned it.



48. By Ray on Apr 23, 2009 at 2:20 pm | Reply

    Ralph, thanks, that’s an interesting read.

    I did say in an earlier comment that I won’t deny that certain figures or groups within the Church have always managed to do good. Yet usually in opposition to the mainstream. Now the point remains, why did it require Papal Bulls and other edicts to let Christians know that slavery is not good? If it’s true, as Christians claim, that moraility and ethics come from God and the Bible, then surely Christians wouldn’t have needed those orders from Popes and words of admonition from a few selected “progressives”? Surely they should’ve known that it’s wrong via their God/Bible-induced morality and acted accordingly?

    Okay, let’s adjust the time frame by 400 years — 19th century to 15th century. That still leaves us with ca 1400 years of Christianity in some form or another. In which no unified attempt at abolishing slavery was made. In which it did apparently not occur to Christians that it’s wrong. Which contradicts the claim that morality and ethics are attributes ascribed to belief in God and adherence to the Bible.

    The distinction between various forms of slavery is valid, and I agree that there are degrees in how “just” (and thus, how despicable) a particular form is. Yet in the end, the notion that a person loses all personal rights and becomes the posession of another person (or group/intitution) is morally not justifiable. Serfdom and even voluntary slavery as a debt-repaying mechanism or as punishment is not acceptable. The comparison with modern criminals who work while in captivity does not hold for the reason that the modern prisoner — at least, in Western democracies — does not surrender all personal rights to the State/government etc. A prisoner is not a slave. That’s a fine but important distinction.

    The article also tries to justify the situation by saying that the Church was “politically weak” and that it couldn’t influence the political and cultural customs of the time that much. This is plainly wrong. The strong ties between the Catholic Church and politics in Europe for many, many centuries contradict this claim. The church and political leaders, and aristocracy in particular, cultivated an alliance that served both sides well. Again, usually at the expense of the lower classes, who suffered exploitation at the hands of this opportunistic alliance. This is documented history, so I won’t need to go further into that.



49. By Simon Jones on Apr 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm | Reply

    Okay guys, I don’t wish to be rude, but as we’re now WAY off the original topic of the post, perhaps you might want to exchange email addresses or something? It’s not that I don’t enjoy a lively exchange, I just think that as this seems to be an exchange between just the two of you, maybe there are better ways for you to do this?



50. By Ray on Apr 23, 2009 at 4:04 pm | Reply

    Hehe, somehow I saw this coming

    It’s notoriously difficult to stay on-topic when discussing religion or philosophy because sooner than later the foundational assumptions of the philosophy or religion need to be referenced, which in turn leads down many roads…

    So, no, you’re not being rude, it’s your blog after all. Thanks for your patience and thanks to the others for a civilized discussion. It’s all too often that differing opinions just lead to ad hominem attacks. Extra respect for my religious “opponents” for not threatening me with eternal damnation



51. By Rodney on Apr 23, 2009 at 5:04 pm | Reply

    Simon:

    I’ve always known there is no absolute tangible proof that God exists. We’re thousands of years removed from the writings of the bible, and therefore, it is easy to question whether it is even real. My belief in God is mostly by faith, but I do believe the evidence of nature points to a Creator, and not the product of mere random chance.

    However, I think you and Ray are right…I should never beat anyone over the head that chooses not to believe, just like I don’t want evolution forced on me. You have asked the questions of why we Believers believe what we believe, and we have attempted to answer. I think that’s all we can do is defend why we believe it, you do with it what you will. And Ray, no, I will not “threaten” you with eternal damnation . That is a part of our faith, but if you don’t believe it, it’s no threat to you. Somewhere, we’ll figure it all out. Simon, I wish you the best in your pursuit.



52. By Ray on Apr 23, 2009 at 6:09 pm | Reply

    “Somewhere, we’ll figure it all out.”

    Hear, hear! Wise words, Rodney. At the risk of sounding cheesy: Even if we disagree on the “little details” (understatement intended) now, we can all rest assured that the truth, whatever it is, will remain unaffected by all our human ignorance and confusion. And since we all are in the same boat, we should respect each other in our search, even if the search for truth takes us on different paths.



53. By Simon Jones on Apr 23, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Reply

    THE END [Roll credits]



54. By Shane on Apr 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm | Reply

    Simon,

    I am just trying to catch up here because my life has ben a little hurried lately. But. I hope you are doing great! I am smiling as I have read your post and the comments because you certainly have created a quite a community here. I have enjoyed reading all the comments. As for me, I’m not sure what I should add to the abundance of brainpower here; my head is spinning from all the different angles of thought.

    However, Simon, because I know you don’t like to read, I might suggest a book you can get on audio as well as hard copy. It is called “Letters from a Skeptic” by Gregory Boyd. I sure enjoyed it. It reads similar to this blog as a dialogue between someone who believed and trusted in Christ with a biblical world-view and his father, a long-time skeptic who thought it was all nonsense. I thought it was thoughtful as well as honest!

    Anyway,

    Hope you are well.

    Shane



55. By Simon Jones on Apr 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm | Reply

    I’m all about the audio books, so I will certainly get that one. Thanks Shane.



56. By Ron on Feb 16, 2010 at 2:43 am | Reply

    I am with Simon in my search. I thought that I would try and find a Jew that converted to Jesus to see what made him do it? This thought came to me one Sunday morining as I was driving. I tuned into a religious radio program and there it WAS. A Catholic priest (Jewish birth ) was just explaining why he made this conversion……..a commercial broke in and he would return later to explain…….Anxiety filled my brain. The program resumed and He went on to explain that he was driving around one day and suddnely he (a Jew) saw an apparition of the Virgiin Mary. And from that moment he was re-oriented. Here I am a poor Catholic boy and I do not get such visions . I would certainly scream to the world. Again the thought is why go through all of these theatrics to get some human attention. Why do we not all get these visions. Do we not all crave them.



57. By Sadie on Mar 7, 2010 at 11:01 pm | Reply

    I stumbled across this post quite on accedent. Thank you for posting it. It helps me better understand some of the questions that some of my friends have about God. I see you have attracted a large number of comments. A very contriversial topic in any Christian society. I think you make exalent point and am glad you are questioning. I think it comes out of a desire of wanting more understanding and truth and every where you turn people just say “Just love the Lord and things will be okay.”
    Obviously you do love God, possibly more than many declared christians. Your points are valid. “Why did Christ come to earth and hang on a cross when he ultimatly declares who is worthy?” Justice. He loves us. He is merciful, but justice trumps both love and mercy. Christ is like our parent. When we get really really stuck with no way out of a situation we can turn to our parents and they will help us out. We thank them and are grateful, but we don’t have the means to pay them back. No matter what we do we can not repay what has been done. By Christ coming to earth He lived his life in a way that he didn’t need a parent to ‘get him unstuck’. He is like the loan officer giving us a loan on righteousness. We are not perfect. We can not do it. He loves us enough that he came to earth to show us how to live, but when we fall we can turn to him, ask him for help, and he will help us.
    We can not return to live with God without being perfect. Christ is the only perfect one. He suffered and died for us to pay for our sins. Justice must be paid. Christ’s sufferings pay for our sins on the scale of justice. God allows that because of his love and mercy for us. Other wise we would all be doomed to a punishment like Christ to pay for our imperfections.
    Blind belief isn’t safe. Thank you for questioning. As we question we can learn through the insights of others. But, with all out questions we can as God. James 1:5 and 6 clearly states that when we don’t know God will give us the answers when we have faith, exercise it, and ASK GOD. As we pray things happen to help us understand.
    I don’t know that this has helped at all. Ultimately I believe the answer to your question is Justice commands even the judgements of God.
    As for why the serpant was put in the Garden of Eden I love that question. Without the serpant, and the tree of Good and Evil how would Adam and Eve ever left the Garden? The serpant was the initial opposition that began what we now face. Opposition is neccessary. Think about it. If you hadn’t had a bad day how would you know what a good day was? If you weren’t healthy how would you know if you were sick? If you never suffered how would you know the joy of peace? Adam and Eve didn’t know good from evil, they didn’t have lust or sex because they didn’t have those emotions they didn’t know how, without that they never would have had children. Had they not had children where would you be now? How would you have gotten to earth?
    If you have any questions with what I have said please email me at sadie_aveline@hotmail.com. I would love to hear from you and I hope that you understand God beyond just his love through his creations.



58. By Sadie on Mar 8, 2010 at 12:36 am | Reply

    I’m reading some of these other comments and I’m amazed at the confusion. Finding God is recongnized by a change of character….a change of heart as the bible puts it, but you don’t seem quite as keen on believing the bible.
    Before we came to this earth something happened. All the spirits (including you and I) were gathered around God and Jesus Christ(who are two different people) and Lucifer who is Satan. God presented a plan that we come to earth, gain a body, have trials, make CHOICES, and return. However, he knew that we wouldn’t be able to return so he said that he needed somebody to help provide a way to return. Lucifer said he had a plan that would help make sure everybody returned to live with God. In several of the comments there are things like ‘we are not robots’. Indeed we aren’t but, what if we were told what to do so that we would return and be able to live with God again. What if we were forced to only do good? This is the plan presented by Lucifer. God said that he didn’t want people to be forced. He wanted people to choose their way and prove that they desired to live with God again. Christ stepped up and told God. “I will go. Send me and you will have the glory. I will do Your will”
    As for not believing in God and being sent to hell I 100% believe that EVERY person is given a chance to understand him. It’s not the believing in God that condemns one to ‘hell’ but it is the going against what he has set forth as right and wrong. What is hell to you any way? Is it a physicall place or and emotional state of being? I believe it is both. Couldn’t hell be where we as individuals suffer as Christ suffered because we did not accept his atonement? If in the end ultimatly there is one God, the christian God, I believe we will suffer for not accepting Christ’s payment because the payment has to be made in order to fulfill the punishment of the rules that were previously set forth just as disobedience to what a parent set up as the rules is punished with a predetermined consequence.
    “we can all rest assured that the truth, whatever it is, will remain unaffected by all our human ignorance and confusion.” You said that and I think it is the ultimate answer to Ray’s questions of why the Christian God. Ultimately the truth is what comes forth and lasts. Christianity has been around and lasted much longer than many other religions. It is also, in my oppinion, what makes the most sense, which is why it’s followers are much greater. It is a religion of choice, you can choose to believe or not just as you can choose to follow God or not.
    Back to your original question. Why was Christ crusified for us? 1 Corinthians 15 verses 19-22 read
    “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
    20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
    21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
    22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. ”
    Granted you’d have to believe in the bible for this but his death was more than just to take our sins upon him. It had a second part, it was to allow us to live agian. We are not punished by Adams sin. He took of the fruit and now we all come to earth. We all live. We all die. But that was because of Adams choice not ours….sort of(it’ll take way too much explaining) Because we didn’t choose a physical death we will not be punished with one, or we will, but only temporarly. Christ came to earth, died, and was ressurrected as the first one to be ressurrected but just like we all live and die we will all live in our bodies again.



59. By Ray on Mar 9, 2010 at 5:56 pm | Reply

    Sadie, don’t you think it’s rather offensive to threaten me with eternal torture for not accepting something that some guy — who in fact may or may not have existed — did thousands of years before I was born? (“I believe we will suffer for not accepting Christ’s payment…”)

    Granted you’d have to believe in the bible for this

    Thanks for admitting that. Your whole house of cards is built on the premise that the bible is true. For which there’s still not a shred of evidence.



60. By Sadie on Mar 9, 2010 at 6:17 pm | Reply

    I did say that it was MY belief. I did specify that because I know that not everybody believes in that. I know all my assuptions are based on the bible, it is what I believe. After all, it has been accepted as holy scripture for an awefull long time by millions of people from a variety of walks of life. It’s true there is no hard cut evidence for this claim, but it is still my belief and millions of others. A very good friend of mine said “I don’t know why people look for evidence of religion because there indeed is none” Religion, or more specifically, God, is not seen, felt, known and especially explained by logic. Although we have a brain, we aren’t able to comprehend all that he can comprehend so he doesn’t give it to us logically.
    My arguments do rest in the bible which you seem to be unwilling to accept so I will not bother trying to convince you. But think about it. If in a home parents set a ‘commandment’ that nobody was to stay out past midnight and if they did they would have to pay $100. The punishment is the fee. If the fee is not payed another punishment is afixed, lets say more money. A child stays out until 4am and the next morning the parents ask where the money is. This child is given time to collect the money , lets say 3 weeks, a good amount of time, but not too long. At the end of three weeks the child only has $58 dollars. This child’s older sibling offers to make up the difference. the younger child accepts, however if he didn’t he would then have to make the other $42 dollars in addition to the new fee. This, I believe is an example of our suffering if we don’t accept. We are given the opportunity with plenty of time to accept if we do something wrong. It may not make sense or be agreeable but indeed the law was set and MUST be fullfilled, once again my belief based off the bible. I know you probably won’t agree. It’s not us suffering for not accepting but rather us suffering for what we did wrong because we wouldn’t allow somebody else, Christ, to pay it, suffer it, for us. That’s what the suffering is, our own punishment, not our lack of faith or belief.



61. By Ray on Mar 9, 2010 at 8:12 pm | Reply

    Sadie, thanks for elaborating. But what you did is explain cause and effect. Yes, we usually suffer the consequences of our negative actions, whether through those actions themselves bringing about unfavourable circumstances, us getting punished by the law, getting backlash from others, or simply having to live with a bad conscience. We know all that, they’re universal principles. What you’re doing, however, is bringing in a supernatural dimension, which is redundant. It does not add anything useful to what I described. It actually confuses matters since you’re talking about things for which there are no evidence. The mechanisms of cause and effect do not need Jesus or any gods.

    You point out that millions of people believe in the bible. So what? That does not make it true, or even more credible. Millions of people belive in the Qur’an, in the Baghavad Gita, various Buddhist sutras, the Book of Mormon, and so forth. By your logic, they must be true, too. Obviously, they all conflict with each other or downright exclude each other. So what is the truth, then? By what right do you claim your scripture is true and deny other religions’ scriptures as presenting the truth? There’s no foundation for that and if you’re honest, you know it.

    There’s an unfortunate tendency in our culture to give any idea credence, along the lines of “it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, as long as X believes it is, it’s true for X, so let’s not criticize it.” Well, it’s the 21st Century and that doesn’t fly anymore. Doesn’t it embarrass you to cling to a belief for which by your admittance there’s no evidence, is outside of logic and the content of which is “beyond our capacity to understand”? The time where believers could just concoct whatever they imagined and get away with it is over. You are no more sane than someone who keeps repeating, “I believe that Santa Claus exists, I can’t show him to you and nobody’s ever seen him, but I know that he exists. And I know what he thinks and why he does this and that.”

    There’s nothing admirable, courageous or noble about irrational “blind faith”.



62. By Ron on Mar 9, 2010 at 9:30 pm | Reply

    Everything (everyone) explains the Bible except the Bible. Mohammed re-wrote the Tome because it was such a hodge podge. It was wriotten very simplistically to keep the desert people engaged so that they would not get in trouble….idle l time is a tool of the devil. what better time killer then to memorize the Bible. Belive me it keeps a lot of people occupied….they are believers…you gotta have faith….that is the bottom line. I am still looking for the answers. Maybe at the next life…..if there is one ? Some one who has just converted must surely have the majical answer….hsare it with all of .IT MAY BE THE ONE.
    from a respectfully quizzical , fence staddling Catholic Boy (man)



63. By Ron on Mar 9, 2010 at 9:35 pm | Reply

    Sorry for the TYPOS, God Help me.!!!1

    I do have a great job in this economic climate , but only because I have a statue of St Joseph facing out in my window. SEEEEE I can believe.

    I have a majic cure all ….more later….unbeatable.



64. By Sadie on Mar 10, 2010 at 4:39 am | Reply

    Ray,
    I’m glad for your comments and your opposition. They are good points and hard to fight against. It’s hard to convince one who is unwilling to Feel for truth that it is there. Whether what I have is truth or not is beside the point.
    Have you ever read/heard of the book ‘1984′ by George Orwell. It is about a society that controlls its citizens making them believe and see only what the government deems is right. The main character tries to fight against the controlling government because he believes that it is wrong…according to what I know as society it would be deemed wrong. But right and wrong are subjective. Ultimatly despite his beliefs he succumbs to societys rules because of the consequences of opposition. Despite his way of living he still knows what he knows. He still believes what he believes. Despite what society says, despite what the logic shows and despite what has been presented to the citizens the main character is right according to the imformation presented to the reader. Logic shows that he is wrong, very wrong. But he isn’t and he knows it.
    I feel like I am in this argument with you. You are unwilling to bend you ideas and I believe I have the truth but I recognize that most don’t recognize my religion as being the ‘right one’

    “There’s an unfortunate tendency in our culture to give any idea credence, along the lines of “it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, as long as X believes it is, it’s true for X, so let’s not criticize it.” Well, it’s the 21st Century and that doesn’t fly anymore.”
    Why doesn’t this fly? Why can’t we accept each other for having different beliefs and knowing that others have different beliefs and they are entitled to believe what they believe if they allow us to believe what we believe. I’m not trying to convert anyone to my religion, although I whole heartedly believe in it I recognize that not everybody does or will. I like presenting my beliefs and my ideas because if they ring true, if somebody does have a feeling that they are true I’m ok with it. I accept that God is found only by feelings and although they may be conjured up within us if it is leading us to do good what is wrong with it? If religion is just invented for us and gives us a group to assosiate with or a reason to go on living or a way to make us feel better about ourselves what is wrong with it? I believe that there are strong positive emotions that lead us to God. That is my belief. I do not believe God can be found purely by logic. These are my beliefs that I’ve posted. Nobody has to believe them, but I’m declaring them becuase they have helped me progress in life, perhaps they can help Simon or somebody else.
    I have a friend that said “people become religious because they either want it or they need it.” I agree with that. I think that ultimatly we all need religion…or at least God, but we need it for different reasons. You’ll like to argue that won’t you. Once again these are my beliefs I never claimed them to be fact. I know them because of the feelings I’ve had. But that comes from my belief that feelings also come from God. Religion isn’t fact. I think it’s something more than that…it’s a truth that lasts and continues to come back like Christianity has. As for other religions I know very little about them so I don’t know their history. Just like others can believe them. I think a large contributing factor in what people believe is determined by what they have been exposed to. Just as this blog is based mosltly on christianity because that is what Simon has had experience with. That is a large reason why I believe what I believe. I don’t know the history and many of the beliefs of other religions. They are likely to be as right as various sects of christianity. I don’t know. I don’t know them, I haven’t been exposed to them and I’m very comfortable with my religion and have not had doubts or questions that have not been resolved from my religion so I see no need to explore other beliefs.



65. By Ray on Mar 10, 2010 at 4:03 pm | Reply

    Sadie,

    Thanks for a very honest reply. A few main points to clarify:

    I believe in religious freedom, that means people can believe what they want and nobody should be discriminated against or even persecuted because of their beliefs or lack of belief.

    I fully understand that religion makes people feel good, gives them comfort and hope, etc. Fine. However, I’m more interested in whether religious claims are true in the absolute sense, not how they make you feel.

    I disagree with you that there are “different” truths and that each person can have “his(her own truth”. Nope, in reality there is only one truth. A fact is a fact, a thing can’t be different things at the same time, ultimately. Either Jesus was literally born of a virgin or he wasn’t. Either there is a supernatural being who knows what we think or there isn’t. There’s nothing in between. It can’t be true for some people and untrue for others. Either it’s simply true (for everyone) or it’s simply untrue (for everyone).

    You say you’re not really familiar with other religions. How then can you dismiss them and stick with yours? Remember, not all of them can be right — they completely exclude each other. Either ONE of them is right or they are ALL wrong.

    I have a suggestion: If you’re interested we can continue via email so we don’t clutter up Simon’s blog (and stretch his patience), especially since much of this is probably not on-topic for this entry. Send me your email address to zendak [AT] hushmail.com (a “throwaway” address of mine) and I’ll reply privately with my real one. That way, we’ll keep the spambots away.

    Regards,
    Ray



66. By John on Mar 11, 2010 at 8:30 am | Reply

    First of all I am really glad that I found a site where people discuss religion without abusing each other. I have been thinking about a lot of stuff given in the Bible and some of it doesn’t make much sense to me. Some of it is related to sin. I see that God reacts to sin in different ways during different times like the following.

    There are a couple of instances where God punishes the sinners directly as in the two cases below:
    1. Major flood that annihilated everything during Noah’s time due to sin
    2. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins

    Then there is the whole crucifixation of Jesus to atone mankind of its sins. In this case God didn’t directly take it out on the human race. Instead he used a sacrifice.

    I can’t seem to understand how a supreme entity like God changes with time. If Jesus had come earlier, maybe the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah could be avoided.

    I have many many more questions which I am trying to get answer for, but I don’t want to spam Simon’s blog.



67. By JustMe on Mar 13, 2010 at 4:03 am | Reply

    Hello, Simon. I am so happy that I found your website. You have many of the same questions that I have had for years!

    This statement/question: “So Jesus died for my sins. Thanks Jesus. But dude, couldn’t you have just not created the serpent in the Garden of Eden in the first place, I mean surely that would have saved the both of us a whole lot of trouble, right? It’s not like you didn’t know how things would turn out!” is exactly how I feel.

    I feel that the bible makes “God” out to be selfish and cruel. I don’t see how a loving God could create humans if he knew that there was the SLIGHTEST chance that EVEN ONE of us would die and go to a place where they would BURN FOR ETERNITY. A loving God would rather be alone than to take that chance!

    Surely he knew that at least one of us would not believe in Christianity. And how can Christians so easily have babies knowing that there’s a chance their child or children will grow up and have a mind of their own and not believe in Christianity? They are taking a chance of that child going to hell, right?

    Why the fear factor? It seems to me that God would want us to love him for who he is and not because we’re afraid of going to hell. Why give us brains and FREE WILL if the only correct choice is Christianity, or burn in hell? That is not much of a choice, is it?

    It’s not that I don’t believe in God or even Jesus, it’s just that I feel that something went wrong somewhere in history and someone in power decided that we have to put fear in the people to make them act right – and there was born organized religion.

    Simon, I commend you for being openly able to express your views online because some of us (like me) are too afraid to tell people how I really feel. I feel that my family will not like me and make me feel like an outcast. They are very very religious.



68. By Simon Jones on Mar 13, 2010 at 9:06 pm | Reply

    First off, let me just say that I do not consider any of the discussions and/or questions above to be spam and you are all more than welcome to continue your discussions relating to this subject right here.

    Sadie, thanks for your comments. I have a few questions and points which I’ll throw out there for you and others to ponder.

    Addressing your first comment, I’m still confused in much the same way as I think the recent commenter, John, is. The whole Christ thing is a little confusing for me. The God of the old testament is a malevolent jealous God who frequently flies into a rage enacting gross acts of vicious hateful cruelty upon people and a world that we’re supposed to believe he loves. If this character were actually a parent in the flesh today he would likely be incarcerated for the protection of his children and the threat he poses to society as a whole!

    However, thanks to Christ, Angry spiteful God is somehow appeased by the fact that his ’son’ came to earth and died a violent sacrificial death at the hands of humans. Somehow this death, which he knew wasn’t really a death because “Jesus is alive” now atones for mankinds sins and angry God chills out and become this far more laid back, chilled out, and distant father from afar who now chooses to talk to his people through their feelings rather than in the bold, inescapable, and dramatic ways of the old testament.

    Well as you can tell, that’s something of a leap of understanding for me, and in some respects it seems like a cop out. Gods anger and wrath, and his close communion with mankind, the very subjects of his own creation, is somehow calmed by the appearance of his son who ‘died’ for us? And thanks to his sons pseudo death we now have to guess what God is saying through the minefield of human emotions, seeking out feelings and listening to Gods voice ‘in our hearts’ somehow knowing that this isn’t just us? I don’t know about you, but I kind of wish God would, at least a few times, go back to the direct methods he used to employ before he became such a chilled out, loved-up, peace and love God.

    You wrote “Adam and Eve didn’t know good from evil, they didn’t have lust or sex because they didn’t have those emotions they didn’t know how, without that they never would have had children. Had they not had children where would you be now? How would you have gotten to earth?”

    Thats an interesting perspective. So sex is inherently evil then? That actually explains why some religious people are so utterly screwed up when it comes to the question of sex and sexuality. I mean here we are, sexual beings, commanded by God to go forth and multiply, biologically created to become aroused for the purpose of procreation, but cursed with the use of organs that were put there for the sole purpose of sin by a God who doesn’t want us to sin. That’s very interesting.

    Again, that reaches back to the rather interesting question of why, if God knows the beginning and end or all things, did he deliberately build in a flaw that would cause such imperfection, pain and destruction? You wrote “Opposition is necessary” for us to understand, but I disagree. A team of engineers charged with creating an engine to get a spacecraft into orbit don’t build in flaws to their machine in order to appreciate their achievement that much more when it gets to space DESPITE the problems it was created with!

    You wrote “If you hadn’t had a bad day how would you know what a good day was? If you weren’t healthy how would you know if you were sick? If you never suffered how would you know the joy of peace?” I get what you’re saying but lets say that you went your entire life without knowing of the existence or taste of chocolate. Would this somehow spoil your enjoyment of fruit or other tasty foods? I put it to you that it would not. In fact I am quite sure there are many things I have not yet experienced and may never experience that might well enrich my life. But I base my understandings in the context of that which I know and while I may poorer in some respects for the things I have not yet experienced, how would I know this?

    Lastly Sadie, you wrote “I don’t know the history and many of the beliefs of other religions. They are likely to be as right as various sects of christianity. I don’t know. I don’t know them, I haven’t been exposed to them and I’m very comfortable with my religion and have not had doubts or questions that have not been resolved from my religion so I see no need to explore other beliefs.”

    I find this to be one of the most fascinating things about all religious people. The ability to believe unswervingly without knowledge of other religions, that yours is 100% right and that others are wrong is a quite amazing thing. For me it seems to walk a fine line between admiral devotion and willful ignorance.

    If someone refused to give up the notion that Santa Claus was not real then that person would be dismissed as a fool. However, rebrand Santa Claus as a deity and all of a sudden the whole thing becomes a different issue.

    Back to Jesus though, I still don’t get it. The entire notion that someone who may or may not have been around a couple of thousand years ago, actually pays some debt that I haven’t been presented with seems entirely bogus to me. To use the examples of a financial debt is fair enough, though it relies on me accepting that I have some kind of outstanding debt in the first place. Right now the notion of God seems plausible to me but to apply religion to this is where, if you ask me, we start getting into the realm of Santa Claus.



69. By Sadie on Mar 14, 2010 at 3:59 am | Reply

    I feel as if I’m being attacked more than many that have posted on this sight. As I’ve studied the scriptures I see how one may see God changing from rough to loving, however I think it is because of the different tone of the New and Old testement. The punishement of God is still in existance today, the tsunamis the flood in New Orleans, the earthquakes around the world. There are a variety of things that we now call natural disastors that the Bible depicts as punishments from God. Because the Bible was written by prophets they see the distruction of a nation, whether it be by ‘natural disastors’ or wars with other nations they are a form of punishment from God. However, the New Testement is written of the ministry of Christ and the apostles not as much the history of the people and their dissenting characteristics.
    As for communication directly with God even in the Old Testement, as near as I can recall, this is given to the prophets. Does that mean it doesn’t happen to others? I dont’ believe it has ceased, however I believe it is ONLY in accordance with our faith that we are able to recieve more inpressive confirmation. Does that mean because you believe you suddenly see everything as a sign and an answer from God? I don’t think so. But for some, maybe. It is only as I am more faithful, more obedient, more firm that I recieve a power that is unexplainable and greater than any feeling I could conjure.
    Sex is not inherintly evil, it is sacred. We have choices. It isn’t like we were given this flaw to apreciate all else, rather we were given choice. You wrote we are, “cursed with the use of organs that were put there for the sole purpose of sin by a God who doesn’t want us to sin.” Sex and lust aren’t sinful, the misuse of them is where the sin comes. They are there for procreation and in the world today, in my oppinion, they are largly misused which is why religion links sex with sin.
    It isn’t in the minute opposition that is as important as the larger opposition. If you hadn’t tasted sweet you wouldn’t know salty yet if you eat an orange you know sweet although you may not know it as well as if you had tasted chocolate or pure sugar. It is the major opposition that I am talking about here, not the minor details of opposition. Certainly the greater diversity of experiences one has the better one is able to appreciate what they have, however associating with what has been experience is the way to live. The point is, Adam and Eve hadn’t had experiences. They didn’t know even the most general, basic opposition which is why they had to be tempted by the serpant and partake of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. As has been pointed out my claims are christian and based on the Bible, there is no solid explainable proof for the validity of the Bible, yet I know of it’s truth because of the great power that I have felt that I can not explain with words.
    It is not with ‘blind’ faith that I follow. I do have faith in what I can not see, but as you said there are many things you don’t understand that you accept, they have come to some resolve for you. My religion, God, is better resolved for me than my own emotions. Although I use the term ‘I feel something’ it isn’t an emotion. As I said, it is something I can’t explain with words.
    As I’ve said, these are my beliefs. I fully admit I am not as knowledgable as many of the other commentors, but I know what I know.
    You said, “For me it seems to walk a fine line between admiral devotion and willful ignorance” This is not the first time I have heard similiar words. I’m not ignorant about what my religion teaches. I know it’s doctrine, although I have to continue learning it becasue there is so much to know and there are different levels of knowledge and faith. I don’t quite know what to say. I have always been surrounded by people who believe in God and have some form of religion, or else don’t care about it at all. Until recently I haven’t delt with people who are so conflicted and questioning about one or both subjects. It’s always been a part of my life. I know myself well enough that even if I were born in a place that had a different religion or no religion at all I would have searched out the religion I now have. I am that sure of it being the right religion for me. I do believe there is only one truth, one religion. I don’t believe it is my place to declare that as mine no matter how devoted I am to it especially when I know so little about the other religions, yet, for me it is the ‘right’ one. Perhaps that is why there is such a variety of religions, the teachings and requirements are different and different people react to them differently.

    For some Santa Clause and Christ could be synonimouse in their reality, but Santa is a symbol of Christ…another conversation.
    You said of Christ’s death, “Somehow this death, which he knew wasn’t really a death because “Jesus is alive….” I’d like to address this. Because he had power from God and lived a perfect life unlike anybody else has or will (once again relying on the Bible) he was able to break the bounds of death. He was able to raise from the dead and never will die again, a ressurection. This is something that everybody who has come to earth will experience. It isn’t reincarnation, it is coming back to the same body in the most perfected for it is able to be in and never departing again. It is a state of immortality that will be given after our death.

    Recently I read an article on the atonement. It talks about how Heavenly Father(God) has mercy for us, but Christ had to come down and gain mercy from the other ‘intelligences’ or spirits that will be demanding justice. Both the earth and the other inhabitants of the earth will be demanding justice. Like one of the early commentors stated, the raped will want justice. These victims will demand justice as well, i believe, as so many others. Christ came to obtain mercy from the victims for the perpetrators. That the victim may say, “well, after all you have suffered, after all you have done, If you ask for that perpetrator to come, okay” I don’t know if that makes much sense. I feel like I don’t explain myself very eloquently and I stumble over words. All the same, I still believe in God and Christ. I know they live. Thank you for letting me share.



70. By Simon Jones on Mar 14, 2010 at 12:12 pm | Reply

    Hi again Sadie. It’s my pleasure to let you and others share your thoughts and opinions, and I am delighted that you have taken the opportunity. Of course, when talking about religion to people who are not entirely in the same place as you, there is the risk you might feel attacked, but as yet I can’t see anyone attacking you here which refreshing as religious discussions can often become very heated indeed.

    I’m glad you have such a solid belief. That is admirable in so many ways. For you to claim that you would have found the very same faith even if you were born somewhere else is also a bold statement to make given that religion is often situational. For example, if you were born in Indonesia the chances are you would find Islam, if you were born in Italy you would probably find Catholicism, in India you would likely have found Hinduism, and Utah, USA, you would likely become a Mormon, proving that the kind of God you find often depends on what your nearest religious influence is.

    You wrote something interesting about Gods punishment still being evident today through natural disasters. That’s a striking statement to make and one that is perhaps for another time, but I’m curious, do you this all natural disasters are Gods punishment? You mentioned the tsunami (of 2004 I assume) which killed well over a quarter of a million people, and the devastating Hurricane Katrina which lead to the collapse of the poorly maintained flood protection in New Orleans. So I assume you also believe the earthquake in Haiti, the forest fires in South East Australia, the famines in Africa, and the floods in India and Pakistan are also acts of holy punishment?

    I suppose my point was that in the old testament, God seems to speak audibly to a significant number of people, and wonders that could only be from God (for example the parting of the red sea) are far more obvious than the subtle things people now attribute to God. Today God seems to have taken much more of a back seat, though I suppose if you believe that every natural disaster is an act of righteous rage then for you God is indeed no less active, and in some respects, thanks to 24hr global news media, he might indeed seem like a very busy (and angry) God indeed!

    Lastly, for me Santa isn’t a symbol of CHrist and I doubt many would look at fat Santa and see Jesus shining through. He seems like a very secular deity from where I am looking, though people have seen the face of Jesus on the underside of their clothes iron, in a naan bread, and even on a banana peel, so who knows
    (Note: I did write about ’signs’ in an earlier post.)



71. By Ray on Mar 14, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Reply

    I do not consider any of the discussions and/or questions above to be spam and you are all more than welcome to continue your discussions relating to this subject right here.

    Thanks Simon, I wasn’t sure what your policy is and I prefer to err on the side of caution. Sadie and I did have a friendly exchange of rather long emails. But I’d just like to point out a few things in light of the new comments.

    Santa Claus (or Father Christmas in much of the non-American English speaking world) is based on a legendary figure who appears in different cultures. Although the earliest roots are Christian, the emphasis is on his altruistic behaviour; the idea of him as a symbol for Jesus is a minority interpretation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Origins

    Simon, your thoughts on the Old vs. New Testament change in God’s character/role and the twisted logic behind Jesus’ sacrifice/”death” as atonement are well put and happen to be some of the earliest things I remember that launched my process of doubting as a child. The whole “atonement for our sins” and vicarious redemption thing is absurd and immoral when you really think about it. Christopher Hitchens has a good analogy:

    I don’t see what’s moral about Christian preaching, for example, apart from the horrible idea of vicarious redemption; I’ll say it again in case I missed you the first time what I mean by that … I can pay your debt even if I don’t know you. If I was a friend I could say, “You’re in debt? I’ll pay!” In extreme cases people have been known to say, “I’ll serve your sentence in prison”, I could do that for you. But what I cannot do is relieve you of your responsibility; I can’t say, “Throw your sins on me and they’ll melt away.” Immoral! You’re not allowed to be, you’re not entitled to be relieved of your responsibilities. And vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is a very primitive and horrible scape-goating idea that belongs to a barbaric period of human history.

    I did not ask for Jesus to be murdered for my “sins”. If I do something wrong it’s up to me to make amends. Nobody can forgive a perpetrator except the victim. Some guy being tortured to death (voluntarily perhaps, maybe on orders of his dad, or maybe it doesn’t matter since they’re supposed to be the same anyway) 2000 years ago does not absolve anyone of their responsibilities. It’s a rather sick idea. Christian apologetics find ever more creative ways to justify this but it all fails in the light of reason. And it fails in the light of ethics.

    Next, you can’t argue rationally with someone who says they’re aware that there are contradicting religions but who cling to their own brand, come hell or high water (it’s a figure of speech, not meant literally).

    Which brings us to the misanthropic, utterly disgusting phenomenon of calling natural disasters, diseases and other natural horrible things “acts of God’s punishment”. What an insult to basic decency. Do these people actually know what they’re saying? Hundreds of thousands of people suffer pain and loss, become homeless, starve, lose loved ones or die themselves because of a tsunami, hurricane, earthquake, a virus, or whatever. And the religious are saying that they deserve it. All of them, no matter what kinds of people they are, including those who’ve never hurt a fly in their lives. Usually in areas of the world where poverty and harsh economic/political/social conditions make life pretty shitty in the first place and daily survival is no piece of cake. Your “punished” sinners include every innocent child and baby (including the unborn ones — mass abortion, so to speak) who dies or is mutilated or crippled as a result of your oh so merciful and just God’s wrath. It’s when adult people spew forth such unadulterated contempt for humanity that I get angry. This has nothing to do with philosophical debate or mere differences of opinion anymore: They’re telling good people (the majority, who get lumped in with murderes, rapists, child molesters and other “not good” people) that the horrors they suffer are their own fault. This is the kind of stuff where my gloves come off. I come from the country with the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence in the world, have lost friends to it, and am always stunned when that’s called God’s punishment. No, I’m sorry, there’s no excuse for this kind of hatred for human beings and not having a shred of respect for the unbearable suffering in the world by implying that it’s the victim’s fault. Shame on you. And fuck you, courtesy of those who can’t defend themselves against this hateful shit anymore.

    Of course, there are forms of suffering that result from human mistakes instead of random natural events, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Although, no surprise, I have heard of people who claim the Holocaust was God’s punishment of the Jews for killing Jesus. Granted, very few Christians will drop that low, but think about it: If you have the twisted sort of mind that has no problem with God killing a quarter million people via a flood wave, you shouldn’t really have a problem with the concept of God killing six million people for getting his son nailed to a cross.

    But this is what happens when you don’t think things through. When you feed your mind with religious doctrine uncritically. When you “rationalize” everything to fit into the little comfortable bubble you’ve chosen to stay in.

    As I’ve told Sadie via email, in my opinion — based on many discussions and religious writings and speeches — the fundamental difference between believers and nonbelievers is that there are two extreme opposite ways of what each think is a valid approach to reality:

    For the nonbeliever/atheist/agnostic, what we know about reality and the nature of reality/truth is based on honestly examining evidence, using reason and logic to draw conclusions from what we observe, and to admit that while we don’t know everything (and make mistakes) these are the only reliable tools we have to get nearer to the truth.

    For the believer (whether in religious theism, New Age woo, or any other supernatural/metaphysical-based belief), all bets are off. Logic and reason don’t matter. Evidence has no objective standard; it is whatever they want it to be. They’re convinced of the absolute certainty of their belief. “Feelings” are taken as evidence for whatever they want to believe. They say there’s a “presence” or “power” that can’t be explained, can’t be demonstrated. Worst of all, many admit this. While that is at least honest, it leads to one conclusion:

    As long as we have different modes of approaching and describing reality, and even determining what it is, it’s completely useless talking about reality or the truth with dyed-in-the-wool believers. If it seems ironic that people like me engage in so much discussion despite that conclusion, it’s because there may be fence-sitters who’re not completely lost to their isolated world or the rare case of a believer who has doubts and deserves to hear that it’s okay to have doubts (instead of being made to feel guilty). Also, I personally am interested to hear why people believe the things they believe, it’s interesting and educational, although often disheartening to hear the “anything goes” arguments.

    Simon, to bring this back to the ideas you explore in your blog, and the question this entry asks: All these questions about doctrinal details and trying to piece a coherent understanding together are based on a whole bunch of underlying assumptions that actually don’t hold water. I’m not trying to discourage you or anyone else, it’s good to have this discourse and anyone has the right to question, doubt, reply, give their opinions, disagree, etc. But in the end, if you have a rational approach to reality, a specific question like “So Jesus died for my sins? What does that mean and how exactly does it make sense?” only works on the premise that 1) Jesus as described in the Bible actually existed and experienced the things written there, 2) there is a god as described in the Judaeo-Christian systems, and 3) the religious concept of “sin” is based in reality.

    So far, there is no evidence for any of that, contrary to what apologetics with their self-serving definition of “evidence” claim.

    In order to have a meaningful discussion about the question we have to pretend that these things are true. To date, we have no reason to even think it likely that they are true, so why are we pretending? It’s what we do in literary analysis: Why did Mr. X in novel Y do this and that? We speak of Mr. X as if he were real, for the sake of the literary discussion. But we know it’s fictional. In the case of religious discussion, I think it’s healthy to make it very clear that we’re talking about hypothetical entities and concepts. Matters are confounded by religious people who twist, turn and bend their own multifarious interpretations and claims any way they like, all the time. They even disagree radically amongst each other. We should stop pandering to that road to insanity and make it clear that the onus of proving religious claims is on the religious. It’s not up to normal, rational people to refute their claims.

    —

    To end on a light note, for those who confuse their own ideas what constitutes natural sexual behaviour with reality:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexual_behavior#Sex_for_pleasure
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior



72. By UncagedCardinal on May 31, 2010 at 5:06 pm | Reply

    Yes Simon, lots of Christian ‘theology’ is a rare puzzle. Ive been a born again, tongue-speaking fundi, read the |Bible more than oncwe, and yet STILL there is something I don’t get:
    One thing I still just cannot understand. …. if our ‘punishment’ for sin was that we be ETERNALLY separated from God and sent to hell (FOREVER, nashing of teeth etc) then why, if Jesus has FULLY ‘paid the price of our sin’ isn’t Jesus now FOREVER seperated from God (the ‘Father’ bit of himself that is) whilst FOREVER having his teeth nashed’ ?
    Why was Jesus raised after only ‘three’ days? ? Did God change his/her/its mind and reduce our ‘Forever’ punishment ?

    If you got a 50year sentence for murder, and i offered to spend a mere five days in a cell in your place, would ‘Justice’ have then been served?

    I just don’t get it.

    Oh yea, as well as being ‘born-again’ baptized (full dunk) glossolalia, ’slain in the Spirit’ etc, I was also a prof. musician for 35 years. (Cathedral Organist too).

    So, with regard to the ‘can’t appreciate a good day unless you experience a bad day’ argument. (which I once believed as True) I’ll use a musical parable/allegory to expose the falseness of this argument.

    I was booked to play Tchiakovsky Piano Concerto at two venues with a Northern U.K.Orchestra. Once in March. The other later in the year. (September)

    At the March concert, at the last minute, I decided to play half of the notes in the wrong order. The cacophany was painful. At the end, there was no applause from the few who remained in the audience.

    After the concert, the conductor, who was, (someone said) ’seething with righteous indignation’, asked me why I had ‘destroyed’ the Tchiakovsky piece.To which I explained that I had played all of those notes wrong, on purpose, so that when I play it correctly the next time (at the forthcoming September concert) the audience will enjoy it all that much more.

    I have since, always wondered why I got my face slapped that day and why they asked someone else to play the September concert. Some people are just sooo strange.