Let's bring Bertrand Russell's teapot argument to bear on something more germane than teapots in outerspace. As a believer in the diety of Christ, I make the claim that the remains of Jesus Christ do not exist. Now, if Jesus Christ himself never existed, this claim would not be spectacular, but it is a well-established historical fact that Jesus existed. Using Russell's teapot argument, I do not have to prove the non-existence of the remains of Jesus and I challenge any athiest to produce the remains of Jesus to prove their existence.

Ready, set, go ...

Jesus Christ's body rotted away.

And you are comparing apples to oranges.

I heardly think you can compare china floating in space to the innate need for a mover behind the universe.

Dear Christian ("Teapots and Jesus"),

It's true that you do not have to prove the non-existence of the remains of Jesus. It's also true that I do not have to prove the non-existence of unicorns. Why would I bother? If I believed in unicorns, don't you think it would make more sense to give reasons for their existence?

The issue here is the burden of proof. If I tell you that unicorns exist, you're going to ask me to prove it. To this I could respond, "Prove unicorns *don't* exist," and you'd necessarily be stumped. You can't prove unicorns don't exist--they could live on some distant planet in another galaxy. But is that a good reason to believe in unicorns? Of course not.

It is up to Christians to prove Jesus' divinity. The problem is that the evidence for Jesus' divinity is flimsy at best, and so we atheists don't bother believing in it. It's the same reason we don't bother believing in unicorns.

-LW in Kansas City

Dear LW
But there has never been reliable and reproducible historical evidence to support the existence of unicorns in the first place. This is not the case for Jesus. Do you dispute this? Weight of historical evidence counts for something and there is no arguing with the evidence for Jesus and the Bible. It would be deceptive or ignorant to claim otherwise, would it not?

JK in Lansing

What evidence? The scriptures? Yes, papers written generations after Jesus supposedly lived. I don't know about you, but if I was starting a new religion I would embellish a bit, especially in a time when people believe all sorts of supernatural crap.

Not one historian of that era, Jewish or Roman, wrote a word about Jesus. Odd that such an important man didn't make much of an impression on anyone in his time. Weird.

No, Sam. Nobody ever said that everything that exists must have a cause. What people say is that everything that CAME INTO existence must have a cause. Since the universe did come into existence (as most every reputable scientist says), it must have had a cause. Since there cannot be an infinite number of causes, there must have been a first cause. The first cause, we call "God" or "Yahweh" which simply means "I am," meaning that he always has existed, does exist, always will exist, and is therefore not limited to our concept of time, which is also an inherent and necessary quality of any first cause. But, of course, by your intellectual standards, you would equate this with belief in Zeus.

Oh, and by the way. No one could care less what natural scientists believe about meaningful philosophical questions such as the existence of a God. Science is not the sole criterion for understanding truth. The only reason believers give examples of believing scientists is to correct the misconception that because one looks at evidence scientifically, they must automatically disregard any belief in a supernatural being.

"Atheism does not assert that “it is all made by chance.” No one knows why the universe came into being. Most scientists readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not."

Actually, Sam, since you are an atheist, and not an agnostic, you wouldnt admit your ignorance on that point either. You absolutely believe there is no God. If youre just not sure, and dont know "why the universe came into being," then you wouldnt automatically rule out the existence of a God, and you would therefore be an agnostic, not an atheist.

Atheist have the burden of proof. ~All~ world-views have the burden of proof.

The problem with atheism is that it leads to a kind of "madness." Not in a psychological sense, but in a philosophical sense.

If atheism is true, how can we know anything? If God has not reveleaed himself to us, how can anyone trust his senses? Because yours senses tell you that your senses are reliable?

In philosophy, that problem is known as "the egocentric predicament."

If atheism is true, how can we predict the future based on the past? David Hume admitted that empiricism cannot overcome "the problem of induction."

If atheistic materialism is true, how can we have laws of logic? Or laws of mathematics? Or any other immaterial entity?

Of course, relgions like Hinduism have their own internal problems, but that entails a whole other debate.

another disingenuous statement:

"drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell…"

Catholicism never taught the above statement. it even says so in the Bible. Judgement is left to God and God alone.

ask yourself why is mr harris deliberately misstating the views of Christianity.

as for historians not writing on Jesus: what about Josephus? what about all of the philosphers that wrote on Jesus like Origen, etc.

Mr Russell's teapot analogy just seems so silly. what a waste of time. the fact that a teapot exists or does not exist matters not in the grand scheme of things. it is merely a means to point out that you cannot prove a negative. so what!

like in science and in life there are axioms:
axiom #1 is that God exists, has always existed, and was not created.

think science has no assumptions or axioms?
what about the physical laws are consistent across time and space?

He also states that the religious are arrogant. Another ad homiem attack. Who sounds more arrogant him or Mother Theresa?

mr harris sure does not hold his scientific views to the same standards as he holds the religious, does he?

We cannot, nor should not, be certain of the teapot, or God. If we were, we would have no free will.

God could easily show himself as a flaming pillar in the sky, or a gigantic quasar in the center of the universe, from which would proceed an unending oration of laws and decrees for humans to follow. How could one resist such a spectacle? He could even provide evidence of what would happen if one didn't obey.

Instead, we have chosen free will, and are pretty much on our own. God, however, asks us to willfully follow him in his quest for the preservation of human life and dignity. How do we know that God asks us to do this? That, as I have shown above, must be a matter inspired by faith alone and tempered, hopefully, by reason.

Odin Benitez
Burbank

Dear JK,

Perhaps you misread my sentence, "It is up to Christians to prove Jesus' divinity." My point was about his divinity, not whether he existed or not. Yes, he probably existed as a human being--but that's not really the big issue, now is it? Christians don't go around preaching that there once lived some random guy 2000 years ago. No, they say that he was divine. And proving that divinity is where it gets difficult and where the dishonesty usually begins.

-LW in Kansas City

Actually, there is no secular evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed. None. Since the scriptures detailing his life were written centuries after he was supposedly born by a person who admits freely that he was writing a parable, Jesus is more likely than not simply made up.

Is there an argument more fallacious than "There are no Jesus bones, therefore Jesus is the son of God"?

Tea-pot. What a vapid evasion. Either we are pure phenomena or we are not.

It is unbelievable that Mr. Russell's silly aphorism hasn't been blown out of the water. Let's see Russell puts God in his own head and then hides behind his own God to demagogically attack others--laughable.

He presupposes that he thinks, and based upon this assumption he then lashes out on the unprovable assertion of others--you have got to be kidding. What is the basis of his presupposition. Nothing. Nothing but his own faith.

We're not merely talking demagoguery here, but the height of hubris and vanity.

How may in the NAS rule out the possibility of God?

I'd like an answer, please.

'many'

"I do not have to prove the non-existence of the remains of Jesus and I challenge any athiest to produce the remains of Jesus to prove their existence."

Is the author serious? If I cannot locate the remains of "anonymous'" great,great,great,great grandfather's first cousin twice removed, would I be right to assume that "anonoymous" must therefore be calling from heaven? Or would it be more sane to assume that those remains either do not exist or cannot be located?

"Anonymous" does not have to prove his assertion that the remains of Jesus Christ do not exist only because he cannot logically make such a claim in the first place; he attempts to prove from the negative, precisely the point of Russel's flying teapot thought experiment.

So what.

First...please everyone...its "atheist" and "deity", not "athiest" and "diety". When you see those dots under the word, don't just ignore them...you spelled it wrong!

> Now, if Jesus Christ himself never existed, this claim would not be spectacular, but it is a well-established historical fact that Jesus existed.<

Well established by whom?

>Using Russell's teapot argument, I do not have to prove the non-existence of the remains of Jesus and I challenge any athiest to produce the remains of Jesus to prove their existence.<

We can't find the remains of Heracles either. Does that mean he really was a god, too. Brilliant logic!

Geoff Offermann

Let's see if I can digest this word salad.

> It is unbelievable that Mr. Russell's silly aphorism hasn't been blown out of the water. Let's see Russell puts God in his own head and then hides behind his own God to demagogically attack others--laughable. <

Bertrand Russell was an atheist. He has no god to hide behind. Is that so difficult for believniks to understand?

> He presupposes that he thinks, <

Do you suppose he didn't? Who do you think wrote that then?

> and based upon this assumption <

That was your assumption. I'm sure Bretrand Russell KNEW he had thoughts. I don't know about you, but I'm sure I do too.

> he then lashes out on the unprovable assertion of others--you have got to be kidding. <

That's the idea. Unprovable assertions need to be exposed.

> What is the basis of his presupposition. <

You.

> Nothing. Nothing but his own faith.<

To paraphrase Bob Dylan, "He had no faith to lose, and he knew it."

> We're not merely talking demagoguery here, but the height of hubris and vanity.<

Here's another teapot for you to ponder. It's the one here calling the kettle black.

Geoff Offermann

> as for historians not writing on Jesus: what about Josephus?

LOL...first of all, it is at best not a first-hand account and written decades after Jesus supposedly died. Second, it is widely disputed as not authentic and likely a later addition by later Christian authorities.

> what about all of the philosphers that wrote on Jesus like Origen, etc.

Even more removed, having been written in circa 240 CE. You have a very low bar for credulity regarding evidence.

> Mr Russell's teapot analogy just seems so silly. what a waste of time.
> the fact that a teapot exists or does not exist matters not in the grand
> scheme of things. it is merely a means to point out that you cannot prove
> a negative. so what!

Well that's the point isn't it? Atheists are asked, even here in this debate, to prove that there are no gods. We may as well try and prove there are no fairies, pink elephants, or talking snakes.

> like in science and in life there are axioms: axiom #1 is that God
> exists, has always existed, and was not created.

This is not an axiom. It is an unsupported assertion since I can just as easily state axiom #2: there are no gods. Both cannot be correct.

An axiom must be supported by its logic. One axiom is that things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. This is self-evident, unlike your statement above.

Geoff Offermann

As to your "well established historical fact...." If you read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty, you will see that it isn't either well establish or very historical. This excellently researched and presented book sheds a great deal of light on the origin of the myth of Jesus and the further compounding of this myth. The existance of Jesus is just another teapot in space. Certainly not an established fact.

Hi,

I think that this would have been easier to follow, had there been
two distinct debates: (i) Does God exist, and if so, is it the God
of either Judaism or Christianity and (ii) Does a belief in such
a God make a better society?

Why does SH claim that Collins decided to believe in Christianity
because he saw a waterfall? Collins' book makes in plain that
he believes in God for reasons that are much more rational.
(Whether you agree with him or not)

On point #(ii), SH simply ignores most of what DP says. DP claims
that societies that, by and large, abandon the Judeo-Christian
belief system (i.e Europe) cannot even reproduce themselves at
a sustainable rate, and do not have the moral clarity and/or
will to fight the Islamic fascists. SH has nothing to say about
that. In fact, he admits that his athiests are not great at
fighting the Islamic fascists.

DP claims that the most morally confused parts of the society
are the very secular Universities. After all, well after we
knew about the tens of millions killed by Communism, the professors,
especially in the social sciences, were much more sympathetic to
Communists than the average person. SH had nothing to say about
that.

DP claims that the movement to abolish slavery, the development of
science, the concept of the sanctity of man, etc.. came into fruition
due to the Judeo-Christian tradition. (See Rodney Stark's "For the
Glory of God"). SH has nothing to say.

SH creates a straw man by stating "And yet, there is no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer... everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell". Well,
for one thing, Judaism does not believe that.

Why is that SH uses terms such as "reprehensible" for those with
whom he disagrees? DP never says that atheism is reprehensible.

In fact, the folks who believe such "reprehensible" things
are much more likely to volunteer their time and money
(Even for secular causes) than Sam's gang of atheists.
(See the book "Who Really Cares": http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

Why is a leader of the U.S atheist movement, SH, so intolerant
of those with whom he disagrees? You don't believe in God. Fine,
but don't call those who do "reprehensible".

I have not yet heard a definitive argument for or against the
existence of God. However, after the movement that most embraced
atheism (Communism) was responsible for tens of millions of deaths,
I do not see the basis of SH's contention that an atheist society
would better serve its population. How would it deal with all those
folks who believe in something "reprehensible".

Been there, done that. The result was the Gulag and Aushwitz.

IF

Goodness gracious--yes Russell does deposit God in his own mind--final arbiter of all things Russell --the self creator.

No Russell cannot prove that he thinks (no he "does not know that he thinks," he assumes it--i.e has faith that he does). See here is the conundrum of Atheists--you can't prove you exist as a conscious being. Thus Russell falls prey to his own derision. Therefore the "Teapot" analogy is pure demagoguery.

Question: "Does God exist, "Precisely, that is the question, absolutely. It is disengenous to argue against the existence of a metaphysical reality by disparaging this or that religion, and thereby say, "well there is not god."

See here is the conundrum of Atheists--you can't prove you exist as a conscious being.

What are you smoking? Can you prove you exist as a conscious being?

One of the reasons atheists are angry is because there are so many of you who know better and "think" all humans should behave according to your
tenets.

No of course not; nor can you. That's the point. It's no different to assert I'm conscious then it is to assert god.

I'm not demanding that anyone behave according to my "tenets." I'm not here making a value statement. I am not arguing for, or against this or that codified religion. But I am examining the implications of atheism as a descriptive analysis of existence.

It is disingenuous to hold that one can validate and invalidate others’ descriptive systems of existence, but then deny such judgment of one’s own.

As a result of reading this debate and its forum posts, I picked up Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion," a pretty complete set of arguments against the existence of God.

My affiliation: probably somewhere between a deist (God created the cosmos but does not intervene in its daily affairs) and a pantheist ("God" is a non-supernatural synonym for nature or the universe or all natural laws).

Dawkins' discussion of the sources of morality are fascinating but way too detailed to repeat here. But it culminates in consideration of Hitler and Stalin.

Hitler probably wasn't an atheist, but no matter (to me at least). Let's talk about Stalin and Mao (who most certainly were).

Were their atrocities committed in the name of atheism?

Not specifically, but one can argue that they were committed in the name of communism, and atheism was central to communism. The counter, of course, is that the attack was on any institution that might threaten the supremacy of the state, and was not targeted at religion per se.

Here's the question: All other things being equal, had pre-Stalin Russia and pre-Mao China already been atheist, would the atrocities have still occurred?

And the answer is, "Sure". Stalin and Mao were evil, power-grabbing thugs - the fact of their atheism is incidental, not causal.

If, on the other hand, you hypothetically remove religion from the Arab/Israeli conflict or the Northern Ireland conflict, you remove the FUNDAMENTAL REASON for the conflict. The conflict vanishes.

And while the moral benefits of religion vs. atheism are interesting, they say absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.

TatetThat the job of scientists is to proselytize atheism? I thought that the job of scientists was to, I don't know, cure cancer or invent alternative energy sources?

The NTCOF forum regularly examines questions such as this. I have posted a link (under the user name "Fiddler") to this blog on that forum, and I invite readers here to visit us -- and participate.

I find it somewhat amusing that Muslims, Christians, and members of other superstitions can easily recognize the errors of competing superstitions, but none of their own.

Now, if Jesus Christ himself never existed, this claim would not be spectacular, but it is a well-established historical fact that Jesus existed.

I don't know where you've gotten your information, but it is not a "well established fact that Jesus walked this earth. There is as much evidence he exists as Hercules or Dionysus.

<

Are they moving the universe??? Douglas Adams was right then...

AG
Member of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church

Why is it that society, (and the media that programs it)... only seams to debate Atheism VS. Religion?

Why are we not looking at God VS. Religion.

While we do not yet have the (conclusive) physical evidence that proves of a "God", I do believe we are getting closer. (via-Quantum physics-energy etc.)

If I were God, I would be REALLY angry at the ridiculous mess man has made of this earth in MY name!

I would also have my attorneys remove any reference to me from the Bible.. perhaps under the "Truth in packaging" laws...?

Like most normal loving people, I really can't stand violence and murder.

That said, I perplexed that (loving) Jews and Christians look at "radical" Muslim's as "evil", yet their God has done things to make 911 look like Disneyland.

Can you tell me the difference between Adolph Hitler and the God of the Bible?

As far as I see, both use the same methods to control the human spirit... and that is "Love me, worship me, or I will surely kill you".

According to the Bible, God committed genocide to more people than all of the worlds tyrants combined. These victims (including woman, children, old folks etc.) were murdered because they (as a whole) were not following his law... does this sound eerily familiar?

Remember the "great flood" of Noah's time?
According to the "holy" scripture, God murdered all living things off the face of the earth.. (accept of course those on Noah's Ark!)

What did a newborn do to deserve drowning in a flood?
How is THAT justice??
Is that LOVE?

How about Sodom and Gomorrah... it was filled with "immortality" (moral behavior "He" did not see fit) so again God decided to MURDER them all.
And who lived after Sodom Gomorrah?
Lot and his 2 Virgin Daughters..who then got drunk and had sex with each other... TWICE!!
Would you hang out with a guy that has sex with their daughters after a few drinks??
Perhaps the wine was stronger back than...
I do remember skinny dipping in Lake Michigan once after drinking Tequila..

Again I ask; How is this behavior any different from that of Saddam Husein, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin?

How is it so many people hang up their intellect when dealing with religion? God gave us all a brain to reason... we should all use it.

JC (No.. not THAT JC!)

youYou should perhaps do a little more study on this point. The existence of a human Jesus is not "well-established." It is not established at all. This very issue was debated in the early church and some have argued that Paul himself believed that Jesus existed soley in a spiritual realm. I refer you to an excellent book on the topic: The Jesus Puzzle. check it out.

Apologies for distracting from the debate but i would very much like to applaud Sam Harris for his articulate defense of atheism. I myself an atheist despite being indoctrinated as a Christian, am amazed of religions obvious yet overlooked short comings. The facts that defy all science, even ignoring the lapses in knowledge, that are so very common in religion such as a virgin birth and Jesus' acension(to name two christian examples) are a clear indicator that God, if he exists, is not so subtle as we should hope he would be to create the Universe.

However, there are more comprehensible and respected men than me to make the points against religion so i end by showing my happiness that atheism is less and less seen as uncommon and un-virtuous belief(or perhaps it should be called a non-belief).

Jacob Best

Just to correct my spelling error in the title above

You're the Best.

Hahaha... That's funny. Are you really a Christian, or are you just making fun of them? Did you even read Bertrand Russel's teapot argument? He's saying it's the responsibility of those making a claim to prove it true. You just made the claim that Jesus' remains do not exist on earth. You must now sift through all matter on earth and check if it is or contains Jesus' remains.

"If atheisism is true how can we believe in anything?"

This is a non-sequiter. Atheisism is merely not believing in a god or gods. It's not problem to believe in things for which I have rational, objective logical reasons for believing. Atheists do not reject belief in *every*thing. Does the posted need a referral to dictionary.com?

For example, I can "predict the future based on the past," for example by looking at previous results in similar situations (I jumped in the pool yesterday; I got wet; I bet if I jump in the pool today I will get wet). Atheists trust their senses, as does every sane person, to a reasonable degree (we don't waste time debating if "the color I see as green the same color you see as green?"). Atheists just have a problem believing in a deity for which their are no rational reasons to believe.

This person's "argument" is illogical to the extreme. Using names like "Hume" does not affect the seneslessness of the comment.

"However, after the movement that most embraced atheism (Communism) was responsible for tens of millions of deaths, I do not see the basis of SH's contention that an atheist society would better serve its population. How would it deal with all those folks who believe in something "reprehensible"."

First, Communism tried to dispose of religion because it interferred with Communism by demanding loyalty to a god and to a church instead of to the state. It was a matter of practicality, not a matter of a group of people being inspired to commit attrocities BECAUSE they were atheists.

As far as a non-believing society dealing with reprehensible acts? Look at secular countries in Europe, for starters. People are overwhelmingly not religious in places like the Netherlands, and yet it is a safe, pleasant county where you do not have any more to fear from violence than anywhere else--and substantially less in many cases. I would rather walk the streets of Rotterdam at night than Atlanta! Using common sense and a concern for the common welfare of all citizens, a society can develop a way of dealing with "bad guys" (hello, it's called the court system--which is NOT based on the Bible) and formulate a moral system. And, in a society of atheists, we might not deal with fake-reprehensible people (like non-believers or homosexuals) with a modicum more kindness. Go figure!

"drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell..."
"Catholicism never taught the above statement. it even says so in the Bible. Judgement is left to God and God alone."

In practice, however, MANY Christians are more than happy to interpose their own prediction for another's final resting place, usurping God's "final judgement." Further, this is a ridiculous argument. A believer, by definition, HAS to believe that his interpreation of a holy book is right--otherwise why would he follow it? So, anyone, in the beliver's view, who disagrees with the believer, WOULD go to hell. This is a weak counter-argument to the plain statement that when it comes to the Judeo-Christian religions, yep, any believer worth his salt knows non-believers will go to hell.

"Mr Russell's teapot analogy just seems so silly. what a waste of time. the fact that a teapot exists or does not exist matters not in the grand scheme of things. it is merely a means to point out that you cannot prove a negative. so what!"

So what, is that the same argument is as easily applied to God as to an orbiting teapot. You cannot prove "a god does not exist," but you can look at the echoingly vast failures to prove a postive--"a god does exist." Every argument trotted out proceeds from a convenient assumption that is not necessarily true or from a personal desire for there to be a god. Atheists shouldn't be concerned with proving a god doesn't exist, but with refusing to believe in a ridiculous fairy tale that doesn't stand up to the most basic logic.

"like in science and in life there are axioms:
axiom #1 is that God exists, has always existed, and was not created.
think science has no assumptions or axioms?
what about the physical laws are consistent across time and space?"

Physical laws that we have observed repeatedly and tested repeatedly and can be shown to actually exist. We cannot do the same for the statement "God exists and has always existed." Perhaps a god has. Perhaps one hasn't. But there's no good reason to believe in a personal god just because the universe seems pretty or because it makes you feel better about dying. Just because an axiom (like yours involving god) exists does not in itself make it true. Physical laws like gravity are not axioms--they are scientific laws, which is just what you call them. I invite someone to subject god's existence to the same level of scrutiny and rigirous proof as gravity. Or evolution. It's not possible.

"He also states that the religious are arrogant. Another ad homiem attack. Who sounds more arrogant him or Mother Theresa?"

The annoying personal traits of the religious or the non-religious have nothing to do with the validity of either side's argument. However, I do find Mother Teresa's statements to the effect that she was not worried about relieving suffering on earth but on winning souls for god to be arrogant, heartless, and cruel.

I can not give enough accolades to Sam Harris, his ability to call a person out, to be able to tear apart their argument and call them a twitlet without using any ad hominem's is amazing.

 I had a run in with Prager once on the phone, it frustrated the HELL out of me when the call screaner asked me to tell her what I was going to say to Prager VERBATIM.
How could I comply, especially since I was driving.

At the end of the week, Prager has a one hour anything goes call in segment. So I took advantage of it. The call screener once again tried to gas light me by saying "we had a whole hour on that subject on Tuesday, I informed her of Pragers rules for the one hour segment, no holes barred, she finially allowed me to speak. I read my question that I had prepaired, Prager asked did I read that, I said yes as I was instructed to by the call screener on Tuesday. Prager was put aback and said that perhaps I misunderstood, I assured him I did not as her instructions were to tell her "VERBATIM" what I was going to say on the air.

 He used the delusional argument against me, and I was livid, sorry I dont have the composure of Sam, I kept my cool but was in the postion of driving once again, I was flustered and wasnt able to refute the statement to his liking and he hung up on me and kept the show rolling without loosing a step.

I am not as educated nor refined as Sam Harris, so with that said, PRAGER is a totalitainaistic GAS BAG!

Atheist@Large
Chicago
For the mere thought of existance to occur that which came to mind pre existed the mind that created them, therefore I KNOW that there are no gods, and I shall not worship knowledge only applaud and revel in its ability to add to my existance.
Atheist@Large

ps off topic but becky fischers jesus camp was disolved nov 06

Religion. People keep saying that... but is the belief in God really a "religion" or a concious choice, a spiritual choice? Religion is most definitely man-made, as are churches--they are establishments, organizations, and a lot of them preach things that are contradictory to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus The Christ. The Bible even says that God is a spirit--yet so many churches denounce the idea of spirituality and the supernatural. The catholic church even says that to repent, you must do so through a priest--but isn't that blasphemy, assuming the position of God himself, saying that a person can only be absolved if they go to a priest for absolution? I think so. God and God alone can do that. So, in that respect, maybe there should be a God vs. Religion debate? And yes, I personally believe in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. And as for the argument of existence. How do we even know that the wind exists? You can't physically grab it and examine it under a microscope. But you can feel it, can't you? And you can see the effects of the wind. And that's how I believe and know that God exists--because I can feel his presence, and I see what he has done for so many people, including myself. I feel him and I see the effects of him. Just as I feel the wind, and see the effects of the wind.

(oops...)

"I jumped in the pool yesterday; I got wet; I bet if I jump in the pool today I will get wet."

That makes sense, but not everything is that concrete. There variables in this world, and things are often relative based upon the situation, etc, etc. What if the pool is empty (well, I don't know who the heck would jump into an empty pool, but bear with me here), or what if somebody caught you in mid-jump? Or what if you slipped while trying to jump, and fell on the concrete ground beneath you? Or what if you did finally get into the pool, and only part of you got wet, as opposed to last time? Or maybe last time only part of you got wet, and this time all of you got wet? Things don't always happen the same way each time.

Like when you're cooking an egg sunny-side up on the stove--rarely does it come out perfectly circular, with a bright, round yolk in the center. At least... I know for sure that mine don't...

(RE: Communism Linked to Atheism)

"And, in a society of atheists, we might not deal with fake-reprehensible people (like non-believers or homosexuals) with a modicum more kindness. Go figure!"

I'm a Christian and I have non-believing friends and homosexual friends... so for sure this doesn't apply to EVERY Christian (then again, I use the term "Christian" loosely, because it is the closest word I have for what I truly believe in, which is that I believe in the Holy Trinity, and I believe that Jesus The Christ did walk this earth, die on the cross, and then rise from the earth, and then ascend into heaven, letting his guiding Holy Spirit to remain with us on earth. However, I would like to call myself a believer in God, the Bible, and the spiritual and supernatural... but that's a long title. And the closest that comes to that in the PUREST sense--not the muddled amalgam of fear, hypocricy, and self-righteousness that the politically-influenced, manmade establishment has come to become--is Christianity). Goodness. And also, atheists do act that way--but towards people who believe in God. I'm not saying they ALL do--I'm not a fan of narrow-minded bias, and know that it's unfair to place a stereotypical view on an ENTIRE group of people. But I have had some atheist "friends" that would verbally abuse me for my spiritual conviction and, eventually, stopped being my friends. If you ask me, they probably thought I was a "reprehensible" person for believing in God--how dare I bring blasphemy unto the name of Atheism!

Anyway... a lot of the "christians" that are "anti-gay" or condemn non-believers (and, unfortunately, it seems to be a lot of people from what the media has been showing us--but I've never been a big fan of The Media, either) are acting through their own convictions, and not reflecting God's heart. Heterosexual Human Beings are lashing out against homosexuals--they are fearful of this "sin" and what do people do when they are fearful of something? They lash out in hate and anger--sadly, it seems to be what we humans do best. "Oh I'm afraid of you and the way you live your life... let me bully you so that I can feel better about myself and life in general..." What is it that my mom said when I was little? Ignore the bully on the playground, because he's probably got low self-esteem and hates himself and is afraid. Yeah, that was it.

But anyway. True, God does not condone homosexuality--a passage from Leviticus (chapter 18, verses 19-23) says:

"19 ‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity. 20 Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her. 21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion."

And verse 22 expressly states that sex between males is an abomination. But WHY, you wonder? Well, originally, God would have liked for us all to be sexually chaste, but he did acknowledge our lust, and so allowed for men to be able to take wives for themselves, and women to take husbands for themselves. In order to join together and slate their lusts with each other as a means of expelling our carnal need, as well as procreating. And, if you think about it, males cannot conceive--but females can, and that might even be a reason in itself. But for the completely actual reason... you'll have to ask God about that (I mean, then again, anal sex is a pretty rough ordeal whether you're gay or straight--no natural lubrication, and the risk of damaging the schpincter, and stretching things that ought not be stretched, and the risk of leakage--ie: incontinence... I mean, maybe it's a precautionary thing? Like why we shouldn't eat pork--and we wonder why, only to discover that pork contains tape worm and pigs eat just about anything, those nasty scavengers... maybe God's just looking out for us? We never seem to listen though or, for that matter, believe or trust... Hmm...) But anyway... as for the issues of sexual immorality, 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 says:

"1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

So, all in all, I think that it is man itself that has taken these scriptures and conceived a sort of hate for the people that go against it--which is ridiculous, because they, themselves, go against the scriptures, and sexual immortality itself encompasses a WHOLE gammut of things, and NOT just homosexuality. Nobody is perfect, and there is no such thing as a sin-less or completely moral person. To be self-righteous and "cast the first stone" is ludicrous. God himself LOVES EVERYBODY. He might hate the thing that they DO that go against his guidance and commands (we do have free will, after all), but he never has, doesn't now, and never will HATE us. It's the feeble mind and hypocritical heart of man that takes what they fear (or the things that they practice but don't preach) and turn it into some hateful "anti force"... anti-gays, anti-abortion, anti-skeptics. It's sad, really.

The most important part of what God wants from us, and what Jesus The Christ taught us... is to LOVE. And that's the most integral part of belief and obedience in Christ that a lot of people have missed. And that stretches far beyond some rigid establishment called "Christianity."

Oh, and the anonymous posts from May 13, 2007, 6:04 am to May 13, 2007, 7:09 am are all by me... Esther. I kept meaning to sign my name at the bottom, but forgot.

~ Esther (California)
inkypaper1@gmail.com

Dear Christian,
Your claim of a historical Jesus is actually flawed. There is a long history of Jesus followers, not the same thing.
The letters of Paul appear at least 40 years after his supposed death. Josephus is your next best bet, but that was discovered to be a 4th century forgery. His life is comparable to the lives of other mythic supermen, and Paul never even claimed him to exist on earth!