Lyn

This is actually a response to the following:

JESUS UTTERS A FALSE PROPHECY

The Bible makes it equally clear that Jesus said that the coming of the kingdom of God was imminent. ['imminent' means "about to happen; impending"--not in the distant future, as the Church is so fond of teaching, but soon.] As a matter of fact, Jesus said that it would occur within the span of his own generation, during the lifetime(s) of one or more of his listeners: "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power" (MK 9:1), "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28), and "If I choose that he [John] remain until I come [again], what is that to you?" (John 21:22). John has been dead, of course, for about 1900 years--as have all those who heard the words of Jesus--yet the kingdom of God has NOT come in the time frame and the manner that Jesus said that it would.

Response: There are some parts of the bible to be taken literally and some that are more allegorical in nature. This is one of them. This is the kind of idea that totally challenges your thoughts about the time space continuum. What is the meaning of "now" or "near?"

Does it mean our meaning as we know time? Or does it mean "near" as God means it in His time?

One of the verses pertaining to this talks about -even those people who saw Jesus pierced and denied, will acknowledge He was who He said He was and will bow down to Him. Now, those people are now dead, but God is refering to the final judgement. So, when He says those who "will not taste death before"...is He speaking of a death in the natural form or is He speaking of death in eternity form? You have to delve deeper.

Studying the bible in depth as a whole, instead of in pieces one at a time, allows one to see that it is a huge puzzle which intricitely fits together.

[Reference to video deleted. We do not permit advertising of media in the Feedback forum unless it specifically refers by title to an article published on the Secular Web. -DM-]

-DM-

Lyn:

Thank you for your feedback to my Was Jesus a False Prophet?.

First, keep in mind that there are several passages mentioned here, not just one.

Second, it would seem that you believe that you know, in at least some cases, which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are to be taken allegorically, and that these parts are "more allegorical in nature," i.e., not to be taken literally. The fact is, of course, that a fair number of Bible scholars (whose opinions I would tend to trust given that I know nothing of your qualifications) disagree with you with regard to these passages. In fact, the failure of the Parousia to occur in anything like the timetable that Jesus said that it would occur is quite embarrassing to many Christian Bible scholars (thus necessitating the production of a raft of diverse "explanations" from Christian apologists).

Here is a small sampling of quotations from scholars whom I tend to trust:

"There was nothing particularly original about Jesus' expectations of an early end of the world. But because his expectations proved to mistaken his acceptance of such a view raises theological considerations which cannot be ... ignored.... [One] has to assume that he meant what he said, and ... that he turned out to be wrong." [p. 20, Jesus, An Historians Review of the Gospels, by Michael Grant]

"The theologians of the present day skim lightly over the eschatological material in the Gospels because it does not chime in with their views, and [they] assign the Second Coming of Christ upon the clouds quite a different purpose from that which it bears in the teaching of Christ and his apostles. Inasmuch as the non-fulfillment of its eschatology is not admitted, our Christianity rests upon a fraud!" ... The sole argument which could save the credit of Christianity would be proof that the Parousia had really taken place at the time for which is was announced; and obviously no such proof can be produced. ... The saying of Christ about the generation which should not die out before his return clearly fixes this event at no very distant date." [p. 22, The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer]

"It is well known that the first Christians lived in almost daily anticipation of the Second Advent and the End of the World; ... Christ made it plain that it was to be expected in the immediate future." [p. 207, Myth and Ritual in Christianity by Alan w. Watts]

If "God" does not use language to mean what we He knows we might likely think it means, then there is little point in his [alleged] communications with us.

I disagree. It is exactly when you take the Bible as a whole that you begin to see its numerous problems. When you take it in pieces, especially in the bits and pieces typically dealt out in Bible studies, Sunday Schools, and Sunday sermons, it is very easy to miss the problems.

--

I believe that a perfect, omnipotent, and loving "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it than to give us a "Bible" on which so many sincere and well-meaning people, including faithful followers, have such difficulty understanding that they disagree on the meaning of important passages.

The Christian "God," if he exists, would know in His omniscience what would be required to make us understand beyond the shadow of a doubt what was intended here, and He would be able in His omnipotence to make it come about. Therefore, I believe that "God" either does not exist or else "He" is reprehensibly irresponsible in not having done a better job of it. If you feel otherwise, that is OK with me.

--

Suggested reading:

Matthew 24:34 & Genea: What The Scholars Say by Mark Smith

The Lowdown on God's Showdown by Ed Babinski.

A Lesson in Basic Hermeneutics by Farrell Till.

-Don-

OAG

What sort of magical text do you suggest? Can you think of one work, written in human language that is universally understood? Somehow you expect God to alter the time space continuum or human understanding in such a way that the words of one particular book will be universally understood to mean exactly one thing to each and every human who ever lives...including those who desperately wish to believe the Bible is false.

What if God DOES have such a capability but other concerns necessitate that He forgo the action you suggest? Perhaps the issue of free will takes precedence over God ramming understanding of the Bible down people's throats. Just a thought.

There is no either/or here. God cannot be in any way "reprehensibly irresponsible" and remain God. BTW, if you are looking for ways to find fault with God it is mere child's play to make God less than who and what He claims to be, who and what He MUST be if He is indeed the creator of the universe, and then to judge your new god-like creation inadequate or inferior or whatever. I say it is mere child's play because I have seen people who do not nearly possess the keen intellect you obviously possess do it without straining a neuron.

Dean

OAG

DM

Your contention is that the coming of God's kingdom which Jesus spoke of did not, in fact, happen as He had stated.

I'd like to put forth the proposition that it did indeed happen just as Jesus said it would.

First let's consider what Jesus meant by the coming of His Father's kingdom. Did that mean armageddon and the end of time? I don't think so. I believe that Jesus was merely speaking of the event, promised by God to Abraham and fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The reconciliation of the created to the Creator, the possibility for humans to enter into eternal life with God, happened in the lifetime of Jesus' listeners just as He said it would. Jesus was merely speaking of the event of His death and resurrection. These events were certainly immenent and the generation to whom He was speaking would certainly, for the most part, be alive to see it. Jesus, Himself, brought the kingdom of heaven to humans by fulfilling the promise and accomplishing the reconciliation.

This prophesy by Christ of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of His Father is consistent with other parables and mentions of the kingdom throughout Jesus' ministry. To believe that Jesus was speaking of the end, judgement day, is not consistent with those parables and such other mentions.

Just my 2 cent's worth.

-DM-

OAG:

Believe what you will, but keep in mind that even many Christian Bible scholars have a different take on the matter. Also, it seems that you have chosen to ignore verses such as JN 21:22 which specifically talk about the alleged Parousia, the Second Coming. It isn't just the talk of the coming Kingdom which I mention.

John is dead.

The so-called disciples believed that the Parousia, the Second Coming, was imminent (and no, "imminent" does not mean "at some indefinite point in the future" as some apologists say that it does).

Regardless of any quibble about the meaning of the coming of the Kingdom, the Second Coming has not occurred in the time frame that it is alleged that Jesus said that it would. It is this which makes Jesus a false prophet.

---------

MT 26.63, MK 14.62: And Jesus said, "And you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

We are still waiting, even though this was allegedly said by Jesus during his trial.

-Don-

-DM-

I suggest a magical text truly inspired by a magical and omnipotent "God," such as the "God" of the Bible is alleged to be.

Yes--theoretically. And if you cannot, then you deny the omnipotence of "God." But actually? I would have to be omniscient to know if there were such a work, and alas, I am not omniscient.

Not a problem for an omnipotent "God."

I like your choice of color words, "ramming understanding of the Bible down people's throats."

How about a "God" who simply makes what he says clear enough and convincing enough that there are not major differences of opinion between the major branches of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and more-specifically between the 20,000+ different "Christian" denominations, each of which believes that it has the handle on what "God" means?

You seem to be coming to the same conclusion that I have come to, namely that such a "God" cannot exist.

You are providing further argument for the nonexistence of "God."

Before your assertion has any meaning at all, you need first to demonstrate that "God" exists and that "He" has made a claim about who "He" is. So far as I am concerned, the Bible is obviously the work of men, primitive superstitious men at that. So far as I am concerned, it is up to those who claim that the Bible is the inspired "word of God" to prove that such is the case, or at least provide convincing evidence and/or argument that such is the case.

I am convinced that the Bible is nothing more than another example of the work of relatively primitive and superstitious men who put their own words into the mouth of their tribal god. If you are convinced otherwise, so be it.

(Ex-Christian) -Don-

OAG

You are certain that the Bible is not such a text because...? Am I to assume that you know what such a text would look and read like so by comparison you know the Bible ain't it?

That doesn't make any sense my firend. I asked if you were aware of an actual text that is universally understood. You answer that theoretically one exists. Which one? Like any evidence I would need more than anecdotal references to possibilities in order to believe that such a thing exists.

You are saying God COULD present us with a universally understood text...theoretically. What would that read like? Would it be one language that everyone understood? Would the text translate as though they had Babel fish in their ears?

One of the most common skeptical traps I encounter is the old, God should have done it this way or If God really were _____ then the world would be like ____. This is never followed through to a logical conclusion because such statements require God to be some magical faerie or the complete alteration of the universe as we know it or some other flight of fancy.

Nothing is truly a problem for an omnipotent God unless that God insists on doing things a certain way. For instance, if that omnipotent being refuses to remove free will from His creatures it doesn't mean He can't but that He never will. At that point it becomes moot that He can and for semantic parlor games we could just as easily say He can't because it is against the rules.

I'm not sure you meant that as complimentary but I choose to take it that way. Thank you.

I'll tell you what. You figure out a way to make millions of humans understand one simple concept exactly the same way and I'll pass that along to God. The shortcoming is not in God's presentation but in the fact that human beings can not and will not agree on ANYTHING. You skeptics expect humans to think in utter accord where spiritual matters are concerned but take for granted that humans can not, will not and do not EVER do that in any other matter. Each and every human being has a singular subjective perspective on any given thing. There may be unprecedented similarities but there are ALWAYS differences in perception.

Quite true. So why do you spend so much time finding fault with a nonexistant being?

Wrong. The nonexistance of a god which someone or other has invented. I have no argument for the God of the Bible not existing. It appears to me to be self-evident that He does exist. I just don't believe in the petty, demigods that skeptics invent and try to insert in God's place.

What? Pull God out of a hat for you? Your assertions are based on the God of the Bible. So are mine. If the God of the Bible does not exist then the text is useless, your arguments are a mental exercise and nothing more, and your criticism of a nonexistant being are pretty silly. If God does exist then it is reasonable that He would inspire men to write about Him so that they could know who He is, what He is and what He expects of us, among other things. Therefor the Bible is the source for God's self-description, much of the evidence for His existence, etc. The rest of the evidence for the existence of God can be found through observation and scientific study of His handiwork.

Then why not dismiss it out of hand? Why spend so much time criticizing the main character as though He has personally offended or harmed you? Do you often react with vehement disdain and outrageous effort to discredit fictitious characters?

Well you can forget the P word. That is a no no in ontological, theological and philosophical discussions. Even in science it is a term used to describe extreme reliability not objective reality.

As for convincing evidence, that is a wholly subjective thing isn't it? For someone who refuses to be convinced there is no such thing is there? Nothing in this world is undeniable. It might be unreasonable to deny certain things but not impossible.

BTW, I would be very grateful for convincing evidence that God does not exist. I would like someone to convince me that I am entirely mortal and will disappear like a puff of smoke when I die. Nobody has given me anything even remotely convincing so far. I hold out vain hope that someone will turn me into an enlightened atheist some day soon. You guys seem to have more fun and you get the added bonus of the feeling of intellectual superiority over the superstitious, nincompoop theists. I would love that.

I am and thank you for your blessing.
Raging Christian
Dean

-DM-

Yes, I believe that I am as certain as is humanly possible that the Bible is not such a text. Because? Because it is such an imperfect text that it could not possibly have been inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God."

Am I to assume that you know what a "word of God" should look like so that you know that the Bible is, in fact, such a book and that, for example, the Qur'an is not? If so, then we are similar in believing that we know how such a work would look and read; if not, then you must have difficulty in determining which of the so-called holy books is truly a word of "God," in which case the difference between us is that I simply reject one more of these alleged Holy Books than you do.

Please. We are not yet friends so far as I am concerned.

It appears to me that you misunderstood my answer and that you have also altered your question in this subsequent rendition. Your question was not whether I was "aware of an actual text that is universally understood," rather it was, "Can you think of one work, written in human language that is universally understood?" Yes, I can think of such a work--in a theoretical sense--but I answered your question: "But actually? I would have to be omniscient to know if there were such a work, and alas, I am not omniscient." In other words, I could not possibly know if there is any work which is universally understood unless I were omniscient, and I frankly doubt that there is such a work, yet I can and do nevertheless theorize that such would be the case were a perfect and omnipotent "God" to inspire such a text. I can and do also theorize that the same "God" would inspire correct translations and interpretations. Anything less would deny "His" alleged perfection and/or omnipotence. After all, we don't correctly say that someone's work is "perfect" when it is less than perfect.

I am saying that a perfect and omnipotent "God" would present us with a universally understood text. Anything less would be a denial of "His" alleged perfection and omnipotence.

You might take a clue from your Bible.

These do not so much represent traps as they do valid criticisms of "God."

One of the most common apologetical traps that I encounter is the tendency on the part of religionists to engage in the asking of questions which amount to nothing more than appeals to ignorance, and then to assume that the failure of skeptics to provide a satisfying answer somehow supports the belief systems of those religionists.

Further, the "God" of the Bible is already pictured as "some magical faerie" who has the ability to completely alter the universe as we know it, thus it would not be unreasonable for skeptics to engage in such expectations, if in fact, they were to do so.

In any case, you would have to be omniscient yourself in order to know with certainty what "never" happens. Are you?

A perfect and omnipotent "God" could not create creatures which were imperfect and still be considered perfect Himself. A perfect and omnipotent "God" could create creatures, give them so-called free will (which, may or may not exist, and which is mutually exclusive with God's alleged omnipotence insofar as some philosophers are concerned) and yet give those creatures the quality of character such that they would make right choices. Anything less denies "God's" alleged perfection and/or omnipotence.

1) I am not a perfect and omnipotent "God."
2) A perfect and omnipotent "God" would have no trouble whatsoever in doing so.
3) To deny that "He" could is to deny his alleged perfection and/ or omnipotence.
4) I seriously doubt that you have any way of passing anything along to "God." Talking to "God" is, in my opinion, no different than trying to connect to the Internet when your Internet connection is broken.

Again, you would have to be omniscient to know with certainty that human beings "can not and will not agree on ANYTHING." Are you?

In the absence of omniscience on your part, I will assume that human beings can and do agree on many things. You and I, for example, agree on many things, including, for the most part, the meanings of most of the words that we use here. If such were not the case, we would not even be able to respond meaningfully to each other.

I can assure you that you are mistaken in your overstated generalization regarding skeptics. Keep in mind, however, that "God's" Holy Spirit was allegedly sent to Christians to be their teacher in matters of interpretation and such. Unfortunately for the sake of Christianity and the effectiveness of the so-called Holy Spirit, not even those Christians who sincerely seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit can always agree on the interpretation of important Bible verses.

You deny "God's" alleged omnipotence, and you also seem to believe that you are omniscient in knowing that no two human beings have a subjective perspective which is identical, or so nearly identical that the one cannot be differentiated from the other.

I spend the time that I spend finding fault with a nonexistent being for many reasons. Some of the more significant reasons:
1) Christian evangelists would, if they could, convert the entire world to Christianity--which I consider to be a backward, faulty, and untrue belief system.
2) Muslims would, if they could, convert the entire world to Islam--which I consider to be a backward, faulty, and untrue belief system.
3) People like you try to support what I consider to be backward, faulty, and untrue belief systems.
4) I believe that humanity would be far better off without Judaism, Christianity (in most of its tens of thousands of variations), or Islam.

It appears to me to be self-evident that the "God" of the Bible does not exist, that the "God" of Islam does not exist, that no god of any so-called revealed-religion exists, that all the gods of those religions are petty, demigods which have been invented by man.

Not necessarily. The text can be useful for a number of purposes even if the "God" of the Bible does not exist and even if much of what the Bible says is erroneous.

Interestingly, that is almost exactly how I see your arguments. And I feel that your support of a nonexistent being is much sillier than any criticism of a nonexistent being, given that you and others propose that such a being does exist.

This is one of the most obvious non sequiturs that I have yet seen.

Assuming that your premise is true (which is dubious given that it is not self-evident that a perfect "God" would necessarily give two hoots about anything), the claim that "Therefor the Bible is the source for God's self-description, much of the evidence for His existence, etc." no more follows from the premise than does "therefore the Qur'an is the source for God's self-description, much of the evidence for His existence, etc."

This is nothing more than an assertion, an assertion which is unsupported with either evidence or argument.

I prefer not to do so for the reason that many people expect much more. Further, keep in mind that I was once a Christian, a Christian who sounded not unlike you, therefore I feel that I have something to offer those who might be straddling the fence, so to speak, given that, unlike many of those who were always skeptics, I have been on the other side of the fence.

I believe that humanity would be far better off were all humans to come to the realization that humans will have to solve human problems, that no "God" is going to come to our rescue, that god-belief is silly and unproductive. I feel that it is my responsibility to do what I can to bring about that realization. And I enjoy what I do.

I react with disdain and effort which I think appropriate to the efforts of religionists to credit fractious characters. And considering the man hours (billions?) and dollars (billions?) that have been spent promoting the fictional characters associated with so-called revealed religions, my effort is almost nothing.

I like the P word. I will use it as I see fit, even if only to mean "extreme reliability not objective reality."

"Refuses" is more applicable to a religionist or a skeptic who has never been on the other side of the fence than it is to an ex-Christian such as myself who has looked rather thoroughly at both sides of the issue.

In this, you are not unlike those who are convinced that UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot exists--and would be grateful for convincing evidence that they do not exist.

For my part, I want the proof (the "extreme reliability") that they do exist before I will ever again be willing to believe that they do, as I once did with the "God" of Christianity, the "God" of the Bible.

You will never find me having said that theists are nincompoops. "Superstitious," yes; "nincompoops," no.

But I do enjoy what I do. Ever since the Bible and its problems (along with the problems inherent in Christian theology) caused me to reject Christianity, circa 1978, I have been involved in an absorbing, fascinating, enjoyable study and endeavor.

Apropos.

-Don-

OAG

What would a perfect text look like? That you find something in this world imperfect is a surprise to you? Name one perfect thing, just one. Wouldn't you find it more than just a little inexplicable if suddenly there were a book that was this anomaly of perfection in an otherwise imperfect universe? To disqualify the book because it is not perfect means you have an unreasoned expectation that it should be perfect.

It would look like a book. It would have covers, pages with words on them that made some sort of sense and probably a name or title like...oh I don't know, Bible. I suppose it could glow and talk to me and grant me three wishes but that wouldn't really be necessary.

I don't know anything for a fact other than cogito ergo sum. I take it on faith the the Bible is the word of God based on the impressive evidence that it is and my own experience of it. I have no such experience of the Qur'an.

Just a polite figure of speech. Don't worry I wasn't going to hug you or anything.

I still see you juxtaposing the idea of insiration with that of coersion. You insist that a perfect God would not allow mistranslation or misinterpretation but force His word and proper interpretation of it on, who by the way? everyone or just the translators and interpreters?

Nonsense.

I see. So if a perfect being inspires an imperfect one to do something and the latter does it imperfectly that is a direct proof of the imperfection of the former is it?

Who's to say He didn't do just that some thousands of years ago. Should He then correct each and every imperfection in humans having anything to do with that text? I'm guessing you used to be a Roman Catholic and you were taught that the Pope was infallible in all things church related due to perfect inspiration.

Where in that passage does it say that the words of the disciples and the understanding of those who heard them was rendered perfect?

I beg to differ. The invalidity of statements about what God could have or should have done better lies, as I pointed out, in the skeptic's inability to explain what that new creation would look like and how it would work. IOW, the criticism is similar to me telling a brain surgeon how I would have done the operation if I had been in charge at the table. My criticism wouldn't make much sense because I know next to nothing about brain surgery. Using MY method of brain surgery the patient would not likely survive the operation.

Give me an example from the Bible where God completely altered the universe please.

Pardon me Dr Nitpic, for not including the qualifier in MY experience.

First of all, free will allowed His creation to bring imperfection onto or into themselves. Free will to rebel against God is part of what makes the creation perfect. The subsequent onset of imperfection has no effect on the perfection of the creator. If I make a relatively perfectly formed wax replica of myself and it melts in the sun that doesn't effect me.

That's nonsense. Creating beings capable of making one of two choices but designing them in such a way that none of them are capable of making choice number two defeats the option and removes free will.

Nonsense. There are billions of people on this planet with billions of ideas each. It does not take omnipotence to see that there is not one singular idea upon which all several billion of us agree. For any singular idea I have no doubt that I could find someone who disagrees given the time and resources.

I'm not sure just how meaningful our responses to each other really are. We are both speaking our opinions on a large number of topics, some coincide and some don't. That is precisely my point. No two people in the whole world will ever think exactly alike. It is genetically, experientially and mathematically impossible.

Assure me all you wish but I have quite a lot of empirical data from which to draw my conclusions about commonalities among skeptics.

Which are the important ones?

Never have and never will.

Nearly identical isn't identical is it? As I said, I don't have to be omniscient to know that no two brains, experiences and perspectives are identical. I also don't have to be omniscient to know the sun is NOT going to come up in the west very early tomorrow morning.

Well we all have to have our hobbies and I can't be on stage all the time.

Well I don't know that Jewish or Islamic missionaries have done much good in the world but Christian ones sure have. I know you guys like to look at all of the wrongs attributed to Christians and ignore the "rights" but if you were to be truly honest I think you'd find the scale tipped toward the latter. The humanitarian efforts of Christians over the centuries and around the world have been innumerable, successful and virtually without equal from any other group or organization.

How could that possibly make my support silly? I support a being I believe exists. You attack a being you believe to be fictitious. Sorry. Yours does not appear to be the more sane of those two pursuits.

You and I are the glaring evidence of that. A supreme being who did not give two hoots about anything wouldn't bother with creating anything.

What other source is there for any characterizations, descriptions, actions or the Name of God? The Bible IS the source. Unless you happen to run into someone who has met God first hand and I have not as yet. The Qur'an is derivative of the original Hebrew text.

Your assertions that the Bible depicts God this way or that are somehow more valid and supportable than mine? How utterly arrogant of you.

God belief has changed criminals into model citizens. It has comforted hurting people. It has turned suicidal and hopeless individuals into beacons of hope for others. Your attempt at social engineering based on what you arrogantly believe to be a superior belief system is charming.

Well I'm glad of that.

OK, prove that the universe came into existstence unguided. Prove that there is no God. If you are as clever as I believe you are you know as well as I do that only beginners at this sort of debate resort to the "prove it" crap when they haven't got any real argument. Anyone who's been around knows that nobody can ultimately prove anything.

Once again I'll have to take your word for your subjective opinion about the thoroughness of your investigation since you've not offered any control group for comparison. You allege that someone who is not an ex fill-in-the-blank, does not have the wonderful perspective that you have. If you say so.

Except for the fact that the evidence for any of the above wouldn't go far toward convincing anyone but a fool of their existence. The evidence for the existence of God is far too compelling for me to dismiss based on any skeptical arguments I've seen so far.

Then this is a major difference between you and I. You have not found that extremely reliable evidence or proof and I have.

Condescending either way.

Likewise, ever since I discovered the plethora of skeptics on the internet (circa 1998) arguing the same points over and over again from slight variations, I too have found a new hobby.

Dean

OAG

I'm curious Don, how you posted from 1:50 tomorrow morning, the 18th, by 10:00 tonight, the 17th. Doing some temporal distortion experiments we should know about?