Sunday, November 04, 2007

A question from a Christian reader.


One Christian reader writes:

“Hey NGZ i dont know if this is the right place to ask this question or if there is another thread i should post it on, but i was reading one of the articles you put up about the validity of the gospels and had a quick question. If the roman uprising was in 70A.D. wouldnt it have been mentioned in the gospels since it would have fufilled what jesus said when he said "not one stone will be left standing"
“Also, shouldnt there be one thing that could totally discredit the gospels and be unrefuttable? But everytime I hear an argument against the gospels there is always some fact that comes up that can argue against it. Anyways just wondering about the first question.”
Let me try to answer you question -- though I suspect that no answer will satisfy you if it contradicts your conclusion. In Luke 21, Matthew 24 and Mark 13 Jesus is quoted as allegedly saying that no stone will be left standing of the Temple. You then ask why doesn’t the N.T., if it were written after 70AD mention the destruction of the Temple since that would prove Jesus was correct.

Your assumption is that the quote in question is from before 70 AD. In fact it may well be that this verse was added in to do precisely what you suggest could be done.

The oldest surviving manuscript of Luke is from around 200, 130 years after the temple was destroyed. Most scholars, outside fundy circles, believe Luke was based on two other accounts: the gospel of Mark and an unknown source. And most say it was written after the destruction of the Temple.

Matthew is also widely believed to be based on the gospel of Mark and the unknown source. Most scholars believe it was written after 70 AD up to around 100 AD. And most assume Mark was written after 70 AD. It would have been relatively easy for Mark to be written after the temple was destroyed and for the prediction to be added at that time. Predicting something after it happens is easy.

The other two gospels are widely assumed to have copied sections from Mark. No gospel manuscript that is clearly dated to prior to 70 AD with the “prophecy” exists.

If I wanted to fake a manuscript predicting the moon landing in 1969 I would write something as if it were from some years earlier, say 1940. What I would not do is then add a verse saying “As actually happened in 1969” as that would clearly indicate the account was written afterwards. The consensus of most scholars is that nothing written prior to attack on Jerusalem exists.

The Journal of Biblical Studies makes the the point that Matthew and Luke “must have been written after Titus’ siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it.”

In addition there is another problem for biblical literalists. Jesus says of the Temple that “not one stone” will be left standing. The photo that is attached is of the famous Western wall of the temple in question still standing. This photo alone, a small portion of the Temple shows hundreds of stones standing on top of each other.

Your second question is why isn’t there just one thing that discredits the gospels. There are dozens of items that discredit a literalistm interpretation of the Bible.

But the issue is that fundamentalists reject immediately all evidence that doesn’t correspond with their conclusion. They judge evidence based on whether it fits the thesis instead of judging the thesis as to whether it fits the evidence. Here are a few examples.

The New Testament says Jesus was dead and buried for three days and three nights. It also says he died on Good Friday afternoon and rose from the dead on Sunday morning. No clock, western or Jewish, ancient or modern, allows you to get three days and three nights out of that time period.

The four gospels do not have the same account of the resurrection. One gospel says one woman discovered the resurrection, another says two, another mentions three while another is indeterminate. One says this happened after sunrise while another says it was still dark.

There is a lack of clarity as to who told the woman or women about the resurrection. In some stories it is one individual telling them in others it is two. In some cases the man/men who are either angels or Jesus, or Jesus and an angel, are inside the tomb when they tell them. In other accounts he/they is/are outside the tomb. Four accounts with many conflicting details.

If the death of Jesus was a messy affair his birth was as well. The gospels mention the slaughter of the innocents, Herod allegedly killing all the new-borns. Yet not one single historical account seems aware of this. Only Matthew mentions this genocide while the three other gospels ignore it. Matthew says Herod slew all the “children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under...” That covers a wide territory and no one found it worth mentioning anywhere except in one gospel. Such an atrocity would be chronicled.

Two gospels say Jesus was born when Herod was king. Luke says that at that time a census was taken “when Quirinius was governing Syria.” So you have Herod ruling on section and Quirinius in Syria. Yet these two never ruled at the same time. Herod the Great died 10 years before Quirinius became governor of Syria.

Josephus gives an account of the period. He says Herod died and was replaced by Archelaus. But Caesar replaced Archelaus with Quirinius. There was a ten year gap between Herod and Quirinius yet the gospel account has them ruling together. It also says the census was taking when Herod was alive which was not the case. But even the census account has mistakes. It says that the parents of Jesus had to return home to be counted and that each person was required to do so. In fact during Roman census taking no one was ever required to return home to be counted. The gospels have that wrong.

Matthew recounts that the parents of Jesus lived in Bethlehem and moved to Nazareth. Luke has it the other way around, they lived in Nazareth and moved to Bethlehem. Luke also says after Jesus was born they “returned into Galilee” while elsewhere the New Testament says they fled to Egypt. Mark never thought to mention the virgin birth nor did Paul.

Two gospels assert Jesus is descended from David but use the birth line of Joseph as proof yet Jesus was not a blood relation to Joseph if he was virgin born.

The gospel of John never mentions Satan, demons or devils. It never mentions the Sermon on the Mount (which the others seem to find very important0, is the only one to report that Jesus washed the feet of the disciples and says that only Mary Magdalene witnessed the resurrection -- something the others dispute.

Now if an account like this were given, outside of the claims of religion, most Christians would believe it erroneous, not exactly trustworthy -- perhaps false. They would not spend hours trying to concoct arguments that let them have it both ways. They say “that’s a problem” for the text. They would acknowledge somebody goofed or that the account is unreliable. But they refuse to treat the Bible with the same standards that they apply to any other book.

In essence there are many issues that the Bible contains that call it into question in regards to being the word of some deity. But Christians tend to ignore them or concoct inventive, but strained justifications, as to why it doesn’t actually mean what it says. If worse comes to worse they merely accuse someone of not having the “right” interpretation which always means their own interpretation.

30 Comments:

Blogger Brent said...

NGZ thanks for the post please allow me some time to respond as i am not feeling well right now. Thanks for taking the time to lay out your findings and i will present mine when i am filling better hopefully by tomorrow.

November 04, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Of course I'd rather you just say: "I'm blown away and concede the case. " : )

Take you time.

November 04, 2007

 
Blogger Ethereal said...

Excellent aritlce.

Robert

November 05, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

lol, sorry NGZ as much as i am impressed at the thought you put into this article i cannot concede the case...but maybe you will =)

Well i just wanted to touch on a couple of key issues with your article because i dont wanna make this too long so you can respond to one thing at a time. To first start off, you are right in regards to the fact that the non mention of the roman uprising in the gospels does not prove that it must have been written before 70 A.D. It can neither prove that it was written before or after that time so it is not relevant to this argument.

Quickly to my first response. You stated " The New Testament says Jesus was dead and buried for three days and three nights. It also says he died on Good Friday afternoon and rose from the dead on Sunday morning. No clock, western or Jewish, ancient or modern, allows you to get three days and three nights out of that time period." On the contrary most scholars recognize that according to jewish time-reckoning that any part of the day counted as a full day. So if Jesus was in the tomb friday afternoon it would count as a full day and still in the tomb sunday morning it would count as a day too.

To the second point about the lack of clarity when it comes to the discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus. Since we are trying to find out whether or not the gospels are historically reliable we must look at examples of other historical literature we find to be reliable. To quote William Lane Craig, "We have two narratives of Hannibal crossing the Alps to attack Rome, and they're incompatible and irreconcilable. Yet no classical historian doubts the fact that Hannibal did mount such a campaign."

So even if there are secondary discrepencies ex; number of women, time of morning, number of angels etc. the core of the historical reliability still remains the same that the tomb was indeed found empty.

I have rebuttals to the other points you made which i will state later but i just wanted to get these two out there.

November 05, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Brent: I never expected you to concede. It is not possible to reason someone out of a position that they weren’t reasoned into taking in the first place. Faith is impervious to reason. That, in my opinion, is what makes it dangerous.

Let me get to you Jewish day issue straight away. You write “any part of the day counted as a full day.” Even if that is true you are still in trouble. Scripture said it three days and three nights not just three days. So any part of a day is a day and any part of a night is a night.

Died Friday afternoon and put in the tomb. 1 day.
Friday night 1 night
Saturday day 2nd day
Saturday night 2nd night
Resurrected on Sunday morning 3rd day

There is no third night. As I said “No clock, western or Jewish, ancient or modern, allows you to get three days and three nights of that time period.” And you have not done so. It is also possible that you have other problems as well here. With the varying accounts of the resurrection, depending on which one we accept as the correct one, you may lose the third day as well.

John chapter 20 says: “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.” That certainly seems to imply that the resurrection, while taking place on Sunday morning (the first day of the week) took place “when it was yet dark” (or before dawn). Other gospels have the timing differently -- apparently God forgot what he wrote in other places when he had John write this gospel.

So if Jesus resurrected while it was yet dark as this implies then you end up with two days and two nights, not three days and three nights. But even if we give you that it was dark when Mary got there but we pretend Jesus was still inside and only tip toed out at the first rays of light, and thus give you a third day you are still short one night.

Next you come up with the argument about Hannibal. The argument is that varying accounts of his crossing the Alps don’t mean he never crossed the Alps. First, those varying accounts don’t pretend to be the world of god do they? No body in the world pretends that human historical records are infallible the way you people pretend the Bible is infallible. It can’t have contradictions because it is divinely inspired. History isn’t divinely inspired recordings and is evidenced based thus as the evidence accumulates it may change the account that is widely accepted. If you are saying that the the Bible is nothing more than a human record, is not inspired by god or god’s word then you can argue human error. You can’t have it both ways. Which do you want?

Second, outside the gospels there is no “evidence” or record of any kind that anyone thought Jesus rose from the dead. Are you contending that the only evidence that Hannibal crossed the Alps are these two contradictory accounts? Or is there, in fact, other evidence which indicates it happened?

In fact his march into northern Italy was during the Second Punic Wars and there is plenty of evidence that this happened. It doesn’t rely on just contradictory accounts. We actually expect contradictory accounts in human documents which is why I argue the Bible is not inspired or infallible but just the writings of fallible, humans. For Hannibal we have statues or busts of him that were made during his lifetime which show he lived. For Jesus we have accounts written decades after he supposedly died and then only from the cult he supposedly founded.

Only a few years after Hannibal’s crossing the Alps coins were minted depicting the the elephants that he took on that journey (most died) on one side of the coin and Hannibal on the other side. Contemporary accounts of the war and histories of the time all document this. Not so for the resurrection claims.

Finally, there is no supernatural claim of immense proportions being made to argue that a military force crossed the Alps. It is not a miracle. It might be difficult. Hannibal lost around half his men in the process but it is not impossible. It doesn’t defy any natural laws or known history of the world. Rising from the dead does.

The greater the claim the greater the evidence required to verify it. At best you offer contradictory accounts by individuals who had a vested interest in promoting the story. In fact there is no real knowledge as to who wrote some of the gospels. There are individuals to whom they were attributed but no evidence they actually wrote it. So we have contradictory accounts by unidentified individuals writing decades after the event claiming a supernatural occurrence of monumental proportions. All reasons to dismiss the claims.

You want to dismiss the discrepancies in the infallible, inerrant, inspired word of god!!! Are then saying merely because they claim a resurrection that it happened when you admit that other claims they made couldn’t have happened as they said since they give varying accounts? Remember this is not an event documented in other ways such as Hannibal’s existence and military trek. This is the central doctrine of Christianity.

If you were making the claim that the Bible is only a human book with mistakes and errors and that it documents what people believed I’ll accept that. But you also want it to be the literal record of what actually happened.

November 05, 2007

 
Blogger Ethereal said...

Hello Mr. NGZ

My question is how do find so much information about history in general.

I find it to be most fascinating.

Robert

November 06, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Robert: It is just reading really. If I read an article and find interesting information I then try to read other sources on the same topic. If that brings up issues or topics I don't know about I then reads up on those as well. If someone mentions a topic here that I'm not up to snuff on I go and research it before I comment.

That is the hard work that goes into such things. The easy part is that I have a fairly decent memory and remember things I've read (not always where I read it) for a long time. That means I end up with lots of pieces of a jigsaw in my head and when a topic is raised the pieces sort of come together. I don't take any credit for the memory as it was something I was born with. The virtue of it was I never studied for tests at school since I didn't need to. If I heard it in class or read it I remembered much of it without studying. I'm not bragging since I didn't do anything to achieve that but I sure did appreciate it.

One philosophy class tested only on chapters in the book so on Monday I'd read the chapter, skip classes and take the test on Friday and passed. If its a topic I'm interested in then I remember. At the very least I know where to look and I always try to verify anything I don't know myself. It helps that I spend several hours per day reading misc. items and publications and books.

November 06, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

NGZ: why can't you believe that i would concede the point of the question i asked? i had no stance on it i was just wondering what you thought so i really cant concede anything i just think your statement was correct in that this event cant prove the gospels were written before or after this date.

what i am confused about is whether or not you can argue that these gospels are historically reliable then get into whether or not their theologically reliable. i certainly believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and i never made a claim that these words contradicted themselves. these gospels are based on eyewitness accounts and as such should be looked on when deciding if they are reliable or not. if they all gave the exact same account about the empty tomb down to the nitty gritty details then there could be a cry that their was one source and the other ones just copied from this source. as it is it is obvious that each one has their own take but they all harmonize on the core issue. all of the gospels mention mary magdalene and other women so there was probably a number of women there and just because the writers dont include all the same ones which they never claim to give a complete list of all the women doesnt prove that they are wrong. and one eyewitness may describe it as dark outside still, another may describe it as getting light but it was still around dawn just using different words to describe it.

On the point that i made about the three days and three nights i should have explained myself better. By saying full day that includes the night of that day as well. As in saying what day is thanksgiving? Its on november 22nd, now this would include both the day and night of this date.

About testimony about Jesus from other sources besides the gospel you mentioned Josephus who in his work called "The Antiquities" states, "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought them a man named james, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." It says in the gospels that jesus appeared to the disciples and over 500 people. Surely if this wasnt true they could easily argue against them. And the jewish sect would have jumped on anything that could discredit their claims.

November 06, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Brent: Why can’t I believe you would concede the point -- because it would rip apart the main things you built your life around. You have too much invested in Jesus and Christianity to ever be willing or able to do that.

I do not agree these gospels are historically reliable. There is no evidence to substantiate them at all. And they are claiming impossible things. I no more think they are historically reliable that the tales of Hercules or Zeus are historically reliable. They are fables that people believe. Here and there you might find a historical fact. Jerusalem did exist but whether Jesus rode into on donkey is unproven and unknown -- that he rose from the dead is a fantastical claim with no reliable evidence or verification other than that a cult, years later, said he did.

The evidence is that they were copied from one source and that is the consensus of Bible scholars outside the realm of fundamentalism. And the accounts need not match perfectly to be inspired but they must not contradict. They can’t claim different events. One may give more details or less details than the other. But one can’t be inspired and infallible and claim that something happened at different times than other infallible claims say. Harmonizing on the core issues doesn’t make the core issue true but not harmonizing on many points indicates that they all can’t be infallible.

And saying it was still dark and saying it was after sunrise are not just two ways of sayin the same thing. That is the kind of mental gymnastics that faith forces you to engage in. In any other circumstance you would find the claim absurd and I suspect anyone not drunk on faith, reading what you are saying, will find it very bizarre at the very least.

What is non-fundamentalist source can you provide for your claim regarding Jewish days?

As for Josephus and his Antiquities. The main reference to Jesus that you mention is known as the Testimonium Flavianum. And it has been assumed to be forgery for about 200 years now. The problem is that no early copy of the manuscript exists at all. The oldest copy is from around the 9th century. But Eusebius quotes this passage in 324 so it was there at that time. Note that is about two centuries after Jospehus died.

Where the problem arises is that earlier Christians like Origen quote the Antiqueties but seem to know nothing about the section you quote. Origin wrote around 240 or almost a century before Eusebius. More oddly the later version has Jospehus calling Jesus, the Christ. Highly unlikely for a Jewish historian and this contradicts Origens reading of the Antiquities a century earlier where he specifically says Jospehus “did not accept Jesus as Christ”.

This raised the issued as to why Origen said that. It implies that Josephus had said something else which Origen chose not to quote but which was negative in some way. And others rewrote that. But no one knows. But the passage that you mention doesn’t seem to be in the earliest copies of the Antiquities. And the consensus is that at some point someone added it in, apparent between 240 and 340.

The Gospel of John does not mention any appearances by a resurrected Jesus. Others claim he did. You say it if was false “they could easily argue against them”. Who is they? The earliest gospels didn’t begin to circulate until decades later. And when you refer to the “Jewish sect” who do you mean?

No gospel that exists is though to predate the destruction of Jerusalem so it is unlikely that the Jews were in much position to do anything. And most fragments of gospels that do survive are much older than that. It is pretty safe to say that the first fragments of the gospels that have been found were themselves made long after the last living person from the time of Jesus had died. Most fragments are up to 100 to 200 years later.

What contemporary evidence there is that Jesus existed is rather uninformed. It says very little. We know that some people believed in a man named Jesus and that they say things about him (depending on the source changes what they say). Beyond And what histories there are are clear that the birth of Jesus could not have taken place when the Bible says it did. There is no independent verification of anything signficant about the New Testament and nothing that verifies the key beliefs that Christians have about Jesus.

November 06, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

NGZ: if i conceeded the point that Jesus really didnt raise from the dead then that would shatter my whole faith. now saying that the roman uprising hasnt yet prove the dating of the gospels but can be argued has no effect on my faith in those gospels and the one to which they speak of.

you keep saying that my fundy scholars give no truth to my findings and i find this to be a little confusing. when i look up material on scholars it doesnt say fundamentalist scholar it just says scholar just as i would assume the scholars you look up. no if you wanna discredit the scholars thats fine you can bring up evidence that would discredit them. when you argue that no one mentioned in these gospels was alive to refute them, but that is soley based on the presumed dating that you get from "your" scholars. however the standard scholarly dating even among "liberal" scholars has Mark in 70's Matthew and Luke in the 80's and John in the 90's, which is still well within the lifetime of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus.

When i speak of the jewish sect i meant the religious leaders or sanhedrin of this time. and as for the 3 days and 3 nights in the Talmud it says "that a day and a night together make up an "onah" (nuchtheemeron in greek) meaning "night" and "day" and that any part of such a period is counted as a whole. Matthews is a gospel written to Jews who would have no problem with this idiom, and it is interesting how in Luke (written to gentiles) and who understood time differently didnt record this part of Jesus' speech.

I will talk about the birth of Jesus and how it is reasonable to believe that it occured when the gospels said it did, im still not feeling well but i will post as soon as possible. Thanks for discussing with me NGZ i apprecitate the time you have given on this topic i know you are a busy man so thanks.

November 06, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

1. When I said concede the point I was not referring to the issue of the Roman attack but to the whole case.

2. You take me out of context and apply what I said to the wrong things. I said that the first fragments of any of the Gospels that have survived (not when they were written originally) were penned decades after the last person from the time of Jesus had died. Remember that these were copied and then copied again by hand. And along the way changes got made, sometimes by error sometimes intentionally. And the earliest fragment we have was penned long after the last witness died. If that fragment was an accurate copy of earlier manuscripts is unknown since no one has the earlier manuscirpts.

To go into a whole discussion of when it was written, which was not my point, is therefore not relevant to what I said. I asked where it is that any part of the day is counted as the whole and you didn't answer. I asked for a source not for you to elaborate again what you are saying. And I'm interested specifically in a reputable source for the statement that even a few seconds of one day was counted as the whole day.

And whatever you have illness wise I think you passed it on. My stomach has been in poor shape all night and it's getting worse. : )

November 06, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

1. sorry thought you were just talking about the uprising and not the whole case.
2. didnt know you were talking about the fragments. but since the point of copies of copies has been used. it is only fair to mention when researching works of antiquity from this time nothing can rival the amount of manuscripts the gospel provides. The gospels have over 5,000 greek manuscripts, and one fragment with the gospel of John has been dated from 98-150 which could have been less then a hundred years after Jesus.
3. One explanation for the gospels account of the birth of Jesus comes from an archeologist named Jerry Vardaman who has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writting which places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia back to 11 B.C. Which brings up the argument that their could have been two Quirinius' or that he ruled at two different times.
4. Sorry your feeling bad hopefully its nothing. Its no fun being sick but hey at least we know it will get better or should i say "hope" it gets better =)

November 07, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

5. oh and sorry i meant to discuss the source of the 3 days and 3 nights i mentioned the "Talmud" as my source from where the idiom came. is it not a reliable source?

November 07, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Oh, there are thousands and thousands of fragments of the various books of the New Testament. That is how we know that there are literally hundreds of thousands of discrepencies between those texts. Apparently god didn’t think to preserve his word and allowed scribes to handle it. They made mistakes, took verses out, added sections they thought sounded nice, changed words they didn’t like. And it happened over and over and over.

Mr. Vardaman, who was a fundamental Baptist minister, is also considered something of a joke. Yes he does claim that just “very small writing” but micro writing that is almost invisible to the human eye. He claims that coins are just covered with these microwritings. In fact he claims this practice of microscopic writing lasted for centuries across numerous cultures.

But if you don’t mind, while I have a long reply half finished I’d like to delay it momentarily so I can put it in proper order and post it as an article. In the meantime can you produce a photo of the alleged coin? And in what scholarly journals did Vardaman make his claims?

November 07, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Brent: Where in the Talmud? Can you please be a bit more specific. This is like saying that you can find something in the Bible. There is a lot of it to dig through. I was just trying to find out where.

November 07, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

Sorry just checked your latest blog. I dont know where i can find a picture of this coin but i will look and get you the information on any articles he wrote about the subject. Your right i should have given a more specific location for the information i gave, my bad but you can look in the Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix.3 or look in the Jewish Encyclopedia under the article "Day" (Volume 4, page 475)

November 07, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

http://www.biblicalchronology.com/pdf/VardamanLecture1.pdf, this is what i found regarding micro lettering. i believe mr vardaman passed away before he could publish any articles on the coin but letters have been made and research has been done here http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article108.htm

November 08, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Thanks Brent. I will be publishing my reply. I do have a photo of one of the coins along with a drawing Vardaman drew of what he claimed was on the coin. And I will be publishing my reply. It is basically done but we are in the last stages of a business deal which is now taking up some time plus I have had some major writing projects in other fields to complete. I will try to edit the piece and get it up soon.

November 08, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

ok, no problem hope everything goes well and i look forward to the article. would you mind if i asked what kind of other writing projects your working on, just curious.

November 08, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

It is very tempting to tell you. But the problem is, that based on that information individeuals might tie this site to other places I write. And I've been in the position before where some people on your side of the debate (not meaning you of course, just people who agree with your conclusion) have been extremely vindictive and nasty -- I can't even tell you what they did since that would easily reveal my identity and open me up to more of the same shit.

I feel bad about not being able to do that since it's nothing to do with this, and I found the research fascinating. But even if I were to mention the topic I can see how it can connect. Of course nothing may happen but having been put through a living hell once before I have no wish to do it again. Sorry I can't be more helpful. My natural tendency is to answer any question put to me, as you may have noticed.

November 08, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

yes i have noticed =), i understand with your situation. sorry youve had some bad experiences with it and i completely see why you wouldnt want to mention it now. thanks for taking the time to explain it to me though.

November 08, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

Hey NGZ just wanted to see how the business stuff is going, hope everything is going good. Talk to you later.

November 13, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Fortunately for the business it went well and everything is going. That is unfortunate for other things I need to do like blogging which are having to take a back seat.

November 13, 2007

 
Blogger DatabaseDave said...

More blog, less business! That's my vote.

November 13, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Hey, I'm with you but the grocery store has a different idea and so far they don't value my blog sufficiently to give me food. And food is a habit I acquired young in life and prefer not to give up.

November 13, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

haha, yeah i think that is something that we can agree on ;), but glad to hear everything went well.

November 13, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

NGZ! what have you been up too?

November 29, 2007

 
Blogger Brent said...

Hey NGZ just thought i would pop in and see if youve written anything lately, so where have you been? Hope everything is the whole grocery store thing is going good. Hope to hear from you but i dont think that i will. Anyways here's trying

January 17, 2008

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Brent

Still around. I never said grocery store just a business. And it has taken a lot of time. In addition I needed to have some small medical matters taken care of which I did out of the country since it was much cheaper and easier. And I only get back to my own computer on Monday. I´m sorry I have not yet posted that other article.

January 17, 2008

 
Blogger Wikkid said...

What i know is this. If God is love, then god cannot be judgmental, jealous, angry or vengeful. These emotions/actions are derived from fear. All human emotions derive from love or fear. Judgment and love cannot exist at the same time. To say God is loving is to imply God can be something else. God cannot if god is infallible in love and compassion.

First of all, the idea that humankind (Eve and Adam) outwitted god's plan and through disobeying became something god did no intend, is to say god's wisdom and intelligent design is faulty. To claim, on the contrary, that it was in his plan and he knew it was going to happen, contradicts that it was not his intentions to allow it to happen. the idea that he would allow the fall from grace to happen as told in the bible is stupid. Has it ever occurred to anyone that it is an illusion, and that the garden of eden refers to infancy and the bible is a parable about the journey of our consciousness from the physical to the spiritual?

After humanity becomes corrupt, somehow, in all his Ultimate Authority and infallible love and compassion, he is incapable of forgiving humanity without a sacrifice, his own son. This is also false. If you cannot deal with people with love and compassion, it's because you are judging them and judgment is just a reflection of something you do not like about yourself. I can give pages of examples of how Christians judge people and how it reflects back on them. It is impossible for god to be judgmental or to for the creation he saw as good to become bad.

The message of salvation is that humankind is not capable of forgiveness of their own sins (mistakes made out of ignorance) on their own and needs supernatural intervention. In all of god's brilliant design, somehow he forgot to give us the natural psychological means to make a simple choice to forgive ourselves and others, and found us unworthy of being loved. When u teach people god has rejected them, to hate him, but to be slaves of bondage to performance love, people will sin without question out of fear and greed. Sinning is a choice and forgiving ourselves is a choice. thinking you need a god or Savior is just a way to be unaccountable. people who blame external sources for their emotions, motives and actions, look for external sources to distract, save and change them, instead of taking responsibility. This is why people get addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, food, religious delusions, etc.

The idea we are nothing without Christ, putting ourselves down to raise Jesus up, etc., are delusions of worthlessness. How ignorant are you to put yourself down, not love yourself and call yourselves wicked sinners in front of many people and god? What a stupid thing to say! Using Jesus' 2nd Coming as the ultimate way to deal with delusions of guilt and worthlessness is ridiculous.

The Bible states that putting people to death is the punishment for disobeying any of the 10 commandments, but doing so would make anyone doing the killing break the 6th commandment. The OT has God, the Protector of humanity, on numerous occasions, ordering the murder of men, women and children and unborn babies, the slavery of people, the raping and sexual slavery of women, and the annihilation of entire cities.
God also orders Moses to make a graven image of a serpent when Moses and the Israelites were instructed in the Commandments not to do such a thing. The cherubs on the Ark of the Covenant were idolatrous images and therefore, the stone tablets of the Commandments surely could not have been stored in it.

There are an estimate 350,000 errors and contradictions and many can be disputed by simple sciences and/or Scripture. A literary, critical and literary reading of the Bible will disprove itself.

Those who wrote the books of the Bible, did not know they were writing it. Humankind has made god in the image of himself to justify their own judgment against others.

God is not a personification, but a unification of all that is good, all that is positive. The universe and all that's in it are these things. The problem does not lie with the devil. it lies with the human ego, a self-image made up only of fears and illusions. The problem lies withing humanity's perception and it is accepting the ego but transcending it that will set us free. We have been free from the beginning.

May 05, 2009

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites