You aren't signed in     Sign In    Help

Jesus! vs Darwin!

Jesus! vs Darwin! by The Searcher.
Jesus Christ
Positives: Impressive stamina. Historically known for taking a beating, staying on his feet. Has history of miraculous resurrection.
Negatives: Invented Pacifism. Dangerous habit of turning the other cheek.

Charles Darwin
Positives: Invented Natural Selection. Understands what's at stake with "Survival of the Fittest".
Negatives: Theology student, nearly became an Anglican parson. Mixed feelings punching his Lord's Only Son and Savior in the face.

Inspired by the Creation Museum that opened deep in the craw of Kentucky this month. Proudly displays dinosaurs mingling with Adam and Eve, less than 6000 years ago. Noah had some on the ark, but apparently they sinned once they got here.

larger one here.
Prints, too. 

Comments

← prev 1 2 3 4 5
(469 comments)
view profile

MKozmeniuk  Pro User  says:

Very Good The Searcher Your thinkin !
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Vos el despiadado says:

very nice!
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

LeChron84  Pro User  says:

Haha! Nice and original!

Good job on everything - Faved!
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

froyd says:

brilliant!
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Sukanto Debnath  Pro User  says:

hahahaha awesome!!!
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Blackwyr says:

That's beautiful. If Jesus weren't so fair-minded, his faithful horse would already have eaten Mr. Darwin.

(Edit: Dude, you even remembered the nail holes. Well done.)
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cisley  Pro User  says:

I got Jesus at -300 and Darwin at +240. Any Divine intervention and all wagers will be NO ACTION.
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Cap'n Surly  Pro User  says:

ha ha! now that's science in action! The flying spaghetti monster really ought to step in and break that up.
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Jasmic  Pro User  says:

He he he :-)

Sharp...

I would have a fight with Leonardo Da Vinci. That man was so damn clever he makes the rest of us look dumb, no matter what we do.

--
Seen in my contacts' photos. (?)
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

JohnKit  Pro User  says:

Beautifully rendered. It's a tough call, one can call in a favorite to dad and change the laws of nature and the other one has the power of science. Oh wait, there's no proof that his dad exists. I put all my money on Darwin.
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Querulant  Pro User  says:

Great work!
--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

blimpa  Pro User  says:

how brilliant are you?
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

I think this is likely the apex.
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

A Romantic Tales  Pro User  says:

Hi searcher i good expression for thy face,..^^ Sorry Jesus Vs Darwin this cute^^
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

facecrunch  Pro User  says:

ha, that's good
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Kirpernicus  Pro User  says:

Funny stuff! That creation museum is a complete and utter joke.

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Eye Candy!, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group.
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Johan Berna says:

jaja esta buenisima la imagen, saludos!

bye :)
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Lori's story  Pro User  says:

Too funny!
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

theprint  Pro User  says:

This one's perfect! I love the positives/negatives as well.

--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

saint magenta  Pro User  says:

*snicker*

lays out my last tuppence on the Lord
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Bob Duck  Pro User  says:

This is absolutely BRILLIANT!!
Posted 31 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Aristocrat  Pro User  says:

you are genius! How does it feel like being one?
Posted 30 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Anne Carr freedom+love=peace...  Pro User  says:

wow-this is just incredibly perfect! i love it! i can't believe i didn't see this before...one of my all-time faves for sure. love it... you have extraordinary talent!!
Posted 30 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Jaboney  Pro User  says:

That's pretty clever.
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

Sergio Alvaré [deleted] says:

Favorita desde hace mucho ;)
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

Wow... I can't believe this "fell outside my safesearch filter". Cmon' flickr, this is NOTHING.

(As in, nothing worth putting a filter on - great work!)
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

That sounds like a fluke, or bug. The image is set as "safe".

damn that hand-of-god crap.
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Mr. Sinistrus says:

This is DARK ENLIGHTENMENT!!!
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

DAISY R. says:

"THE CREATOR" VS the Created of the Creator.

It may not be really what is in the real facts because the CREATOR never strives with regards to ALL HIS created.
GOD-ALL MIGTHY never strives it is MAN that strives with his CREATOR.
1.)Human Carnal Perspectives:"GOD is my equal so I do not treat HIM with HONOUR & RESPECT.(nO REVERENTIAL FEAR WHATSOEVER)

2.)GOD'S SOVEREIGN PERSPECTIVES: "Nothing shall stand or exalt itself against the Name of:(Philippians 2:10)
JESUS CHRIST ..is a Name ABOVE ALL NAMES.ALL KNEES SHALL BOW ..of those of the WHOLE EARTH & those Under the Earth.
This is from the Holy WORD OF GOD our CREATOR.

We are just MINUTE sands in arena of vast humanity GOD created.
Posted 26 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

JohnKit  Pro User  says:

I think her keyboard is broken, the caps keep coming on at odd times. Maybe it's a secret code!
Posted 26 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

It may not be really what is in the real facts

uhh... what?
Posted 26 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

DAISY R. says:

Women do not pick up fights with grown up man..it is childish & silly.I only want you all here to see 2 different perspectives.That's all to it.No more no less.No offense taken.
Peace i give to you all.
Posted 26 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

I'm 17 years old. I don't see why you would want to pick up a fight, but if you need some help I can reach over and grab it for you.
Posted 26 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

pirs says:

darwin > jesus. and god.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Aeon6 says:

at least darwin was real
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

darkpatator  Pro User  says:

Oh dude, your style is so amazing !
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mbryan777  Pro User  says:

I respect men who search, so I hope your name, "The Searcher" reflects your heart.

There is really no contest between Darwin and Jesus. In fact Jesus loved him and formed him and held together the universe that he explored and enjoyed.

The Bible - Colossians 1:13-17
13. For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15. And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.
16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created by Him and for Him.
17. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

The Bible - John 1:9-13
9. There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13. who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Bible - John 14:6 (words of Jesus)
6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

The Question is? Is he a liar, a lunatic or Lord and God? There is really no other choice. If you ask Him to reveal it, you will find him to be Lord and God.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

random bible spam ftw!
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

There is a school of thought that posits that a creator, logically, strives to create something more than himself, better than himself. Any Mother or Father can attest to this. Thus it could be considered that man was not made in god's image, but was in fact made to be better than god. An improvement, a next generation. A child of god.

in which case, man by virtue of his very creation, has surpassed god and god's wisdom in most respects. Which puts the money on Darwin to win out.

Working against logic, as so much of the bible tends to do, Jesus is apparently both god AND god's son. So he's both god and more than god, at the same time. Which one is fighting Darwin at this moment?

And the fight of Reason Vs Faith rages on.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

mbryan777  Pro User  says:

Searcher,

Neither is fighting Darwin. God loved Darwin. I'm not sure Darwin ever fought against God any more than the rest of us. Darwin has only been used by some who probably know God exists but are afraid to face Him. Darwin probably realized that one would need an incredible amount of faith to imagine that everything just popped into being without a designer.

I am an engineer, but studied biology for two years before getting my engineering degree. The more I know of biology and engineering, the more I am convinced that God designed us, the flowers, bacteria and the stars. Just consider the human heart. It is a pump unequaled by anything man ever made. But then consider the amazing eyeball, with all of it's moving parts that focuses and sends an image to the brain. Then consider that for an eyeball to have evolved, it needed the heart, but for the heart to be nourished, the man needed the eyeball to see. Then there is the brain...

Think of how silly it is to consider God fighting Darwin, a mere man while He holds the planets in their orbits.

No, He loves you and I and Darwin more than we could ever imagine.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

near as I can tell, Jesus wasn't around when Darwin lived, so you're going to have to take the piece as metaphor. The Bible should have given you some practice with this.

And as metaphor, your words here about perfectly encapsulate the struggle between science and faith. Thank you for your contribution.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

JohnKit  Pro User  says:

mbryan777 :
Ach, not the eye thing again. Please people, go take a class, read a book, talk to someone who understands, anything. If your misconceptions about biology parallels your understanding of engineering I hope never to encounter any project you have worked on. Please, no offense is meant by that but that is like saying that a computer is impossible because the equipment used to build them is so complex that they can only be made with the assistance of computers.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Jasmic  Pro User  says:

random thought - scientists have proven that Bees cannot possibly fly. Something about power to weight ratio or the such...

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

blimpa  Pro User  says:

am i the only one turned on here?
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

Jasmic: actually I think some scientists (possibly graduated from similar school as our engineering friend here) haven't yet figured out how bees fly, however they haven't proven or disproven anything. In fact a bee in flight pretty much disproves the negative, and elegantly.

John: I think to be same as the biology "argument", computers would have to have been created by better computers. Floating off in space omniscient computers.

Blimpa: probably. but I thank you for your contribution, too.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

i thought the picture was enough to turn me on but all this religion/science back and forth has really got me hot.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

www.welltaken.co.uk says:

we love jesus as well, jesus brought peace to the world, one day jesus will be back to bring peace to the world. in jesus honour i took picture www.flickr.com/photos/welltaken/1153142633/ i hope you will like it.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

JohnKit  Pro User  says:

Searcher; Yes, you are right, I stand corrected. That is a much better analogy.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

k2ski  Pro User  says:

i'm a photoshop junkie, and have stayed in my little comfortable box making money doing photography and graphic design, but man, you have totally inspired me. i've gotten off my ass and really been enthralled with illustration for the past month because of your work.

you have amazing stuff. keep it up.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

saramauldin says:

The Searcher,
you shared your beliefs and mbryan777 was simply sharing his. There is no need to insult his intelligence- he did not attack yours or your talent. You have a wonderful talent and a vivid imagination but have some respect for people who don't believe what you do.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

Actually I thought I thanked him for the contribution. Reconciling doctrines of faith with facts of science, is thankfully something that I do not have to do. Faith and logic seldom play well together, and I think his response was a good demonstration of that. How a man of science can envision an invisible creature literally holding the planets up, is honestly beyond me. Which again, is really the underlying message behind this piece.
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

i didn't care before, but now i hope so too!
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Travis S.  Pro User  says:

That Jesus can throw one hell of a left cross.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

DAISY: Well said. The struggle is with man. Jesus is not struggling. God is not at a quandary. The light came into the world, but the world did not receive Him, because we loved darkness.

SEARCHER: If something were 'greater than God,' then God would no longer be God. Furthermore, if God created me greater than himself, why do I not have infinite knowledge, creative power, and a transcendent nature?

Interesting image. I think I get what you're trying to convey. From a humanist's perspective, it makes sense. Just know that Christians will not view it as an accurate portrayal of reality.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

First off, you lost me at "Daisy: well said". Then you lost me again with the random gibberish right after. That sort of rote, memory-speak is fine for keeping your flock in line, but doesn't help when you're trying to actually say something.

Second, "Just know that Christians will not view it as an accurate portrayal of reality. "

I'm sorry, but if your "christians" idea of an "accurate portrayal of reality" includes a disembodied all-powerful entity responsible for all things everywhere, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on what "reality" means.

Third, perhaps you don't have "infinite knowledge, creative power, and a transcendent nature" because your creator did not, either. In the same way that your Father and Mother were no more human than you, yet they hoped to create something better than themselves, in you. In my experience, in most human experience, the act of creation, is about making something better, bigger, stronger, more powerful, more beautiful, etc. It seems, like many things in the bible, to be very illogical to set out to create something less than what you already are.

Just guessing, though. But then, so are you. Thanks for stopping by.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

blimpa  Pro User  says:

does anyone else get turned on by these comments the Searcher is making, or is it just me and my gay neighbors who follow this stream..
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Searcher: All I'm saying is that a Christian's view HAS to be based on the Bible... by virtue of being a Christian. For this reason, a Christian's view of reality is viewed through the lens of Scripture. The God of the Bible is simple, which is to say that He has no composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form. He is not "disembodied," as He does not preside IN space and time. This is why I stated that He is transcendent. A person does not HAVE to view reality through the lens of Scripture, but if he's a Christian, he will.

As far as what "reality" means, I would define reality as a synonym of "existence." In other words, nothingness, would not exist in reality. A mountain of pure gold--although possible or conceivable--does not exist... unless one is discovered. Therefore, this mountain cannot be found in "reality."

God's purpose in creation (as revealed through Scripture) is not illogical as you stated. In fact, it is conceivable, logical, and rational. The purpose of creation was the display of the glory of God through the demonstration of grace to undeserving sinners, justice upon wickedness, and majesty through design. More could be said, but I will await your reply to see where our disconnect now lies.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

This is mostly for Blimpa's sake, because there's little I like more than turning her on.

But my disconnect now I guess is on the replacement of god with Jesus. I know there's this whole son, father, holy ghost thing where they're all really the same thing, but just table that for a second. Your response up there a bit was on my image, which depicts Jesus fighting Darwin, for ostensibly the hearts and minds of humanity (guess who's fighting for which?). The "accurate portrayal of reality" you described, had nothing to do with god, but with Jesus. So when you say :

"He has no composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form. He is not "disembodied," as He does not preside IN space and time.."

I wholeheartedly believe you. We agree on this point of reality; god is apparently not viewable nor touchable in any time zone. Got it. But Jesus? He on the other hand, according to this book you refer to, was around at some point. An actual guy, living and growing and walking among us. Very touchable, very in a specific time zone (GMT +2 hours, depending on daylight savings.) This book also says he died, and then got up again some time later. This book also said that at some point, he's coming back again.

Ok. So if you take that (which I admit, is a lot to take), under certain circumstances, this guy, this flesh and blood guy, can find himself on the human plane of existence from time to time? It seems at least possible that he could have popped down in the 1840s sometime and had a go with a young Mr. Darwin, perhaps during one of his crisis' of faith. Considering the other magical things that are in your book as accepted facts to many, this does not seem unreasonable to me. If it seems unreasonable to you, then perhaps you should look inside and decide how deeply you truly believe in the things that are supposed to be possible to you.

Oh yeah, also? The image is metaphorical. I didn't think a metaphor, of all things, would be so hard for theologians to pick up on.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

how very articulate of you. i'm getting a little turned on myself.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

I understand the abstract way in which you are making your point in the image. It's like the struggle between the religious creationists and the darwinian evolutionists. I get that.

What I'm getting at is that a Christian worldview would have a follower of Jesus (or perhaps Moses who wrote the Genesis account) struggling with Darwin... not Jesus himself. This is due to the fact that Scripture reveals Jesus as 100% divine (while also 100% human). For this reason, the Christian would not see this as an "accurate portrayal of reality," as God never struggles. You can disagree with the theology all you want. All I was saying is that CHRISTIANS will not view the image as an accurate portrayal.

I get the imagery. I get the message. I understand the logic. From the unbeliever's perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

So believing in reality (as opposed to proposals of reality) makes me an 'unbeliever'?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Liam: Pardon the expression, but "unbeliever" is a term used in the New Testament for one who has not placed his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. In other words, it's a non-Christian. "Unbeliever" doesn't mean you don't believe in anything. I should have been more clear.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

Well, it isn't your fault. When you use loaded biblical terms like that, it's hard to be very clear at all.

Almost as if it were written (or translated) in such a way, on purpose.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

It is evident from ratherbebiking's comment that he knew exactly what I meant by "unbeliever." It was just an opportunity to say something incongruous.

I would extend a word of caution when trying to vilify the historicity, reliability, and divine origin of the Bible. The evidence requires the suspension of disbelief to continue to hold such disdain for the Word of God.

I don't know why it would be offensive (which it appears to be) to say that something makes sense from one perspective while not from another.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

Really? I thought "suspension of disbelief" was a requirement for belief in the "word of god". That's the "suspension" part.

I think some offense comes from the Orwellian use of loaded terms like "unbeliever". Of course as you've explained, neither Orwell nor totalitarian governments invented the concept. See, if someone doesn't believe in something, you would say usually that they are a "non believer", which implies in its language that they do not believe in that thing. When you, or as you say the new testament, tweaks it that little bit, with the "un", well you have a slightly different thing, now don't you?

"Unbeliever" carries with it the idea that you are incapable of belief, that if there is no belief in your god, then there simply is no belief. With a broader explanation you try to clarify, but to most people sitting in listen when such words are read, the clarification is missing. Just the implication remains. And with most religions, it seems it can only be an "us vs them" mentality.

As far as historicity goes? That's the easy part. Most of the happenings in the bible, have no historical congruity. Unlike say, when the New York Times reports on something, and the New York Post and CNN and Paul's Blog cover the same event from different perspectives.

with the Bible, you got your parting of the red seas. But where's the other reports of the same event? Where's the Egyptian Daily Herald's hieroglyphic editorial response? Where's the man on the street journal that got handed down through generations, eventually published in a tell-all of red sea slavery survivors?

Most of the 'reliability" you infer, has no support or secondary proofs. Something that science can't even function without. Something that human history doesn't exist without. History doesn't require faith, it just requires documentation, evidence, and verifiable witnesses.

There's nothing slanderous about speaking opinion, so there's no vilification here, or at least intended. I can't denigrate or lower my estimation of the value of the bible or christianity, because I already do not hold it in any higher esteem than any other of the world's religions, belief systems, historical accounts, or fan fiction. It is what it is. It has its place, one I don't have to agree with or take part in, but a place that is no more or less important than any other deeply held personal faith or value system.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, prophetic evidence, and statistical evidence can all be imperically demonstrated to verify the reliability of Scripture. We'll start with the archeologist's spade:

No doubt, there are some things in the Bible which will never be confirmed through archeology. For example, archeology has not found any evidence that Abraham lived — but, of course, that’s exactly what you would expect, since in terms of the politics of his day, Abraham was not exactly the most important historical figure. And because they don’t exist, archaeologists are obviously not going to dig up tapes and transcripts of Abraham having a conversation with Sarah, or for that matter with anyone else. All we can legitimately expect form archeology in matters like this is to show that the events described in the Bible make sense in context. And that, of course, has been done in a very spectacular manner.

In fact, the skeptics laughed at the Bible for asserting that Ninevah was a real city that the Assyrians were, in fact, a real people. Perhaps you know the story — someone discovered a brick on the Tigris River. The brick had the name of “Sargon” on it which, of course, was one of Syria’s great kings. It was sent to a Paris museum and was soon declared a fraud. Not long afterward, Laird, the great Assyriologist, had the temerity to dig up the entire city with its temples and palaces. And once again, the critics were proved wrong and the Bible reliable.

Pontius Pilate is another great example. He was thought to have never existed... until 1961... thanks to archeology. More could be said.

I'll get into the manuscript evidences later... I'm out of time right now.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

I'm not refuting that the events in the bible supposedly took place in historically and archeologically provable locales. I'm not refuting Bethlehem, Jerusalem, or Alexandria didn't exist. I'm proffering that the things that the bible said occurred in these places, the big moment magical things, seem to only be evidenced in the bible. Or in the manuscripts that were gathered together to become the bible.

So you know, some of the big things, the resurrection, the red sea split, the burning bush, those pesky ten commandments that no one seems to recall where they were kept? The plagues, the smiting, the angelic earthly visits, the walking on water, etc etc?

These are the sorts of things that a faith is built from. The fact that there were people and places in the apparent time of jesus isn't in dispute. The idea that magical things happened to them, some witnessed by many thousands of people, yet there are no corroborating records of such events, is how the seeds of skepticism grow.

Which really shouldn't matter. Faith is supposed to be about belief without proof, right? So you shouldn't have to defend the stories of your faith, at least not under the rigid structure of evidence and proof. Whenever people try, it quickly devolves into jesus riding dinosaurs. It simply isn't necessary, and diminishes your efforts with each attempt.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

The world's foremost leader in archeology Sir William Ramsey set out to disprove the book of Acts through archaeological methods. Afterwards, here's what he had to say:

"Luke (the author of Acts) is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense." "In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."

SECULAR historian Flavius Josephus wrote the following in his Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3:

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

Regarding the resurrection evidences, there is no dispute among credible scholars that a historical figure named Jesus suffered fatally at the hands of the Romans on a cross. Secondly, even the enemies of Christ verified the fact that 3 days later the tomb was empty. If the tomb was not empty, the opponents of Christianity would need only to produce a dead corpse of Jesus to squash the movement. Third, Jesus appeared to thousands of people over a period of 40 days AFTER the crucifixion. These witnesses were even willing to testify to the fact (an act that proved very costly). Finally, we see the transformation in the lives of those who encountered the resurrected Christ. James, the half-brother of Jesus, went from being embarrassed by Jesus' teachings to calling himself "a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ" after the resurrection. Saul of Tarsus went from being a persecutor of Christians to a bold witness for Christ to the Gentiles (non-Jews). Eleven of the twelve apostles (all of whom MET the resurrected Jesus) died a martyr's death. The 12th was exiled. Keep in mind that there is a distinct difference between dying for something you THINK to be true (i.e. a Muslim suicide bomber) and dying for something you KNOW to be FALSE (what the apostles would have done if in fact Jesus had not been raised). ALL their hopes rested on the resurrection. In fact, without the resurrection of Christ, Paul tells us that our faith is futile... we're still dead in our sins.

While it is true that faith does not REQUIRE evidence, it should be noted that Christians do not hold to a "blind leap in the dark." It is a faith that is grounded in evidence.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

"Jesus appeared to thousands of people over a period of 40 days AFTER the crucifixion."

What? Wow. So, in a time without cameras or documentary representations of living people, when most slaves and working class folk couldn't read, nor used a daily calendar, a bunch of people swear they saw a person that they've never seen before? They weren't operating under, oh, I don't know, someone telling them that this was jesus, and he was killed last week, no seriously I swear, this is the guy, honest?

Fast forward to modern day. I got one for you.

"Nicolas Cage look-alike fools Real Madrid"

And that IS with cameras and internets and websites that track actors to where they are every minute of every day. Yet still, thousands of people believe that the Nicholas appeared to them, in spite of being thousands of miles away at that same instant. Magic? Or the power of suggestion?

Besides, that's not proof. That's what's known as "anecdotal evidence", or "circumstantial evidence". The resurrection, in your example, is the thing to be proved. It isn't to be disproved, since the onus is on a thing someone claims to be proven. I don't need to disprove anything, since the mountains of evidence against the event (the small issue of no one having come back from the dead, like, ever.) add weight to the generally accepted theory of "dead is dead".

So offering up some people who say, who swear, who even firmly believe that they saw a dead man walking, is similar to finding a murder suspect had a parking ticket a few blocks from the murder scene. It doesn't place him at the murder, nor prove he committed it, it just ties him to the "circumstance" of the event.

Now, let's look at some of your other stuff. All those guys whose lives were changed as a result of the resurrection. I especially like the bit where Paul essentially pins the entire viability of his religion on the resurrection incident. If it didn't happen, christianity is dead. Combine that with the knowledge that the Romans would surely, as you say, have desecrated jesus' body if it was left in place?

There's some serious motivation for some people to take it upon themselves to safeguard the body, and possibly invent a story to piss off the Romans, and empower the believers. That doesn't aid your version of events, it calls it into greater question.

So if as you say, your faith is grounded in "evidence", I would say it isn't the sort of evidence that would convict anyone of anything. Which is to say it's devoid of actual proof. It's the sort of evidence that helps people who already believe, defend their faith. I'm still waiting for the big events and the witnesses of them. I think that Red Sea parting is a great example. Huge event, tons of people, variety of ethnic and socio-political groups on hand (the "good guys" and the "bad guys") and best of all, the "bad guys" had a wonderfully advanced and durable system of writing and language in place, even back then. They extensively documented mundane crap like the yearly crop markets. I'm sure they would have at least chiseled something down about a massive sea opening up and then swallowing thousands of soldiers. But so far, outside of the bible, there's no mention of it anywhere. Ever.

Because here's the thing. When the only "witnesses" present are the people telling the tale, the people of the faith, the people trying to convince others of something, well there's unfortunately a bit of a reliability issue. What we need, I mean what you need, are people with nothing to gain from their tale. Historical objectivity.

Because big things happened back then. Cataclysmic events, like earthquakes and volcanoes, tens of thousands of people dead. How do we know such things? Because there are historical accounts of these things occurring, from multiple sources that aren't related to each other in any way. All recounting the same thing from different perspectives.

But so many of the Big Special Effects Events that occurred in the bible, seem to have only occurred in the bible.

And without some sort of proof or verifiable accounts from people not affiliated with that particular book and faith?

I kind of have to go with the "if no one saw it happen, it didn't happen" theory. Also generally accepted.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

No, Searcher, a "bunch of people" saw someone they HAD seen before. He was no stranger to the apostles and hundreds of others. In fact, many even ate with him after the resurrection. They were convinced it was Jesus. They gave their very lives for the fact.

Regarding the Exodus account, which you seem so hung up over, I would point you to a couple of things...

1. Physical evidences discovered:
www.anchorstone.com/content/blogcategory/29/5 3/

2. A papyrus dating from the end of the Old Kingdom was found in the early 19th century in Egypt. It seems to be an eyewitness account of the events preceding the dissolution of the Old Kingdom. Its author, an Egyptian named Ipuwer, writes:

* Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
* The river is blood.
* That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!
* Trees are destroyed.
* No fruit or herbs are found...
* Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
* Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
* The land is not light [dark].
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_papyru s)

3. When we look at Egyptian records from this period, we find that studying Egyptian history is like trying to reconstruct the history of the United States based on a smattering of tombstone inscriptions and the inscriptions on a few monuments. For example, the Thera volcano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption ), could be given the same level of scrutiny based on "lack" of documented evidence from that time.

4. About the "chiseling down" a record of the Red Sea crossing, you may want to take into account the Sinaitic inscriptions in Wadee El-Mukattab, Sinai:

INSCRIPTIONS START
"The wind blowing, the sea dividing into parts, they pass over"

"The Hebrews flee through the sea; the sea is turned into dry land."

"The waters permitted and dismissed to flow, burst rushing unawares upon the astonished men, congregated from quarters banded together to slay treacherously being lifted up with pride."

"The leader divideth asunder the sea, its waves roaring. The people enter, and pass through the midst of the waters."

"Moses causeth the people to haste like a fleet-winged she-ostrich crying aloud; the cloud shining bright,
a mighty army propelled into the Red sea is gathered into one;
they go jumping and skipping.
Journeying through the open channel,
taking flight from the face of the enemy.
The surge of the sea is divided."

"The people flee, the tribes descend into the deep.
The people enter the waters.
The people enter and penetrate through the midst.
The people are filled with stupor and perturbation.
Jehovah is the keeper and companion."

"Their enemies weep for the dead, the virgins are wailing.

The sea flowing down overwhelmed them.
The waters were let loose to flow again."

The people depart fugitive.
A mighty army is submerged in the deep sea,
the only way of escape for the congregated people."
INSCRIPTIONS END

5. In the first century BC, historian Diodorus Siculus described the Sinai Peninsula in his Library of History saying, "Moreover, an altar is there built of hard stone and very old in years, bearing an inscription in ancient letters of an unknown tongue. the oversight of the sacred precinct is in the care of a man and woman who hold the position for life."

All this is simply to respond to your "outside of the bible, there's no mention of it anywhere. Ever." comment. Hope this proves helpful. I'm not trying to propose that one become a Christian based solely on emperical evidences of the Bible's historicity. The point is that the Bible does record historical events, and if the Bible is to be trusted, these historical narratives should, to some extent, be verifiable... which they are.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

well, first, because this is my page and there's no rule that says we can't. In fact that's sort of what the comment feature is for, actual discussion.

And second, you know you can delete your own comments when you misspell something, you don't have to make two of them.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

I read that too. Considering the times, it's hard to equate our modern use of drugs with past times. People snorted some tobacco thing laced with opiates for millenium. Not to mention the peyote and other hallucinogenic rituals of many native american tribes.

However, I trust MSNBC about as much as I trust the book of job. Similar level of fact-checking between them. But whether or not moses was high or really talking to a burning bush or just making stuff up, the proof is in the pudding.

Or in this case, a couple stone tablets about 3 feet tall, with inscriptions on them not made by mortal hand. If those turn up someplace, then we've got a horserace.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Travis S.  Pro User  says:

I think it's cool that this guy is finding historic accounts of the volcanic eruption of Santorini (Thera) and its affects on the people in the area via "plauges", tsunamis and the likes. What can an eruption like that do? I'm sure the inhalation of ash would have been a big killer by asphyxiation, and the ash cloud may have even blocked the sun out for a while. Cattle and other animals might have died from eating all the sulfur-laden material that sprayed over the landscape and onto their food sources--nasty stuff. What remained of the animals or insects may have swarmed the viable food sources that remained after the blast. Also because of this explosion you might even think there would be a pretty big diaspora of people leaving the area to find less affected lands.

So it seems the people who recorded these catastrophic disasters explained them away through the use of religion. Not only did this give reasoning to something that they couldn't explain, but what a good choice by those who choose to use nature in their favor.

I have no issues with seeing the Bible as a tool to understand the life and times of the people during the time in which it was written (Although you have to think that this was probably oral tradition before being written down. Then you must also consider the various translations throughout the generations.) But as we all know, written words can be interpreted in a variety of ways. When the story's original intent was to be remember important events through oral tradition, things might get a little aggrandized to help cope with the issue of things getting lost.

Take any story from the Middle East that has been recorded (also including probable, historically-accurate facts, yet with a resoundingly religious twist). The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, has various versions starting in Sumerian times when Egyptians were building the pyramids, and 2,000 years later in Akkadian times where distinct variations have arisen from the same story. Imagine what the Bible has done in a similar time frame, at least with respect to the New Testament. Imagine was has happened when you double that time. Imagine all the edits and translations in a time before the printing press.

People in power have agendas and religions evolve. You can see this from the Egyptian times where multiple gods have melded into one to reduce confusion, or more simply where cultural standards have shifted with the times. I'm sure some people remember when Catholics could only eat fish, in terms of meat, on Fridays. I'm sure others are aware that polygamy was once legal among the Mormons. Communion in many Protestant churches was a members only tradition, but many churches have now realized the importance of being all-inclusive.

This wasn't my original intent, but I think Jesus is just delaying the inevitable. Times change and religions evolve with them. Otherwise don't you think we'd still be sacrificing lambs? Or maybe there would be no such thing as "Protestant" if Martin Luther didn't find the Catholic church so apprehensible. Even when considering the Bible you can see change. Jesus was an evolutionary force in giving Western religion a different trajectory. The God of the Jews was one who told His people to go forth and claim territories as your own. By the time Jesus comes into being, people are immersed in civilizations and are no longer nomadic. The people needed new guidance from someone who could tell them how to act properly in such an environment. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is drastically different from "Go forth and pillage the land, but take nothing."

Maybe this is something that Darwin recognized but Jesus just isn't ready to accept. Maybe Jesus is upset that Darwin has finally figured out that religion is double-edged sword of the subjugation of a given group of people, while at the same time maintaining that group's social cohesiveness. It does seem kind of funny though that Jesus appears to be the aggressor in this illustration.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

akseabird  Pro User  says:

William Ramsey is not the world's foremost archaeologist. He has been dead for almost 70 years. He was a 19th century archaeologist, and while those guys are appreciated and respected within the discipline for their contributions to starting the field...they are rarely given credit for being much more than the glory seeking pot-hunters they were.

They are credited for pillaging sites and collecting artifacts with no provenience, no scientific methods in their excavations and no reference to anything but their own ideas about antiquities.

Archeology back then was not about science, it was about "antiquities studies" in the name of fame, fortune and nationalism.

Ask archaeologists and archeology students today if they've heard of him...and I bet most of them haven't. That's because, as far as I can tell, the people who are most proud of his accomplishments are the people who are clinging to his " archaeological proof" about Luke and the book of Acts because the current state of debates between "believers" and "non-believers" has made Christians feel as though then need to provide scientific evidence for their FAITH, even when that evidence is weak.

I think if you're going to call anyone the world's foremost anything, they should be 1. alive 2. If not alive, and you mean to indicate credit as founders of a discipline, their name should be one of the first to spring to the lips of living practitioners of that discipline when questioned about important founders of the discipline.

What other archaeologists backed up his points? Was his research supported by peer review? OK...so peer review as it exists now is a little too modern for him...but what work has been done by modern, scientifically respected, archaeologists to further bolster his assertions?

Sorry, I latched onto a petty point, maybe...but just thought I'd point it out amongst all of the others...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

Yeah. Like see, um. Wow. Now this is what I'm..yeah. Wow. That's what this is for. I mean.. Well. Jeez, Blimpa is going to get crazy hot from all this. Well done, and well said.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Travis: I'm excited to see you chiming in here. It seems like you may have read a lot ABOUT the Bible, although unbalanced or one-sided. I wanted to comment on just a few points you made.

In the Exodus account, remember that Moses is the one who penned the narrative. It was a first-hand accounting of what took place. He was born a Hebrew, raised by Pharaoh's daughter, killed an Egyptian, fled, herded sheep, married a Midianite girl, spoke with God, returned to Egypt, and led the Hebrews out of slavery. The written record is not what someone said another guy said who heard from someone else that Moses did these things. The "unprovable" claims (i.e. the burning bush) become believable when viewed in the context of the whole of Scripture. For example, if Moses were making this stuff up, why didn't he make himself out to be something other than a stuttering murderous shepherd? I would have anyway. I know this is not proof, but it does speak to the authenticity and believability of a claim.

Second, in reference to your assertions on changes within faiths (you mentioned Mormons and polygamy, Catholics and fish, & communion among Protestants), keep in mind that human understanding is finite, and interpretation can be flawed... I'll give you that. However, God is immutable (unchangeable) as is His Word. I cannot speak to Mormon doctrine as it contradicts the teachings of Scripture on many levels. With the other two examples you gave, neither of these "changes" change anything about the truth of Scripture. Scripture teaches that communion is reserved for those who have been "born again." If a church wants to insure this guideline is followed by allowing only its members to participate, it is entitled to do so.

Thirdly, you would know WHY lambs are no longer sacrificed if you were familiar with what the Bible teaches. The sacrifice of animals was a "type and shadow" of the spotless lamb that was to come. Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, satisfied the wrath of God upon the cross for the sins of all who would believe. Therefore, there is no longer any need for the imagery, because it was fulfilled in Christ.

The Protestant Reformation came about because Martin Luther stood for truth. The Catholic Pope Leo X and Johann Tetzel were "selling forgiveness" to pay for the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Luther, through reading the Word of God, came to realize that sin cannot be atoned for by giving alms. So even though men may pervert the truth, we must make the distinction that the truth never changes.

God used the Hebrews as an instrument of judgment on the wickedness of those living in Canaan. But the Jews were also judged by God when He used the Babylonians to take them into captivity for 70 years. Just remember that God is not a racist... nor is He a land broker. These themes have come about (especially within the last century) because of "newspaper eschatology," which is simply interpreting the Bible in the light of current events. This should be avoided.

Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament law. What the law was unable to do for man, Jesus did (namely make us right with God). The law condemns man, but Christ sets us free from the burden of the law. Paul goes into great detail on this in his letter to the Romans. Before posting too many more objections, I would suggest you read Romans. It'll make you look so much more informed.

Finally, I would say that Christianity is not a "religion." One does not become a Christian by following a certain religiosity or moral prescription. According to the Bible, one becomes a Christian when he is "born again" and enters into a relationship with God made possible by a foreign righteousness (not his own) that is imputed to him by Jesus Christ. In other words, Christianity is God finding man... not man finding God.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Travis S.  Pro User  says:

Wow. I really don't want to get into a battle of semantics here, but I suppose I should say a few things. I was in fact raised on the Bible and went to a private school that had weekly chapels and Bible classes integrated into their curriculum. So I'd say I know a few things. Maybe not as much as you because you've chosen to continue with it.

First of all, you did a good job by stepping out and finding sources outside of the Bible, but then when I made my comments you immediately reverted to the standby of "The Bible says...". And that's genuinely true. The Bible says a lot of things, and I suppose that if you take it to be infallible, then I can't understand why you don't follow the same rules laid forth by Leviticus, unless there was some sort of evolution within the religion.

Speaking of which. You say that God is not a racist. It seems that this is a product of your being in our present time. Look back 100 to 300 years and you might remember a thing called manifest destiny where it was seen by Europeans that God had laid out the land for His people and it was theirs for the taking because the people who were already occupying those lands were sub-human. I think this may again be another example of religious evolution. Imagine if the church still thought the same way as in the pioneering days. Nobody would want to be a member because of their bigotry.

Another wave seen today is for churches to consider themselves to be non-denominational. This is a good way to be all-inclusive and try not to create sects, which the Christian faith (amongst others) are so well-known for doing. If God's Word is true, then wouldn't you think people would be able to agree on a single interpretation? One would think that he would be cognizant enough to give Moses and others the right words people to have no doubt as to what they should believe.

And I never refuted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. His writings are used today in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths. It's odd that such conflicting institutions can read similar works (actually the same work, just different translations) and still be at odds. Why does God allow for such confusion? Now I'm doing myself an disservice by asking questions about an entity that I don't believe in, and in turn giving you the power to give another assumptive answer.

The only thing that I want to get across is that the church evolves with the culture to keep itself alive. In your own way you explain it away as an act of God and as the original act as no longer being necessary, but I suppose that's the beauty of religion, that you can give meaning to something by simply putting God's seal of approval on it.

I recently had a discussion with a Mormon woman who I asked why the church gave up polygamy. She said that the Prophets deliberated and prayed over the issue where eventually they were told by God that it was the correct thing to do, give up polygamy. Now as disassociated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as I would assume any good Christian to be, you might see this to be kind of funny. God making them evolve their ways to fit into the more powerful culture and society that deems polygamy unfit. God being the driving force of this "cult"?! How silly! They did it just because they didn't want to be persecuted (and they wanted Utah to become a state of the Union, where reneging polygamy was a mandated stipulation).

Now I ask you, how is that any different from your answers with regards to religious evolution based on cultural standards?

I have to admit though.
It would be a lot easier to argue with you if you were Catholic.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

akseabird  Pro User  says:

I don't mind battles of semantics! re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I would argue that "God finding man" defines your personal relationship with God/Jesus...however, the minute you start grouping together in churches and fellowship, it becomes a religion. Why on earth would even try to say it's not? That just seemed like a silly argument.

I know only a few people who are faithful in the same god as you, that I would not call religious. And they are few and far between. And you would probably call most of them backslidden.

Anyone who is a pastor of any sort is most certainly part of a religion. Your own "relationship" with god might not be a religion, but everything beyond that is...

The fact that Moses himself is the one who penned the Exodus narrative does not make it more believable in my book, no matter how honest he was about his humanity. Men throughout human history have penned their own account of history that did not reflect entirely favorably on themselves...and did not reflect accurately on the truth of events. Without any other accounts to substantiate these events (a point made by searcher) I don't see how a first hand account by one individual only amounts to much of any sort of substantiation or believability.

Also, I wonder if you're aware of how unbalanced and one-sided your knowledge is of the Bible, Youth Pastor. It's a bit funny, almost ironic to cast that aspersion at someone else. Especially given that it turns out you didn't know he had quite a Biblical education, he's just managed to actually get in touch with the other side of the story...the only one you saw him presenting, since you were already presenting the Christian perspective on it.

The problem with believing both that God is immutable in his Word, and in believing that the Bible really is the literal and infallible word of God is that you then give yourself up to the fact that, EVEN IF, the original texts in their original forms were divinely inspired and guided, they have been re-written and re-translated so many times by so many fallible and changeable humans.

You have given yourself up to the faith not only in an immutable god, but that every single person who has written or translated "his word" has done so while being guided by God's righteous and immutable hand.

And as you have so aptly pointed out, those words are very easily manipulated by leaders of any given church. You recognize that humans are fallible, but you fail to recognize that the scripture has passed through the hands of fallible humans hundreds, probably thousands, of times, changed each time along the way.

Also, one thing I've never really understood, even when I was a passionate Christian...is why Jesus came and excused us all from the old laws...but that hasn't actually happened in practice. We don't sacrifice lambs anymore, we don't burn down our moldy houses, we don't circumcise our baby boys (well, we do again recently, but not for religious reasons) there are so many to which we are no longer bound But other Old Testament laws are firmly clung to...even if they were not written about in the New Tesatment.

No one agrees entirely on which were OK to abandon and which weren't either.

As a random, and basically irrelevant point. Jesus seemed to realize that a few thousand years practicing the same laws that really, in all honesty, were by and large meant to protect the people from the harms of the world, was enough time to make those laws no longer relevant. Too bad a few thousand years after Jesus, Christians don't have a new prophet to help the re-interpret their faith in a way that is really relevant to the age they live in just as Jesus did for the Hebrews-turned-Christians of his era... (And please don't feel the need to point out that Jesus was more than just a prophet...and that the second coming is already prophesied...and that this will bring about more than just a change of laws...like I said, it was kind of a random thought in my head I felt the need to throw out...)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Aristocrat  Pro User  says:

@Youth_pastor, "This is due to the fact that Scripture reveals Jesus as 100% divine (while also 100% human)."

Jesus (if he actually existed) was in fact 100% human. Perhaps a very compassionate and caring human, yet his followers made a God out of him. People have been making Gods out of people, animals and imaginary beings throughout the history. Governors and Rulers used the byproduct of being human (religion) as a tool to control people and move them to any directions they wanted (hint to the US or Iran's elections)

Again throughout the history, Kings have been the investors and invaders, and Priests were often the marketing department in charge of twisting peoples' views of reality.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

So many people to respond to... so little time.

Travis: This discussion is healthy, and I appreciate you engaging me as you have. I explained why we don't follow all the same rules as they were spelled out in Leviticus in my previous post. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the law. What the law was incapable of doing, Christ did. The law condemns, Christ sets captives free. Again, read Romans before making any comments on this subject, please. It's not an evolution of the religion... it's the fulfillment of it.

Regarding your comments on Manifest Destiny. I'm well aware of men--many who waved the Christian banner--who perverted truth for power. There are countless examples of such. However, this in no way makes it justifiable. In fact, it would contradict the teachings of Scripture. Again (if you would read my entire posts I wouldn't have to repeat myself like this), I NEVER said religions don't evolve. I did say that TRUTH, on the other hand, is immutable (unchanging).

Regarding the many denominational differences within orthodox Christianity, I've written a blog post on this subject. You can read it here... rpquestions.blogspot.com/2008/02/so-many-demo ninations-wh...

You asked, "Why does God allow for such confusion?" I don't think you are really wanting an answer, but it seems this is an attack on the reliability of the Scriptures. Am I right? I may be wrong, and if so, let me know. I would be glad to present you with the biblical answer (although it may be a little lengthy).

Your beef with the Mormon friend of yours is not with Christianity nor the Bible. God never changes. His mind never changes. His will never changes. His purposes never change. If you were to investigate it more, you would see a VAST difference between the Mormon view and the Biblical view on subjects such as God, Christ, eternal life, and salvation. Again, just because humans change their minds doesn't mean the truth has changed.

AK Sea Bird: Your entire paragraph on the Moses issue shows me that you have not read all my posts here. I pointed out several extrabiblical evidences for the exodus account. I also stated that Moses' self-description was NOT proof... it only lent to the believability of the narrative. That's all.

On the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture... you got me. I agree that only the original autographs were infallible an inerrant. However, I would argue that manuscript evidence has demonstrated the overwhelming reliability in the preservation of the originals. The Bible is, without a doubt, the most reliable literary work of antiquity. I wrote about this subject as well here... robertpiercy.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-bible-re ally-reliabl...

It seems you also have questions about the OT law vs the NT standard. You will notice that Jesus didn't abolish the law... he made it more strict. "You've heard it said, 'you shall not murder,' but I say that anyone who has hatred in his heart toward another is guilty of murder." "You've heard it said that, 'you shall not commit adultery,' but I say that anyone who looks lustfully upon another is already guilty in his heart." Who then can be saved??? The point... with man, it's impossible. We need a mediator... Jesus Christ. I'll write a blog post on this subject and come back soon and post a link here. Hopefully that will help everyone.

Aristocrat: If Jesus was not in fact God, he was a liar and NOT a "compassionate and caring human." Because of him, thousands would lose their lives. He asked his followers to abandon EVERYTHING to follow him. He proclaimed himself to be God over and over. However, unlike others that we have attempted to make into gods, Jesus verified his claim by the immutable fact of the resurrection.

Thanks for taking the time to engage with me. I'm looking forward to more educated responses soon. Talk then.

-Robert
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

cyclosity  Pro User  says:

jesus is gay
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Aristocrat  Pro User  says:

@youth_pastor, "If Jesus was not in fact God, he was a liar and NOT a "compassionate and caring human."

Well compassionate liars aren't certainly unheard of, but again maybe people made up many attributes for Jesus long after he was executed because the memory of some kind of saviour would have made it easier to live under the oppression of savage Romans.

@youth_pastor, "However, unlike others that we have attempted to make into gods, Jesus verified his claim by the immutable fact of the resurrection"

People made up the resurrection. 2000 years ago mass of people were quite naive and uneducated and they were capable of dreaming up everything, (they are still doing it today!). Believing that Jesus was some kind of saviour was perhaps a coping mechanism to make living under the tyranny of Romans slightly more tolerable, and that's until Romans later on figured out how to use a well developed religion to brain wash and control people for centuries.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Travis S.  Pro User  says:

Exactly. If you can control history you can control the people. That's something that Orwell's 1984 is pretty big on.

"'Why does God allow for such confusion?' I don't think you are really wanting an answer."

I do.

And God doesn't change? I can't imagine how many times you've heard this referenced as you seem to enjoy these confrontations, and I suppose once more will not do any good, but:

Exodus 21:22-25:
"22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Matthew 5:38-41
"38 You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."

I also find it odd that you say that Jesus made the law more strict. Does strict mean make it anew? It seems like these laws are in stark contrast.

Change is still change. You say that Jesus came and CHANGED the Word of God, but that it's OK because it was prophesied. And even if you "would argue that manuscript evidence has demonstrated the overwhelming reliability in the preservation of the originals," you have no way of proving that a prophesy wasn't created to suit the religion's purpose. So on that presumption (which I'm allowed to make if you are making them), I'm sure you would also say that God and Jesus are the same person as defined by the Trinity. How then can you say that God is immutable if clearly He isn't, as seen by his EVOLUTION within the laws laid out for His people?

I might even go out on a limb to say that Christianity originally evolved from a variety of religions in the Fertile Crescent area, be them from the Egyptians, Akkadians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Philistines, Canaanites, and others. You should read the Egyptian's Book of the Dead and compare them to similarities found in the Book of Psalms before you pass any judgment. You should noted that among similar hymns, they also contain 5 of the 10 commandments that Moses allegedly received from Mt. Sinai. I also suggest The Epic of Gilgamesh and compare it to Noah's adventure. If you have time you might also want to look into Sargon of Akkad's history and see how he too was involved in a story of being put in a basket and sent down river to avoid being killed, only to eventually realize his life's potential as an important figurehead.

I'll be working on the Book of Romans myself, as you suggested.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

Ok, that's enough of the silly crap. I've deleted the last few comments where it got pointless and insulting. If you want to be clever and insulting at the same time, I'll usually let it go.

But it better be pretty damn clever. that wasn't even close.

Have a conversation, here in my house.

Take the disrespectful crap elsewhere. thanks.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Aristocrat: I'm glad to see you are willing to dialogue with me on these issues. So please don't be offended when I say that your first paragraph (re: Christian life under the Romans) makes you look either unintelligent or inellectually dishonest. Identifying with Christ in the first century meant DEATH under Nero. Disown Christ or face the lions.

About the resurrection: So much can be said to verify the historicity of the resurrection, but I've covered many of the highlights earlier in this thread... www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/546252526/comme nt7215760410...

The resurrection was a historically verifiable event. It wasn't made up centuries later. Even the enemies of Christ didn't deny the resurrection event. In fact, they worked hard to explain it away. It certainly didn't make life "easier" under the Romans as you claim.

Travis: You've asked some good questions that would take some length to do them service, but I'll do my best to provide a quick answer here.

Why does God allow confusion?

First, I would say that, by right, God can allow or cause anything He wants. If He is God, and we are not, who are we to accuse Him of wrong? I know that does not satisfy your thirst, so I'll point you to a few texts from Scripture:

2 Peter 2:1-3 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep."

Here Peter tells us why confusion exists. Two reasons: 1. False teachers motivated by greed. 2. Ignorant followers eager to follow selfish teaching.

So why does God allow it?

The short answer is this: to display the infinite worth of His son, Jesus Christ. Here's what I mean. God through Christ is glorified in the salvation of undeserving sinners. But He is also glorified in the display of perfect justice upon sin. Notice what Peter said in the last sentence I just quoted above. He's reminding his readers that God's judgment is still there, and these heretical teachers will not go unpunished. Nor will those who seem to have "gotten away with it" escape the judgment of God. This brings glory to God, and is the short answer to the "why" question. Hope this helps.

The "eye for an eye" issue you raised is an interesting one. One should note that the OT mandate of an eye for an eye is a call for restitution, not retaliation. Jesus does not contradict this with his statement of "turn the other cheek." Governing authorities should have the power to impose restitution upon criminals. This would include financial restitution, jail time, and in some cases--the death penalty. The NT confirms this in Romans: "for he (the governing authority) is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer."

Back to the issue of God changing, I would rather discuss this after you have read through Romans... particularly chapters 6 & 7, which deal specifically with the issue of the law vs. the new covenant.

I don't see the similarities (however minute) between EBOD's hymns and the Psalms to be of any consequence. One should note that the differences are quite vast and far outweigh any similarities. There are similarities between every major religion. There are similarities between Buddhism and atheism.

Of course, one should expect other accounts of the Noah story (such as the Gilgamesh Epic) to be in existence because the flood was an actual event. Even the Australian Aborigines have legends of an ancient massive flood. This is logical, since all people groups came from the few survivors of this event.

The Sargon account you referred to comes from a text written 17 centuries AFTER Sargon lived. This legend only ADDS credibility to the importance of Moses in ancient history. Glad you brought it up.

I hope everyone understands that my goal is NOT to win a debate. Rather, my goal is to proclaim truth. I only pray God will soften your hearts to receive it. Until that happens, I'll eagerly await your responses.

-Robert
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Travis S.  Pro User  says:

In reference to Sargon you're admitting that stories can change over time and maybe you're also saying that it's possible for one culture's religion to borrow from another? Or that maybe over several hundred years that writings may change. I suppose you would "argue" against the fact that King James had anything to do with changing the Word of God in his favor.

So that's about the extent of my debate this time around, and I'm going to have to leave it at that. Spring Break is over and I have better things to do. Thank you for a bout in circular reasoning. If I don't cut this off, it will happen that I will keep saying that maybe there is some change in Biblical translations and you will refute it. You will say that other works however, do and will change over time and translation. So there is no winning as neither of us (yet) have the absolute truth -- or at least proof of this truth. This reminds me why I often try to stay out of this type of situation. Although I have to admit you've been better at keeping up with this discourse over most, if not all previous encounters I've had with Biblical fanatics.

Cheers.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Aristocrat  Pro User  says:

@youth_pastor, "Identifying with Christ in the first century meant DEATH under Nero. Disown Christ or face the lions."

Of course, Romans were savages, even 300 years later life under the Roman catholic church wasn't that much fun either, they were burning books and scientists in fire. It took them 200 years to officially apologize Galileo and it will probably take another 200 years to officially admit Darwin was right.

@youth_pastor, "The resurrection was a historically verifiable event. It wasn't made up centuries later. Even the enemies of Christ didn't deny the resurrection event. In fact, they worked hard to explain it away."

There is no shred of evidence indicating that Jesus or any other dead human ever came back to life, other than the fact that a large number of people want to think that it actually happened.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Travis: Of course religions borrow from one another. This, however, does not change what is true. The truth of Scripture has never changed. Sure, men's interpretations and distortions of this truth are evident everywhere... just turn on TBN. I've never denied this since this is not the point. The point is whether or not the Scriptures can be trusted, Jesus is God, or the resurrection really occurred. No opinion, translation, or interpretation of anything can change truth. I'm not sure what King James has to do with the discussion. Other English translations are not translated from the KJV (although I would say that the KJV is a good translation and can be trusted). Scholars use the most credible extant texts. In fact, I should point out that translations such as the ESV and NKJV use older manuscripts available at the time of their translations.

Regrettably, I have to agree with you that most Christians don't know why they believe what they believe. Peter tells us to "always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." Just keep in mind that the majority is not always right. Truth exists. And all truth is God's truth.

Aristocrat: The church (namely the Roman Catholic Church) is not infallible as many might postulate. Galileo took the same position as Augustine, who lived over a thousand years prior, in that all Scripture is not to be taken literally. When interpreting passages, one has to differentiate between a historical narrative and Hebrew poetry. Many Christians are scared to death of science, but they shouldn't be. Science and theology go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not even going to respond to your resurrection denouncements. I've laid out 4 compelling evidences FOR the resurrection, and until you can refute them, your comments are nothing more than talking points.

Hoping you find the greatest treasure,

Robert
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

maccu says:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Jesus was a communist, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Darius Lesgettham says:

Okay... To all of you: interesting discussion.

But Com'ON - is there some scriptural mandate to leave your sense of humor at the door? Have we forgotten how to appreciate satire?

As much as it tempts me, I won't jump into the fray with *my* views - and believe me - there's a rich tapestry of them with MY family. I will only say that I thought Searcher's drawing was excellent - both in style and substance.

I'm about halfway through a great book by Dava Sobel called "Galileo's Daughter" - a very interesting treatise of the same argument we're having here, but through the eyes of Galileo over 400 years ago. (btw...Sobel wrote another excellent book called "Longitude")

An interesting tidbit: Did you know that back then, the *church* was responsible for determining what scientific thought was valid and what thoughts would send you straight to hell. Back then, they were BOTH considered faith-based...and were pretty much in the same bucket. Scientific thought and discovery were frequently poo-poo'd (the official term) when it disagreed with what the church had already proclaimed was the truth - that the Earth was the center of the universe, for example.

Okay... Here I am, making comments. Sorry, I said I would resist the temptation. Being an apostate scientist from a sometimes fanatically religious family... it's hard not to let it slip.

I'll end with a quick quote from Abraham Lincoln:
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

...just for the record - that was an attempt at HUMOR.
(but if it made you think a bit, well ... BONUS! :-)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Darius: I love that quote from Lincoln. Thanks. It just goes to show you that truth is truth no matter what you say about it or how you interpret it.

I'm with you on the church/science point during Galileo's time (although not just during that time). I was talking with a guy yesterday about the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (scripture alone). He was Roman Catholic. Your point sums up what I stated to him about the doctrine (which he does not agree with). The Catholic Church has been wrong on several issues in the past (a heliocentric universe for example). What you won't find, however, is a change in the Word of God. As far as Christianity is concerned the Bible has to be the final court of arbitration.

Thanks for the input.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Oh... and just for laughs...

All your base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Travis S.  Pro User  says:

If the Word of God doesn't change, does it count when you omit it?
Why do the Catholics believe in the Old Testament Apocrypha whereas Protestants have sent it to the wayside?

The Catholics came first, so one would think that you should keep all of God's Word and not pick out what you think is good or bad for your faith. You might be missing out on a lot of "God's messages" by disregarding these books.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Travis: Congratulations on making the 100th comment on this thread. You raised a great question. I'll do my best to answer it.

I would start by noting that the Catholic Church did not canonize the Apocrypha until AFTER the Reformation (at the Council of Trent). So to say that Protestants "sent it to the wayside" demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject. Secondly, I would note that the Protestant canon (39 books) comes from the Palestinian (or Hebrew) Canon and was recognized by the Jews before the time of Christ. The current Catholic canon is derived from the Alexandrian Canon, which was the Greek listing of Old Testament books--originally drawn up in Alexandria, Egypt about 250 years before Christ as many Jews were getting away from the old Hebrew language.

So why were some of them not included in the original Palestinian (and current Protestant) Canon? Well there are several reasons. I would first point out that they contain many teachings which are not congruent with the whole of Scripture. For example, they encourage prayers for the dead, teach salvation by works, and they even include an account where God is shown to be assisting someone in a lie. Therefore, in light of the teachings of the rest of the canonized books, they fail the test. As you correctly stated, "the Word of God doesn't change."

Secondly, I would say that there have been a number of authoritative testimonies against the acceptance of these books, including those from the Jewish scholars of Jamnia, as well as many of the church fathers and scholars, like Athanasius and Jerome.

I would also note that none of these texts were directly quoted by Jesus or any of the New Testament writers (as other canonized books were). Jesus, most likely, used the Hebrew scriptures rather than the Septuagint, which became more widely circulated in the Greek-speaking church.

I would not deny that these accounts are very helpful in our knowledge of what took place in the 400 year gap between the Old and New Testaments, but they are certainly NOT the Word of God.

There is a great, well balanced, article on this issue here if you're interested in reading.

www.probe.org/content/view/25/77/

For every satisfactory answer there are a thousand new objections to be thought up. Ultimately, it is not an intellectual reason that we do not bow the knee before a holy God. Rather, it is the condition of the heart, which is opposed to God. However, through the power of Jesus' work on the cross, our dead heart can be made new, and we can be made right before God. May God give you eyes to see... and a heart to receive.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

"it is not an intellectual reason that we do not bow the knee before a holy God"

Actually I thought this was quite the opposite. That no intellectual reason is needed to do the kneeling thing. It seems that faith can live without reason, while science cannot. It'd be swell if both could have both, but doesn't seem very common. In spite of your many reasoned responses youth_pastor, most within your flock do not share your mental agility nor need for same. Reason simply isn't required for faith to exist.

Whereas with science, it's about the only thing that is required.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

The point is that no matter how many substantive answers one may give to the "skeptic's" objections, we only see more of the same... stonewalling. So why is this? Ultimately it comes from our own heart. We love our sin too much. John 1 tells us that the light (Jesus) came into the world, but the world loved darkness. If God exists, then a morality defined outside ourselves must exist, right and wrong must exist, responsibility must exist, and judgment must exist. Our natural will is to oppose this.

I acknowledge the sad reality that many Christ followers don't know how to communicate reasoned responses to common objections. However, a person's ignorance on a subject does not change the truth or falsehood of it. To use this objection as a "reason" for disbelief is simply another attempt at stonewalling. It is not even rational or logical.

I'll go ahead and respond to your objection in light of what I just said. Faith, of course, can exist without reason. However, faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. For example, faith in the "flying spaghetti monster" is futile as demonstrated by reason. So, in this sense, reason does play a role in genuine faith. If the object of our faith (i.e. Jesus Christ) was a real person who really died, was really resurrected, and who is truly divine, reason should justify this faith. I would also argue that science requires faith on many levels as well (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing). It has to. For example, the scientific community has faith that Newton's second law of mechanics was constant long before Newton's time. Faith is required to assume life can come from non-living matter or that a singularity can exist. Faith is required to assume that the speed of light is constant in space and that new information can be added to a genome. No doubt reason plays a significant role here as it can overturn a theory in light of new discoveries. Nevertheless, faith in the scientific community is essential.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

You're not wrong. There is a constant pushback to most everything you've proffered. It could be because none of it constitutes proof of supernatural or magical powers. Stories of things other people have seen and/or done, don't really work on me. I've known people, personally, that have seen ghosts, and flying saucers. They really believe something paranormal occurred to them. And I'm not going to take that away from them, or say they're lying, or crazy. Because I wasn't there. But I also can't hold that up as proof, either. I have to reserve judgment, either way.

You're asking people to believe in something, accept something as fact, that they cannot see, cannot test. That requires faith, some might say blind faith. And beyond that, even if I reserve judgment on the existence of god, even if I admit that I have seen it neither disproved nor proved. Even then, that doesn't mean I would want to join up. Believing something exists, isn't the same as believing IN it.

Some people just don't need what you're offering. Some people don't need to worship something, or cosmic judgment, or approval, or absolving of wrong-doing. Some people have a moral foundation based not on a belief system, but on a social structure and ethical learning. My Mom taught me how to be a good person, how to empathize with others and always look to do the right thing. And my grandparents taught her (and me). And the people around them taught and supported them. I don't need fear of eternal fire to keep me in line. I have an internal "clock" that tells me when I do right and when I do wrong.

So until the religions of the world, fall in line with how the modern world works, I have no need for them. All people deserve equality and freedom, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I have yet to find a magical deity, or a book written about them, that agrees with that. If one ever shows up, cool. All I'll need is a decent demonstration of magical powers then. easy peasy.

And even then. There will be no kneeling.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

akseabird  Pro User  says:

"...However, a person's ignorance on a subject does not change the truth or falsehood of it. To use this objection as a "reason" for disbelief is simply another attempt at stonewalling. It is not even rational or logical."

Too many Christians, and believers of other faiths for that matter, forget this. As a result anyone who does not believe in their god, but does believe in science is constantly met by the same sort of stonewalling.

Why is it that people are only capable of casting this aspersion and never accepting when they themselves do it?

For me, the real issue is not most of what's been discussed. That's all fine and good and interesting...and great for conversation. What really gets to me is that I'm expected to accept someone's right to believe in something beyond proof that's available or believable to me...but they never offer me the same courtesy.

I think Searcher just sort of touched on what I mean with his discussion of people he personally knows who have experienced paranormal events. I'm not out to tell anyone they can't have faith in something just because I don't. I just wish my right to the same was respected a little more.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

The Searcher  Pro User  says:

Here here.

yes it is always a hoot when I tell a well-meaning christian that I do not believe, and the response is something like "Oh, well that's ok, to each their own. You know you're damned to eternal damnation though, right?"

Which is surprising, how they can look down on me so, what with all the bowing and kneeling and supplication they're required to do. But that's the rub. Recruitment is one of those things built into virtually all religion. Any good club has a mechanism for growth. For catholics it was/is banning birth control and encouraging large families. For evangelicals and mormons, it's literally door to door sales drives.

All of which is considerably more benign than the old fashioned approaches, like the crusades and the inquisition. But your point is still well made. It's just, unfortunately, against organized religion's construction and nature to abide anyone not of them.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

youth_pastor says:

Searcher: A few semantics, but I think they're worth pointing out. You said that some people don't need what I'm offering. The thing is that I have nothing to offer. And if I did, how could it be worth anything more than the next guy. The rub is that a very real God has something to offer. I stand nothing to lose by your rejection of His offer (nor does He).

You also confirmed that you adhere to a moral standard... and that good exists. I would say these two (moral standards & good) cannot exist without a moral law giver and a definer of good. I would also propose that the definition of good must originate outside ourselves. Otherwise we are left with an infinite number of definitions for what is good. In fact, we could make an argument that Hitler's actions were just as good as Mother Theresa's.

You also seem perturbed by the notion of "eternal fire." Before I make any defense of this doctrine, do you believe in any type of post life retribution? For example, do you believe someone like Pol Pot faces any sort of consequences after death?

You said, "So until the religions of the world, fall in line with how the modern world works, I have no need for them. All people deserve equality and freedom, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation." What you seem to be doing here is imposing your definition of morality on God. This is what I was talking about earlier. We will never believe... no matter how much evidence or substantive answers we are given. We won't believe, because we don't want to believe. It requires the grace of God to make our dead heart live... then we can believe. If you were to be honest with yourself, I think you would agree. Surrendering our lives to Christ means making Him the master of our lives. We are naturally opposed to this idea. To us, it seems that we lose our freedom by making Christ our master. What the unbeliever fails to realize, however, is that we were never free in the first place. We are slaves to our own desires (sins). True freedom can only be found in Christ, who sets us free from the bondage of our sin. This is more than a shift of the mind... it's a transformation of the heart.

akseabird: Are you accusing me of stonewalling? Have I engaged in this tactic? I believe I have met every objection and question head on. In fact, by going on about this, you're proving my point.

Secondly, you can't say that "the other side" NEVER offers you the same courtesy... I'm offering you that now. If you want to reject the existence of God, the historicity and divine origins of the scriptures, or the resurrection, you are free to do so. My aim is simply to let you know that there are substantive reasons to believe. That's all. I hope I haven't come across as disrespectful in any way. Have I?

Searcher: "Recruitment" has to be an intricate part of the Christian experience. Here's the reason. If I were not eager to share my faith, could you really take what I believe seriously? If I really believe hell is real, we are slaves to sin and that Christ provides victory over both, then why wouldn't I be telling everyone I come in contact with? Otherwise, I'd have to question the sincerity of my own belief. Wouldn't you say?
Posted 21 months ago. ( permalink )

← prev 1 2 3 4 5
(469 comments)

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
[?]
view photos Uploaded on June 30, 2007
by The Searcher

The Searcher's photostream

Prints (Set)

28
items
Part of: Art

This photo also belongs to:

Politics (Set)

Color (Set)

Exhibition Set (Set)

.:Utterly Surreal:. (Pool)

FlickrCentral (Pool)

Anti-Bush League (Pool)

Illustration (Pool)

ART DISTRICT (Pool)

Art and Artists. (Pool)

Graphic Design (Pool)

Your Art - Not Photography (Pool)

POP ART (Pool)

Protests, Political Art, Democracy, Social Change (Pool)

Art After Art (Pool)

ART OUT LOUD (Pool)

Political Cartoons (Pool)

--C-A-D-A-!- Creative Army of Digital Artists ™ (Pool)

the politics group liberty is yours enjoy (Pool)

Charles Darwin (Pool)

Bash Bush-Invite Your Friends!!!! (Pool)

Jesus was a communist (Pool)

ART-X (Pool)

Pop Surrealism (Pool)

Eye Candy! (Pool)

nOiSE and bEEr - Fischi & Birra (Pool)

Art Bandits - X-mas contest VOTING now (Pool)

soulful group (Pool)

Illustrators SketchBook Etc.... (Pool)

Tags

Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with art art
Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with god god

Additional Information

All rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Add to your map
...

You Sign in | Create Your Free Account
Explore Places | Last 7 Days | This Month | Popular Tags | The Commons | Creative Commons | Search
Help Community Guidelines | The Help Forum | FAQ | Sitemap | Get Help
 Bookmark on Delicious

Flickr Blog | About Flickr | Terms of Use | Your Privacy | Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse

繁體中文 | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | 한글 | Italiano | Português Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.