If moral realism (the notion that moral values exist independently of human minds) is false, then there is no reason to talk of “morality” as if it were something distinct from personal preference. Given moral relativism, moral beliefs are just personal/social preferences. What we call “morality” is nothing more than a set of personal preferences regarding certain dispositions and behaviors, or a set of normative social preferences – both of which are subjective in nature and can change over time. Saying “vanilla ice-cream is better than chocolate ice-cream” and saying “telling the truth is better than lying” are the exact same kind of claims: personal, subjective preference. No oughts are involved. They are just autobiographic or (to possibly coin a new term) sociobiographic statements. They describe rather than prescribe.
If moral relativism is true, then saying “one ought not kill other people without sufficient justification” just means “we prefer that you do not kill other people without sufficient justification.” If someone has a different preference, and chooses to kill other people whether they have justification or not, they haven’t really done anything objectively wrong. They are merely being socially unfashionable, sort of like wearing white socks with a black tuxedo. We might even deem them socially undesirable, like the person who demands to collect $200 without passing go. We’ve all agreed that one must pass go first, and don’t like anyone trying to play by their own “house rules.” We can punish them for disregarding our preferences and choosing their own, but that is just our preference as well. No real moral wrongdoing is involved.
If the category of “morality” is indistinguishable from the category of “personal preference,” then there is no basis for, nor reason to speak of “morality” as a distinct concept. Moral beliefs/behaviors are just personal/social preferences, so moral relativists should cease thinking and speaking in terms of morality.
I think most people will recognize that moral claims are not just preference claims. Moral beliefs are qualitatively different from mere preferences. When someone kills another human being without sufficient justification, we recognize that they have not merely chosen a different preference, but have done something objectively wrong. That is why we call one’s preferences in food “opinion” and their choice to murder another human being “immoral.” The former is a subjective personal preference, while the latter is an objective moral truth.
Thinking to Believe 
March 5, 2013 at 10:52 am
You seem to be revisiting a discussion we had with one another about a month ago. I’ll repaste my response here, which addressed much of the same content you posted above.
—
Jason, you said,
‘You are right. It is possible that moral realism is false, which means that what we call morality is nothing more than normalized social preferences that can change over time. But if moral realism is false, then there is no real distinction between moral values and personal/social preferences, so even calling some behaviors “moral” is pointless. Saying “vanilla ice-cream is better than chocolate ice-cream” and saying “telling the truth is better than lying” are the exact same kind of claims: personal, subjective preference. No oughts are involved. Rather, they are mere autobiographic or (to possibly coin a new term) sociobiographic statements. They describe, rather than prescribe.’
You are conflating interests with moral statements. Often the two are similar, so this is an easy thing to do.
For instance, I have interests in relative novelty, having my hunger satisfied, and delicious tastes. These are pretty fundamental interests, in that they are traceable to neurochemical reactions (interest in relative novelty from dopamine, interest in having hunger satisfied from blood sugar drops detected by the lateral hypothalamus, etc.).
When I’m pondering what to do around dinner time, I can weigh potential choices against those interests. And different options would satisfy those interests to different degrees. It may be that one particular option far outweighs the others; in fact, that option is the optimal option, since it will optimize that interest set. In the context of that interest set, I SHOULD elect that option.
Making rational evaluative judgments about potential decisions requires several things. First, it requires an interest set (which could be ANYTHING). Second, it requires that I have a sufficient understanding about how the world works in terms of causes and effects (investing in an unattainable option would be irrational, for instance). Third — and this is mostly a corollary and exception to the previous one — if I have an insufficient understanding, I have to employ probabilities in order to make a risk assessment.
So when we say that interests are subjective, we mean two things: First, they proceed from things with interests. Second, they can vary. We do NOT mean that they are whimsically arbitrary.
In addition, interests are different from the evaluative statements we make about how optimal (or suboptimal) a potential choice is. As it turns out, if our interest set is well-defined and our knowledge of the world is fixed, the rationally optimal choice PROCEEDS OBJECTIVELY.
Now, this is basically just decision theory. Generally we don’t consider questions like “Which type of screwdriver should I use on this screw?” a “moral” question. But that’s how morality works. The term “morality” just has extra baggage and overtones, e.g., it’s usually only about ‘the big stuff,’ it’s usually about things that harm or help others, it can get mixed up in deontological traditions or social customs, etc.
You said,
‘As such, if moral realism is false, then there is no such thing as morality and everyone should excise that word from their vocabulary.’
That’s certainly an option. Whenever we dramatically refine a concept, we have to decide whether to be radical (excise the word and pick a new one) or conservative (keep the word, but make sure everyone understands its more refined definition).
Imagine a culture that believes water is one of the Four Sacred Elements. Eventually, it is discovered that water is a collection of innumerable tiny particles, and that it isn’t an element at all. A radical reaction would be to excise the word ‘water’ and call that liquid something else. A conservative reaction would be to keep the word ‘water’ with the understanding that it is not a Sacred Element.
With regard to all sorts of concept-refinements throughout history, radicals have won many battles, and conservatives have won many battles.
You said,
‘If one has a different preference, however, and chooses to kill someone without sufficient justification, they haven’t really done anything objectively wrong. They are merely being socially unfashionable, sort of like wearing white socks with a black tuxedo.’
They haven’t done anything objectively wrong in the sense that there is no “objective interest set.” Moral judgments ALWAYS make an appeal to an interest set that comes from some entity with preferences. In practice, we theists often make an appeal to what we’re told of God’s interest set and NICKNAME that appeal “objective morality.”
They are being “socially unfashionable,” but as I implied above, the gravity of the event makes it of a moral intensity more severe than what we would typically describe as “merely unfashionable.” It is not “like mismatched clothing.” Rather, “it is like killing someone.” It can be very tempting, when facing a paradigm shift, to use pejorative hyperbole as an argumentum ad absurdum.
You said,
‘We may punish them for disregarding our preferences and choosing their own, but that is just our preference as well. The fact of the matter is that there is no real moral wrongdoing involved.’
You are again doing what I warned you about before: attaching “real” or “true” or “genuine” in front of a term you’d rather define the way you want. When party A makes a decision in violation of party B’s interests, then that is REAL moral wrongdoing from the perspective of party B’s interests. As theists, we would say that a sin is REAL moral wrongdoing from the perspective of God’s interests.
Note that denying moral realism is a powerful solution to the Euthyphro dilemma. Morality doesn’t ontologically exist somewhere out there.
You said,
‘But I think it’s obvious that there are moral truths. We recognize that when someone kills another human being without sufficient justification, they have not merely chosen a different preference (comparable to preferring chocolate ice-cream over vanilla), but have done something actually wrong. That is why we call one’s preferences in food “opinion” and call one’s choice to murder other human beings “immoral.” They are not both preferences. One pertains to a subjective personal preference, while the other pertains to an objective moral truth.’
The difference between minor bad decisions and major bad decisions is not, “the former is with regard to subjective things, while the later is with regard to objective things.” All decisions are modelable in the same way, which is why consequentialism (tempered by subordinate deontology to handle our shortcomings) is so elegant. The difference is that the latter are major, and not minor. And the latter are to what we typically refer when we talk about “morality.”
LikeLike
March 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm
@Stan:
“It may be that one particular option far outweighs the others; in fact, that option is the optimal option, since it will optimize that interest set. In the context of that interest set, I SHOULD elect that option.”
-There is no moral imperative to select that option, ‘should’ is not applicable (even less-so if one argues the will from a position such as say, Jonathan Edwards).
“When party A makes a decision in violation of party B’s interests, then that is REAL moral wrongdoing from the perspective of party B’s interests.”
-The ‘reality’ fails when you feel the need to qualify your statement with “from the perspective of.” ‘Real’ is meant – at least I assume – as a rough equivalent to objective, thus it is hardly an argument to state “but it is real subjectively” as that is tantamount to saying “it is objective subjectively” which is simply nonsense.
On a random note, the reply format of this blog theme is lame.
LikeLike
March 5, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Jeremiah, you said,
“There is no moral imperative to select that option, ‘should’ is not applicable (even less-so if one argues the will from a position such as say, Jonathan Edwards).”
There is a moral imperative to select that option… but only in the context of that interest set. In the context of interest set X, you can talk about optimal decisions in terms of shoulds, oughts, etc.
Decision theory leverages “should” all the time without having to appeal to some ultimate, transcendent source of value. I can say “If Mike desires pepperoni pizza tonight, he should get it,” without being burdened to justify Mike’s desire for pepperoni pizza.
You said,
“The ‘reality’ fails when you feel the need to qualify your statement with ‘from the perspective of.’ ‘Real’ is meant – at least I assume – as a rough equivalent to objective, thus it is hardly an argument to state ‘but it is real subjectively’ as that is tantamount to saying ‘it is objective subjectively’ which is simply nonsense.'”
I actually prefer to avoid the terms objective and subjective, because they aren’t an exclusive dichotomy. In this way, they’re junky philosophical terms, because philosophy is primarily concerned with descriptive clarity (at least for the last few decades).
I can say, “I think mushrooms are delicious!” In a sense, this statement is subjective, because it’s a taste expression whose truth value depends on things inside me, a subject. But you can also talk about the objective truth of me thinking mushrooms are delicious. I may say, “I think mushrooms are delicious!” when I actually think they’re terrible; I’d be lying.
Interests and perspectives are real. They belong to what we normally think of as the “subject,” but they’re also real, identifiable things that can be expressed in truth statements.
Similarly, there is real moral wrongdoing. That real moral wrongdoing makes a reference to real interests does not make it “nonreal.” It just makes it “interest-contingent.” Every moral statement must eventually make an ultimate appeal to something with preferences. There’s no “preferenceless” source of morality, as appealing as that prospect is to moral realists.
LikeLike
March 5, 2013 at 11:03 pm
Absolutely!
To add… Quoting Peter S. Williams.
Even if our moral intuitions could be mistaken, I think this very admission of fallibility presupposes moral objectivism for if moral subjectivism were true, no moral claims could be mistaken.
If moral objectivism were false, it couldn’t be true that we objectively ought to consider arguments against objectivism or that we even ought to consider them fairly. Knowing this, we see the impossibility of justifying subjectivism. For to embrace an arguement for subjectivism would take the self contradictory position that A.(there are no objective moral values), but that B.(we objectively ought to accept subjectivism).
LikeLike
March 6, 2013 at 9:56 am
If humans did not exist there would be no such thing as moral values. Morality does not exist outside the human experience and is merely a question of geography, culture and religion. Religion for example: The CORPORATE RELIGIOUS Collective serves only ITSELF & has no real life of ITS OWN. ITS minions, proxies and proselytes, are like robots of Protocol without discretionary insight or common sense. “IT” has no innate capacity for moral or ethical action of independent volition & has no capacity to respond truthfully to the moral & ethical concerns of real human beings. To the RELIGIOUS COLLECTIVE, the people are viewed as inventory to be managed and cattle to be prodded.
LikeLike
March 6, 2013 at 10:03 am
Leo, you are simply affirming moral subjectivism, which is not a moral theory at all. It is a denial of moral values. What we call morality is really nothing but preference claims and statements about utility.
Jason
LikeLike
March 6, 2013 at 11:28 am
That is correct Jason; that is all it is: moral subjectivism but that is also what moral values are. What one person, one group, one society, one country says it is. It all derives from a person there is nothing external about morals anymore than there are external supernatural forces people call God / Allah / Jehovah / Zeus / Brahma; they are all just one society’s lump of coal to worship and credit or debit as the case may be.
The Mosaic Law of Revenge was thought to be morally right because it was natural and children have a natural reflex to strike out and repay in kind; to a fellow for example, that might hit him and so that seemed to be a righteous guide.
But there came a greater moral model to follow when compassion and forgiveness was introduced into the equation in a huge way by Jesus. But that model is still being neglected in the Judicial System as penalty and deterrence excuses are demanded to continue by the same Christian people who pride themselves in the claim that western countries are founded on Christian principles, to which I say, Caca Del Toro on that claim!
The Mayan culture thought it was perfectly moral to sacrifice their children and so did the One Lump God worshipper Abraham when he was about to sacrifice his son Isaac. Was it immoral for Moses to have killed an Egyptian because Moses felt the Egyptian was abusing the Hebrew slave? Was it not moral to go into war to kill the idolators, heathen, infidels, gentiles. Is it moral values that Syria kills a hundred thousand people? Or is it moral values that prevent the USA and western countries from intervening to save their lives? Is there a Great Moral Giver in the Northern Sky crying moral tears for an earth ravaged by its own set of moral values and self righteousness?
Come on Jason, get with reality.
LikeLike
March 6, 2013 at 11:35 am
Leo,
So would you agree with me that, given moral relativism/subjectdivism, the concept of morality is meaningless because it is indistinguishable from preference and utility claims?
You point to moral differences between cultures. Do you think this fact undermines the existence of objective moral values? If so, howe?
Given your view, would you say that someone who rapes, tortures, and dismembers a little girl has done nothing wrong? Would you say he is simply being socially unfashionable? Would you say he just has different preferences than the rest of society?
Jason
LikeLike
March 6, 2013 at 9:00 pm
@Leo:
“It all derives from a person there is nothing external about morals anymore than there are external supernatural forces people call…”
-This is an unargued premise, which is to say, you’re begging the question.
LikeLike
March 6, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Jason, a person who does that thing has certainly done a grave moral wrong by the vast consensus of interests, and that vast consensus is real and meaningful.
LikeLike
March 7, 2013 at 5:19 am
Jason,
I have to say, I dislike the moral argument for God because as long as you give up objective morals, the argument seems to disappear (although I ought to read up on WLC since he originally thought this is the premise he would have to defend).
Stan argues quite well and has some interesting points that I will have to think on, but at the moment, I think think an atheist could just argue that morality is a human societal construct to enable peaceable living. And that you could only answer from a subjective personal opinion with cultural backing.
LikeLike
March 7, 2013 at 7:16 am
scottspeig:
You stated the case better than I; thank you.
LikeLike
March 7, 2013 at 9:28 am
Stan,
What you have said is like saying of a person who eats poop: “A person who does that thing has certainly done a really disgusting thing as judged by the vast consensus of interests, and that vast consensus is real and meaningful.” Who cares what the vast majority of people find disgusting. The man eating the poop likes it! That’s his preference. You have your preference, and he has his. Why should his preference be judged or prohibited just because it doesn’t match the consensus? After all, there is nothing objective about the consensus’ preference, and we know that the preferences of the consensus change over time.
The fact of the matter is that if there are no objective moral values in the world, and all we have are social and personal preferences, then the man who rapes, tortures, and kills a little girl has not really done anything wrong. He may be out of step with society, but that’s all. Indeed, if he was placed in a different society, his act might be considered normal. But we all know that what he did is not just a preference, and it’s not just a violation of social preferences. It is a moral wrong in and of itself, objectively.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 7, 2013 at 9:46 am
scottspeig,
It’s true that if one rejects the existence of objective moral values, the moral argument for God’s existence will have no force on them. After all, the purpose of the argument is to show that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values. If one denies that they exist, then there is nothing to be explained.
But the fact that some people will deny the reality of objective moral values is not a liability to the argument anymore than those who deny the reality of the physical world is a liability to the cosmological argument. What makes an argument a good argument is not that everyone accepts it, or that everyone will agree to every premise in the argument. What makes an argument a good argument is that the premises are true and defensible, and the conclusion logically follows from those premises.
The fact of the matter is that most people (even many atheists) do believe in the existence of objective moral values, and thus the moral argument will have force for them. And for those who deny the reality of moral values, we simply need to show them why they are mistaken. Then, when they accept that moral values do exist, we offer them the moral argument for God’s existence.
As for moral relativists, yes, they can claim that morality is just a human invention. The problem is in trying to reconcile that view of morality with our moral experience. It won’t work. It simply denies that our moral intuitions are true. That’s no more of an argument than denying that our logical intuitions are true. In the same way we would need very compelling reasons to think that our logical intuitions are just social constructs, we need very compelling reasons to think that our moral intuitions are just social constructs. And there aren’t any good reasons. The reasons they offer are horrible, such as “different cultures have different views about morality.” This confuses moral epistemology with moral ontology. There is also the problem of the absurdities that moral relativism leads to. For example, if “moral” is whatever society determines makes for peaceable living, then anyone who disrupts the social fabric is doing wrong. Martin Luther King Jr. surely disrupted the social fabric of America when he fought for equal civil rights for black Americans, and yet everyone recognizes that what he did was right. And I could go on. I would suggest you read Greg Koukl’s book “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in mid-Air” or any number of articles available on the web providing a philosophical critique of moral relativism. Anything by Peter Kreeft will be valuable reading.
Jason
LikeLike
March 7, 2013 at 9:52 am
Jason, you said,
“What you have said is like saying of a person who eats poop”
Are you actually arguing that there is “objective disgusting?” As in, a “disgusting” that is meaningful without making a reference to anyone’s subjective tastes?
My wife and I live with a furry, 40-pound creature that demolishes your thought experiment.
You said,
“then the man who rapes, tortures, and kills a little girl has not really done anything wrong.”
When you say “What that person did was wrong,” you make an implicit appeal to someone’s preferences. Those preferences may be that of yourself, they may be that of social consensus, they may be of God, etc. When appeals are merely silently implied over and over again, it can create the illusion that there is no appeal at all.
LikeLike
March 7, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Stan, no, quite the opposite. I was presuming that poop-eating is not a moral issue, but a matter of preference. My point was that what the consensus finds distateful has no bearing on whether or not a man should be allowed to eat poop if he prefers to do so. Why should anyone care what the majority prefers? Why should I adjust my preferences to match your preferences? They are just preferences! If the majority of people found vanilla ice-cream distasteful, would I be obligated to stop eating vanilla ice-cream? Obviously not. Indeed, in a world without objective moral values and moral laws there can be no “oughts.”
I don’t understand your second point.
Jason
LikeLike
March 7, 2013 at 4:28 pm
You said,
“Indeed, in a world without objective moral values and moral laws there can be no ‘oughts.'”
“Should” and “ought” make an implicit appeal to some interest set.
Some people have undergone brain damage where they essentially lose their preferences. In many ways, they are completely rational, since there are no emotions to muddy their decisionmaking. But the result is that if you put such a person on the cereal aisle, they cannot make a decision. They can look at how delicious or hearty something looks, but they don’t care about deliciousness or heartiness, so there’s no value goal. They can look at the nutrition facts, perhaps to elect something low-calorie, but why do they want something low-calorie? Why does that interest them? You might say, “Well, surely they’ll elect a low-calorie, highly-nutritious cereal because a rational person would want to be as healthy as possible, to stay alive as long as possible.” But that’s not “surely” for them. Those fundamental values are absent for them.
And thus, for them, there’s nothing saying, “I should go with cereal X” or “I ought to go with cereal Y.” And there’s nothing that lets them appeal to the preferences of others… because, why should they? So they just stand there like furled-brow zombies until somebody chooses for them.
You said,
“Why should anyone care what the majority prefers?”
Because you might have a higher-order preference for something contingent on social harmony. James might have a strong, but lower-order preference to wear no clothing, ever. But he has higher-order preferences to keep hanging out with his regular friends in public places, keep his current job, etc., and the public in general considers such behavior morally indecent. So even though he thinks such behavior is amoral, he conforms himself to the moral preferences of society in service of his higher-order preferences (and could use statements like, “I should not go out in public naked,” implicitly appealing to those higher-order preferences).
LikeLike
March 7, 2013 at 10:26 pm
If one could make the case for objective moral values such that would presume a moral value giver, to whom would the moral giver give the moral value? To turtles?
When Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands would he have found moral values there or would he have had to bring moral values with him.
On the remotest island whereupon no man has set foot do moral values operate? Of course not. Why? Because moral value without man, apart from man, is meaningless, as meaningless as the sound in the forest is meaningless when a tree falls without man to hear it or record it…not only is it meaningless, it has no existence! We believe in our mind that there must be a sound but there is no proof, no evidence; that’s what God is like isn’t it, we believe there must be a god so we invent one. We concoct a caricature to fit the concept.
When the bully, bullies, his preference does not meet the consensus of the society and most bullies are alienated from society, ostracized in the bully’s world called jail; aka, prison where the survival of the fittest is the moral code of the group like out on the serengeti.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 12:28 am
Stan,
“Interest set” is not the same as “ought.” One pertains to your preferences, while the other pertains to your duties.
All you have provided is a practical reason for following the preferences of the majority. Of course there are practical reasons for doing what others would like you to do. But that’s not the issue. The issue is why I would be wrong to ignore the preferences of the majority if I wanted to and was willing to pay the consequences. If someone is willing to do that, and thus rapes and kills little girls, you have no basis on which to say that person has truly done something wrong. He may have acted against his own self-interest since society will punish him, but he’s done nothing objectively wrong.
Jason
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 8:43 am
Jason:
Who decides what is “objective”; after all, when a sportscaster reads off a litany of game scores one might say that the recitation is objective but little else is objective since objectivity is indeed a subjective opinion, n’est ce pas?
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 8:45 am
Jason,
It’s correct that he has done nothing “objectively” wrong because there is no “objective wrong,” as in, “wrongness” has no meaning except against some preference set, whether that set is owned by an individual, society, or God.
Moral statements don’t trace their source to something preferenceless. Moral realists think they do. Do you think they do?
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 8:54 am
New Testament scripture, your reliance code for so called Christian values, even notes that Jesus lied when it was necessary to do so because telling the truth could have put his life in jeopardy. But that was not a “wrong” thing to do either.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 9:23 am
Leonardo, cite please? I’m aware that Jesus withheld the truth, but not that he outright lied.
In any case, you’re correct that it’s not sinful to lie when it’s clearly and obviously the correct thing to do and the consequences are significant. For example, “Don’t lie, but if you’re harboring Jews and the Nazis come around asking, go ahead and lie.” James called Rahab righteous for doing this.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Stan, didn’t you know, Jesus is an Atheist ! according to the gospel of LeonardoTheGreater !!
Lying should not be a problem for him ……….
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Stan:
Thanks for your comments. I’ll be glad to cite where and when and why Jesus lied:
Jesus lied to his brothers about going to the Festival Jesus said he was not going to the Festival but after his brothers left Jesus went secretly, in disguise and for good reason: the Jews were out to kill Jesus but his brothers did not believe him; their loose tongues would have exposed Jesus’ whereabouts. Jesus did not want to chance his brothers giving him away; he was not ready to do that at that time. Read it yourself: John 7:1-13.
John 7
King James Version (KJV)
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
2 Now the Jew’s feast of tabernacles was at hand.
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
11 Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?
12 And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.
13 Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Naz:
I am an atheist because I understand the bible and interpret it perfectly just like Jesus was and did in his day.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Thanks, Leonardo!
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Leonardo,
Of course you do……..actually, I have no doubt that you know the bible as perfectly and as well as Jesus did.
It goes without saying that the bible is the Atheist’s best source of information for denying the existence of God.
Naz
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Although, Leonardo, on first glance it looks like Jesus wasn’t lying… he said “I’m not going, because my time has not yet fully come.” Then he waited… and then he left, because his time had come.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 2:47 pm
STAN:
The time not yet fulfilled that he was talking about was not about going to the festival but about the time when he would openly communicate and allow himself to be taken into custody, arrested, as it were. He used similar phrases in other instances:
John 2: 4:
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? MINE HOUR IS NOT YET COME.
And Now go to the next chapter of John, chapter 8 and see in verse 20 where he repeats the same phrase:
1. Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them……………jump to 19 He’s still speaking and answering questions:
19 Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?”
Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.”
20 These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one laid hands on Him, for HIS HOUR HAD NOT YET COME.
The very first verse in John 7 clearly says why he lied about not going to the festival:
7
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews; that is the ruling authorities, sought to kill Him. The Festival was being celebrated in Judea. As in verse 3: His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea…..” But He did not want to walk openly in Judea and certainly not with his loud mouth brothers who also did not believe anything he said or did; they essentially mocked him about showing himself.
Finally after his time HAD come and HIS HOUR HAD ARRIVED, when he was ready to be arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane: THAT WAS THE TIME JESUS WAS REFERRING TO THAT HAD NOT YET COME, not going to the Festival.
Mark 14
41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough,THE HOUR IS COME;
48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the SCRIPTURES MUST BE FULFILLED.
Matthew 26
55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
56 But all this was done, that the SCRIPTURES OF THE PROPHETS MIGHT BE FULFILLED.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Paddy was driving down the street in a sweat because he had an important meeting and couldn’t find a parking place. Looking up to heaven he said, ‘Lord take pity on me. If you find me a parking place I will go to Mass every Sunday for the rest of me life and give up me Irish Whiskey!’
Miraculously, a parking place appeared.
Paddy looked up again and said, ‘Never mind, I found one.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 15, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Naz:
Here is a little poem that was inspired by the spirit some time ago; thinking it might haunt your thoughts for a moment as only the natural can I offer it for your edification:
LTG’s POEM FOR THE RELIGIOUS
A new day is dawning ,
And here I am yawning
Stretching my arms to the sky
I wonder how many deluded religions
Will pray as there sheeple do die
Can they not confess then
That “belief” to all men
Is Clergy’s deceit and a lie?
The supernatural is a hoax,
My, oh my, oh my.
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Sorry Leonardo, I am not edified by a poem that mocks those exercise belief in God. Even those who believe in a false god. I would rather pray for them than mock them.
Jesus would never be-little people for their beliefs yet you claim to be in league with Him.
How is this so ?
Naz
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 9:29 pm
Sorry Naz but you are off base when it comes to Jesus; you just don’t know him!
Jesus belittled the clergy constantly; just review the 8 fold indictment of the clergy by Jesus in Matt 23, you will see that Jesus called them hypocrites, liars, poisonous snakes, devourers of widows houses and obsessed with petty rituals; he belittled the Canaanite woman until she embarrassed him by her come back after he called her a dog. Jesus belittled the nonsense of supernaturalism when he enraged the congregation with the words in
LUKE 4:
25 “I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon.
27And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed, except Naaman the Syrian.”
28Then all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
29and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him unto the brow of a hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast Him down headlong.
30But He, passing through the midst of them, went His way.”
and again in John 7 when he said “…..it is impossible for you to arouse the world’s hatred, but I provoke hatred because I show the world how evil its deeds really are.”
Jesus belittled many people I’m afraid.
He belittled the men who brought him the adulteress and belittled them into leaving her alone beginning with the eldest one by one as they were convicted of their own shortcomings in life.
Do you think Jesus was such a pacifist when it came to people’s nonsensical beliefs, I don’t think so! Maybe you never read Jesus enough; try this on for size:
Luke 12:51
To Start a Fire
49-53 “I’ve come to start a fire on this earth—how I wish it were blazing right now! I’ve come to change everything, turn everything rightside up—how I long for it to be finished! Do you think I came to smooth things over and make everything nice? Not so. I’ve come to disrupt and confront! From now on, when you find five in a house, it will be—
Three against two,
and two against three;
Father against son,
and son against father;
Mother against daughter,
and daughter against mother;
Mother-in-law against bride,
and bride against mother-in-law.”
Jesus was not gentle or kind to the man who used the demon possession ruse to instill fear in everybody but Jesus knew he was faking it and told him to shut up because he wasn’t taking any of his BS, you probably read the story thinking that this was merely another incredible miracle because you can’t understand how biblical characters were no more upright than today with the likes of Popoff and other fake healers and marketeers of miracle water in ketchup packages:
Luke 4:
33-34 In the meeting place that day there was a man demonically disturbed. He screamed, “Ho! What business do you have here with us, Jesus? Nazarene! I know what you’re up to. You’re the Holy One of God and you’ve come to destroy us!”
35 Jesus shut him up: “Quiet! Get out of him!” The demonic spirit threw the man down in front of them all and left. The demon didn’t hurt him.
36-37 That set everyone back on their heels, whispering and wondering, “What’s going on here? Someone whose words make things happen? Someone who orders demonic spirits to get out and they go?” Jesus was the talk of the town.
LikeLike
March 16, 2013 at 7:45 am
Leo,
Bible Mathematics 101
Rebuke != Belittle
Naz
LikeLike
March 16, 2013 at 2:19 pm
So Naz:
What does it mean then when you said I belittle but Jesus did not? I belittle but Jesus rebuked?
So Jesus was “rebuking” the Canaanite woman by calling her a dog when she asked him for help? LMAO Laughing My Amen Off.
So lolable.
LikeLike
March 16, 2013 at 9:49 pm
The problem with appealing to Jesus here in order to justify our actions is that Jesus, by virtue of being sinless, and the Son of God, as He stated, only judged righteous judgment because He sought not His own, but rather the Father’s glory/honor (e.g. John 5:30, 7:24, 8:49-54).
We are not automatically qualified to do this, since we are not sinless and do not always judge righteous judgment, nor do we always only seek to glorify/honor the Father with what we say and do, no matter how hard we try, or with whatever good intentions we have.
Therefore, we must be very careful in appealing to the things Jesus said and did as justification for our own actions, because, if ever we attempt to do or say something that is not righteous (no matter how much we assume otherwise) or if what we do or say does not actually glorify/honor the Father according to His will, we have stepped out of our place as believers.
Jesus therefore serves as our example, but we can’t (ab)use Him or invoke His name as a free pass to do or say what we want.
LikeLike
March 17, 2013 at 8:10 am
Votivesoul:
Did Jesus ever proclaim himself to be sinless, anywhere in the bible? I don’t think so. As far as others were concerned Jesus was a sinful person and ws arrested and crucified because he was a sinner in their eyes, which for the most part sin is, what others say you do that they are offended by or goes against the law. He sinned according to the religionist because he healed on the sabbath, picked corn on the sabbath and :
John 8:
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
“31 Jesus went on to say, “To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:
Now Votive search your soul and ask yourself do you really think Jesus was talking abut everyone in the temple except himself? I tell you of a truth, he was referring to himself just as well as to every other person there!
“‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.’
33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’
You probably don’t understand the message here in Luke but the bottom line is why should I listen to you and your generation(like children in the marketplace) telling others to dance when you play the pipe? For your information, Jesus and I are one. I for one am proud to say that.
LikeLike
March 17, 2013 at 8:17 am
Votive
John 5:
King James Version (KJV)
34 But I receive not testimony from man:
LikeLike
March 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
SAGACIOUS SERMONS SERVING SIMPLE SAINTS
Is it not wonderful to find revelation on a lovely Advance Spring Sunday?
I have given very deliberate and careful thought to this matter and after several sincere seconds of sagacious shrewdery decided that the Homosexual Community (but actually homosexuality is a misnomer as there is no such person as a homosexual because sexual orientation is determined between your ears, in the brain, and not between your legs, in the genitals) is a Race in its own right. The LGBT Race as unique as the colour of skin, n’est ce pas?
Wisdom stands or falls by her own actions. Opinion polls don’t count for much, do they? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is why the LGBT Race embraced the derogatory “Queer” and now there is a Queer Magazine, Queer Bars, Queer Art Houses; the Negro Race would be well served if they looked to the LGBT Race as an example and embraced the term “Nigger” word so it becomes a popular positive instead of a past negative, n’est ce pas?
LikeLike
March 19, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Leo, read further in John 8. Jesus asks this:
46. Which of you convinceth me of sin? (KJV)
46. Which one of you convicts me of sin? (ESV)
46. Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? (NIV)
46. Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin? (NET)
Do you really think Jesus would have dared ask this question if He thought for one second there was some evidence of/against Him sinning? To have asked, if He knew there was a remote possibility that He could be proven a sinner, makes Him either a liar, a nutter, or one of the most over-confident, arrogant boasters the world has ever seen.
The fact is, this question proves, by Christ’s own words, that He Himself thought of Himself as sinless. It’s a rhetorical device to point out a truth.
So, just because others falsely accused Him doesn’t make their accusations honest or accurate.
Lastly, regarding John 5:34, you are right, Jesus didn’t receive the testimony of man, but that doesn’t mean men didn’t testify of Him. John the Baptist, who Jesus said was the greatest prophet to ever live (Luke 7:28), testified of Him, that Jesus was the the Son of God, and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29-36). John also proclaimed that Jesus would be the one Who baptizes us with the Holy Spirit. Now I ask you, why would Jesus give John such a ringing endorsement of his prophetic announcements about Himself unless Jesus really believed what John spoke concerning Him? Only a deceived fraud would do so.
Secondly, when Jesus asked His disciples who He was, Peter, through divine revelation, answered and said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). At that moment, Jesus personally endorsed Peter’s ministry and gave Him the keys to the Kingdom of God, granting him authority to bind and loose. So, we should be able to trust Peter’s testimony about Christ, seeing as Jesus confirmed the accuracy of what Peter had to say about Him.
And guess what? Peter said Jesus was without sin.
1 Peter 2:22,
22. Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth…
He also said that Jesus died and was resurrected by God, here:
Acts 5:29-32,
29. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
30. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
The Holy Spirit of God testifies of the fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by God, that He’s been exalted to the right hand of God, and that Jesus is a Prince and Savior to Israel, granting her repentance and forgiveness of sins.
Do you deny the witness of the Holy Spirit as shared here by Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles?
Consider your answer carefully, especially since Jesus personally commissioned them to testify of Him, even going so far to say “He that receives you, receives Me, and Him who sent Me” (Matthew 10:40 and John 13:20)?
Thirdly, and in addition to the point directly above, the Father, testified about Christ, not just through the miraculous signs and wonders that He did through Jesus, but also did so in raising Him from the dead, which Jesus personally and publicly claimed the Father did for Him, both announcing it before it occurred and reiterating it after the fact (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 20:17-19, John 10:17-18, John 20:20-21, and Revelation 1:18).
Revelation 1:18,
18. I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Do you deny that Jesus said this?
PS. This doesn’t even include Paul, who Jesus personally revealed Himself to, spoke to, and commissioned to be an apostle and witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ through signs, wonders, and diverse miracles (Acts 9, 22, and etc.)
LikeLike
March 20, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Aaron:
18. “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death”.
I deny this! Jesus never said those words; those words were said by the writer of Revelation and that writer was not Jesus.
You seem to think that what others said of Jesus is always true. That is not the case. Jesus was tagged the son of God and labelled a miracle worker by events that the masses “believed” were miracles, so indoctrinated by the deceitful clergy of the day but they were not miracles, just common sense events that Jesus performed.
Only on one occasion did Jesus reference he was the son of God and that was easily done by referring to the scripture and I myself claim to be the son of god by virtue of the same scripture.
Who convinceth me of sin when I sin not, are the words Jesus was saying; simply saying Jesus was a sinner does not make it so or saying Jesus was sinless, the same thing and what is sin other than what the bible claims as sin is the transgression of the law, so in that sense Jesus was a sinner time and time again in the eyes of the Pharisees, But that is the way of men who accuse day and night others of sin by virtue of their own imposition upon others of sin. It is so much Caca del toro.
Your view of sin is myopic.
LikeLike
March 20, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Leonardo, you continue to do the same thing over and over …..
You cherry pick which scriptures you like and cherry pick which scriptures you think Jesus said and then twist those scriptures to justify yourself by making Jesus a sinner like a common man.
You’re standing on a house of cards because any reasonable exegesis of the scriptures cannot support your position. It is totally untenable !
If I can summarize what you’re saying :
1) There is no God
2) Jesus is a sinner like any other man
3) All the miracles in the bible are not really miracles
4) Not everything spoken about Jesus in the bible is true, only the things that LTG declares is true to fit his distorted view of truth.
5) There is no eternal life (even though Jesus said there was, but we’ll ignore that because it doesn’t fit the LTG theology)
6) There is no Savior of mankind, no Messiah, that is just religious nonsense perpetuated by the “clergy”
The problem with cherry picking is that you have no justification for denying scriptures other than by your own preference. Don’t you see the inherent danger in doing this ?
Joh 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,
Joh 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
In a nutshell, Jesus claims He is the Christ (Messiah) and He give eternal life and if you don’t believe this you have NO PART with Him or with God, who by the way, He is one with with.
So in 6 short verses, your theology is out the window as Jesus affirms all the things you deny. You can continue to believe in your mythological Jesus if you so choose, but the Jesus you have conjured up is not the Jesus of the scriptures.
Naz
LikeLike
March 20, 2013 at 9:58 pm
Leo, did Jesus actually write any of the Bible, Gospels or otherwise?
LikeLike
March 20, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Jesus never had the New Testament; not because he didn’t like it, he just didn’t have it. The only bible Jesus ever had, ever referred to was the Old testament Bible.
LikeLike
March 21, 2013 at 4:56 am
That doesn’t answer my question. Did Jesus personally pen/author any part of the Bible?
LikeLike
March 21, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Your question is as SILLY; as ludicrous as your statement that I am
“making Jesus a sinner like a common man”.
I don’t think so; as a matter of fact Jesus was a common man with extraordinary common sense and your notion of “….sinner like a common man.” is hogwash.
Your statement shows the ridiculous religious brainwashing you are suffering under the spell of, by church dogma that promotes the unhealthy aspects of a fabricated belief system that has enslaved the world with its diseases of pity, guilt and self loathing; a dogma that labels you and everyone else born, in sin! And religion claims that the sin dates back to Adam and Eve and we must admit our guilt all the days of our lives. What utter nonsense.
You are so far off base about anything true about Jesus; you don’t know anything whatsoever about Jesus the human being; all you regurgitate is a remarkable stupidity that tags Jesus with all the insanity of the supernatural ghosts hunters of Hollywood and Religious Belief. I wonder how you justify even uttering Jesus’ name when you know absolutely nothing about him.
Your regurgitation of god this and god that has been going on for centuries and you are part of the problem not part of the solution. Knowledge and understanding and with all thy getting get understanding. Forget the darkness of belief.
Sure you can have faith or belief that a cure for cancer can be found. Salk had faith and belief and went forward and discovered the Salk Vaccine to bring polio to it’s knees. After he found the knowledge that faith lead him on the chase for, what happened to the belief? It disappeared like darkness disappears when you turn on the light. After knowledge, faith vanishes, you don’t need it any longer. So belief is only useful to gain knowledge, to find things, but a continuous life in some belief for which knowledge is never attained; well, that’s the Clergy’s way of assuring they will always have a duped audience to support them. Belief in that kind of thing, the god myth, the ghost hunters, is an exercise worse than merely useless for it leads you nowhere. You exist in a vacuum of silliness, speculations, hypotheticals and shadows. There are no ghosts and goblins and leprechauns, they, like all the Jinn of the desert, are imaginations of mankind. Belief is the base part of the brain, the reptile brain that believes a leaf blowing in the wind is alive, cats and dogs chase them but humans can rise above the reptile brain into the brain of reason and logic where atheists, Jesus and I reside, in the “Kingdom of Heaven is within you” realm, exactly like Jesus said. There is no after life. The prayer that Jesus gave, called the Lord’s Prayer is an example of the way you are to think and says simply, “Thy Kingdom Come Thy Will be done, ON EARTH! as it is IN HEAVEN”; in other words, as you think GOOD THINGS, SO, MANIFEST. Bring heaven from within to earth so others can see it; you don’t have a lighted candle to put under a tub. The common band-aid is a typical ‘heaven-to-earth-manifestation’ and it is one of the greatest little health aids in the world: from heaven(within) to the earth(without) that’s the point of Jesus words.
Forget the hocus pocus nonsense. Paul was thought to have a miracle cloth because he used it to clean and bandage wounds. What a miracle to the uneducated masses in that day was, is common sense to us and it was common sense to Jesus in his day. Jesus was a Man and you should envision him when he fell and scraped his knee and went crying to cling to his mother’s skirt for comfort, when he romped in the streets with the villages pals; this man, a carpenter who went to your house to fix the window when it jammed; this man, with a sense of extraordinary common sense. This man, who when he spoke everyone was on the edge of their seat wondering what AMAZING thing he’d say next! This man, the manifestation of the Father(Self Witness) within that he followed and referred to, not some mystical figure up in the northern sky. Get a grip for Christ’s sake.
LikeLike
March 21, 2013 at 7:37 pm
The Belief System can never accept a Knowledge System because in the day that it does, the Belief System will die and religion and the clergy will die with it as belief is the foundation of religion and clergy. Only knowledge will set you free; Belief never can.
John 8: 54,56 “Abraham,your ‘father’,with jubilant faith looked down the corridors of history and saw my day coming. He saw it and cheered. For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day.” Jesus, not speaking personally but like Abraham, looking down the corridors of history.
Pregnancy from rape? If you are a Christian it is man’s fault; if you are a Muslim it is the woman’s fault; if you are a Republican it is God’s fault and a miracle.
SAVE OUR CHILDREN: Alienate Ancient Absurdity; Challenge Clergy Careers; Damn Demonic Delusions; Murder Miracle Myths; Reject Retarded Religion. Sever Supernatural Stupidity. Raise up children who, by practice, have their sense trained up in the discernment of right and wrong, good and evil.
Today’s Sermon Serving Simple Saints with logic, reason and knowledge: The Laws of Physics are not broken or suspended in order to perform claims of ludicrous miracles. In religion the only thing that matters at the end of the day is that Church Dogma rules the congregation not your God Myth. Canonized Saints, because they performed miracles, is one of those ludicrous dogmas of nonsense. Good people are demeaned by Church Absurdity.
Famous quote from Electoral Psychopedia, USA. “‘Tell a lie'”, blares the Republican; “because even if it is a lie, 25% of the people will believe it and that’s all it takes to win an election. It’s better to apologize for four years from inside the White House than to explain it for four years outside.
The most common tipping mistake
is leaving money.
Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than standing in your garage makes you a car, and a person employed at a Union shop has as much choice in choosing to become a Union member as a person joining the Army has in becoming a soldier.
LikeLike
March 21, 2013 at 9:31 pm
I think you’ve conflated Naz and me.
I only want to know: Did Jesus write any of the Bible Himself?
LikeLike
March 22, 2013 at 6:34 am
If you’re finished ranting Leo, please answer Aaron’s question.
A simple Yes or No would suffice.
Naz
LikeLike
March 22, 2013 at 7:43 am
Aaron, it maybe right that I confused you with Naz.
I do not know the answer to your question so although Naz would like a Yes or a No, I cannot accommodate him I’m afraid but if he can tell me what the answer is I shall take note of it.
LikeLike
March 22, 2013 at 9:46 pm
An “I Don’t Know” is a fair enough, honest answer. I’m okay with that. Thank you.
Next question:
If you don’t know whether Jesus personally penned any of the Bible, upon what basis do you trust the Gospel accounts containing the words of Christ, but deny/reject the Revelation account of the words of Jesus?
LikeLike
March 23, 2013 at 11:23 am
Aaron:
The words of Jesus may have been written down at some time or they have been passed on by word of mouth and then written down; they were undoubtedly embellished in many cases especially the nonsense about the miracles; in particular, the ‘walking on water’ for example; nevertheless, there is consistency in the reported words and sayings, parables and references to the bible, the gospels cite Jesus as referring to. Mainly however the reports have more credibility because I believe that he was a living person and the reports are believable because they talk about his life and interactions with others.
Revelation on the other hand talks about things after Jesus was no longer around and refers to a DREAMLIKE STATE the author seems to be having. Therefore the author is talking about things his mind was imagining in that trance while asleep and woke up while the dream was vivid, as it is with humans. Most of the time we wake after a dream and if the wake takes place several minutes after the dream state, the dream is not remembered. It is a similar state the author was in I believe when the weird metaphors were made and when remembered in waking, then I believe the author went into the world of supernaturalism where anything and everything goes, where anything the imagination can conjure is fine with believers in the supernatural world of ghosts, goblins, myth, magic and miracles.
Mixing the real world and the supernatural world of the imagination brings out strange stories like the science fiction movies and video games; the reality of the world of a woman giving birth, of the care, riches and pleasures of the world waiting for the birth to entice the child into the world of materialism; the real world of Bingo the Money God as referenced by the number 666, the Name and the Mark of the Beast which of course stumps most Christians because they want to view it from a supernatural slant as opposed to the real world reference the author was actually making and so Revelation is like taking a psychedelic trip into someone else’s imagination.
Also entwined within the Revelation text are references from the OT bible and analogies like Daniel’s interpretations of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream; the beast, almost verbatim regurgitation in Revelation as well as Ezekiel given the scroll to eat!
Ezekiel 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness /
Revelation 10:9
And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Naturally when characters in your dream talk, you may attribute the words to someone you know in real life or someone you believe in, in a past life like Jesus, the good character your mind perceives or to the bad character it perceives Lucifer metaphorically, depending on the dream state mind or the references you have in your mindset.(The forehead in biblespeake)
LikeLike
March 23, 2013 at 11:33 am
Aaron:
I would like to ask you a question:
In Genesis 9
20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.
24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25 Then he said:
“Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brethren.”
26 And he said:
“Blessed be the Lord,
The God of Shem,
And may Canaan be his servant.
27 May God enlarge Japheth,
And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;
And may Canaan be his servant.”
What do you perceive that Ham REALLY did that caused Noah to curse Ham’s son Canaan?
LikeLike
March 23, 2013 at 11:37 am
Maybe Naz would like to offer an answer to the Genesis question, “what Ham REALLY did” that brought on Noah’s Curse to Ham’s son Canaan.
Jason on the other hand more likely than not will think it was a homosex act, n’est ce pas Jason?
LikeLike
March 23, 2013 at 9:23 pm
What Ham did or did not do is the subject of much speculation. I really don’t know the exact details, since they are not provided.
Regarding Revelation, and etc., I ask my questions to make a point:
The basis upon which you rely on some parts of the Bible and reject others is completely arbitrary and subjective. It amounts to nothing more than a Thomas Jefferson Bible.
It’s eisogetical, and a terrible approach to hermeneutics. Now, you may be able to live with that, but if you’re wondering why you’re not being taken more seriously on a blog like this, well, then, no offense at all intended (I really mean that!), but there you have it.
To reference St. Augustine:
“If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”
LikeLike
March 24, 2013 at 2:33 am
Aaron:
“The basis upon which you rely on some parts of the Bible and reject others is completely arbitrary and subjective. It amounts to nothing more than a Thomas Jefferson Bible.”
You could have said that Jesus interpreted the Bible as he saw it and substituted your comparison of the “Thomas Jefferson Bible” to the “Jesus Christ Bible”
Jesus was not like the regular clergy, the regular preachers; nor did he interpret the Bible as they all did . But Jesus, when he spoke about the Bible everyone was on the edge of his seat wondering what AMAZING thing he’s say next for he taught them as one having authority, not like the Scribes and the Pharisees; when the regular academic preachers got up to speak everyone went for a quiet doze and hoped they would wake up just before the Benediction and preferably after the Offering.
Examples are found all through the Gospels: Luke 4 17-21: 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, Isaiah 61:
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
And then:
23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: etc until:
28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city,……
Again: John 10:
32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works have I shown you from My Father. For which of those works do ye stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”
34-38 Jesus said, “I’m only quoting your inspired Scriptures, where God said, ‘I tell you—you are gods.’ If God called your ancestors ‘gods’ why do you yell at me because I say I am the Son of God?”
Of course they gave no credibility to what Jesus said because Jesus was not an Exegetist like the academics. But Jesus received not testimony from others; he did not need the approval of the Hermeneutic “experts” and frankly I am not looking for credibility here but rather to disseminate to the blind and those held in bondage, captive to centuries old dogma lulled into the erroneous beliefs of tradition with a glimmer of rational hope amidst the religious insanity that permeates religion, every religion, around the world today.
As was the case in ancient bible times so it remains today and I believe you are among the downtrodden(no offense intended) but only knowledge can set you free, belief never can! There is a mighty gulf between belief and knowledge. All religion derives from a person; all religion is based on Belief Systems, belief is not knowledge and no belief ever existed in knowledge because with knowledge, belief vanishes. Jonas Salk (Oct 28, 1914-June 23, 1995) was an American medical researcher and virologist, best known for his discovery and development of the first successful polio vaccine. He BELIEVED he could eliminate polio, when he found the knowledge to do so, it set him free from his belief and with the light of knowledge turned on belief fled away and vanished; it was needed no more!
Allow me to give you some insight (knowledge) into the Curse of Ham:
As all authors and peoples do, Moses and the Jews used figures of speech. Some of the Bible’s figures of speech are euphemisms that promote modesty. For example, instead of saying that Adam had sexual intercourse with Eve, the Bible more politely says that “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived” (Gen. 4:1). And Moses writes, “the man who lies with” rather than using the modern and more crude phrase, “has sex with.” The reader who misses these common figures of speech will misunderstand the plain meaning of various passages. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and Moses used the same decency when describing other physical relations. For example, when prohibiting incest in the Mosaic Law, rather than saying, a man shall not have intercourse with his mother, Moses wrote that he shall not “uncover his father’s nakedness.”
‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ Lev. 20:11
When Moses also wrote that Ham saw his father’s nakedness, that was a respectful (and appreciated) way of saying that he copulated with her. See how frequently Moses and the Scriptures use this Hebrew figure of speech:
‘If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness. … ‘If a man takes his brother’s wife… He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness.’ Lev. 20:20-21
Committing incest with any female “near of kin” can be described as “uncovering his nakedness” (Lev. 18:6), referring to the appropriate male relative, including the nakedness of your father (with your mother, Lev. 18:7), or your sister, granddaughter, stepsister, aunt, daughter-in-law and sister-in-law (Lev. 18:9-15). Of course, this can also be described in more literal terms as uncovering the woman’s nakedness, but it can also be referred to, idiomatically, as referring to the husband’s, father’s, brothers, uncle’s, or son’s nakedness. Her nakedness can equal his nakedness because as Paul writes, your body is “not your own” (1 Cor. 6:19), and from this perspective, your mother’s body belongs to your father. Thus: ‘The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness’ (Lev 18:8). Again, “It is your father’s nakedness!”
Ezekiel used this figure of speech in this Hebrew parallelism: “In you [O Israel] men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they violate women…” (Ezek. 22:10). And Habakkuk condemns not the sin of homosexuality but of getting your neighbor drunk in order to seduce his wife, when he warns: “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness!” (Hab. 2:15; See also Lev. 18:10, 14, 17-18; 1 Sam. 20:30; and Ezek. 22:10-11.) Habakkuk warns against looking upon a neighbor’s nakedness, which is just the slightest alternate form of uncovering his nakedness.
So, understanding this common Hebrew figure of speech enables the reader to comprehend Moses’ 3,500-year-old account of why Noah cursed Canaan:
…Ham was the father of Canaan… And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent [his own drunkenness left his wife vulnerable and exposed to Ham’s wickedness]. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father [that is, he had sex with Noah’s wife, Ham’s own mother], and told his two brothers outside [as wicked people often brag of their sin, and as misery loves company, and perhaps even inviting them to do likewise]. But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father [refusing to further abuse her]. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness [i.e., their mother’s nude body]. So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him [because he found out from his wife and his sons]. Then he said [after he learned of the pregnancy]: “Cursed be Canaan [whose father was Ham]…” Gen. 9:18, 20-25
Why do Christian readers often miss this real story of Canaan? The undermining of Genesis as literal and rational history leads believers, even many authorities, to neglect serious study of Genesis and much of the Old Testament. Christians read that Ham saw his father’s nakedness and therefore Noah cursed baby Canaan. That may seem capricious and arbitrary to many, but millions of Christians are conditioned to take the Bible with a grain of salt.
So incest set the background for centuries of conflict between Noah’s Hamitic descendants, especially those through Canaan, against the descendants of Shem, the Semites, especially the Jews, to whom was promised the land of the Canaanites.
Take care: Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself for what he says; happy the man who needs not the accolades from his fellows to seek truth and
“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” Heb 13:2
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth.
A Retort, from Gerald Massey’s Lectures c.1900; often cited as They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.
In this dim world of clouding cares,
We rarely know, till wildered eyes
See white wings lessening up the skies,
The angels with us unawares.
Babe Cristabel, reported in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919).
There’s no dearth of kindness
In this world of ours;
Only in our blindness
We gather thorns for flowers.
There’s no Dearth of Kindness, reported in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919).
The kingliest kings are crowned with thorn.
The kingliest Kings, reported in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919).
The time shall come
When man to man shall be a friend and brother.
Hope on, hope ever, reported in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919).
And from The Patriot, reported in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919).
“ONE SHARP STERN STRUGGLE AND THE SLAVES OF CENTURIES ARE FREE.”
“One sharp stern struggle and the slaves of centuries are free.”
True freedom requires us to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of religion as well as from the tyranny of brutal earthly regimes.
The devilish irony consists in the fact that ‘God’, ‘divine judgment’ and ‘damnation’ are themselves religious inventions: religion creates and perfects the fear, then declares itself the sole and indispensable liberator from it.
LikeLike
March 24, 2013 at 5:12 am
“You could have said that Jesus interpreted the Bible as he saw it and substituted your comparison of the “Thomas Jefferson Bible” to the “Jesus Christ Bible”
Interpreting it is not the same as slicing and dicing it to pieces, subjectively keeping selected portions that agree with your eisogetical views, then tossing the rest.
Jesus, in fact, did just the opposite: “I came not to destroy the law…etc.”
You are destroying the It, Leo, by your piecemeal, whatever strikes your fancy approach to fit your worldview.
Why you can’t see that this is a terrible, unjust treatment of the Scriptures is beyond me.
LikeLike
March 24, 2013 at 11:42 am
Aaron:
I am surprised that you call my interpreting slicing and dicing but Jesus’ interpretation just the opposite.
Jesus did not come to destroy the Law; Jesus mission was to destroy the interpretation of the Law as it was practiced. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath etc….
Why am I not surprised that you remained silent about the Ham Curse which required slicing and dicing in order to arrive at a truth that you could only offer: ” there is much speculation about what Ham did” and “I really don’t know the exact details, since they are not provided.”
The exact details are provided but you just haven’t been able, like millions of Christians to make the connections.
I don’t know how you can say that I reject pieces of the bible, I don’t reject them, I only interpret them perfectly; the rejection you talk about is that you disagree with my interpretation the same as the clergy (Scribes & Pharisees) disagreed with Jesus interpretation because they would have had to admit they had been wrong all their life and goodness knows how difficult it is to admit when you are wrong but here is quote you may be able to digest, eat as it were like John and Ezekiel, as the taste in your mouth will be like honey but in your belly (mind) it will be bitter. Belly means mind, don’t you think?
“When you are wrong be quick to apologize;
When you are wrong be quick to forgive” ltg
I reject the supernaturlist’s(Christian) whole bible is great but you have to understand it which I believe few Christians do.
Check this out in Proverbs:
Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.
Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
I accept both Proverbs and both are true; do you accept them both and why? I would be interested in knowing what YOU actually UNDERSTAND about that.
The Bible also supports and endorses atheism but this too gets all the Christians up in arms as much as when I say that Jesus lied to his brothers as an example of how he had to practice deceit to protect his life but Christians get furious at the idea that Jesus their “God” lied. That’s impossible they say in fury retort. When truth cannot be accepted because of repetitive indoctrination; it’s time to ask yourself what YOU think, instead of what the ancient clergy and modern day preachers want you to think in order to sell you their snake oil sales pitch with supernatural, miraculous powers. It is so lolable.
And I “lol” at the ‘calamity of hornets’ buzzing in their “bellies” lol!
But I still love the downtrodden captives (I was almost one for a long time seeking) and want to free them from bondage. Don’t resist truth and accept authority; accept truth and resist authority.
There is a poignant saying:
“Science has questions that may never be answered.
Religion has answers that may never be questioned.”
I see the opposite of DOGMA – – AMGOD.
LikeLike
March 25, 2013 at 11:03 am
LTG, I see that you have categorized Christians as having the wrong interpretation of the bible along with the so called “clergy” and in the process you have set yourself up as having the only correct interpretation.
So as mock and say “Religion has answers that may never be questioned.”
The same can be said of you,
“LTG has answers that may never be questioned.”
“For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged…..” – Jesus (Matt 7:2)
By claiming to have all the answers, you have set yourself up as god, and your little play on words suggest that you are your own god which is consistent with your belief system.
I see little point in carrying this conversation any further. I pray that you can one day see the truth and see beyond your own self.
Thanks for trying to save me from my supernatural delusion, but if I’m right it’s Glory, if I’m wrong I’ll be worm food and won’t know the difference.
On the other hand, if you’re right, your Glory will be worm food,
if you’re wrong…….
Naz
LikeLike
March 25, 2013 at 1:07 pm
LTG, check this link out.
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227257/k.3E6C/Did_Jesus_Really_Perform_Miracles.htm
Naz
LikeLike
March 25, 2013 at 7:12 pm
If I am right worm food of humans will be no more as the final victory will be defeating death just as Revelation says and the dream of every man woman and child and Jesus when he said. Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.
If you die and you accept that you will be worm food and there;s nothing standing in your way if you cannot accept the truth of immortality just around the genetic corner!
LikeLike
March 25, 2013 at 7:27 pm
Naz:
Thanks for the link but exorcism is a bogus claim still practiced in Exorcism School in the Catholic religion. My wife’s career is working with disabled, brain injury and mentally challenged individuals; when one of her clietn goes into a trance or has a seizure she calls 911 who come and take them to the Emergency hospital; they never send the priests or minister and they never take them to the Church. That is such an outrageous, outlandish claim and show the religious insanity that still permeates the minds of believers. OMG I cannot believe that you accept that nonsense still.
Jesus took the time to cleanse wounds and bandage sores and infected cuts; same as Paul did. They called Paul’s handkerchief a miraculous cloth and to an uneducated mass of people who knew absolutely nothing about disease how it was transmitted and the power of water cleansing and the immune system, is it any wonder that they thought there was a miracle involved?
Jesus performed lots of things that were called miracles because the masses could not understand how anyone could have the wherewithal to feed thousands of people, except the military in those days; these days of course McDonald’s and other food outlets feed thousands and thousands but we don’t claim those feedings as miracles in this day and age do we? Jesus had his cache of food and prepared for the Retreat like a Billy Graham Crusade.
Walking on water? suspending the Laws of Physics? Give me a break Naz you don’t accept that anymore than I accept Chris Mindfreak or David Copperfield doing the same thing today.
LikeLike
March 26, 2013 at 10:06 am
“Walking on water? suspending the Laws of Physics? ”
Amazing isn’t it !
Only a God could do something like that !
Leo, once again, your premise for dismissing miracles is in error. The people at the time of Paul and Jesus before him, had knowledge about the benefits of using water as a cleansing agent. In fact, that’s what separated Israel from the other nations. This is written in detail in the OT law and Israel observed these cleansing and food laws which helped prevent disease etc… You are wrong to assume the people of that time could not tell a genuine miracle from just some sort of medicinal cure.
You must consider how Jesus could have become so popular unless He did some fantastic things. Also, why would His followers go to their deaths proclaiming His deity if all he was doing was using some sanitary best practices. That just doesn’t make sense. You may think everybody is so gullible, but on what premise do you assume this other than trying to justify your own personal belief that miracles do not happen.
Speaking of Paul, how do explain his transformation from a persecutor of Christians to being probably the most committed disciple of Jesus ever ? You think he learned some special Jesus hand washing techniques then went and changed his belief system ? Please…..
Naz
LikeLike
March 27, 2013 at 10:21 am
Naz:
What utter rubbish that God can suspend the Laws of Physics because he is God. …please….
Atheists, upon seeing the burning car with someone trapped inside are compelled to rush to the scene in an attempt to rescue the near death occupant from his fate. We grab him under the arms and pull with all our might amid strong resistance. We feel, we poke, we prod and at last reach the hot button that, when pressed, releases the seat belt and the occupant is pulled to safety. Religionists the occupants, belief systems the seatbelt. The hot button release? our words to save.
Consider this:
You have a right to wear the seatbelt and the right to remain in the burning car and perish but NT Scripture supports Atheism and endorses it.
ROMANS 2:13-15 K J V
13(For not hearers of the law are justified, but doers of the law shall be justified.
When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness; and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when Good shall judge the secrets of men
LikeLike
March 27, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Go figure, an Atheist is raining down judgment on me !!
Leo, are you for real ? or is this a joke ?
I’m going to perish because I’m not an Atheist ? What ?
Naz
LikeLike
March 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Knowledge not only changes one’s belief system it frees them from the tyranny of belief that religion keeps you in thrall, from where you cannot grasp the reality of humanity.
Your thought patterns are twisted by nonsense religion preying on your mind with supernaturalism so how can you not avoid the walking dead zombie phenomenon, in darkness.
Knowledge sets one free as only knowledge can, belief never can.
Naz, there is a mighty gulf between belief and knowledge. All religion derives from a person;all religion is based on Belief Systems, belief is not knowledge and no belief ever existed in knowledge because with knowledge, belief vanishes! Jonas Salk (Oct 28, 1914-June 23, 1995) was an American medical researcher and virologist, best known for his discovery and development of the first successful polio vaccine. He BELIEVED he could eliminate polio, when he found the knowledge it set him free from pursuing his belief; belief disappeared.
I believe in Jesus, he was a hero but Gods do not exist outside a concept and concepts don’t defy gravity or suspend the Laws of Physics to accommodate ludicrous miracles claims by the clergy. With belief, one is merely talking through the air in their cavity.
To be fair I do actually sympathize to some extent, I mean, it must be quite galling for religious people to see atheists like me going about their business without a shred of guilt or self loathing and not in the least inclined to pray or to do penance of any kind and not in the slightest bit worried about any form of eternal punishment.
On the other hand, You’re being billed for something that you didn’t order. And that really is the deal isn’t it? If you’re a Christian. You’re born already in debt, to Jesus, and it’s a debt that you can only repay, in full, by dying. Whew, that’s some deal you got yourself there. That’s like asking you to pay off a mortgage on a house that you already own. Especially as there’s no hard, historical evidence that the Jesus of the gospels even existed. I mean, what records we do have, were written by people who were born long, after he died; so, they were just really passing on what they heard and of course the same is true of the gospels themselves.
Curious isn’t it that nobody who was actually writing anything down at the time appears to have known anything at all about Jesus, despite the fantastic miracles he was performing, the multitudes he was preaching to, and of course his momentous and spectacular public demise. And don’t forget this is a guy whose birth was marked by a celestial event, who was born by a miracle, to a virgin, in the year 6 BC. Two miracles for the price of one, talk about hit the ground running and then it was one miracle after another, fed the multitudes, healed the sick, walked on water, raised the dead, He was nailed to a plank and He came back to life again. How can nobody have heard of him? He should have been the talk of the desert. He should have been as famous as Elvis.
LikeLike
March 27, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Naz:
It’s so pointless to think of the lost hours of yesterdays. The
way to make learning a lesson of celebration instead of a cause for regret is
to only ask, “How can I put this to use today?”
There is no better time than right now to be happy no matter your age.
Happiness is a journey, not a destination.
So work like you don’t need money.
Love like you’ve never been hurt, and,
Dance like no one’s watching.
Wishing you a beautiful, daffodil day! One bulb at a time.
Don’t be afraid that your life will end, be afraid that it will never begin.
LikeLike
March 27, 2013 at 8:14 pm
See the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3PszMaZ5Ipk
Published on Mar 9, 2013
Azulejos. Performed by Jansenson.
I made this video for the sole purpose of sending it to my music composer, so he could make the music for this piece. Suddenly, I started receiving messages on twitter and everywhere, saying things about this performance.
Of course I could have performed it without cutting the camera, as I do in my live shows, but then, for the sake of justice, you would have to see it only once and not one hundred times, restraining yourself from pausing it, moving backwards until you find out the explanation, which, judging for the many comments I received, is never complete nor clear.
I do not claim to have any kind of powers, nor I pretend to confuse you or annoy anyone. I’m an artist of illusion, so my work only focuses on triggering your imagination, your sense of wonder, your capacity of being a kid again, and believing in the impossible.
I was tempted to take the video out from the web, but there’s a lot of people who enjoyed it as it is, a nice moment for questioning our beliefs.
LikeLike
March 28, 2013 at 3:03 am
Leo,
The reason I don’t equate Christ’s methods with yours is because, when Jesus spoke of or quoted from the Torah, Psalms, or Prophets, etc., He quoted them verbatim, and didn’t change the literal content to suite His private interpretations.
You, on the other hand, all over this blog, have changed the Word at a whim. Instead of, for example, saying God, you say Good, even if it means you misquote and change Christ’s words into something He didn’t say.
Now, you may say you do that only as a means of re-interpreting what you think Christ really meant, but guess what? No one has the right to change a word for word quote of Christ.
Matthew 24:35,
35. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
John 6:63,
63. …the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
These two verses are based in Psalm 119:89,
89. For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
For you to play fast and free with Christ’s words to suite your own privately held, gnostic interpretations is shameful. Do you like being misquoted and re-interpreted by others who have an agenda contrary what you actually believe and think? I bet not. But you feel no moral compunction when you do it to Jesus.
You say you don’t reject any part of the Bible, only interpret It correctly, and yet, over and over again, you categorically deny every part of it that speaks of the existence of the Supreme Deity, anything supernatural, miraculous, and etc. The word “God” is in the Bible over four thousand times, and yet, according to you, He doesn’t exist, even going so far as to claim that the Son of God was/is an atheist. Don’t be so dense!
This makes you a liar (or thoroughly deceived, or insane).
Regarding the Ham/Noah story, I didn’t engage in it or try to give a more thorough answer for this reason:
Titus 3:9,
9. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
You asked in order to contend and strive, as proven by your comments made later, especially to Naz. You only shared to show how smart you (think you) are, to take pride in what you presume is your intellectual superiority. Nothing you said or shared was done to exhort, edify, or instruct in love or bring a person closer to Jesus Christ.
Are you that desperate for a pat on the back? You should go and learn what this means:
For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth (2 Corinthians 10:18).
And for the record, I didn’t say I didn’t know what Ham did or didn’t do. I said there is much speculation and the exact details are not provided. I could have just as easily constructed a similar case as you did, but chose (and choose) not to, since no matter how well we might construct the case, since it doesn’t categorically state that Ham copulated with his mother, all we can do is subjectively speculate, idiomatic expressions aside, no matter how convinced we may personally be on the subject. To do otherwise leads to endless debates and academic squabblings.
You’ve been posting on this blog for about a month or two now, trolling and baiting people into arguments, blasting away with various polemics and diatribes, none of which have ever been shared in a tone of love and understanding. Some have undertaken to ignore you completely, some have not.
But guess what? You haven’t convinced a soul that what you say and believe is accurate or worthy of consideration. You slam all us “downtrodden” clergy-controlled, mindless religionists, then cry fowl at how people on this blog confront and refute you with what you say are bigoted attacks on your person and position, as though you aren’t constantly doing the same every time you post. Leo, that makes you a hypocrite!
You presume to think you know so much about people here, that you condemn us out of hand, thinking we’re all a bunch of brain-washed idiots who can’t possibly think for ourselves, as though all possible critical thinking skills went out the door as soon as we confessed the existence of God. You are attempting to prey on us, Leo. You are no liberator. There is no freedom at the end of your rope; just a noose.
Believe what you want and take it with you to Judgment. But until then, maybe you can have the decency to take your antagonisms else where?
Finally,
Deuteronomy 4:2,
2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:-6,
5. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18-19,
18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(May I remind you that you took away Revelation 1:18 from out of the book when you claimed Jesus didn’t say “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”)
Galatians 1:6-12,
6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:1-8,
1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(Since you reject the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ, an integral part of the Gospel, you preach another Gospel, Leo, and so, are accursed.)
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 and 13-15,
3. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
13. For such [those who preach another Jesus/gospel] are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(Since you preach another Jesus [i.e. an atheist Messiah who did no miracles and wasn’t raised from the dead] and also another Gospel, that makes you, Leo, a false apostle, a deceitful worker, and, as implied, a servant of Satan.)
Having said all that; I admonish you, speaking the truth in love, Leo. You need to repent and seek God’s forgiveness for what you’ve done to His Word, for what you’ve said about His Son, for your unashamed denials of His existence, and for the preaching of a false Gospel that cannot save.
This is Jason’s blog and he can let you post here or not as he chooses.
But, in accordance with these three Scriptures…
Titus 3:10-11,
10. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11. Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
2 John 1:9-11,
9. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Romans 16:17-18,
17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
…I now take my leave of you. I hope you consider these verses in the fear of the Lord and amend your ways before He who can destroy not only your body, but also your soul, in Hell, removes life from your body.
LikeLike
March 28, 2013 at 6:55 am
Leo, I’m in total agreement with Aaron here……..
I’m done with this conversation.
Naz
LikeLike
March 28, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Aaron:
You said “The word “God” is in the Bible over four thousand times, and yet, according to you, He doesn’t exist, even going so far as to claim that the Son of God was/is an atheist.”
Of that 4000 times how many times did Jesus use the word God? Oddly enough there are only 3 references to the word God in John and that only in answering the Pharisees accusation who yelled at him and wanted to stone him for blasphemy because they claimed Jesus makes himself as God.
And of course Jesus replied using the O T scripture of Psalm 82 “He said to your ancestors ‘You are Gods’ unto to whom the word of God came. If he called them gods why would you be upset with me and call me a blasphemer because I said I was the Son of God?.
Now how many times did Jesus mention the word Father throughout the New Testament? Over 300 times. Doesn’t that tell you something? that what the ancients referred to as God was not the same God that jesus referred to. Why? Because the Father resides in his Kingdom and that Kingdom is within you, not the supernatural Gods of men that the ancients talked about and that you too talk about without understanding the difference.
Did Jesus ever claim to be God? No! Jesus always referred to the Conscience, the Self Witness as the “Father” we all have inside: the memory brain that teaches us by experience, reason and logic so we may have that Good Gosh, Holy Spirit to guide us through life. Jesus had out-of-the-ordinary common sense and so the masses called him the son of god, a label he neither sought, endorsed or accepted unlike the hoaxster clergy who were and are always ready with their supernatural gimmicks and lengthy show of prayers……and always
….willing, ready and able to proclaim themselves prophets having some unique powers and medium skills with the myths of imagination. Yet people today still accept their blessed miracle water in ketchup packages and send in their money, willingly.
When the Pharisees asked Jesus if he was the son of god his pat answer was always. “Thou sayest it”; in other words, it is you who say it as we do today when people call us names..”That’s what you say” or “I know you are but what am I” the old school kid comeback.(sarcasm)
When Pilate kept asking him at trial “Are you the King of the Jews”?. What did Jesus reply, “It is as you say”; in other words, Jesus knew that whatever they wanted to say about him that’s what the label would be, so he never confirmed the label, just acknowledged that whatever they said that’s what it was, they were in the seats of power. After he stated that, Jesus remained silent and would answer them nothing because he knew it was useless! Same thing when he went before Herod.
Jesus’ legacy is one of attitude and disposition, graceful and genuine in compassion and kindness, always ready to forgive those willing to receive it; a man full of common sense and sound judgment, not for his own ego but from the recognition of the Father within, not the supernatural gods created by charlatans, magicians, popoffs and snake oil salesmen selling miracle water in ketchup packages, no, Jesus was a real man who never performed a miracle but was tagged with supernatural powers because of his common sense ideas to tackle any problem.
Jesus gave the presence of his peace by his life; the clergy has it all backward by claiming Jesus gave the world life through his death, uh uh. Couldn’t be farther from the truth, Jesus gave life to the world through his life not his death but supernaturalism caters to the residual reptilian ritualism brain of humans and as long as you have clergy devoted to live off of the avails of prostituting falsehoods, myths and miracles for the financial security they solicit from those willing to give it to them, that’s religion for you, catering to Bingo the Money God.
The Dogma of the Church has always been to perpetuate fear, hell, accursed, not of God, take leave of him, I seldom quote scriptures outside of Jesus but even in John most of the references are terms like God that Jesus never mentioned as notable in the other three Gospels; the language in John therefore is suspect because of that.
” as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,….” what kind of nonsense are you quoting here? a metaphorical serpent as the devil, about the metaphorical representative of all women to whom all blame has been attributed since the foundation of time by Patriarchal righteousness who today will not allow women to be priests in the Catholic Church that claims to have 1.1 billion members out of a Christian total of about 2.2 billion worldwide, a Dogmatic Church that will not allow men to marry but hide members who abuse children by sending them to different parishes. The Catholic Church, upholding the power seats exclusively for men just as the Scribes and Pharisees did. Patriarchs of the Christian Golf Club Whoa!
And you want to fight me every step of the way with the dogma of fear and death and judgment, which you claim are the methods I use to intimidate you. Nonsense quotes are the telltale signs of church dogma like the Church of Scientology uses all the time against convert members always in deniable but ready to sock it to those who turn away, with their fear tactics as though the righteousness of Good will get me in the end. So lolable.
“I didn’t say I didn’t know what Ham did or didn’t do. I said there is much speculation and the exact details are not provided.”
That’s just another way of saying that you had no idea what Ham did because the entire flock responds the same way because none of you know; you just cannot piece Leviticus expressions with Genesis and of course you would never admit to being taught by an atheist now would you? But now that you know what Ham did, their is no need for speculation as I have interpreted scriptures rightly and offered it to you. And there are lots of other scriptures too but you are too obtuse and stiff necked to accept it from an atheist. John 5: 43: 41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only Father; the One within you?
Remember Jesus never had the New Testament Bible, not because he didn’t like it, he just never had it. The only bible Jesus ever had in his hand was the Old Testament scriptures but when Jesus read and explained the scriptures, EVERYONE was on the edge of his seat wondering what AMAZING thing he would say next because he taught them as one having authority, not like the preachers on YouTube. When the preachers get up everyone curls up and goes for a quiet doze until the benediction. Lol
And wake up, preferably, right after the Offering. But when Jesus got up, they were all ears wondering what amazing thing he’d say next. Jesus and I and the Father are one, and that is one of the simplest things to understand, and it is easy to him who has understanding. Has nothing to do with ego, has nothing to do with blasphemy, it has only to do with your understanding that Jesus knew he was a microcosom of the whole human race by simply looking inside and seeing the father there.
Most of the quotes I use are directly from Jesus, not verbatim because verbatim leads to things like the nakedness of the father as Ham have a homosexual encounter with his Dad; that’s the kind of nonsense verbatim and literal get Christians into and why you have to come up with the words “much speculation”.
As an aside, Naz sounds so familiar to me, just like the disciples:
John 6:
58 The words that I speak, This is the Bread from heaven. Your ancestors ate bread and later died. Whoever eats this Bread will live always.”
59 He said these things while teaching in the meeting place in Capernaum.
Too Tough to Swallow
60 Many among his disciples heard this and said, “This is tough teaching, too tough to swallow.”
61 Jesus sensed that his disciples were having a hard time with this and said, “Does this throw you completely?
Every word I’ve spoken to you is a Spirit-word, and so it is life-making. But some of you are resisting, refusing to have any part in this.” (Jesus knew from the start that some weren’t going to risk themselves with him. He knew also who would deny him.) He went on to say, “This is why I told you earlier that no one is capable of coming to me on his own. You get to me only as a gift from the Father.”
66-67 After this a lot of his disciples left. They no longer wanted to be associated with him. Then Jesus gave the others their chance: “Do you also want to leave?”
LikeLike
March 29, 2013 at 11:53 am
Is Faith Good for Us?
Phil Zuckerman
Phil Zuckerman is an associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California. He is the author of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion (Routledge, 2003) and is currently writing a book on secularization in Scandinavia.
Whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Sikh, there is one common belief that all religious fundamentalists share: worship of God and obedience to his laws are essential for a peaceful, healthy society. From Orthodox rabbis in the occupied West Bank to Wahhabi sheiks in Saudi Arabia, from the pope in Vatican City to Mormons in Salt Lake City, the lament is the same: God and his will must be at the center of everyone’s lives in order to ensure a moral, prosperous, safe, collective existence.
Furthermore, fundamentalists argue that, when large numbers of people in a society reject God or fail to make him the center of their lives, societal disintegration is sure to follow. Every societal ill-whether crime, poverty, poor public education, or AIDS-is thus blamed on a lack of piety. A most disconcerting example of this worldview was expressed in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, when Jerry Falwell blamed the terrorist attacks on America’s “throwing God out of the public square,” further adding that “when a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture . . . the result is not good.”
If this often-touted religious theory were correct-that a turning away from God is at the root of all societal ills-then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty, and disease and the most religious nations to be models of societal health. A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs.
In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute.
One must always be careful, of course, to distinguish between totalitarian nations where atheism is forced upon an unwilling population (such as in North Korea, China, Vietnam, and the former Soviet states) and open, democratic nations where atheism is freely chosen by a well-educated population (as in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan). The former nations’ nonreligion, which can be described as “coercive atheism,” is plagued by all that comes with totalitarianism: corruption, economic stagnation, censorship, depression, and the like. However, nearly every nation with high levels of “organic atheism” is a veritable model of societal health.
The twenty-five nations characterized by organic atheism with the highest proportion of nonbelievers are listed in Table 1.
When looking at standard measures of societal health, we find that they fare remarkably well; highly religious nations fare rather poorly. The 2004 United Nations’ Human Development Report, which ranks 177 countries on a “Human Development Index,” measures such indicators of societal health as life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, and so on. According to this report, the five top nations were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands.
All had notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top twenty-five nations, all but Ireland and the United States were top-ranking nonbelieving nations with some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, the bottom fifty countries of the “Human Development Index” lacked statistically significant levels of organic atheism.
Irreligious countries had the lowest infant-mortality rate (number of deaths per 1,000 live births), and religious countries had the highest rates. According to the 2004 CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook), out of 225 nations, the twenty-five with the lowest infant-mortality rates had significantly high levels of organic atheism. Conversely, the seventy-five nations with the highest infant-mortality rates were all very religious and without statistically significant levels of organic atheism.
Concerning international poverty rates, the United Nations Report on the World Social Situation (2003) found that, of the forty poorest nations on earth (measured by the percentage of population that lives on less than one dollar a day), all but Vietnam were highly religious nations with statistically minimal or insignificant levels of atheism.
Regarding homicide rates, Oablo Fajnzylber et al., in a study reported in the Journal of Law and Economics (2002), looked at thirty-eight non-African nations and found that the ten with the highest homicide rates were highly religious, with minimal or statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but Ireland were secular nations with high levels of atheism.
James Fox and Jack Levin, in The Will to Kill, looked at thirty-seven non-African nations and found that, of the ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but Estonia and Taiwan were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but Ireland and Kuwait were relatively secular nations, with high levels of organic atheism.
Concerning literacy rates, according to the United Nations Report on the World Social Situation (2003), of the thirty-five nations with the highest levels of youth-illiteracy rates (percentage of population ages fifteen to twenty-four who cannot read or write), all were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.
In regard to rates of AIDS and HIV infection, the most religious nations on earth-particularly those in Africa-fared the worst. (Botswana suffers from the highest rate of HIV infection in the world; see http://www.avert.org/aroundworld. htm.) Conversely, the highly irreligious nations of Western Europe, such as those of Scandinavia-where public sex education is supported and birth control is widely accessible-fared the best, experiencing among the lowest rates of AIDS and HIV infection in the world.
Concerning gender equality, nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism are among the most egalitarian in the world, while highly religious nations are among the most oppressive. According to the 2004 Human Development Report’s “Gender Empowerment Measure,” the ten nations with the highest degrees of gender equality were all strongly organic-atheistic nations with significantly high percentages of nonbelief. Conversely, the bottom ten were all highly religious nations without any statistically significant percentages of atheists.
According to Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris’s (2003) “Gender Equality Scale,” of the ten nations most accepting of gender equality, all but the United States and Colombia were marked by high levels of organic atheism; of the ten least-accepting of gender equality, all were highly religious and had statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.
According to Inglehart et al. in Human Values and Social Change (2003), countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, with the most female members of parliament, tended to be characterized by high degrees of organic atheism, and countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iran, with the fewest female members in parliament, tended to be highly religious.
The acceptance of gender equality among irreligious nations may be linked to the relative acceptance of homosexuality. Inglehart et al., in Human Beliefs and Values: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook Based on the 1999-2002 Value Surveys (2004), found that, of the eighteen nations least likely to condemn homosexuality, all were highly ranked organic-atheistic nations. Conversely, of the eighteen nations most likely to condemn homosexuality, all but Hungary were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.
A country’s suicide rate stands out as the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicide rates (http://www.who.int/en/), the nations with the lowest rates of suicide were all highly religious, characterized by extremely high levels of theism (usually of the Muslim and Catholic varieties). Of the ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, five were distinctly irreligious nations ranked among the top twenty-five nations listed earlier.
These five are Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Russia, and Slovenia. It is interesting to note that of the nations currently experiencing the highest rates of suicide-including the five just mentioned-nearly all are former Soviet/communist-dominated societies. (The nations of Scandinavia, where organic atheism is strongest, do not have the highest suicide rates in the world, as is widely thought to be the case.)
In sum, countries with high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies with nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. The former nations have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The sole indicator of societal health in which religious countries scored higher than irreligious countries is suicide.
Where does the United States fit in all this? Americans are very religious. Many studies have found that only between 3-7 percent of Americans do not believe in God. Rates of prayer, belief in the divinity of Jesus, belief in the divine origins of the Bible, and rates of church attendance are remarkably robust in the United States, making it the most religious of all Western industrialized nations, with the possible exception of Ireland. When it comes to societal health, the United States certainly fares far better than much of the rest of the world.
According to the United Nations’ 2004 “Human Development Index” discussed earlier, the United States ranked eighth. However, when we compare the United States to its peer nations-i.e., developed, industrialized, democratic nations such as Canada, Japan, and the nations of Europe-its standing in terms of societal health plummets. The United States has far higher homicide, poverty, obesity, and homelessness rates than any of its more secular peer nations.
It is also the only Western industrialized democracy that is unwilling to provide universal health coverage to its citizens. The fact is that extremely secular nations such as Japan and Sweden are much safer, cleaner, healthier, better educated, and more humane when compared to the United States, despite the latter’s exceptionally strong levels of theism.
The information presented in this discussion in no way proves that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. The wealth, poverty, well-being, and suffering in various nations are caused by numerous political, historical, economic, and sociological factors that are far more determinant than people’s personal belief systems. Rather, the conclusion to be drawn from the data provided above is simply that high levels of irreligion do not automatically result in a breakdown of civilization, a rise in immoral behavior, or in “sick societies.”
Quite the opposite seems to be the case. Furthermore, religion is clearly not the simple and single path to righteous societies that religious fundamentalists seem to think it is. This fact must be vigorously asserted in response to the proclamations of politically active theists. From small-town school boards to the floor of the Senate, conservative Christians are championing religion as the solution to America’s societal problems. However, their pious “solution” is highly dubious and clearly not supported by the best available research of social science.
Belief in God may provide comfort to the individual believer, but, at the societal level, its results do not compare at all favorably with that of the more secular societies. When seeking a more civil, just, safe, humane, and healthy society, one is more likely to find it among those nations ranking low in religious faith-contrary to the preaching of religious folks.
LikeLike
March 29, 2013 at 12:03 pm
OMG. When the heat of reality is too much to bear up goes the religious censor panels to begin the moderation. So Lolable when you are confronted with the nonsense of religious supernaturalism that the barriers of Berlin Walls are built. Rest in Peace Aaron and Naz; obviously you are better off among your own “Yes” people; you’ll not have to worry about defending nonsense among each other.
Oh well..hope you learned something about yourselves that cause such a profound shame among men who toe the religious line that you cannot stand to hear just like the disciples of Jesus who walked with him no more because they were offended in him.
Tsk Tsk….Please don’t try to crucify me again. Once was often enough to prove you are the points of reference that the “Woe Unto you” indictment was directed by Jesus to your lost generation 2000 years ago.
LikeLike
March 30, 2013 at 12:12 am
While not personally responding to Leo, I offer this last comment for anyone else still reading, or for those who may have been lurking, reading behind the scenes.
Leo wrote:
“Of that 4000 times how many times did Jesus use the word God? Oddly enough there are only 3 references to the word God in John and that only in answering the Pharisees accusation who yelled at him and wanted to stone him for blasphemy because they claimed Jesus makes himself as God.”
In the King James Version of the Bible, the word God is used in the Gospels 316 times in 277 verses. Of those 316 times from 277 verses, Jesus personally said the word God, by my count, 190 times. Granted, in the Synoptic Gospels, many of these usages are repeats. Sometimes the word God is coupled in a phrase, such as “Kingdom of God”.
But notice what Leo wrote. He said Jesus only used the word God three times in the Gospel of John. This is patently false.
The word God is used 69 times in the Gospel of John. Of those 69 times, Jesus personally said the word over 40 times, if I count correctly.
Notable examples of the word God in the Gospel of John include:
John 1:51,
51. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
So Jesus, an atheist, believes in heaven, angels, and God?
John 3:16,
16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Here Jesus claims to be the Son of God, knowing He’s the very one that came into the world to be given so that anyone who believes in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 4:24,
24. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Jesus shows here that God, as an actual reality, is Spirit, i.e. not material/tangible, and is worthy of our worship.
John 6:27,
27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
The Son of Man, a title used by Jesus to refer to Himself (See Matthew 16:13), says of Himself, that God the Father sealed Him. If Jesus was an atheist, and the Father was merely a type of inner consciousness, as Leo claims, then why does Jesus here call the Father God?
John 6:45,
45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Here, Jesus affirms the reality of God as spoken of in the Old Testament by quoting Isaiah 54:13. And not only, but again, through a synthetic parallelism, calls the Father God.
John 6:46,
46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Another reference by Jesus of the reality of God and the relationship between the words Father and God.
John 6:69,
69. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Here, disciples call Jesus the Son of the Living God. If Jesus was an atheist, and God was and is not real, why didn’t Jesus sharply rebuke them for assigning to Him what would have been a silly, meaningless title of no import?
John 7:17,
17. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Here, Jesus says His doctrine is “of God”. That “of” is the Greek preposition ek and it means out of or from. How interesting, that the doctrine Jesus taught comes directly from and even out of God Himself (who doesn’t exist, mind you 😉 ).
John 8:41,
41. …We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Here, the Jews arguing with Jesus believed the Father was God, not some inner consciousness. If Jesus was an atheist and knew God didn’t exist, why didn’t Jesus correct them? Rather, He affirms the existence of God as the Father in the next verse:
42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Look closely. See that “from God”? It’s that preposition ek again. Jesus emphatically claims that He personally came out of or from God, and that He did so, not of His own accord or will, but rather was personally sent as an act of God’s own accord and will.
Shall I go on?
John 9:33,
33. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
A Jewish man, born blind, was miraculously cured by Jesus. When asked, the man testifies and says the above, indicating that only if Jesus was truly of God, could He perform such a miracle. There is not other way around the context. No metaphor for blindness is present. This story is literal, factual, and accurate.
John 9:35-38,
35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36. He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37. And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
So much for Jesus never claiming to be the Son of God! Notice too that,”he that talketh” is in the present mood, meaning Jesus was referring to the conversation they were having in that exact moment, indicating that the words coming out of Christ’s mouth prove that “he that talketh with thee” refers to Jesus as the Son of God (And for those theologians out there, since it’s in the present mood, akionsart doesn’t apply).
And obviously, the man believed and worshipped Him, something Jesus should have not accepted if He weren’t the Son of God.
John 14:1,
1. Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Here, not only does Jesus affirm the existential reality of God, but He also admits to and confirms the fact that His disciples believe in the reality of God, too, without haranguing them, correctly them, or any such thing. In fact, He implies that His disciples need to transfer their faith in God to Him, (since He is the one God the Father has sent), as already seen).
John 16:27,
27. For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
Here, Jesus affirms what He knows the disciples believe about Him, namely that He “came out from God”. I ask, can a true disciple who is one with Jesus, believe anything less and still be a true disciple and one with Jesus? I think not!
John 17:3,
3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Here, Jesus is praying to His Father (See 17:1), where He calls the Father God, affirms His reality and existence, and not only, but also affirms the reality and existence of eternal life, something no atheist would, should, or could ever do (and still be an atheist).
John 20:17,
17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Ascending (i.e. returning to heaven) to the Father who is God?
Friend, after all this, Leo still insists Christ was an atheist, that God doesn’t exist, that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, that He performed no supernatural miracles, and only mentioned God three times in the Gospel of John.
As you can see, whoever may or may not be reading this, Leo’s position is totally untenable. In fact, it’s ludicrous. It can only come from a liar, someone who is deceived in the worst way, or someone who is mentally ill.
There is no retort or refutation for the clear words of Scripture. The very Gospel Leo attempted to use proves him utterly wrong.
I leave you with this: Ecclesiastes 3:14,
14. I know that, whatsoever God does, it shall be forever: nothing can be added to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God does it, that men should fear before him.
LikeLike
March 30, 2013 at 1:07 pm
While not personally responding to Aaron, I offer this last comment for anyone else still reading, or for those who may have been lurking, reading behind the scenes.
It is well noted that the only Gospel you quoted for Jesus using the word God was in John as I mentioned because all the other times, over 300 he used the word FatherThe Dogma of the Church has always been to perpetuate fear, hell, accursed, not of God, take leave of him, I seldom quote scriptures outside of Jesus but even in John most of the references are terms like God that Jesus never mentioned as notable in the other three Gospels; the language in John therefore is suspect because of that.
THE LANGUAGE IN JOHN THEREFORE IS SUSPECT BECAUSE OF THAT as I noted in the post you are now talking about, AND THAT IS THE ONLY GOSPEL THAT YOU QUOTED Jesus referencing the term “God”; and of course, when you understand the Father within as God they can be used interchangeably but Jesus was not talking about the supernatural Gods of men that the ancients referred to constantly as in the Ecclesiastes quote as the supernatural God that Christians today talk about. They never talk about the Kingdom within where Jesus said the Father resided.
Nor was he inclined to tell them that their supernatural God was a fake but he sure indicated that in “42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Because the God Jesus was talking about and the God the Jews were talking about were two different Gods and it is exactly what Jesus meant when he changed the practice of the Law and fulfilled it perfectly in forgiveness and Compassion and Charity unlike the Mosaic Law of revenge eye for an eye and not “in the love of the Father within you. The real God of Jesus.
LikeLike
March 30, 2013 at 5:29 pm
To all the would be Censors:
I think this is a great site for me to challenge religious beliefs and a great site for believers to try and defend them by showing off their biblical understanding but if you tire so easily, if the task is so huge that you have to turn away and talk with me no more, it seems to me that says more about you than it does about me.
Children of religious parents are often indoctrinated into faith from birth. They are baptised – and baptism is irreversible – before they can give their consent, told Bible stories from earliest childhood as if they are unquestionable truth, and taken to church each week. Why should atheism wait until kids grow up before mounting a fightback?
Atheists and those of a religious bent can live and socialise together quite happily – we’re lucky enough to live in a liberal and tolerant society. This does not mean we should pretend there are no ideological differences between us. Christianity and atheism cannot both be right. If the former is correct, atheists are doomed to hell; if the atheists are on the money, Christians are allowing an aeons-old lie to restrict their freedoms and choices in their one shot at life. The stakes are high.
Christians have a biblical duty to evangelise and spread the faith. This was once backed up with harsh punishment for heathens and apostates, but thankfully those days are over. Spreading the good word remains a worthy way for the faithful to spend their time, though. If Christianity is allowed to convert the heathens, I think it only fair that the heathens are given a chance to fight their corner.
This need not be a bad thing for the Church. Having seen, chatted to, and even socialised with several evangelists, I believe faith is stronger for being challenged. If believers don’t hear contradictory views, they have little reason to truly consider what they hold dear. This mature faith is all the better for this challenge: socialised Christianity often falters under a life crisis – the death of a relative, say, or the breakup of a marriage.
Christian groups need to decide what they really care about. Does a religion’s worth come from “bums on seats” – the size of a congregation – or from the number of people who accept it “in their hearts”? Whether you’re a believer or not, any religion that says the former is worth no-one’s time.
So, why not stop protesting against anti-religious material? Instead of campaigning against a children’s adventure film that has actively attempted to mollify Christian groups, let families go and see it: if the film echoes any of the book’s promise, it should be an epic adventure. If that leads some children to read opinions which differ to your own, why worry?
There’s no need to stop there. Christianity has almost everything going its way – culture and art for the last two millennia have been subject to its influence. It is in the home, it permeates society, and it recruits young. You can try to keep the flock faithful by silencing critics – or, failing that, petitioning the faithful to boycott their works. Alternatively, you can hone your own arguments, rally your evangelists, and spread the good word: and let your rivals do the same.
LikeLike
March 30, 2013 at 5:36 pm
The Last Posting was about Golden delusions”
A new film, The Golden Compass, has been accused of promoting atheism to children. But what’s wrong with that?
James Ball
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 November 2007 15.00 GMT
Here is a little backgrounder to the release in 2007:
The Golden Compass, the film of the first book in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy, is released next week. The books recreate Milton’s Paradise Lost with God as the great adversary: they accuse the (fictionalised) church of numerous crimes against humanity in the name of control.
These religious themes have been excised from the film as far as possible but religious groups in the US are still not happy. Bill Donahue, CEO of the Catholic League, has accused the Golden Compass of being part of a “deceitful stealth campaign” to “sell the virtues of atheism”. The Catholic League is urging Christians to boycott the movie.
Much as I would love to disagree, Donahue is right, though more as a result of simple marketing rather than some atheist conspiracy. The film has been toned down in order to reach a wider audience and so make more money. It will almost certainly encourage some parents to buy the books for their children. With any luck, their kids will read them – and start asking some awkward questions.
The extent to which these books are genuinely anti-religious is debateable: God may be portrayed as a senile despot, but he is at least real. A truly atheist series would set about disproving him – but that would be far less entertaining. If we’re counting the Golden Compass as anti-religious, fair enough: provided we remember it is offset by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Lord of the Rings, and, well, the entire machinery of Christianity.
LikeLike
March 31, 2013 at 7:40 am
Interesting quote from NAZ:
“Look Leo, I’m not pulling any punches here, both of us are grown adults so I’m going to talk as candid as I can. Whatever you do, don’t take offense, because I don’t, regardless of what type of nut you think I am.”
LikeLike
April 2, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Leo are you finished yet ? …….this conversation is over.
Aaron, thanks for your intelligent replies, but save your breath brother. The enemy is poking and trying to provoke us, we should not respond any further to this nonsense.
Naz
LikeLike
April 2, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Sorry Naz:
You just cannot run away from an inconvenient truth no matter how much you think you know. You have to be able to make your case rationally and you have not been able to do that convincingly, from where I sit, because you are regurgitating concepts you cannot express from your own point of understanding.
This leads everyone to think thAT YOU, PERSONALLY, DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE A POINT OF UNDERSTANDING; YOU merely reflect, the standard, the status quo.
Jesus never was status quo because he thought for himself; he did not regurgitate the standard as you do; and not only you but so many others. Why?
Ask yourself why you cannot, in your own words, defend your position? Instead of relying on others who themselves cannot defend their position because they do not have a position. They have the status quo position as you have and you cannot understand the status quo position so you are lost without it.
All I am saying is that the supernatural is a mindset, not a reality.
LikeLike
July 6, 2019 at 1:40 pm
Stan writes:
In a question-begging critique of objective morality, yes, but that has nothing to do with standard Christian theology.
Everything that exists, except God, is an actualization of a potential and exists commensurate to its essence (form). The form determines the range of potencies to be actualized by whatever exists. The degree to which one actualizes or conforms to one’s essence is the degree of goodness in a thing. For example, a triangle is a three-sided polygon whose angles always (if on a plane) add to 180°. These facts were discovered, not invented. They are not mind-dependent and will always be true regardless our feelings about it. It matters not if Congress passes a law and declares that triangles are really four-sided and imposes hate crime penalties on those who insist otherwise. The essence of a triangle is to have three sides whether or not we like it.
If a triangle is drawn hastily on a cracked surface, its lines may not be straight and its angles may not add to 180°. It’s still a triangle but it is defective or a bad instantiation of its archetype. The closer an instantiation is to the archetype, the better or more good it is.
Similarly, everything else that exists has an essence (form) that directs it toward a range of effects. A heart is directed (should, ought to) pump blood. Eyes are directed (should, ought) to see. If a heart doesn’t pump blood and if eyes do not see, something is wrong. A squirrel with a furry tail is thus better than a squirrel without a tail. Again, these are not mind-dependent or “value-imposed.”
The mind works similarly. The human essence includes a mind which is directed toward the survival and health of the body. As the heart should pump blood, so the mind should (ought to) make decisions commensurate to survival and well-being. If the mind makes decisions contrary to the same, something is wrong. And if we have free will, then incorrect decisions in that regard have a moral dimension. As the essence of a triangle is objective, so is the essence of humans and every other thing that exists. Your “value/interest set” is thus both question-begging and off-target.
Natural law flows from these objective truths which form the basis of an orderly society. Since all forms are eminently in God, and since God’s essence is infinitely perfect (Pure Act), He is the perfect, non-contingent standard by which all goodness is measured.
LikeLike