Faith, then, has a highly unfortunate double consequence: It increases
one’s confidence in one’s beliefs, while simultaneously decreasing
one’s grounds for confidence. Pace Micklethwait and Wooldridge, what faith provides is not in fact certainty, but rather the feeling of certainty.

That is exactly wrong. Faith, in a nutshell, is the process of knowledge, assent, and action. As we acquire knowledge, we then assent to that knowledge, then proceed to action based in our knowledge. This process either increases or decreases faith, then the process cycles infinitely. Faith never rests in one place.
It is the same with the faith of Atheism or materialism. One base...

Faith, then, has a highly unfortunate double consequence: It increases
one’s confidence in one’s beliefs, while simultaneously decreasing
one’s grounds for confidence. Pace Micklethwait and Wooldridge, what faith provides is not in fact certainty, but rather the feeling of certainty.

That is exactly wrong. Faith, in a nutshell, is the process of knowledge, assent, and action. As we acquire knowledge, we then assent to that knowledge, then proceed to action based in our knowledge. This process either increases or decreases faith, then the process cycles infinitely. Faith never rests in one place.
It is the same with the faith of Atheism or materialism. One bases their faith on knowledge, then assents to that knowledge, then puts it into practice. Anyone actively and honestly involved in the process of faith will ALWAYS find the truth. The key is sincerity and honesty.

Faith is believing ANYWAY what you clearly don't know (otherwise there'd be no need for the "faith" if you already knew it).

You mean like that there is no non-contingent prime mover? That kind of faith? You are the only one in the universe with this absolute certainty that it requires absolutely no faith? OR, do you mean the faith that provides evidence, wisdom, and the practical application throughout history of thousands of philosophers, theologians, scientists, politicians, parents, charity-givers, wealthy, homeless.... in other words, the greatest cross-section of intellect and humanity for ANY belief?

Just because you don't agree with or like the evidence does not no...

Faith is believing ANYWAY what you clearly don't know (otherwise there'd be no need for the "faith" if you already knew it).

You mean like that there is no non-contingent prime mover? That kind of faith? You are the only one in the universe with this absolute certainty that it requires absolutely no faith? OR, do you mean the faith that provides evidence, wisdom, and the practical application throughout history of thousands of philosophers, theologians, scientists, politicians, parents, charity-givers, wealthy, homeless.... in other words, the greatest cross-section of intellect and humanity for ANY belief?

Just because you don't agree with or like the evidence does not not mean the evidence and knowledge does not exist.

Hmmm. Maybe that's why there are over 2 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus, 14 million Jews...

Blood is thicker than water. However , evidence suggests that when seekers are informed, they find the truth. Evidence: Up until recently many of the Muslims who moved from Middle Eastern cultures to Western cultures became Christians. Also, as the world opens up, the Chinese and Koreans have become Christians in droves, despite the agnostic footing. It only takes a slight bit of intelligence to understand the logic. It takes a sincere heart and grace to understand the truth.

huh?? What are you talking about?

There is no evidence for a "prime mover" ... and to say there isn't one is also non-sense, because you can't disprove the "non-existence" of something. But it makes no sense to try... we deal with things we can demonstrate...

Faith is believing ANYWAY what you clearly don't know (otherwise there'd be no need for the "faith" if you already knew it).

That's the nominal definition of faith... if there was evidence for god or any "higher being" we wouldn't be speaking of faith. We'd be talking about the evidence!

...and as for "atheism" being based on faith: well, Sam Harris put it best: an atheist is simply someone who takes the claim "this ho...

huh?? What are you talking about?

There is no evidence for a "prime mover" ... and to say there isn't one is also non-sense, because you can't disprove the "non-existence" of something. But it makes no sense to try... we deal with things we can demonstrate...

Faith is believing ANYWAY what you clearly don't know (otherwise there'd be no need for the "faith" if you already knew it).

That's the nominal definition of faith... if there was evidence for god or any "higher being" we wouldn't be speaking of faith. We'd be talking about the evidence!

...and as for "atheism" being based on faith: well, Sam Harris put it best: an atheist is simply someone who takes the claim "this holy book, or, this 'reality', etc. could only be the product of a supreme being ... -- an atheist examines the evidence for the claim and finds it wanting ...

The key in sincerity and honesty.

Really? Why do we have phrases like "wishful thinking" then? And why do Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and Jains all have sincere yet drastically different views of the "truth" as revealed by faith?

Because faith is markarky... Its the license you give yourself to believe something when there is NO evidence for it.

People convert to various religions all the time -- that is no proof of their "truth" -- only that they have good salesmen.

Of course the fallacy in that logic is the false presupposition that a beginning has nothing before it.

LO freakin L. So, in order to be logical, I have to change the definition of beginning to mean that there was something before it? And I have to change the definition of 'God" to a contingent being. On and on.... We sure have to change a lot of definitions and concepts for you to hold onto your faith.

Noncontingent - means contingent on absolutely nothing.
Beginning - means nothing before it. lol.

If god had no beginning, then there would be no god now. (Because
an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed, and god is supposedly
infinite.)

Timeless an...

Of course the fallacy in that logic is the false presupposition that a beginning has nothing before it.

LO freakin L. So, in order to be logical, I have to change the definition of beginning to mean that there was something before it? And I have to change the definition of 'God" to a contingent being. On and on.... We sure have to change a lot of definitions and concepts for you to hold onto your faith.

Noncontingent - means contingent on absolutely nothing.
Beginning - means nothing before it. lol.

If god had no beginning, then there would be no god now. (Because
an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed, and god is supposedly
infinite.)

Timeless and infinite do not mean the same thing. Besides, You are making that same claim. The difference is that yours infinitely regresses, which is a philosophical absurdity, and mine points to the definitive concept of prime mover, a concrete philosophical idea. Chance has no creative power.

"...an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed any more than you could ever reach your refrigerator if it were an infinite distance away."

This is a false analogy. Let's take two objects; "refrigerator" and point "A". Now put point "A" an infinite distance away.

Does the fact that point "A" exists an infinite distance away automatically deny the existence of "refrigerator?"

Can you now see the inherent fallacy in your line of logic? You assert time has to be traversed from a start point, but where is the start point if its an infinite distance away?

An infinite distance away MEANS it has no place of beginning, so to fool yourself into thinking it has to be "traversed"...

"...an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed any more than you could ever reach your refrigerator if it were an infinite distance away."

This is a false analogy. Let's take two objects; "refrigerator" and point "A". Now put point "A" an infinite distance away.

Does the fact that point "A" exists an infinite distance away automatically deny the existence of "refrigerator?"

Can you now see the inherent fallacy in your line of logic? You assert time has to be traversed from a start point, but where is the start point if its an infinite distance away?

An infinite distance away MEANS it has no place of beginning, so to fool yourself into thinking it has to be "traversed" is to falsely create one in your mind.

You can accept that the present (now) has an infinite past, or you can accept something from nothing (and this includes your pretend non-contingent prime mover).

Or you can just make stuff up and call it faith, which need not adhere to any logic whatsoever.

I assert what practically every philosopher, thinking scientist, or thinking person would assert, that there is no infinite distance away.

Exactly! Which is why your argument about the refrigerator is trash!

(I swear, the only way I can make you see things is to sucker you into finding a way to refute it! Bravo! I think you've got it!)

The same with TIME. The argument that time cannot be traversed ASSUMES A FRICKIN START POINT! But where might that be, since there is always a point behind it?!?

Like I said: You started with a false premise and ended with a false conclusion.

In short... this:

an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed any more than you could ...

read more»

I assert what practically every philosopher, thinking scientist, or thinking person would assert, that there is no infinite distance away.

Exactly! Which is why your argument about the refrigerator is trash!

(I swear, the only way I can make you see things is to sucker you into finding a way to refute it! Bravo! I think you've got it!)

The same with TIME. The argument that time cannot be traversed ASSUMES A FRICKIN START POINT! But where might that be, since there is always a point behind it?!?

Like I said: You started with a false premise and ended with a false conclusion.

In short... this:

an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed any more than you could ever reach your refrigerator if it were an infinite distance away. Infinite time cannot be traversed. That is a very simple matter. If there were no beginning, then there would be no now..

...is hogwash!

An infinite amount of time is not dependent on being (or its ability to be) traversed. It's a FALSE premise!

(How old did you say your clearly uneducated aptitude was?)

Exactly! Which is why your argument about the refrigerator is trash!

Good grief, AL, you are really an idiot. The refrigerator argument is an adjustment on a very old argument. It is not trash. It is fact.

Any infinity can be traversed... Just not infinite time.

Notwithstanding that the subject _IS_ time, thanks for the agreement.

Where is your proof?

What do you mean, "where is your proof"? The principle of first cause requires something that was NOT caused, meaning non-contingent. The very definition of God includes -noncontingent. If God were NOT noncontingent, then God would be contingent on something else, therefore, NOT God.

And, of...

Exactly! Which is why your argument about the refrigerator is trash!

Good grief, AL, you are really an idiot. The refrigerator argument is an adjustment on a very old argument. It is not trash. It is fact.

Any infinity can be traversed... Just not infinite time.

Notwithstanding that the subject _IS_ time, thanks for the agreement.

Where is your proof?

What do you mean, "where is your proof"? The principle of first cause requires something that was NOT caused, meaning non-contingent. The very definition of God includes -noncontingent. If God were NOT noncontingent, then God would be contingent on something else, therefore, NOT God.

And, of course Atheism is a faith, you acquire it through the access of knowledge, you assent to it through the use or misuse of logic, and you apply it to how you live and think. Then, the process starts all over again. Your faith either grows or it does not grow based on the cycle of knowledge assent, and action. Many people with a stance in atheism have practiced that faith and honestly sought furtherance in that faith. Many PRACTICED themselves out of that faith and moved to a Theistic belief. The very actions of AcesLucky and his persistent need to vomit his ignorance over any clip pertaining to a theistic faith, is itself the practice of an atheistic faith. In fact, based on philosophy, logic, the human condition, practical knowledge, science, and evidence you either have a stronger faith than I, or you are just ignorant.

None of this matters. It doesn't matter because one day, someone with enough pull will be offended by this "free speech" and stop you from having it all together. The real question is 'what are we going to do about it?'

Since it will be revealed one day that, yes, prison bars, brick walls, food rationing, and death squads are indeed stronger than the pen, man has been shown a way to escape from his wired in tendency to self destruct. So, stand back you atheists, no logic required to decipher this one.


One can argue all day long that man is capable of saving himself from this fate. But all one has to do is look at the evidence of history and see clearly the road down which man is taking ...

None of this matters. It doesn't matter because one day, someone with enough pull will be offended by this "free speech" and stop you from having it all together. The real question is 'what are we going to do about it?'

Since it will be revealed one day that, yes, prison bars, brick walls, food rationing, and death squads are indeed stronger than the pen, man has been shown a way to escape from his wired in tendency to self destruct. So, stand back you atheists, no logic required to decipher this one.


One can argue all day long that man is capable of saving himself from this fate. But all one has to do is look at the evidence of history and see clearly the road down which man is taking himself. And it is NOT the road depicted by the owning class who's mouthpieces are CNN, ABC, NYT, CBS, etc. who lull you to sleep in your easy chair with hopes of victory against al qaeda or anyone else.

katsteevns: Jesus' story is mostly myth - athough he likely existed:

http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html

Most of the stories surrounding him are simply rehashes of older myths... Read Ehrman ... Most of what's in the bible about him has also been tweaked and created from whole cloth by scribes writing hundreds of years after the supposed events.

-- break break --

Re: time, etc. -- enough philosophy... from what we know, Time and space started with the big bang. Time didn't start "infinity" ago ... Time/space started about 15 billion years ago. It doesn't mean anything to refer to "time" before that because time didn't exist.

The very definition of God includes -noncont...

katsteevns: Jesus' story is mostly myth - athough he likely existed:

http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html

Most of the stories surrounding him are simply rehashes of older myths... Read Ehrman ... Most of what's in the bible about him has also been tweaked and created from whole cloth by scribes writing hundreds of years after the supposed events.

-- break break --

Re: time, etc. -- enough philosophy... from what we know, Time and space started with the big bang. Time didn't start "infinity" ago ... Time/space started about 15 billion years ago. It doesn't mean anything to refer to "time" before that because time didn't exist.

The very definition of God includes -noncontingent. If God were NOT
noncontingent, then God would be contingent on something else,
therefore, NOT God.

Nice bit of circular reasoning/begging-the-quesiton: i.e. - I need something non-contingent, therefore I'll just define god to be so.

This is a waste of time: people who "beleive" do so without evidence: they rely on (bad) rhetorical/philosophical arguments to infer the existence of some god... Even if such arguments are valid going from "creator" to Jesus is another 'leap of faith'.

On the other hand, if god exists it would be trivial for him to present evidence of this that was irrefutable.

Believe what you want ... Thor, Oden, Zeus -- I assume non of you beleive the stories written about them... and they have just as much "right" to fill the void you postulate for a creator as Jesus/Yahweh/Jehovah. It's all iron-age mythology.

A relevant comment on faith from a friend:

That there is no certainty and cannot be any certainty is a cornerstone of modern science and it can be demonstrated experimentally.

Faith is the gateway to madness, even if it's a socially acceptable madness. How else do we describe statements like "I believe because it is absurd." by the church father Tertullian?

Luther denounced reason as a whore because it's the enemy of faith; "the greatest enemy faith has" and it's obvious that the aim of faith is to preserve faith no matter how insane, irrational and even murderous you have to be.

the comfort you get from faith is no more real than the comfort you get from heroin, only the drug doesn't us...

A relevant comment on faith from a friend:

That there is no certainty and cannot be any certainty is a cornerstone of modern science and it can be demonstrated experimentally.

Faith is the gateway to madness, even if it's a socially acceptable madness. How else do we describe statements like "I believe because it is absurd." by the church father Tertullian?

Luther denounced reason as a whore because it's the enemy of faith; "the greatest enemy faith has" and it's obvious that the aim of faith is to preserve faith no matter how insane, irrational and even murderous you have to be.

the comfort you get from faith is no more real than the comfort you get from heroin, only the drug doesn't usually tempt you to force it on others upon pain of death.

Sure, you are correct. I have see the recent evidence of the mythology of Jesus' existence and life, and at first, it came as a shock(my being human and all).

But the gospels, the actual speech of Jesus does not speak to those who are NOT IN NEED of being rescued, but to those who are needy. And this list, as you know, is growing daily and will continue to grow. Atheists can pass through death convinced that they have no needs but a time comes when all must choose between the truth and the lie. The truth being that we are ultimately are powerless to save ourselves and that we are in need of a rescuer.

He spoke of this while quoting Isaiah, " You will keep on hearing, but will not understan...

Sure, you are correct. I have see the recent evidence of the mythology of Jesus' existence and life, and at first, it came as a shock(my being human and all).

But the gospels, the actual speech of Jesus does not speak to those who are NOT IN NEED of being rescued, but to those who are needy. And this list, as you know, is growing daily and will continue to grow. Atheists can pass through death convinced that they have no needs but a time comes when all must choose between the truth and the lie. The truth being that we are ultimately are powerless to save ourselves and that we are in need of a rescuer.

He spoke of this while quoting Isaiah, " You will keep on hearing, but will not understand: And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive." Matt.13:14. It is actually the CHOICE of the person whether or not he hears this or not.

And this is because of "Pride". Pride is what keeps mans heart ticking in his present state. An alternative is being offered that dwarfs pride in its power and scope.

Problem is... how do you know what Jesus said...

Take Prof Bart Ehrman -- started as an evangelical who dedicated his life to the study of scripture -- to find what 'god actually said' ... Here are some of his findings:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A346854

That is what Misquoting Jesus is about, and I talk a little about it in the new book, Jesus, Interrupted,
that we don't have any of the originals of the New Testament. What we
have are copies made later, usually centuries later, and these copies
are all different from each other, sometimes in big ways, most of the
time in little ways. We have thousands of these manuscripts, but these
thousands ...

Problem is... how do you know what Jesus said...

Take Prof Bart Ehrman -- started as an evangelical who dedicated his life to the study of scripture -- to find what 'god actually said' ... Here are some of his findings:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A346854

That is what Misquoting Jesus is about, and I talk a little about it in the new book, Jesus, Interrupted,
that we don't have any of the originals of the New Testament. What we
have are copies made later, usually centuries later, and these copies
are all different from each other, sometimes in big ways, most of the
time in little ways. We have thousands of these manuscripts, but these
thousands of manuscripts have hundreds of thousands of differences in
them. A lot of them are just misspelled words that don't matter much,
if anything, but there are big differences too. There are some entire
passages that were inserted or omitted in one manuscript or another.

For example, the story in which Mary Magdalene is about to be
stoned by the crowd until Jesus intervenes and says, "Let he who is
without sin cast the first stone."

It's an interesting story. Later tradition identified her as Mary
Magdalene, but actually the story doesn't. This is a mistake people
make because in all the Jesus movies, she's Mary Magdalene. But she's
an unnamed woman who gets caught in the act of adultery. So yeah, "Let
the one who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her." This
entire story, a beautiful story that in some ways you could argue is
the favorite story of people who read the Gospels, wasn't in the
Gospels. It's only found in the Gospel of John, and it's not found in
the earliest and best manuscripts of John. So scholars for hundreds of
years have known that it wasn't part of John, it was a story that was
added later by scribes because it's found only in our later manuscripts.

Show you proof and then you're THERE??? Are you saying that reality sucks and you wanna be somewhere else?? If this is the case, then what is holding you back to this alternative reality besides all the stigma associated with being a 20th century Christian?

Sure, logic is not perfect, you say, but it helps pay the bills. But what when the bills get too high as we can see happening before our eyes? Someone made those $90+ pair of NIKE shoes working for 15 cents an hour/6 days/no benefits. This person put an American out of work all together. Their family has a dirt floor and their neighbor has AIDS. His wife works for Wal Mart at no pay or benefits relying on tips for carrying the groceries ...

Show you proof and then you're THERE??? Are you saying that reality sucks and you wanna be somewhere else?? If this is the case, then what is holding you back to this alternative reality besides all the stigma associated with being a 20th century Christian?

Sure, logic is not perfect, you say, but it helps pay the bills. But what when the bills get too high as we can see happening before our eyes? Someone made those $90+ pair of NIKE shoes working for 15 cents an hour/6 days/no benefits. This person put an American out of work all together. Their family has a dirt floor and their neighbor has AIDS. His wife works for Wal Mart at no pay or benefits relying on tips for carrying the groceries out to the car. The kids scour the local dump all day for treasures others discarded.

Why? Seriously?

Because without proof or evidence you can end up believing almost anything...

Why do some Muslim's martyr themselves? Because they BELIEVE they will be rewarded in heaven. They believe non-sense like Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. Mormons believe Joe Smith read god's revelation on some golden plates -- and because of it they fill the heads of their children with non-sense and send them off to other countries to 'spread the news'.

You demand proof/evidence for EVERY OTHER AREA of your life. If I told you "my god revealed to me that people who walk off the catwalk above the grand canyon on 10 April will not fall", you would DEMAND proof before believing me.

So ...

Why? Seriously?

Because without proof or evidence you can end up believing almost anything...

Why do some Muslim's martyr themselves? Because they BELIEVE they will be rewarded in heaven. They believe non-sense like Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. Mormons believe Joe Smith read god's revelation on some golden plates -- and because of it they fill the heads of their children with non-sense and send them off to other countries to 'spread the news'.

You demand proof/evidence for EVERY OTHER AREA of your life. If I told you "my god revealed to me that people who walk off the catwalk above the grand canyon on 10 April will not fall", you would DEMAND proof before believing me.

So the question is "not why do I ask for proof" -- we all do. The question is "why do you demand reasonableness/proof/evidence in EVERY OTHER AREA of your life?" -- except when it comes to supposed miracles that are approx 2000 years old an documented by an illiterate people from a middle-eastern backwater.

Again: huh?

I didn't say "logic" is gonna "save us"... Besides, save us from what? Some version of a scary future you have imagined or read about in the bible?

At least you admit it -- which is refreshing:

"Christianity makes claims of truth, but, it does not claim to back it with evidence. "

So does Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They all make truth claims without evidence and all are equally valid (or invalid). They are all based on (usually) iron-age mythology. That is demonstrable (e.g. - the bible is replete with instructions on how to care for slaves... when you can beat them, etc. It also gives detailed instructions on how/when to sell your daughter into ...

Again: huh?

I didn't say "logic" is gonna "save us"... Besides, save us from what? Some version of a scary future you have imagined or read about in the bible?

At least you admit it -- which is refreshing:

"Christianity makes claims of truth, but, it does not claim to back it with evidence. "

So does Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They all make truth claims without evidence and all are equally valid (or invalid). They are all based on (usually) iron-age mythology. That is demonstrable (e.g. - the bible is replete with instructions on how to care for slaves... when you can beat them, etc. It also gives detailed instructions on how/when to sell your daughter into sexual slavery, etc.)

Please believe as you wish ... I'm not trying to sell anything: only the point that you have already admitted: your religion makes truth claims that it cannot back up with data ... and as a result it has been a hindrance to progress for 1800+ years.

Christians have only been around for that amount of time and they don't adhere to the laws of the Old Testament by definition. They are bound by the New Covenant(starting with the book of Matthew) to the end of the book.

The essence of this book is that "Love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:10. Anything beyond this is fraudulent.

Organized religion has bend and twisted this book to achieve their own selfish goals. So, it is no wonder that so many hate Christianity. And Atheists use just the Old Testament and the acts of the church when making their case against Christianity, completely ignoring the New Testament and without ever having read it. Like I said before, the book only s...

Christians have only been around for that amount of time and they don't adhere to the laws of the Old Testament by definition. They are bound by the New Covenant(starting with the book of Matthew) to the end of the book.

The essence of this book is that "Love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:10. Anything beyond this is fraudulent.

Organized religion has bend and twisted this book to achieve their own selfish goals. So, it is no wonder that so many hate Christianity. And Atheists use just the Old Testament and the acts of the church when making their case against Christianity, completely ignoring the New Testament and without ever having read it. Like I said before, the book only speaks to those who are in need, not to those who are self sustaining and self confident.

And if you think the 'scary future' is not with us now, you are watching the wrong channel or reading the wrong paper.

Yes, of course you are selling something!. You are selling logic(which is part of science)as the god to worship. You say you have concrete evidence that it can bring order to the world. You may be right . But if you think that this order will bring freedom, then you are dead wrong. And life without freedom is no life at all.

Is it that important for people to know? The Atheists seem to think so. They are the ones who who claim that religion is the thorn in side of mankind and if everyone just used their common sense, we would all be alot better off. So, it wasn't me who first claimed that something was wrong.

But if people are going to knock religion, then I just like to point out the holes in their arguments that they are using as rocks to stand on.

If people think that logic and science are what is best for mankind, then I tend to disagree from 2 angles. One if from the Christian angle from what the book says will happen and is happening. And the other if from the Atheist's own foundation, which is logic. Th...

Is it that important for people to know? The Atheists seem to think so. They are the ones who who claim that religion is the thorn in side of mankind and if everyone just used their common sense, we would all be alot better off. So, it wasn't me who first claimed that something was wrong.

But if people are going to knock religion, then I just like to point out the holes in their arguments that they are using as rocks to stand on.

If people think that logic and science are what is best for mankind, then I tend to disagree from 2 angles. One if from the Christian angle from what the book says will happen and is happening. And the other if from the Atheist's own foundation, which is logic. That being that mankind is ruining his environment at a faster rate than he can replenish it and that humans on the large scale are taking away all of eachothers freedoms and civil liberties systematically which is bringing us to the inevitable point of no freedom for nobody except those who are running the show and who have all the power which they are consolidating right here in front of our eyes.

And if you are getting your news from the mainstream(which most people do), then you are not getting the whole picture. In fact, you are not even getting a 3rd of the picture. So, if, for the last 50 years, everyone has only been getting a 3rd of the picture, how much does that total.....still a 3rd.

"edge", "abyss"= This is just a metaphor for the road we are now traveling on. It doesn't really matter much at this point whether or not it is global warming or Revelation. The facts are that it is happening. Logic will not save us from this or else it would have already.

A 3rd of the picture = Well, those who own the media have the last word on what is made into movies, printed,and on what page you will view it. We received little or none of the truth about the events that started the war with Vietnam, JFK,Iran Contra, 9/11, Iraq war. And how many things were simply omitted? Did you ever see a comprehensive list of Iraqi casualties come out of the US mainstream media? The list goes on and...

"edge", "abyss"= This is just a metaphor for the road we are now traveling on. It doesn't really matter much at this point whether or not it is global warming or Revelation. The facts are that it is happening. Logic will not save us from this or else it would have already.

A 3rd of the picture = Well, those who own the media have the last word on what is made into movies, printed,and on what page you will view it. We received little or none of the truth about the events that started the war with Vietnam, JFK,Iran Contra, 9/11, Iraq war. And how many things were simply omitted? Did you ever see a comprehensive list of Iraqi casualties come out of the US mainstream media? The list goes on and on. And now the government is asking us to trust them while they pilfer the economy and prop up the banks.

What do we need to be saved from?? Exactly!! How do we know if we need to be saved from something if we don't have the whole picture, but just what comes through the conservative media filters? Murdoch is no liberal.
Why are we trusting the media with our news when we all know that this organization that is supposed to keep the workings of the government in check, has not been doing that job successfully or with any real results for as long as I can remember? Is it because the media owners are the very same people who contribute large amounts to candidates hoping for a payback? Why are there so many secret meetings between the powerful, Bilderberger, CFR, etc. that we are not invited to? And, where does the average American's fixation with heros, violence and and getting-the-bad-guy come from? It is a sad testimony to a supposedly peace-loving nation. If Arabs are mutiliating their wives, this means that we are a superior race than they are and we should treat them accordingly. But wait a minute!!!They give us lots of oil which we cannot do without, so let us be lenient with them for the mean time. Mutilation is, after all, not as bad as genocide.

I share your frustration Aces ... Saved from what? Exactly?

I have read the new testament. It too is filled with many teaching that modern sensibilities consider aborant. Neither Jesus nor Saul (of Tarsus) condemns slavery: in fact Paul exhorts

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything;..."

Besides, Jesus himself said that

"not one jot nor tiddle of the law shall pass away"

-- confirming that the LAW of the old testament represented god's righteousness.

You can pick and choose the parts of the new testament that make you feel good about Christianity... but realize it is YOU and YOUR moral sensibilities that finds the good stuff and IGNORES the junk.
...

I share your frustration Aces ... Saved from what? Exactly?

I have read the new testament. It too is filled with many teaching that modern sensibilities consider aborant. Neither Jesus nor Saul (of Tarsus) condemns slavery: in fact Paul exhorts

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything;..."

Besides, Jesus himself said that

"not one jot nor tiddle of the law shall pass away"

-- confirming that the LAW of the old testament represented god's righteousness.

You can pick and choose the parts of the new testament that make you feel good about Christianity... but realize it is YOU and YOUR moral sensibilities that finds the good stuff and IGNORES the junk.

Besides, you don't believe the whole bible is god's word? So all of his actions in the old testament - the stories of 1000's of people cruelly killed by his rath ... none of that represents god's "righteousness" to you?

You speak of "freedoms" being eroded by secularism. I think you need to review history: I think you'll find the dark ages -- when the church ruled most of Europe -- to be a heinous time. Also look at societies today: those that are the most secular (Scandanvia, Switzerland, etc.) have the highest portions of the population that claim to be "happy" and the lowest violent crime rates.

Look just here in the US: the infamous "Bible belt" consistently ranks highest in divorce, teen pregnancy, and rates of violent crime. So much for christianity "saving" society. It is a bane.

Matt 5: 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. "

This is true for those who justify their actions by living by the law(Jews mostly). The new covenant is a higher law set down so others(gentiles) could come into the fold Gentiles were unable to become part of this religion before Jesus arrived. This was done partly because the Jews were not doing what they were told. This is a higher law that covers all the laws. It goes on...(ie:love is the fulfillment of the law).

20"For I say...

Matt 5: 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. "

This is true for those who justify their actions by living by the law(Jews mostly). The new covenant is a higher law set down so others(gentiles) could come into the fold Gentiles were unable to become part of this religion before Jesus arrived. This was done partly because the Jews were not doing what they were told. This is a higher law that covers all the laws. It goes on...(ie:love is the fulfillment of the law).

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees(the Jewish priests), you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

God's 'righteousness' is what he said it was and really doesn't have
anything to do with what he is asking of people today. But if you want
to rebel about things he did in the past, then more power to you.

So that means god's morality has changed in time: in ancient times sleeping with a woman outside of marriage meant she had to be stoned to death. However, today its ok... of if not "ok", at least we're not supposed to stone her -- right?

Seems like a completely capricious moral standard. ... or ... (more likely) we just need to realize the whole thing is markarky and is based on iron-age barbarism... WE use our own conscious to decide what is moral and what isn't. That's wh...

God's 'righteousness' is what he said it was and really doesn't have
anything to do with what he is asking of people today. But if you want
to rebel about things he did in the past, then more power to you.

So that means god's morality has changed in time: in ancient times sleeping with a woman outside of marriage meant she had to be stoned to death. However, today its ok... of if not "ok", at least we're not supposed to stone her -- right?

Seems like a completely capricious moral standard. ... or ... (more likely) we just need to realize the whole thing is markarky and is based on iron-age barbarism... WE use our own conscious to decide what is moral and what isn't. That's why you dismiss the old testament as barbaric and irrelavant: which it is. Yet cling to the passages in the new testament that speak of love. Because YOU are the source of that morality: not god, not the bible, not some mystical power. YOU read something like "she should be stoned to death" in the old testament and YOU decide that is barbaric and not relevant to today... realize that the bible says that it IS relevant.

As for your comments on capitalism: I agree with the sentiment... It is a self-devouring beast that needs to be controlled for the common (public) good.

Don't know if God's morality has changed or not. But a price had to be paid for each sin commited. 'The wages of sin is death' rom 6:23. That is how the system worked back then. But the price of that sin has been paid. The Son paid it by going to hell for 3 days. Now, all anyone(Christian) has to do is to repent of the sin and the punishment is covered by the sacrifice. In the old days, the sacrifice was an animal. Apparently, there was no animal that could be sacrificed for adultery (or for an unruley child), so the woman had to be killed. There was also no sacrifice for a murder, in general.

But like I said before, All men must die and no man knows in what fashion he will die. The judgeme...

Don't know if God's morality has changed or not. But a price had to be paid for each sin commited. 'The wages of sin is death' rom 6:23. That is how the system worked back then. But the price of that sin has been paid. The Son paid it by going to hell for 3 days. Now, all anyone(Christian) has to do is to repent of the sin and the punishment is covered by the sacrifice. In the old days, the sacrifice was an animal. Apparently, there was no animal that could be sacrificed for adultery (or for an unruley child), so the woman had to be killed. There was also no sacrifice for a murder, in general.

But like I said before, All men must die and no man knows in what fashion he will die. The judgement is more final than death is and no one knows what the judgement of any one person will be. So, if God was a barbarian, it can only be proven in relation to the extent that he treated living people, not in how they will be judged or dealt with afterwards. And by seeing the way his son acted while alive, I'd say that to judge God by his brutal laws for the Jews is not to get the whole picture.

Like I quoted earlier:...

Matt 5:18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished. "

..This indicates to me that one day, these laws will also be done away with. So, God is not unchanging. The rules on adultery will surely have to be changed because there will be no marriages after death. Mark12:25