Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus

Many different Christian groups are pushing the video Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. I think I first saw it being referenced by the Christian Left, so I was naturally skeptical. I do agree with some of what they say, but for the most part their idea of Christianity doesn’t reflect Christ but more the mercies of Jesus.

Anyways, people are either criticizing or praising this video. The interesting thing is to see how many of the millions of viewers have gotten the wrong idea about the video. Bethke, the one in the video, is not speaking against organized religion or Christianity. His intent was to speak against the faith without works practice that is so prevalent among churches today.

It is interesting to see how quickly we can take a message and equate it with our own without knowing the truth of the original message.



Filed under Bible, Christianity, Misc, Religion

29 responses to “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus

  1. The problem isn’t what you believe in; the problem is faith itself. Faith – not religion – poisons everything.

  2. Faith is the ticket used to fool ourselves into believing that our premise is the conclusion and is tested not against reality but by a commitment to the premise.

  3. xander

    So it is just faith in a stance, not necessarily religious, that brings about the problems?

    • Yes, with the slight alteration to ‘faith as an epistemology’ rather than ‘faith in a stance’. Whatever uses faith-based beliefs (in the religious sense of the term ‘faith’) is equivalent to delusion. Pick your poison.

      • But doesn’t science start of based on a feeling or faith type stance? Do people really start experimenting or pursuing an idea unless they have some degree of faith that it will be rewarding and have a positive outcome?

      • Not in the same sense as religious faith. I may feel or suspect, let’s say, that X causes Z, so I investigate it. I may my suspicions were perceptive or that were misleading, but I do not presume the feeling or suspicion is true; instead, I make it conditional and call it a hypothesis.

        Faith in the religious sense is not conditional. One leaps, one accepts as true first, one chooses to believe the hypothesis is true insulated from any necessary conditional element. In evangelical terms, one is either ‘saved’ through faith, or one is not saved. Being saved is not conditional on anything other than faith it is so.

        This is why the term ‘faith’ is so slippery when using it as a synonym for ‘hope’ and/or ‘trust’ and/or ‘confidence’. Faith in the religious sense does not carry with it the same conditional meaning as it is used in common parlance.

        And this is the same element of conditional meaning we find lacking in other faith-based beliefs, such as believers in alternative and complimentary ‘medicine’, anti-vaccination believers and conspiracy believers, and so on. When the trust and confidence reside not in compelling evidence from reality but from the determination of holding fast to a belief, then we see faith in the religious sense in action.

  4. I think, tildeb, that you are assuming faith is baseless because it is based on something we cannot see, or understand. As for proof, look around you and you’ll see all the proof you need. Please, I cannot really grasp the terminologies you are using, can you make it simple?

    • Sure. I do not assume anything. I look at how beliefs are formed and understand that the only thing that informs them are the beliefs themselves. For example, what’s wrong with my assertion that “I believe faeries are real because I believe faeries are real.” What informs my belief? My belief. “I believe faeries are real because others tell me that they are.” On what do these others base their belief? Their belief. “I believe faeries are real because I read it in a book that tells me it is true.” Now we’re looking at the belief of the author.

      In all cases the belief in faeries is not based on verification from reality: “HERE is a faery, this tall, weighing so much, found in this place at this time now on display for you to see at this location.” Belief in belief simply tells us what we already believe; reality plays no part. Claims made about reality (faeries do exist) require reality to inform them, usually in the form of evidence. This evidence does not have to be direct; it can be deduced from effect. For example, gravity, germs, atoms, evolution, are all deduced by effects that work for everyone everywhere all the time. They are marvelous explanations. But all are still (and always shall be) conditional… just in case somewhere at sometime the explanation fails to hold. Hasn’t happened yet, but it may. That’s why our level of trust in these explanations remains so high.

      Now back to your very first sentence. You sort of give the game away when you describe the object of faith as something we cannot understand. If we cannot understand it, then how can some people pretend to know anything about it through an exercise of faith?

      This takes us back to my first point, that faith is not a way of knowing anything about anything; it is merely confidence in a belief disconnected from reality. If it were connected with reality, then we really could know something about it that no longer required faith in the religious sense.

      I understand it is difficult to look around and see all these connections and patterns and not assume there is an agency of some kind that created it all, that keeps it going. But that’s an illusion. We have reality to thank for providing us with overwhelming evidence that what we see around us is an unguided physical process called evolution and it is astounding to behold. Once you begin to truly grasp this explanation and the step-by-step evidence reality has revealed to us to support it unequivocally, you will begin to see just how childish and simplistic is the belief in some creative and designing agent. And we know this as surely (even more so) than we know we can trust gravity to be the same for everyone everywhere all the time.

      • “We have reality to thank for providing us with overwhelming evidence that what we see around us is an unguided physical process called evolution and it is astounding to behold.”

        Come on now. If there was overwhelming evidence in unguided evolution, we wouldn’t have the intelligent design vs. evolution debate. I agree that we have very good proof of microevolution. We can see how things change from generation to generation. You still don’t have leaps of new creations that are required for macroevolution though. Dawkins says he was joking when he agreed that aliens could have seeded the earth, but this was proposed long ago by Crick, who actually discovered DNA strands. Dawkins chum Anthony Flew gave up his atheist card saying the advancements in teleology have made the intelligent design argument stronger than Darwin’s evolution.

      • Regarding Flew, you see what brain disease can do to the critical faculties?

        And yes, Xander, we shouldn’t have this whole Intelligent Design debate because there is no debate. It’s a strictly and completely a creation of the religious. Let me reiterate: there is no debate in science because there is no evidence from reality to back up ID. Only faith-based belief backs it up.

        Because we can never duplicate abiogenesis (there is simply no evidence how this process actually began – or how many times and in what forms – because soft tissue doesn’t store for billions of years. But we’re very close to creating life from inanimate material, which shows how life could have started. What we do know is how life evolves and nowhere in this process is there any evidence at all for any kind of intervention other than changes in environment.

        That you can continue to suggest micro evolution happens but not macro with a straight face shows how removed you are from understanding how evolution works. It’s ALL evolution – you just insert the dividing line of micro and macro without justification. In other words you cannot have micro without causing macro using your definition. And the evidence for this rests in your own DNA. If you get it tested, you’ll find identical chains of mutation affected by viral damage that only affects specific and different primates. How did this mutation end up in your DNA? In mine? In every human being if we do not share a common ancestor? It’s like equipping every jet engine with a wooden propeller because that’s what preceded the jet engine. It makes no design sense.

        Multiply this evidence by tens of thousands of examples and you end up sounding simply foolish suggesting that some Grand Designer was such a poor one. Add the fact the almost all life here on earth has gone extinct by the pressure of natural selection and you have to conclude that any Designer worth the name has done an atrocious job at getting it ‘right’ and has left a very long trail of making its work look identical to natural selection alone. And remember, it doesn’t have to be this way, yet it is.

        It IS this way because this is what reality reveals to us. Until you explain how this has come to be with something a little more explicit than goddidit, then you begin to understand why, in science, there is no debate.

  5. And yes, I agree faith is kind of a slippery term. Please can you stop making us that have it look like complete idiots? We don’t make you look like one.

    • I don’t make you look like anything. I take faith very seriously because its exercise screws with my life and those who do this need to stop. When that happens, I’ll keep my mouth closed because it won’t be my business. But when others make it my business, then I try to explain why it shouldn’t be, why believers themselves need to keep their faith private and out of public institutions, governance, law, education, medicine, and policies. Religious belief has no business being privileged in public but publicly exposed for the superstitious nonsense it is and in desperate need of sustained criticism. I’m just doing what any responsible citizen should be doing and if that makes you feel bad about your faith, then you have the power to change yourself. It’s very liberating, by the way.

  6. Intelligent life is close to recreating how simple life might have begun? And then there is no case for intelligent design? That made me chuckle.

    That is like saying micro and macro economics are the same. They are similar, but different. There is a dividing line, but I guess it is how you imply the reduction to get to macroevolution. Yes, we can look at the genetic changes in a species and see that evolution is taking place. We can look at a wide range of species and see that they too evolve due to external changes and disease and the like. You get a sort of macroevolution there, using a methodical reduction. Now showing how the various species came from the soft tissue or how a species evolved out of another one, not as much evidence there and you cannot use the individual changes to support that idea of the whole coming from the few

    Your saying that there is identical viral damage in all humans yet there is no common ancestor?

    Yes, Occam’s Razor. So, a creator would have done a poor job at design, but that is if you disregard the evidence of evolution that we do have. Evolution cannot exist if there is a creator? The argument doesn’t really seem to make sense. To believe in a grand creator does not mean one has to cast aside scientific evidence. You seem to cast aside a creator despite not having evidence to the contrary. Or you make a bold leap from the evidence you do have and make the assumption that a creator must not be as the small parts of evolution show that there is change within the individual.

    • Intelligent life is close to recreating how simple life might have begun? And then there is no case for intelligent design? That made me chuckle.

      We are trying to recreate the conditions to see if life can spontaneously animate. We’re already designing.

      That is like saying micro and macro economics are the same. They are similar, but different.

      Oh? How so? Please explain… because no one else seems able and not for lack of trying. There is only what creationists like to call microevolution although this can occur quickly.

      You get a sort of macroevolution there, using a methodical reduction.

      No. The evolution of new species is not a methodological reduction whatsoever but a well established physical process. Creationists don;t like to use the term ‘species’ like biologists do; they much prefer the wiggle term ‘kind’ and then pretend evolution suggests dogs becoming cauliflowers. Many new species through environmental pressure have been recorded both in the lab and in nature. Creationists don’t like to recognize this fact but insist no one has ever seen a new ‘kind’ come from another ‘kind’. It’s nonsense and, to be blunt, a lie.

      Now showing how the various species came from the soft tissue or how a species evolved out of another one, not as much evidence there and you cannot use the individual changes to support that idea of the whole coming from the few.

      Yes, there is not only a lot of evidence of relatedness between close species but also between many, many branchings. In other words, I can show how your DNA includes identical genetic chunks found in carrots. The study of genetics matches perfectly to evolution by natural selection when it doesn’t have to be this way. Yet it IS this way. And yes, we certainly can and do use individual changes to show common heritage linking all life on earth to each other. You really are related to carrots, Xander, whether you appreciate this marvel or not. If not for blood worms of the pre-Cambrian neither you nor I could exist for our common ancestor would have been eradicated before evolving eventually into this particular branch of the primate family.

      Your saying that there is identical viral damage in all humans yet there is no common ancestor?

      The viral damage is to part of we call our ‘junk’ DNA. And it does show common ancestry – unnecessary for any design proposition and ridiculous for any intelligent designer. A Designer you want to believe in looks identical to natural selection. And the key word here is natural, meaning a agency-less unguided physical process… as ‘designed’ as erosion. It may look designed to the uncritical eye but it is understandable only as an unguided process that genetically builds upon what went before to produce what now is. The notion of a Designer simply makes no sense when faced with the evidence we have and is completely unnecessary to further our inquiry into what was. Such a belief in a Designer only ADDS complication and complexity, based as it is on a supposition that has no evidence from reality to suggest it as plausible or explanatory; it’s simply a ‘goddidit’ belief of the ‘Oh, look: shiny!’ variety. It offers us nothing. And this is why Intelligent Design is not some legitimate scientific theory, some alternative to evolution, but strictly a religious belief in creationism.

      • Actually, a belief in a grand designer makes a whole lot more sense than spontaneous nonsense. There is outstanding evidence that there is a grand designer, someone at the helm of affairs. take for example, the earth. what is the probability that a planet has oxygen and water in the right proportions, is roughly the right distance from the sun, is tilted at just the right angle, spins just so fast, revolves just so fast, has just the right gravitational pull, surface temperature, core temperature, rocks; has a balance between photosynthesis and respiration, has its own water cycle, fertile soil, and then supports life? If your such a scientist, and pride yourself in your intellect, can you explain the stroke of luck that allows helium atoms to split just right, not so fast, and not so slow, so that the sun doesn’t burn itself out? can you explain how as a result of such splitting, instead of running out of fuel, the sun refuels itself as the split helium atoms recombine in an attempt to attain equilibrium, just to split again and generate more light and heat? perhaps, oh great scientist, you can tell us how of all the substances to be found in green leaves, it had to be chlorophyll? can you explain why the gravity of the moon is just enough to control the tides, without interfering with that of the earth? And when you explain all these, please tell me why you can’t recreate it because if you do exactly the same thing under the same condition, you get the same result, which is how scientific hypothesis becomes law

      • JF155 writes There is outstanding evidence that there is a grand designer, someone at the helm of affairs. take for example, the earth. what is the probability that…

        This shows two things: a lack of understand of what outstanding evidence means, and a lack of understanding of what probabilities means.

        Outstanding evidence must directly connect causal effect by a knowable mechanism. The fine tuning argument fails to link this supposed designer who supposedly causes what we find with any knowable mechanism. It’s a complete Fail.

        The purpose is to create a really big number in thinking about chances and have people assume (because they don’t understand probabilities) that such a big number means it couldn’t have possibly happened because it’s so unlikely. Once you are willing to drink this Kool-Aid, then it’s a short hop, skip, and jump to assume it MUST have been caused by Jesus in one of his manifestations as god.

        To deal with evidence for a Designer, you have to come up with something that depends on design, meaning that there is no possible way this evidence could have come about through some natural process… that it had to come from a designer. Every time this is done by ID proponents about some biologically complex thing – the flagellum, the eye, blood clotting, etc. – we can show other natural explanations for its development to the complexity we find. Every time. I think the hope is that eventually the ID proponents will be startled to find that ID does not produce – and hasn’t for the past 25 years – any new insight, any new knowledge, any new explanation in biology. In contrast, evolutionary biologists have come up astounding new insights to further our inquiries into the workings of life. In scientific terms, ID is a dead end.

        To deal with probabilities, the chances that things are the way they are is not one chance out some huge number, meaning the chances are slim. The probability that things are the way they are is one. It’s a certainty. The chance of you being you in this place and time is 1 out of 1. Change any of the conditions you mention and you will have changed what is. We know what is so, no matter how unlikely this particular result might be, it is. Consider a lottery winner: tiny chance, one winner results without any Oogity Boogity necessary. You yourself come from a single sperm out of tens of millions… a very tiny chance for pre-selecting which sperm is the one, but a natural result that one sperm DOES penetrate your mother’s egg. No Oogity Boogity is necessary.

        And what you assume must have been designed – you – comes from natural process of human genetic development that is scaffolded on genetic information combined from the egg and sperm, both of which come scaffolded on previous generations, which are scaffolded on genetic change over time… the same genetic changes that really does link you to carrots as kin. The differences in the final product, the eventual ‘winner’ of this biological lottery, can be shown by strong evidence to have occurred through branching in deep time. You are the product – just as much as it is for the carrot you eat today – of evolution. At no point in this long naturally occurring causal chain can we find any evidence at all for an intervention of design.

        And that’s just the way it is.

      • tildeb says: ‘We are trying to recreate the conditions to see if life can spontaneously animate. We’re already DESIGNING.’

        Yet tildeb vehemently refuses that anything comes from a grand designer! Why then does tildeb find the need to, in his own words, ‘design?’

        I think this is one of those irreconcilable things. You believe what you want, and I do the same. But, since you have stated the case for faithlessness, I must state the case for faith.

        Faith in itself is not a bad thing. Everyone has faith. Faith simply means belief. When you type, and press ‘post comment,’ you are expressing faith in the system that it would deliver your comment. When you sit on a chair, you believe that it will carry your weight. This is, in the simplest terms I know, what faith is.
        The real issue is faith in God. I do regard the bible as the word of God, but that is based on a whole lot more than blindly following. In Hebrews, it says: IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE TODAY, DO NOT HARDEN YOU HEART. It means He does not expect us to believe Him blindly. We are to hear, then act on what we heard. Also, Jesus was asked where He stayed, all he said was : COME AND SEE. Which means that we are to see, and make decisions based on what we have seen. It says that GOD CONFIRMED THE WORDS OF PAUL WITH SIGNS AND WONDERS. If faith was blind, and didn’t depend on hard evidence, God would have no need to prove himself. Paul also wrote in Romans that the INVISIBLE NATURE OF GOD WAS REVEALED IN THE VISIBLE THINGS THAT HE MADE. God did not expect us to chase after something that is abstract, He left us things by which we could see and know him. In Hebrews again, it says IN VARIOUS TIMES…GOD SPOKE, AND NOW, HE SPEAKS THROUGH HIS SON. So, God has always seen that we need evidence to see Him. In another place in Psalms, it says TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD. All these and more are more than enough to show that faith is anything but blind. After all, your faith in your bank isn’t blind. You trust the bank with your money, and you may not even know the MD! But because of its track record, you trust it. You climb bridges because others have climbed and showed it was solid. You do not start carbon dating the bridge and stuff like that.

        And please, do not dismiss my reference to the bible, take it as seriously as I took your reference to DNA, and scientific evidence. I didn’t call any of your ‘evidence’ cock and bull, so do not do the same to mine.

        So now, tildeb, the real question is not whether you have faith, but if you have faith in God; and if you will be able to explain why you could trust bridges, and banks, and chairs, and other human beings, and air (when you fly in an airplane), but not Him. Consider it very carefully and decide whether or not you can bear that risk.

        I really enjoy our…sparing, for lack of a better term, you’re a good guy.

      • Because we have no EVIDENCE of this grand designer! What we have is overwhelming evidence that life on earth has evolved. Nowhere in this causal chain of evidence is there any indication at all of any interventionist designing agency. Not. Any. And it doesn’t have to be this way… BUT IT IS.

        This fact is what you face with belief in a grand designer. You base this belief on something, and that ‘something’ is wholly and completely religious faith. The reason why it is called religious faith is because this trust and/or confidence and/or hope has no evidential basis from reality. In all other examples where you abuse this sense of religious faith to be equivalent to ‘belief’ – as in the phrase ‘I think…’ – you ignore the role of evidence to inform these common beliefs. Belief in the religious sense is qualitatively different than this common sense, meaning that it has no correlation to evidence from reality. It derives from religious faith, meaning that reality plays no part in this sense, which is why religious belief is called ‘faith’ as you very well know.

        This difference is not a matter of equivalence like the pronunciation of potato. The difference is that belief about reality is based wholly on reality’s arbitration whether or not that belief is true, whereas your <religious belief about reality is based on your religious faith and reality does not arbitrate whether or not it is true. Your religious faith takes the place of reality.

        You simply presume your religious belief is true. These are not equivalent methods of inquiry into reality. Faith does not simply mean belief; faith in the religious sense is trusting what has no evidence from reality to back it up…. only belief that it is so.

        In all other areas of life, this kind of trust relied upon in religious faith is insane. It’s delusional because it doesn’t work, produces no knowledge, and is untrustworthy. Trying to base real world decisions on matters of faith-without-evidence is a vice. Only in religion is this kind of belief/trust/confidence/hope considered a virtue. For example, take a person with a broken arm to get medical treatment and imagine how you might respond if the medical personnel insisted you wait around to see if exercising this kind of faith through prayer alone might result in divine intervention to help deal with pain and treat the broken bone. You’re not going to wait around, are you? You’ll seek real intervention elsewhere. Faith in the religious sense doesn’t work in the real world and you know this. But you make an exception for religious faith when it becomes philosophical rather than practical because you know the philosophical isn’t worth a tinker’s damn.

      • From the way you write, I can see that you have a very low opinion of who God is like. In fact, you do not believe in Him at all.
        You, my friend, and indeed all men, believe before they prove, or see, or any other intellectual thing. Before the laws of motion were propounded, did they not happen? Were tools and instruments not designed to follow those rules before Newton came along?
        You cannot by intellect find God because it says “HE dwell in inapproachable light,” and again “He has confused the wisdom of the wise, and made nonsense of the learned.”
        It is because we say that you cannot find God with intellect that you reject His being out rightly, Because a proud mind like yours can comprehend the fact that it cannot find God now, but not the fact that it never will.
        From your post above, it is also obvious that your issue here is that you cannot categorize this faith. You cannot say: “Rule of prayer: Whenever you pray kneeling, God does what you ask Him to.”
        So, you just cannot believe that what you cannot comprehend, can exist. You think your finite mind is good enough, strong enough to comprehend who God is. Let me ask you, can you picture a trillion cells? Not know it is very large, but as in see a mental picture of a trillion cells. If your mind cannot picture that small thing, How do you want to categorize God? Can you picture the length of our galaxy? As in relate it to a certain distance like when I say 1 mile, you know in your mind what it looks like. Can you do that for the breadth of our galaxy? And yet, you feel your mind capable enough to decipher God.
        You are angry because you want to experiment of this ‘God,’ but He doesn’t show up. Yet someone just says ‘I believe,’ and He reveals a part of Himself so wonderful that the person is forever changed.
        Using your example, the fact that God doesn’t heal my broken arm, and I go to the doctor is simple. It is the same reason God told Adam to ‘tend the garden,’ and didn’t do it for him. It is the same reason He doesn’t pick your cellphone when it falls, no matter how much you beg and cry. He expects you to do it for yourself. He has put in a man, a doctor in this case, the knowledge needed to fix that problem, and so, He expects you to find that man. But most importantly, it is a constant reminder that HE is not our slave. He answers to no one. This is a true story: I was in school, and I was very ill. It was during our exams, and I couldn’t go for treatment, so I prayed that God would heal me, or at least help me write the exam and get home and get some medication. And as soon as I finished praying, I was healed. Just like that. I was feeling light-headed, throwing up, and with a splitting headache before the prayer. But as soon as I prayed, immediately, all these disappeared. But, I didn’t categorize that and say “Ah, whenever I pray like this, God MUST answer,” because He isn’t answerable to me.

        Have you ever read A. W Tozer’s book : The knowledge of the Holy? I should think not. Here is an extract from his book:

        “Some persons who reject all they cannot explain have denied that God is a Trinity. Subjecting the Most High to their cold, level-eyed scrutiny, they conclude that it is impossible that he could be both One and Three. These forget that their whole life is enshrouded in mystery. They fall to consider that any real explanation of even the simplest phenomenon in nature lies hidden in obscurity and can no more be explained than can the mystery of the Godhead. Every man lives by faith, the nonbeliever as well as the saint; the one by faith in natural laws and the other by faith in God. Every man throughout his entire life constantly accepts without understanding. The most learned sage can be reduced to silence with one simple question, “What?” The answer to that question lies forever in the abyss of unknowing beyond any man’s ability to discover. “God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof” but mortal man never.
        Thomas Carlyle, following Plato, pictures a man, a deep pagan thinker, who had grown to maturity in some hidden cave and is brought out suddenly to see the sun rise. “What would his wonder be,” exclaims Carlyle, “his rapt astonishment at the sight we daily witness with indifference! With the free, open sense of a child, yet with the ripe faculty
        of a man, his whole heart would be kindled by that sight…. This green flowery rock-built earth, the trees, the mountains, rivers, many-sounding seas; that great deep sea of azure that swims overhead; the winds sweeping through it; the black cloud fashioning itself together, now pouring out fire, now hail and rain; what is it? Ay, what? At bottom
        we do not yet know; we can never know at all.” How different are we who have grown used to it, who have become jaded with a satiety of wonder. “It is not by our superior insight that we escape the difficulty,” says Carlyle, “it is by our superior levity, our inattention, our want of insight. It is by not thinking that we cease to wonder at it…. We call that fire of the black thundercloud electricity, and lecture learnedly about it, and grind the like of it out of glass and silk: but what is it? Whence comes it? Whither goes it? Science has done much for us; but it is a poor
        science that would hide from us the great deep sacred infinitude of Nescience, whither we can never penetrate, on which all science swims as a mere superficial film. This world, after all our science and sciences, is still a miracle; wonderful, inscrutable, magical and more, to whosoever will think of it.” These penetrating, almost prophetic, words were written more than a century ago, but not all the breath- taking advances of science and technology since that time have invalidated one word or rendered obsolete as much as one period or comma. Still we do
        not know. We save face by repeating frivolously the popular jargon of science. We harness the mighty energy that rushes through our world; we subject it to fingertip control in our cars and our kitchens; we make it work for us like Aladdin’s jinn, but still we do not know what it is. Secularism, materialism, and the intrusive presence of things have put out the light in our souls and turned us into a generation of zombies. We cover our deep ignorance with words, but we are ashamed to wonder, we are afraid to whisper “mystery.”
        The Church has not hesitated to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Without pretending to understand, she has given her witness, she has repeated what the Holy Scriptures teach. Some deny that the Scriptures teach the Trinity of the Godhead on the ground that the whole idea of trinity in unity is a contradiction in terms; but since we cannot understand
        the fall of a leaf by the roadside or the hatching of a robin’s egg in the nest yonder, why should the Trinity be a problem to us? “We think more loftily of God,” says Michael de Molinos, “by knowing that He is incomprehensible, and above our understanding, than by conceiving Him under any image, and creature beauty, according to our rude understanding.”
        What God declares the believing heart confesses without the need of further proof. Indeed, to seek proof is to admit doubt, and to obtain proof is to render faith superfluous. Everyone who possesses the gift of faith will recognize the wisdom of those daring words of one of the early Church fathers: “I believe that Christ died for me because it is incredible; I believe that he rose from the dead because it is impossible.”
        Is this to dismiss scholarship as valueless in the sphere of revealed religion? By no means. The scholar has a vitally important task to perform within a carefully prescribed precinct. His task is to guarantee the purity of the text, to get as close as possible to the Word as originally given. He may compare Scripture with Scripture until he has discovered the true meaning of the text. But right there his authority ends. He must
        never sit in judgment upon what is written. He dare not bring the meaning of the Word before the bar of his reason. He dare not commend or condemn the Word as reasonable or unreasonable, scientific or unscientific. After the meaning is discovered, that meaning judges him; never does he judge it.

        Philosophy and science have not always been friendly toward the idea of God, the reason being that they are dedicated to the task of accounting for things and are impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The philosopher and the scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering. To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all our categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess, so we save face by thinking God down to our level, or at least down to where we can manage Him. Yet how He eludes us! For He is everywhere while He is nowhere, for “where” has to do with matter and space, and God is independent of both. He is unaffected by time or motion, is wholly self-dependent and owes nothing to the worlds His hands have made.”

      • Well, JF155, for someone who insists that we cannot know anything about god, you sure seem to feel quite comfortable be the exception. My two questions remain the same:

        1)Are your claims true, and
        2) How can you know?

        You have tried to build a case that makes your claims immune from testing as well as immune from any role evidence from reality might play to back them up. That tells me that even you can’t test them but accept them as true based solely as a matter of faith – in the religious sense of the word. That faith coming from yourself has to predate any discovery from reality because the discovery means it had to come from reality and we know that reality is unnecessary in your beliefs.


        Now consider an important question: what evidence from reality would you accept that would convince you that your current religious faith is wrong?

        If you can’t answer that last question, then that means your mind is already closed, that your beliefs are perfectly formed as is. When faced by another person as assured in their faith different from but believed to be perfect just as you do with yours, what can you possibly use to explain to me, an interested bystander, why your case is somehow qualitatively better than the other person’s?

      • I did not say we cannot know anything about God. I said we cannot by our intellect or intelligence, know anything about God.
        And I never said I was the exception. I cannot, indeed no one can, know who God is, as in the core substance of His being. In scripture, it was never said that God is ‘this or that’, but ‘like this or that.’ All we can know, as He reveals Himself in the written word, and in creation, are His attributes. And by this, I mean His manifestations to us in different situations. All I can do is make comparisons, for I am as finite as God is infinite.

        Also, your ‘reality’ is really quite different from mine. You believe there is no God, and therefore, your reality is formed from that belief. You will explain away miracles and creation in vague terminologies because of that your belief. I believe that there is one God, the creator of Heaven and earth, and my reality is shaped on those beliefs.

        Humans, as sophisticated as we are, depend on things we do not control for sustenance.

        If you can explain to me clearly in simple, layman terms, how the world, the universe, came to be, and can explain away miracles, and the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, you will be very, very close to making me change my mind. If you can show me without any exceptions that I was not a sinner, i will rest my case in this debate.
        If you can show that the equation called life can be balanced without any constant, and that the attempts of men for generations to fill what they simply call a void was nonsense and doomed to failure, you would have convinced me. If without reference to man as triune, you can explain how your mind works, and where it is located, I will speak no longer
        And if you can refute the things I have seen with my eyes, and heard with my ears, and experienced in my life, you will have converted me, because everything i say is out of my experience, not second hand, just like the apostle John when he said ‘the word which we have seen with our own eyes, and heard with our own ears, and handled by ourselves’

  7. and, concerning the DNA, there are so many strands in the DNA that we do not know exactly everything that is controlled by what. We know that if this is not there, then this happens, but not much else.
    I feel really sad that you think it amazing that you are identical to a carrot. I do not want to write the thought that just followed this sentence…

  8. And tildeb, please try and read the whole of my comments before firing off a reply. It is the least you can do to show you respect my opinion. After all, I read the whole of your comment before replying.

  9. Pingback: My Homepage

  10. Pingback: Your Questions About Trusting Relationships With Children | Signs You Met the Right One

  11. Pingback: Your Questions About Trusting Relationships With Children | Signs You Met the Right One

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s